Commons:Village pump
|
This page is used for discussions of the operations, technical issues, and policies of Wikimedia Commons. Recent sections with no replies for 7 days and sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=--~~~~}} may be archived; for old discussions, see the archives; the latest archive is Commons:Village pump/Archive/2024/10. Please note:
Purposes which do not meet the scope of this page:
Search archives: |
| Legend |
|---|
|
|
|
|
|
| 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. |
September 23
Hosting HDR images as JPEG with gain map
The tools for creating and displaying High Dynamic Range (HDR) images are starting to mature. HDR displays can render much brighter highlights than before, which leads to a big qualitative improvement in an image. Software for HDR production, and web-browser support, are becoming wide-spread. (Note that this is distinct from the tone-mapped HDR images you may have seen for the past decade or so.)
This post is partly a response to User:Hym3242 and User:PantheraLeo1359531 in Commons:Village pump/Archive/2024/08#Can I upload bt2020nc/bt2020/smpte2084(PQ) HDR AVIF images to commons and use them in wikipedia articles?. I was wondering the same thing, so I uploaded a couple files to see how well Commons would support them. They are formatted as JPEG with a gain map. The promise of this format is that it is backward-compatible with systems that process and serve standard JPEG. The base image is a JPEG, usable on any device. HDR information is inserted in the file as metadata. In the worst case HDR metadata is lost, resulting in a standard image. In the best case HDR metadata is preserved, the end-user has an HDR-capable display and web browser, and the image looks great.
My test results are at Category:HDR gain-mapped images. Both images survived the process of uploading and rendering previews. HDR metadata was stripped from preview images, but preserved in the original uploads. If you have a newish HDR screen and a compliant web browser, the originals of this house and this church will appear brighter than usual. The effect on the house is subtle, limited to where sunlight hits white paint. The effect on the church is more dramatic: the windows should appear much brighter than the rest of the interior.
Most users of Commons images will see one of the smaller standard files, so for now the benefits of publishing this sort of content are limited. Are there any downsides to publishing it on Commons?
This post isn't marked as a proposal, because hosting these images on Commons works already. At a later date, when the standards are settled and the hardware is widely available, it would be nice to preserve HDR metadata in the generated preview images. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Semiautonomous (talk • contribs) 23:51, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
October 14
Google's semi-censorship of Wikimedia Commons must end
Please see meta:Community Wishlist/Wishes/Do something about Google & DuckDuckGo search not indexing media files and categories on Commons. I think we can and should do something about Google not indexing most files (including all videos) and category pages on Commons. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:42, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- It is a private company and if not violating the law, they can do whatever (...) they want. If they choose to ignore stuff on commons - that´s fine. Alexpl (talk) 20:02, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- I was not saying it's illegal. That may be fine according to law. I wonder if it's fine to Commons that users' contributions are just blacked out and not available to people. Prototyperspective (talk) 21:39, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Huge filesizes for photos are a cost factor when it comes to processing and are almost never worth it anyway. I dont blame them from not wanting photos with the megabytes in the three digits to show up, whenever somebody types in a generic searchterm. Alexpl (talk) 14:13, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- This seems offtopic. 1. Most files on WMC are not many MBs large and this is not about some particular few large files. 2. It only shows gstatic thumbnails in Google Search, not the whole image, and it's the same for DDG and other search engines.
It's absurd to argue that Google's storage or processing would have notable issues that out of the millions of indexed website makes WMC one whose media is not findable.
You can of course defend anti-WMC practices – despite that I don't understand why Commons contributors could be supportive of that – but this point does not make sense, partly because this isn't about the <0.1% of WMC files that are large image files to begin with. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)- This is not the first time I have seen you try to dismiss comments with which you disagree as "off topic", when they are not. Please do not so that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:46, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- I said it seems offtopic and I did notdismiss the comment but address it comprehensively. When I say it seems offtopic that is for example because I may have misunderstood it and/or the user may want to clarify how it would be ontopic. I do wonder why you're so super sensitive about me using the word offtopic. The user did say something but did not explain how it relates to this subject and clarifying that with clear language is I think more constructive than beating around the bush. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:41, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- This is not the first time I have seen you try to dismiss comments with which you disagree as "off topic", when they are not. Please do not so that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:46, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- There already is a thumbnail for every file here anyway so not even any need to create any anew. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:30, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- This seems offtopic. 1. Most files on WMC are not many MBs large and this is not about some particular few large files. 2. It only shows gstatic thumbnails in Google Search, not the whole image, and it's the same for DDG and other search engines.
- Huge filesizes for photos are a cost factor when it comes to processing and are almost never worth it anyway. I dont blame them from not wanting photos with the megabytes in the three digits to show up, whenever somebody types in a generic searchterm. Alexpl (talk) 14:13, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- I was not saying it's illegal. That may be fine according to law. I wonder if it's fine to Commons that users' contributions are just blacked out and not available to people. Prototyperspective (talk) 21:39, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- See also meta:Talk:Community Wishlist/Wishes/Do something about Google & DuckDuckGo search not indexing media files and categories on Commons. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:41, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- There is a commercial interest in steering the search results to commercial and social websites. These generate clicks, not the commons. I do have the impression that Google is much more interested in SDC of files than the Commons categories. Every effort should be made to fill in the P:P180. Google certainly uses the labels in Wikidata as datafeed for the search engines. Also used for educating the translation software.Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:12, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia itself is indexed rather highly on Google search results though. And it does index images that are used in Wikipedia articles, but this treatment isn't extended to the other Wikimedia projects. (I can't speak for other media files however). ReneeWrites (talk) 18:26, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Yes Wikipedia is, but not Commons, the second largest Wikimedia project with a type of content that lots of people are interested in, watch and search for (media of all kinds). It does not index any video on here (at least in my tests I could not find any so far even when searching for the exact title) and images I think are only indexed when they're used in Wikipedia articles and even then often missing from the main results. One part of the proposal is systematic tests/investigations so there is some data on this. I think overall the indexing is pretty bad even when one is searching for a subject that WMC has lots of high quality contents and other image results that are shown are fairly low-quality. One could also focus on the videos. Prototyperspective (talk) 20:32, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Google often indexes images that are not in a Wikipedia article. I find plenty if I do specifically an image search. But it doesn't tend to list pages that are mainly an image in its general results, so Commons image pages often don't show in the result if you do a general Google search. - Jmabel ! talk 05:11, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Rarely it does, but indexing a random tiny subset of files doesn't change anything about the issue and only makes it harder to notice this. I did not find plenty of images for prior searches I did where I then either used an image not from WMC despite that I know WMC has at least as good images well-organized or used the WMC search. Again, investigations are the first step of what is proposed so maybe you could share your searches. Images certainly shouldn't show up in the general search results (well nearly always) – I made it clear that this is about the Images and Videos tabs of these sites...only when it comes to category pages is this about the general search results. I currently don't have many good examples. Things I searched for (those may not be the best examples) I think included roughly
Rivers from spaceandAlgae blooms from spaceandSatellite picture of cities at night. This is not about Google&DDG not indexing any files on WMC. Please let me know if that should be clearer in the proposal. It is about them indexing only very few images (and those are not even the most relevant or best) when it should be many (e.g. in searches where WMC has lots of good-organized files), not showing nearly all categories in the results and not indexing any videos. Maybe it should be clearer that isn't necessarily all Google's fault – the investigations may reveal things Wikimedia community & tech could do to improve its inclusion in external search results – however such steps depend on investigations and don't mean step 2 & 3 are invalid, other things could follow up on that step in addition and shape these two. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:30, 16 October 2024 (UTC)- @Prototyperspective: Colourpicture Publishers. There isn't that many results to begin with, but maybe it's at the top because the category has a description that contains the companies name in it? --Adamant1 (talk) 01:21, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, that's the kind of investigations I'm proposing are done large scale and in systematic ways (and well visibly e.g. published in diff) so we can identify cases that are well indexed, find out why, and identify cases that should be well-indexed but aren't and so on.
