Commons:Village pump

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

Shortcut: COM:VP

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓       ↓ Skip to discussions ↓       ↓ Skip to the last discussion ↓
🌐 Village pumps for other languages
COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES (index)
Welcome to the Village pump

This page is used for discussions of the operations, technical issues, and policies of Wikimedia Commons. Recent sections with no replies for 7 days and sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=--~~~~}} may be archived; for old discussions, see the archives; the latest archive is Commons:Village pump/Archive/2024/01.

Please note:

  1. If you want to ask why unfree/non-commercial material is not allowed at Wikimedia Commons or if you want to suggest that allowing it would be a good thing, please do not comment here. It is probably pointless. One of Wikimedia Commons’ core principles is: "Only free content is allowed." This is a basic rule of the place, as inherent as the NPOV requirement on all Wikipedias.
  2. Have you read our FAQ?
  3. For changing the name of a file, see Commons:File renaming.
  4. Any answers you receive here are not legal advice and the responder cannot be held liable for them. If you have legal questions, we can try to help but our answers cannot replace those of a qualified professional (i.e. a lawyer).
  5. Your question will be answered here; please check back regularly. Please do not leave your email address or other contact information, as this page is widely visible across the internet and you are liable to receive spam.

Purposes which do not meet the scope of this page:

Search archives:

   
 

Start a new discussion

# 💭 Title 💬 👥 🙋 Last editor 🕒 (UTC)
1 Special:UncategorizedCategories 26 7 RZuo 2024-01-11 16:53
2 Mass rename requests 56 13 Richardkiwi 2024-01-07 13:41
3 Do you use Wikidata in Wikimedia sibling projects? Tell us about your experiences 6 5 Prototyperspective 2024-01-10 14:55
4 References for map 2 2 Jmabel 2024-01-07 17:29
5 Photo of Bunsaku Arakatsu 2 2 Yann 2024-01-12 10:52
6 Selfies of "Wikipedians" 23 13 Gnomingstuff 2024-01-13 19:24
7 Add SVGZ support 5 4 RekishiEJ 2024-01-09 04:43
8 Expedite cfd 2 2 Jmabel 2024-01-09 19:27
9 Help with translation 3 3 From Hill To Shore 2024-01-09 17:13
10 Reusing references: Can we look over your shoulder? 0 0
11 Duplicate categories for Chinese characters 1 1 SebastianHelm 2024-01-10 13:00
12 Guideline for Student Online Participation 1 1 Jmabel 2024-01-10 19:37
13 Should files have "panoramio" in their names? 4 4 Bjh21 2024-01-11 13:32
14 Description of files 3 2 Lotje 2024-01-11 10:21
15 copyright whitelist 24 7 Adamant1 2024-01-14 14:01
16 Photo challenge November results 3 3 Pigsonthewing 2024-01-12 20:46
17 Something’s wrong with SteinsplitterBot 2 1 RodRabelo7 2024-01-14 19:55
18 Today's MotD 5 4 Yann 2024-01-12 21:58
19 DIY copy stands 1 1 Pigsonthewing 2024-01-12 16:40
20 Checkuserblock 9 4 Jmabel 2024-01-13 18:39
21 Mass rename requests 6 3 Nowakki 2024-01-14 10:15
22 Proposal to globally ban Guido den Broeder 1 1 SHB2000 2024-01-13 05:44
23 Help with categorizing 6 3 Jmabel 2024-01-13 18:40
24 Upload Wizard wording 3 3 Robert Flogaus-Faust 2024-01-14 18:30
25 Can someone help me with autowiki browser for categorizing toki pona logograms? 6 2 Immanuelle 2024-01-14 18:50
26 "Not around" template 1 1 Pigsonthewing 2024-01-14 15:30
27 Picture of the Day (File:Caracas building.jpg)- Misleadingly labelled Photoshopped creation? 8 6 Wilfredor 2024-01-14 22:01
28 Uploadwizard wiped link to user profile 4 3 Kritzolina 2024-01-14 19:38
Legend
  • In the last hour
  • In the last day
  • In the last week
  • In the last