- It could be that it's at the top because it contains a long descriptive category description – which most cats however don't really need because the category title is self-explanatory – as well as an infobox with all sorts of data. It's not unlikely also because there's few other websites with info on that subject, especially not recent ones that are linked from other pages. As a result of findings like your example, one could for example conduct tests (and/or check the theory via the dataset) whether it's the company's name in the description that caused the cat to show up this high or the description and consider things like adding category-descriptions (partly automatically via WP article leads and/or Wikidata item description). An open letter doesn't have to be as provocative and confrontational as the title of this thread, one could nicely ask Google & Co to improve their results by considering specific things or identified requested changes. Relevant to that is that Google & Co heavily make use of Wikimedia content in all sorts of ways but this isn't about fairly giving back (some media attention however could be due to that and reference that): it would be about them improving their search results for everyone so it shows media or pages that the person searching would likely find useful (e.g. via considering how many files and how many Wikipedia-used files are contained in the category). (When it comes to videos however it seems like purposeful exclusion.) Prototyperspective (talk) 08:24, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Prototyperspective: Colourpicture Publishers. There isn't that many results to begin with, but maybe it's at the top because the category has a description that contains the companies name in it? --Adamant1 (talk) 01:21, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- Rarely it does, but indexing a random tiny subset of files doesn't change anything about the issue and only makes it harder to notice this. I did not find plenty of images for prior searches I did where I then either used an image not from WMC despite that I know WMC has at least as good images well-organized or used the WMC search. Again, investigations are the first step of what is proposed so maybe you could share your searches. Images certainly shouldn't show up in the general search results (well nearly always) – I made it clear that this is about the Images and Videos tabs of these sites...only when it comes to category pages is this about the general search results. I currently don't have many good examples. Things I searched for (those may not be the best examples) I think included roughly
- Google often indexes images that are not in a Wikipedia article. I find plenty if I do specifically an image search. But it doesn't tend to list pages that are mainly an image in its general results, so Commons image pages often don't show in the result if you do a general Google search. - Jmabel ! talk 05:11, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Yes Wikipedia is, but not Commons, the second largest Wikimedia project with a type of content that lots of people are interested in, watch and search for (media of all kinds). It does not index any video on here (at least in my tests I could not find any so far even when searching for the exact title) and images I think are only indexed when they're used in Wikipedia articles and even then often missing from the main results. One part of the proposal is systematic tests/investigations so there is some data on this. I think overall the indexing is pretty bad even when one is searching for a subject that WMC has lots of high quality contents and other image results that are shown are fairly low-quality. One could also focus on the videos. Prototyperspective (talk) 20:32, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia itself is indexed rather highly on Google search results though. And it does index images that are used in Wikipedia articles, but this treatment isn't extended to the other Wikimedia projects. (I can't speak for other media files however). ReneeWrites (talk) 18:26, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Google clearly does take these images into account. I looked up a handful of terms:
_Composition_of_high-quality_datasets_-_The_Pile_(left),_PaLM_(top-right),_MassiveText_(bottom-right).png){kind=link}
| Google Images searches |
|---|
|
If you narrow your search to CC images, you get more from Flickr and Commons:
| Google Images searches - Narrowed to Creative Commons |
|---|
|
I don't believe there even is a problem. Sure, results from WMF projects are only 1 or 2 in many cases, but:
- it's not like there was any other site that did have a majority of the top results
- you can improve them by searching for CC content
- Wikipedia was almost always in the results, even if they didn't have a majority in the top images (which there's no reason it should, might I add). I can't say the same about other results I saw, like Britannica, NatGeo, Adobe Stock, etc.
- Google is showing results from Wikipedia, Commons, and even smaller projects like Wikispecies and Wikivoyage, at times .I wouldn't put it past them that they're prioritizing commercial and social sites that run Google Ads (purely speculation from my part, don't take my word for it), but I find it hard to believe that they're straight up censoring, shadowbanning, or otherwise limiting results from WMF projects. Rubýñ (Scold) 17:21, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- I haven't repeated all the searches to test this, but with the ones I did I only got 1 result from WMF, and it was the image in the infobox of the Wikipedia article about the subject. ReneeWrites (talk) 20:29, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- I personally use Ecosia to search things and I often just type in something in Ecosia rather than search it here because I am too lazy to use the convoluted Wikimedia internal search method (yes, using external websites to find something is oftentimes easy than the internal "search" engines on Wikimedia websites), but I noticed that in the past few months Ecosia has been suppressing non-Wikipedia Wikimedia websites more, now, this seems to coincide with the switch where Ecosia now mixes in Google Search search results with those from Microsoft Bing, before this change Ecosia exclusively used Microsoft Bing and while I've used Microsoft Bing as my main search enginge since 2011~2012'ish, I switched to Ecosia a couple of years ago (after I saw one of their advertisements on Google YouTube) and I occasionally compare it with Google Search and other search engines. Judging by the fact that Google Search suppresses Wikimedia Commons and Microsoft Bing does this to a lesser extent I assume that this likely is a deliberate choice by those companies. But it could probably also be something internal at Wikimedia websites as all non-article space pages at Wikipedia are also excluded from search engines (meaning that someone cannot find any Wikipedia policy pages unless someone looks for them within Wikipedia, which I've always found to be a rather odd choice).
- Now, we know that Google Search, Microsoft Bing, Ecosia, DuckDuckGo, Yahoo! Search, Etc. all heavily rely on Wikidata, perhaps linking all Wikimedia Commons category pages with Wikidata items might help integrate this website better with search engines, if you think about it, the exclusion of the Wikimedia Commons is exclusively the exclusion of the Wikimedia Commons, I have no trouble finding results from the Wiktionary or Wikivoyage, which probably means that the integration between Wikidata and other Wikimedia websites helps them. Now, I know that "SEO" is considered "a curse word among Wikimedians", but if we want the Wikimedia Commons to show up in search results we most likely do need to link to Wikidata and properly use redirects, alternative titles, translations, Etc. in a way that makes sense. For example, if you search for alternative titles on Wikipedia you get them, like "Communist Germany" in a search enginge you'll find the DDR because "Communist Germany" is a redirect at Wikipedia. Meanwhile, we tend to have highly specific titles and redirects are typically deleted. But my guess is that the main culprit is the lack of Wikidata integration at the Wikimedia Commons, I wonder if files with more optimised structured data also show up in search engine results more as these are dependent on Wikidata items. Alternatively, we could compare if categories with or without Wikidata integration show up more in internet search enginges. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 18:52, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for this interesting info contribution.
- Comparing indexing results between search engines like so and across time (especially after algorithms were reported to be changed albeit it's often probably not announced) could help identify causes and potential mitigation measures.
- I never noticed or thought about search engines not indexing policy and meta pages of Wikimedia sites (nonWMC), if so that's also I think something that would be good to be changed if possible. For example, new editors or readers may search for these with a search engine instead of the internal one. If they searched for a meta/help pages on Commons it's often quite possible they can't find it because they don't show up in the search results even when in the MediaSearch' Categories and Pages tab (issue #8 here).
- [Google & Co] all heavily rely on Wikidata that good integration with Wikidata is a cause for SE indexing or good indexing and that improving that integration are two hypotheses that could be tested. I do not think this is the case much because category pages that are linked to Wikidata items also do not show up and only a tiny sub < 0,01% of files are used in Wikidata items or usable there while most items are somewhere underneath a category that is linked to Wikidata item. I think 'it's not linked to a Wikidata item' or 'it doesn't have structured data depicts statements' would be not much more than false excuses (not necessarily deliberate) for not indexing and I don't see why it would rely on / require it / why it should be expected. Moreover, some categories should probably be well-indexed without being linked to a Wikidata item or linking such would be inappropriate or at least can't be done at scale(?) – e.g. Category:Drone videos with lots of organized content can't even be found in DuckDuckGo when searching for
drone videos wiki(btw I think it should also show up high for searches likefree drone videos). The linked proposal however is interesting but I have doubts this can be done both at scale and affects the SE much. Data suggesting such as has any significant effect is also missing. So I don't think it would solve this, e.g. videos on WMC still don't show up in the videos tab and many large categories are already linked. - and properly use redirects, alternative titles, translations, Etc. in a way that makes sense Agree. One option is to sync ENWP redirects of items to WMC so WMC has the same redirects [ie a tool for doing so]. Another is Adding machine translated category titles and this could also be implemented via redirects and be extended to category descriptions. This however is another case that I don't think should be required for the pages to show up in search results but only improve them. It's possible that this would solve this even if it shouldn't be that way due to how pages are ranked. Note that this may require that the category page is an actual url with an actual title and not not the same url with some Javascript dynamically changing the title depending on the user language. Another option of creating redirects of translated titles – Category:Tiere (de; only plural form not singular) currently redirects to Category:Animals – can't be done at scale and may cause issues (such as HotCat autocompletes).
- In any case such comparison data would be great even if it's just a small factor (I doubt it's the main culprit for the plural indexing issues).
- Prototyperspective (talk) 20:03, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- From everything I've been able to tell, Google does index pages in "Commons" space. For example, do a Google search on "structured data commons" (no quotes). - Jmabel ! talk 16:43, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, this is known, e.g. the intro already is about "most" files, not "all" files as well as results' ranking/findability. I've yet got to see a WMC video in the videos tab however. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:46, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry I misunderstood your comment Jmabel – it's addressing point #2 and you're right on that.
- Some examples of low-views useful major categories below. Please comment if anybody knows more in regards to why Videos on WMC are not showing in the Videos tab of Google, DuckDuckGo, etc. Maybe one could ask them or see if there's any other large websites whose videos are not shown there (and why).
- Yes, this is known, e.g. the intro already is about "most" files, not "all" files as well as results' ranking/findability. I've yet got to see a WMC video in the videos tab however. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:46, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- From everything I've been able to tell, Google does index pages in "Commons" space. For example, do a Google search on "structured data commons" (no quotes). - Jmabel ! talk 16:43, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for this interesting info contribution.
_–_%27Our_World_in_Data%27.png)
_–_%27Sustainable_transport%27.png)
_–_%27Science%27.png)
_–_%27Drone_videos%27.png)
_–_%27Time-lapse_videos%27.png)
_–_%27Audio_files_of_music%27.png)
- Prototyperspective (talk) 17:23, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- The 14th most viewed page and the second most viewed category on Commons [1] in also a video category [2]. Views on all Commons pages are quit low there is nothing special with videos on Commons. GPSLeo (talk) 19:13, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, even Commons pages with most view get few views which is consistent with the problem description in the proposal. I did not suggest there was something special with videos except that none of them are shown in and indexed in the videos tab of the search engines. Prototyperspective (talk) 19:29, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- The 14th most viewed page and the second most viewed category on Commons [1] in also a video category [2]. Views on all Commons pages are quit low there is nothing special with videos on Commons. GPSLeo (talk) 19:13, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- Prototyperspective (talk) 17:23, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- It's a good thing, if Google keeps us a relative secret. This is a databank for a select audience, that’s hopefully using items for creating content, or research. It's not a social media website for easy access to every airhead in creation, we don't need the level of vandalism, that would surely follow.
- As a matter of fact, we scavenge off commercial websites, without them, we would have limited access to new materiel. It would be detrimental, to attempt to replace them, no good would come of it. Broichmore (talk) 12:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- Even for "select audience" it's known, used and discoverable far too little. They also use the Videos tab for example. Moreover, I do not agree with this elitism. Free media and free knowledge is about society overall not some very small group. With increased use, there would also be increased contributors who watch pages and Wikipedia is used much more and is not overrun by vandalism, it probably doesn't increase linearly with increased public use and even if it would there can be and are technological means to detect vandalism. The site would not replace commercial websites even if far more popular. I do not agree that we scavenge off these either. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
October 15
Admin action rational
I wonder how much explanation we should expect from admins for their admin actions.
Supposedly, an admin should be able to explain which policy they applied when the delete content from Commons. It's fairly obvious when the content is deleted due to copyright issues, but less so, in other case.
If they can't detail based on which policy they acted, their conduct appears irrational.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 12:40, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Enhancing999: Is there a particular action which concerns you? — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:42, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- It's a general question.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 13:44, 15 October 2024 (UTC) - His question probably relates to deleting unnecessary empty categories that will not be filled in the foreseeable future. To be fair, I would like to inform admin @Yann about this ongoing discussion. Lukas Beck (talk) 14:29, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- It's a general question.
- @Enhancing999: I already told you 5 times that we don't keep empty categories. That's the rationale used for deletion. Yann (talk) 15:15, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Yann: Please avoid off topic comments in discussions.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 15:21, 15 October 2024 (UTC)- @Enhancing999: That was directly on point. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:24, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Jeff G. Maybe you could rephrase it in a way to answer the general question I asked above.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 20:38, 15 October 2024 (UTC)- @Enhancing999: If an Admin is doing something wrong, then certainly they should be held accountable. On the other hand, if a user is doing something wrong (like trying to keep empty categories without good reason), then they should be held accountable. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 21:29, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Let me rephrase the question: can we expect from an admin that the explain their action in terms of the policy they applied?
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 21:32, 15 October 2024 (UTC)- Up to a point. But if I had to give a detailed explanation tying every action I took back to policy, I would not get much done. Most of the time, it should be clear on the surface. For example, if I correct a misspelled category name, I'm probably not going to cite a specific policy to say why. - Jmabel ! talk 05:15, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Not by default, but when asked about it, shouldn't you be able to explain that category names are to be spelled in English per our policy on categories (insert link), that the word is written without the letter "y" as can be found in Wiktionary (insert link), and thus you fixed a typo, applied this or that part of speedy deletion policy (insert link) after the stated delay (insert link). The detailed explanation would be almost the same for thousands of admin actions.
- Imagine you'd repeat <We don't use "Y"> on questions about each aspect instead, wouldn't that be somewhat irrational?
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 08:59, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Up to a point. But if I had to give a detailed explanation tying every action I took back to policy, I would not get much done. Most of the time, it should be clear on the surface. For example, if I correct a misspelled category name, I'm probably not going to cite a specific policy to say why. - Jmabel ! talk 05:15, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Let me rephrase the question: can we expect from an admin that the explain their action in terms of the policy they applied?
- @Enhancing999: If an Admin is doing something wrong, then certainly they should be held accountable. On the other hand, if a user is doing something wrong (like trying to keep empty categories without good reason), then they should be held accountable. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 21:29, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Jeff G. Maybe you could rephrase it in a way to answer the general question I asked above.
- @Enhancing999: That was directly on point. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:24, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Yann: Right, this is why we have COM:CSD#C2. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:23, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Jeff: your comment appears to be off-topic. Please discuss CSD with Yann on their user page. The question here isn't about a particular action of Yann.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 21:39, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Jeff: your comment appears to be off-topic. Please discuss CSD with Yann on their user page. The question here isn't about a particular action of Yann.
- Yann: Please avoid off topic comments in discussions.
- Generally admins don't give rationales for their actions. Nor do I think they should in a lot of cases because it would just get in the way of them doing their jobs. Deleting empty categories being one instance where it's totally pointless and would just needlessly slow things down. Probably with something like blocks they can and should do a better job explaining the reasoning behind it though. I don't think the default block message is really helpful or gets at the issue that led to the block in a lot of, if not most, cases. And the person who is blocked risks having their talk page access restricted or the length of the block getting extended if they ask for clarification about it. Which just seems like a bad way to go about things. Although I don't really see it changing either though. There doesn't really need to be a policy based reason for anything admins do in most cases anyway and it's not like they are (or ever will be) held accountable for anything either. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:51, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- I'm a big believer in holding admins accountable for questionable actions, but it is no secret that Commons has some fairly severe issues with backlogs. Requiring detailed explanations in situations where the reason is obvious places an undue burden on admins. If asked, they should of course provide at least a basic explanation but requiring it upfront in all cases seems needlessly burdensome. Just Step Sideways (talk) 22:13, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- In general it's fairly trivial to provide a full explanation. Either there should be a relavant policy or guideline that can be linked. Otherwise, one would have discussion that lead to a consensus.
- Obviously, if one just tries to avoid stating that it's a personal view or one just tries to close a discussion with a disagreeing view, one would have a hard time to provide a link to any of these.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 19:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)- For information. The user has already been informed several times about which policy serves as the basis for deleting the empty categories. Lukas Beck (talk) 07:34, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
October 16
Patent search
See this about an ice mixture that was patented: File:Alfred Ingvald Naess (1877-1955) in The Pittsburgh Post of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania on February 25, 1914.jpg I am hoping someone can find the patent mentioned. --RAN (talk) 00:43, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
_in_The_Pittsburgh_Post_of_Pittsburgh,_Pennsylvania_on_February_25,_1914.jpg){kind=link}
October 20
Photo challenge August results
| Rank | 1 | 2 | 3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| image |  |
 |
|
| Title | Mustangs in Colorado, USA, 1971 | Dusty Billiard Table, former Pozzuolo del Friuli barracks, Ferrara, Italy |
The Milky Way with cosmic dust |
| Author | Foeniz | Nicola Quirico | Zwiebackgesicht |
| Score | 13 | 10 | 7 |
| Rank | 1 | 2 | 3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| image |  |
 |
|
| Title | The Christmas spices star anise, cinnamon and cloves | Chili peppers at the market in Santanyí | Blüte mit Safranfäden |
| Author | F. Riedelio | F. Riedelio | Tetraeder |
| Score | 17 | 6 | 6 |
Congratulations to Foeniz, Nicola Quirico, Zwiebackgesicht, F. Riedelio and Tetraeder. -- Jarekt (talk) 22:12, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Jarekt dust no.1 title should read "...USA, 1971"? RoyZuo (talk) 08:38, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
October 22
Question about images with serial but non destructive watermarks
I know that there is the "Graphics Village Pump" that may be more suitable for this question, but I think that this issue is more general and may be discussed even here (and even because here there are more users that can see and answer. XD)
There are some guidelines about watermarks on images, but those are not official policies of Commons (and I hope that they don't become part of them)
There are archives that put their watermarks even in a serial way, over the commonly one in a corner. These are ratherly non-destructive and sometimes even "invisible" due to the nature of the historical photo. How should we handle this particular case?
The images in particular I'm talking about are something like this ([3]) and this ([4]), from the huge archive "Istituto Luce" from Italy, with tons and tons of PD photos waiting only to be uploaded, and another one called EBAD (Italy has a particular law, that distinguishes between "creative" and "non-creative photos", the second ones being the ones from natural and everyday society and events... at least with the object not in a particular "position" and things like that; for those "non creative" photos the copyright is only 20 years after being taken, that is to say that all the 'non creative' photos shot in Italy until 1975 can be directly uploaded here on Commons, a great deal)... the only problem being that there are those serial watermarks on it. Here in Italy they love putting tons of watermarks even on perfectly PD photos and on entire historical archives... they think they can still profit from them, scaring ignorant people... but they still didn't know about us Commoners.
There have been some discussion about this (even in the discussion page of the guidelines theirselves) and I have even talked to some experienced users here, like the italian @Ruthven: (who still pointed to those guidelines).
In general, I (and the the other users in the guideline's discussion page) believe that PD and free-license photos should be uploaded regardless of their quality and how they are "adorned": we simply put the Template:watermark and simply hope that in future we will be able to find the same photo without those watermarks.
What do you think about it (even about those images that I linked specifically)?
Thanks alot for your attention, it is important. --LucaLindholm (talk) 11:45, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, I checked the two links you provided, but I think it would be good if you also linked to the previous discussions you had. I'm sceptical about the Italian law claims (it says here: "use very carefully" with regards to "non-creative photos"). But in my following opinion I am mostly disregarding possible Copyright concerns, as the topic is watermarks here.
- Now, the link to Luce, labeled [5], is in my opinion a highly destructive way of watermarking. The watermarking pattern covers the entirety of the image: if all images from that archive look like that I don't see why Commons should host these basically unusable files.
- The Ebad watermark [6] is big and flashy and possibly distracting when used to illustrate an encyclopedic article... but it's not as bad as the other one, as long as it doesn't cover important features of the images. Users would be able to crop an image for their purposes if needed.
- Yet, unmarked images would be preferable. To get those, I would assume that one could ask the archives directly (via GLAM contacts etc.) to kindly give access to non-watermarked versions for Commons uploads. There are benefits for them too: Just look at other big contributors like Rijksmuseum, Eran Laor, LoC, Polonia and Gallica: uploads from these institutions have big templates with the contributor's logo that link everyone to the original files: that shows providence properly, gives prestige back to the institution and makes watermarking fairly unnecessary. That's my reason for wondering why the archives insist on watermark-only images? Oh, and in case that we haven't asked for such permission yet, we should: The reaction tells us whether Commons/Wikimedia could get into trouble if we just rip the watermarked stuff from their pages without asking. If we "rob" them now, that makes future collaboration more difficult. The archives would also warn us away from stuff that might still be copyrighted for whatever reason. --Enyavar (talk) 21:21, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
- -------------------------
- @Enyavar
- Ok, so we have to proceed first by contacting them, confirming what @Ruthven said. So how should we do that? What is a "GLAM" contact? Who should do that? I'm still not expert on this.
- Yeah I know it's an embarrassing way to watermark, but here in Italy they want to speculate on everything, profiting about the fact that people is very ignorant about their own rights (Ruthven may know it well, being him Italian too).
- Let's see, so, if we can contact these archives and bring so much more value to our good Commons portal. :)
- The EBAD one is little and unknown... we may persuade them in a fast and easy way.
- The "Luce" one, instead, is perhaps the second most important and big archive in Italy and most of all, it is the most famous, being particularly linked to the fascist Italy and the first half of the 20th century in general. It is well guarded and won't give away anything in a easy way.
- I suggest to start with the EBAD (Eboli Archivio Digitale, main page: [5]), what's the next step? -- LucaLindholm (talk) 22:54, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
- From experience, it is best to have one designated Wikimedian for "first contact", and not speak in many voices. For first contact, a polite and careful approach is best. One approach is to lead with "we'd like to use this/that image for this/that article to illustrate the topic", to show some specific practical usage. Once a contact was made and the archive can see how we'd use the files, they may provide more.
- GLAM stands for "Galleries • Libraries • Archives • Museums", and there is a wikimedia page on GLAM outreach as well as a Commons page: Commons:GLAM.
- Ohhh, and now I see that Commons has great resources there: get started, form a content partnership... --Enyavar (talk) 07:09, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Accusation about "vandalizing" without giving reasons
A. Savin accuses me of "vandalizing" without giving any reasons. I don't know what this person means, I did'nt vandalize anything. What should I do? Could it be that someone has broken into my account and is doing nonsense under my name/pseudonym? And how could I check on this?Hornstrandir1 (talk) 13:28, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
- All contributions made by your account can be seen at Special:Contributions/Hornstrandir1, there will be a "Contributions" link somewhere at the top of the interface when you are logged in so you can find the page easily. Check the edits there for nonsense from a break in.
- If you don't understand a warning, discuss it. I see you already have on your talk page. Reasons have been given. Keep in mind that "vandalizing" can be used as a broad term with varying understandings. Commander Keane (talk) 22:20, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
- This is difficult with as many edits as the user has. Moreover, a clear reason should always be given. There have been a reason given now by another user. It's not vandalism or doesn't seem like it at all. However, there seem to be many problematic edits that make large-scale changes that the community disapproves of or would disapprove of – but that should probably be discussed at some place rather than the user talk page. The reason is with no editors approving of the level of splitting you are performing but this is not a problem specific to this user but a general problem. I have proposed a technical solution to the issue but it's not applicable in all cases and the issue may still exist even if things like Help:Gadget-DeepcatSearch always worked and very readily accessible & known to most users. What about categories that have been split to the by day level when the subject is only relevant at the year scale and even that is debatable for example? Prototyperspective (talk) 08:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- I do agree that he sulfuric springs example seems like overcat. Overcatting is good-faith editing that results in undesired outcomes. It does NOT merit placing an unexplained "stop vandalizing" template on the talk page of a user who has done thousands of edits. Alexander Savin completely overreacted by calling it "vandalism" and I would also say he under-reacted by not considering an actual talk with Hornstrandir. --Enyavar (talk) 09:06, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- +2. Overcat yes, vandalism no. But Hornstrandir1 should take more care with how they categorize things. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:52, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- I do agree that he sulfuric springs example seems like overcat. Overcatting is good-faith editing that results in undesired outcomes. It does NOT merit placing an unexplained "stop vandalizing" template on the talk page of a user who has done thousands of edits. Alexander Savin completely overreacted by calling it "vandalism" and I would also say he under-reacted by not considering an actual talk with Hornstrandir. --Enyavar (talk) 09:06, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- This is difficult with as many edits as the user has. Moreover, a clear reason should always be given. There have been a reason given now by another user. It's not vandalism or doesn't seem like it at all. However, there seem to be many problematic edits that make large-scale changes that the community disapproves of or would disapprove of – but that should probably be discussed at some place rather than the user talk page. The reason is with no editors approving of the level of splitting you are performing but this is not a problem specific to this user but a general problem. I have proposed a technical solution to the issue but it's not applicable in all cases and the issue may still exist even if things like Help:Gadget-DeepcatSearch always worked and very readily accessible & known to most users. What about categories that have been split to the by day level when the subject is only relevant at the year scale and even that is debatable for example? Prototyperspective (talk) 08:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think we should have admins calling our contributors "vandals" merely because they have a different editorial view. Consider contacting WMF.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 19:02, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
Non-deletion decision File:19-23-038-davis.jpg
Commons:Deletion requests/File:19-23-038-davis.jpg Creuzbourg (talk) 13:33, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
The uploader claims copyright, although he is only the photographer. No statement of original author (painter) exists. This is a newly made painting Creuzbourg (talk) 18:41, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
Keep Attribution fixed. Keep if "made public" in 1959. --RAN (talk) 00:08, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Sadads (talk) 01:18, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
The uploader is only the photographer; still claims to be copyright holder. The painting is presented by Georgia Division by the United Daughters of the Confederacy in 1959. When did the artist lose copyright to the photographer?
Creuzbourg (talk) 13:36, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Creuzbourg, hasn't the file page been updated to fix your issue? Now the author is George Mandus, photographer is Dsdugan and licence is PD. Commander Keane (talk) 18:46, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
- (e/c)
- The licensing information for the file is inadequate. It does need to show that the painting (and the frame) has a free license.
- If the painting were published in 1959, then COM:Hirtle leads many places. Published without a copyright notice would put the image in the public domain. The plaque on the frame does not have a copyright notice. If there were a copyright notice somewhere else, then there would need to be a renewal 28 years after publication. That would need to be checked.
- This topic should have been brought up on Commons:Village pump/Copyright.
- (talk) 18:52, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
- @GlrxThank you for your reply. Shall I move the matter to: Commons:Village pump/Copyright? I do not understand how the photographer becomes the copyright owner, and believe that the image should be deleted. Creuzbourg (talk) 20:05, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
- I can edit the license so it's more clear. The license stated is for the photograph as this is a 3D work with frame. Abzeronow (talk) 20:17, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
- Ordinarily, George Mandus (the painter) would have a copyright to his work. In many circumstances, a photographer making a photograph of someone else's work has a copyright on his derivative work. That copyright does not negate the original artist's work. In this case, the File page adequately described the photographer giving a free license to the derivative work, but there must also be a free license for the underlying painting. A faithful photographic copy of a 2D painting usually does not qualify for a derivative work copyright.
- Moving this topic to the copyright page would be good. The contributors there understand the issues far better than I. Glrx (talk) 20:58, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
- I can edit the license so it's more clear. The license stated is for the photograph as this is a 3D work with frame. Abzeronow (talk) 20:17, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
- @GlrxThank you for your reply. Shall I move the matter to: Commons:Village pump/Copyright? I do not understand how the photographer becomes the copyright owner, and believe that the image should be deleted. Creuzbourg (talk) 20:05, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
- Ask the admin who closed it?
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 18:48, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
October 24
Instructional links at Category:Unidentified logos
Being one of the biggest backlogs in Commons I suggest adding some instructional links to help editors at Category:Unidentified logos. Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#Trademarks seems to be the most suitable page. I think direct links to the galleries at Commons:Threshold_of_originality#United_States_of_America and Commons:Threshold_of_originality#Logos_and_flags would help too. Commander Keane (talk) 03:14, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
Picture of the Year 2022 finalist with an undeclared fake background: what should be done?
Dear users,
It was recently discovered that this picture that achieved rank 4 in POTY 2022 fooled everyone by making them think that it was taken at the perfect place and time when in reality the sky is completely fake and comes from this other picture. Because of that, the picture was delisted a few days ago from it's previous Featured picture status.
,_delisted){kind=link}
The questions that now remain are : should a picture that fooled everyone keep it's POTY award or not ? Should it be disqualified or not ? How should things be presented on the POTY 2022 results page and on the file page?
If the question of disqualifying the picture from POTY is of the POTY committee competence, everyone is nevertheless invited to give it's opinion. One easy way to do so is by voting here (and everyone can feel free to add alternative voting options).
(To avoid having two parallel discussions I invite people to only reply on this page and not here).
Thank you for your time and I wish you all a beautiful day. -- Giles Laurent (talk) 10:54, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- Pointless. Wikipedia can not vouch for a photos authenticity, so why tell the world somebody has won? Take away the competitions official status. Alexpl (talk) 17:02, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry but I don't understand the meaning of your comment (perhaps you could rephrase it in a clearer way). I also invite you to discuss the matter on this page (instead of Village pump) to avoid two parallel discussions on the same topic. Thank you for your understanding -- Giles Laurent (talk) 17:12, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- Why are you talking about Wikipedia? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:29, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- Because of the general public´s perception of these things: Wikipedia (somehow) screwed up. Alexpl (talk) 07:01, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- I think 2022 is already history. Mostly people have a strong dislike to that being rewritten. Just add a note that it was delisted ..
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 18:45, 24 October 2024 (UTC)- As written on the initial message and on my other reply, I kindly encourage you to participate in this discussion (and not on the Village Pump advertisement of the discussion) to avoid two parallel discussions. This is the third and last time I will be repeating this. Thank you for your understanding -- Giles Laurent (talk) 19:49, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- It's such an obvious fake!!! Broichmore (talk) 10:44, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- Totally agree. I had my suspicions about it at the time but wasn't sure where or how to bring them up. It's clearly fake though. I'm actually kind of surprised no one noticed until now. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:44, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- Hey, just to point something out that I noticed right away: The uploader has only contributed with edits for two days: November 23rd and 24th in 2019. Unless we're dealing with an unproven long-term sock puppet acount, the uploader has not self-nominated the picture for the PotY contest and never even acknowledged any of it - they might not even know that they participated, that they won a final spot, nor that they were disqualified just now. I claim that the uploader never intended to fool or deceive anyone, especially not in a contest: or they wouldn't have uploaded the original aurora image as well. The manipulations in several (!) of the images by that uploader can only be seen when you zoom really in, too. It's not that obvious (but our image quality buffs should have noticed). --Enyavar (talk) 19:11, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- We don't know if the author knows that the picture participated in POTY. But what we know for sure is that the author uploaded this image alongside other pictures to participate in the Wiki Science Competition 2019 in Ireland and won two awards in 2019 and the church picture is one of the two awarded pictures. One of his two winning pictures was honest about being a photo montage (but in that case it was anyway quite obvious) : this picture while the church picture original description was falsly claiming : "The aurora or northern lights shot with a Canon camera over the church at Vik in Iceland on a clear night" making any reviewer of the file think it was a single picture and not a photomontage. To me, claiming something is a single shot taken only with the camera when in reality it's a photomontage with a fake background is cheating. And the author not only won an award by cheating but was also likely paid for it (at least with WSC 2023 I personally had a money prize but for WSC 2019 in Ireland I don't know if there was a money prize but that wouldn't be impossible). Also, just for your information, the author also came back in 2023 with a second account and won two other awards in the Wiki Science Competition 2023 in Ireland -- Giles Laurent (talk) 20:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- Hey, just to point something out that I noticed right away: The uploader has only contributed with edits for two days: November 23rd and 24th in 2019. Unless we're dealing with an unproven long-term sock puppet acount, the uploader has not self-nominated the picture for the PotY contest and never even acknowledged any of it - they might not even know that they participated, that they won a final spot, nor that they were disqualified just now. I claim that the uploader never intended to fool or deceive anyone, especially not in a contest: or they wouldn't have uploaded the original aurora image as well. The manipulations in several (!) of the images by that uploader can only be seen when you zoom really in, too. It's not that obvious (but our image quality buffs should have noticed). --Enyavar (talk) 19:11, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- Totally agree. I had my suspicions about it at the time but wasn't sure where or how to bring them up. It's clearly fake though. I'm actually kind of surprised no one noticed until now. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:44, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
Source for Wiki Loves Monuments IDs?
Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments in Greece/Sites/Central Macedonia has IDs GR-B53-0001 to GR-B53-0055 but IDs have been added to Wikidata up to GR-B53-0097 with several gaps. Is there a source somewhere to check whether these IDs are valid (and add them to the Commons list if they are) and if items in Wikidata such as https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q25939112#P2186 should have a value or no value? Peter James (talk) 17:02, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Peter James: have you been in any communication with the person who added the IDs in Wikidata? - Jmabel ! talk 20:39, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
October 25
I need to have Category:Symbols of municipalities in Japan used in Wikipedia articles with vector versions available to be cleared. The category contains symbols of Japanese municipialities that are needed to be replaced with their vector versions. I know I could do the job myself, but unfortunately, I can't edit English and Spanish Wikipedia pages, due to my IP address being blocked in those Wikipedias. So, I would like you to do the job for me if you can. If you think I'm wrong about it, please let me know. Thank you. OperationSakura6144 (talk) 12:21, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- @OperationSakura6144: If you have been blocked in those Wikipedias, I am not sure why you think it is appropriate to ask someone else to edit there on your behalf. For that matter, when you say you are blocked on these wikis, I take it was under a different account name (since this account name never registered on either of those Wikipedias. Without knowing what account you edited under there (and were blocked) we have no way of knowing whether you may have been blocked precisely because they found edits like the ones you are requesting objectionable. - Jmabel ! talk 18:40, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- If the block was not about you, IP address blocks normally do not prevent logged-in users from editing. If you are in good standing there, and the blocks are simply coincidental but include logged-in accounts, say so, and I'll see what I can do about appealing those blocks. Feel free to email me off-wiki if you want to indicate the IP address in question without making it public. - Jmabel ! talk 18:42, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
October 27
Mass uploads works very bad for me
Hello. I described my problem on ticket phab:T378276. Did anyone has the same problem last days? MBH 09:22, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- I had longer delays when uploading slightly larger files the last days. Maybe there is a connection? --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 15:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- I've also noticed it taking unusually long to upload and process files the last few days. 4300streetcar (talk) 16:21, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- Seems to be fixed now 4300streetcar (talk) 01:25, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
- I've also noticed it taking unusually long to upload and process files the last few days. 4300streetcar (talk) 16:21, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
110 Million files
Commons is set to have 110 Million files soon. Another milestone :) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 15:20, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
At Commons talk:Nudity categories#Editorializing?, Prototyperspective and I clearly disagree about a recent edit he made to the project page in question. I don't think the two of us will reach any consensus without the involvement of third parties. Discussion should presumably take place there rather than here (other than the fact that I invited Prototyperspective to comment here if they think my wording in this notification is not neutral). - Jmabel ! talk 19:31, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- It does not matter much whether it's neutral or not and whether it's "editorializing" since this is an essay page and the essay hatnote itself already clarifies it contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Commons contributors
- Neutrally mentioning objectively relevant information about how other large sites handle this is appropriate and not editorializing or unneutral – if you disagree on that, please see the point above. I don't know what the objection is here, adding some info about how this is handled elsewhere( without e.g. saying it should be the same way here or that how other sites handle this is best) is not nonneutral but clearly relevant at this page.
- Prototyperspective (talk) 19:37, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not really clear on the details here but aren't all essays inherently "editorializing" to some degree since they aren't guidelines that were voted on and/or edited by multiple users based on consensus? --Adamant1 (talk) 15:15, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Adamant1: If you ask that on the discussion thread, rather than here where I gave a notification directing people to the discussion thread, I'll respond substantively. - Jmabel ! talk 01:40, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not really clear on the details here but aren't all essays inherently "editorializing" to some degree since they aren't guidelines that were voted on and/or edited by multiple users based on consensus? --Adamant1 (talk) 15:15, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
I messed up making a mass deletion request
How do I fix it? I edited the template page instead of making a new request by accident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TansoShoshen (talk • contribs) 21:05, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- @TansoShoshen: I've deleted the template page; you can go ahead and re-make your request. Normally you would have gotten an error, since the page is create-protected. However, admin FunkMonk had recently made the same error, so the page happened to exist and you could edit it. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:21, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
October 28
Flickr license and license in embedded metadata differ
.jpg)
The given image is currently licensed CC‑BY‑2.0 (generic). But the image metadata clearly states CC‑BY‑4.0. Should the licensing here be changed? I prefer the information in the metadata myself. Also, the version 2.0 licenses are at least a decade stale and legally deficient in several respects.
In addition, I can easily contact the copyright holder and gain explicit permission for CC‑BY‑4.0 should that be necessary.
Thanks in advance. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 12:21, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, I did not realize the item for "copyright" at the top of this page is clickable and not an indicator. But I'll leave this posting here nonetheless. (It would be more intuitive to have little subtabs at the top and not just colored text, a hint!) RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 12:27, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- Afaik, it is important what is written in the license template. The problem is that data in the metadata might become obsolete due to changes, or the metadata is automated for all works by a photographer. Sometimes we have an upload to Flickr with an NC license, but the author decides to change to CC BY. Then the metadata does not reflect recent changes, but in fact, there are some. (Another example: When a photographer uploads his image to Commons, but has a NC license stated in the metadata, it becomes obselete when he declares to publish his work under a CC BY license, for example). There are also many cases where the metadata states that the respective image must not be used without permission by the photographer, but since then, usage rights were transferred to another institution and they released the image under a free license, but the metadata does not reflect these recent changes --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 08:00, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- In this case, it is interesting whether a usage under the conditions of version 2 AND 4 is allowed, as the license only vary in the versions, not the restrictions necessarily --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 08:04, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- @PantheraLeo1359531: No easy answer, I guess, in terms of workflows. The tags embedded in the file can easily become obsolete. But — I would strongly argue — that the most liberal license present should still take precedence. And I would suggest that the CC‑BY‑4.0 license is the most liberal with its grant of 96/9/EC database rights. So returning to my original question, I believe the license notice on Wikimedia should be modified to version 4.0. I am going to get technical here, so feel free to stop reading! The SPDX
ANDlogical conjunction operator requires that recipients simultaneously comply with the terms of both or all listed licenses. This is correct, AFAIK, in your example because CC‑BY‑4.0 is simply more permissive than CC‑BY‑2.0. In short, CC‑BY‑2.0 is forward/inbound compatible to CC‑BY‑4.0 (my best info using a quick search was this). Noting also that the CC‑BY‑2.0 does not contain the "or later" version language that some software licenses do. Thanks for your reply. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 09:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)- Thank you for you answer! I am not an expert to the license details, so I cannot examine further what to do :). Greetings --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 09:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- I spend quite a lot of time advocating for en:open data. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 10:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for you answer! I am not an expert to the license details, so I cannot examine further what to do :). Greetings --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 09:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- If they offer two versions of the same named license, any reuser can select whichever they prefer. Just like any other multi-licensing. - Jmabel ! talk 03:40, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
- @PantheraLeo1359531: No easy answer, I guess, in terms of workflows. The tags embedded in the file can easily become obsolete. But — I would strongly argue — that the most liberal license present should still take precedence. And I would suggest that the CC‑BY‑4.0 license is the most liberal with its grant of 96/9/EC database rights. So returning to my original question, I believe the license notice on Wikimedia should be modified to version 4.0. I am going to get technical here, so feel free to stop reading! The SPDX
- In this case, it is interesting whether a usage under the conditions of version 2 AND 4 is allowed, as the license only vary in the versions, not the restrictions necessarily --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 08:04, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- Afaik, it is important what is written in the license template. The problem is that data in the metadata might become obsolete due to changes, or the metadata is automated for all works by a photographer. Sometimes we have an upload to Flickr with an NC license, but the author decides to change to CC BY. Then the metadata does not reflect recent changes, but in fact, there are some. (Another example: When a photographer uploads his image to Commons, but has a NC license stated in the metadata, it becomes obselete when he declares to publish his work under a CC BY license, for example). There are also many cases where the metadata states that the respective image must not be used without permission by the photographer, but since then, usage rights were transferred to another institution and they released the image under a free license, but the metadata does not reflect these recent changes --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 08:00, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
October 29
Final Reminder: Join us in Making Wiki Loves Ramadan Success
Dear all,
We’re thrilled to announce the Wiki Loves Ramadan event, a global initiative to celebrate Ramadan by enhancing Wikipedia and its sister projects with valuable content related to this special time of year. As we organize this event globally, we need your valuable input to make it a memorable experience for the community.
Last Call to Participate in Our Survey: To ensure that Wiki Loves Ramadan is inclusive and impactful, we kindly request you to complete our community engagement survey. Your feedback will shape the event’s focus and guide our organizing strategies to better meet community needs.
- Survey Link: Complete the Survey
- Deadline: November 10, 2024
Please take a few minutes to share your thoughts. Your input will truly make a difference!
Volunteer Opportunity: Join the Wiki Loves Ramadan Team! We’re seeking dedicated volunteers for key team roles essential to the success of this initiative. If you’re interested in volunteer roles, we invite you to apply.
- Application Link: Apply Here
- Application Deadline: October 31, 2024
Explore Open Positions: For a detailed list of roles and their responsibilities, please refer to the position descriptions here: Position Descriptions
Thank you for being part of this journey. We look forward to working together to make Wiki Loves Ramadan a success!
Warm regards,
The Wiki Loves Ramadan Organizing Team 05:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Your input...
FYI: Commons talk:Administrators#Userpages: red or blue? Regards, Aafi (talk) 09:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- "[Administrator should have a] user-page with .. [information] how they could be contacted": Is that a joke? Don't we have talk pages for that?
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 10:14, 29 October 2024 (UTC)- @Enhancing999, I'm sorry if that sounded somewhat weird. I've made a change and tried to clarify what I exactly mean by it. You're free to comment on that discussion. I posted here for a wider community input and won't be monitoring any responses here. ─ Aafī on Mobile (talk) 10:23, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- So my quote is no longer on that page. Ok.
- I wonder if user pages are read as much as some user hope ..
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 10:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Enhancing999, I'm sorry if that sounded somewhat weird. I've made a change and tried to clarify what I exactly mean by it. You're free to comment on that discussion. I posted here for a wider community input and won't be monitoring any responses here. ─ Aafī on Mobile (talk) 10:23, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- Interestingly, there isn't much info on User:EugeneZelenko's user page (one of the admins/bureaucrats who asked for a user page to be created).
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 10:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC)- Aren't language skills, user rights status and projects where user is participating/had participated completely useless? This seems bare minimum for me and I don't demand for something more. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:34, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- For user rights, the information is generally not complete and better left to the relevant MediaWiki function.
- Language skills should be visible on the talk page and most of the time, at least implicitly it is.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 19:34, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- Aren't language skills, user rights status and projects where user is participating/had participated completely useless? This seems bare minimum for me and I don't demand for something more. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:34, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
I've put a request there for a tag to also filter changes made with the tool in Wikipedias like it is in Commons, but the page tells me that: Talk pages in this namespace are generally not watched by many users. and sends me here. I understand that this page is only for Commons issues, but I don't know exactly where to ask. Thank you. Gdaniel111 (talk) 12:00, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- Since meta:Help:Cat-a-lot doesn't have a talk page you had asked at the right place. The problem is a lack of developers/development and I proposed several concrete readily-adoptable solution to that here: mw:Please increase MediaWiki development capacity further.
Prototyperspective (talk) 12:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Thanks again to the person who posted the link to https://ocr.wmcloud.org/ for me. I am rerunning news articles where Newspaper.com could not transcribe their own articles or could not properly distinguish the columns of material and jumbled the transcribed text. The Google OCR was able to transcribe the previously unreadable articles and even transcribed handwritten cursive writing. Thanks again. RAN (talk) 21:35, 29 October 2024 (UTC)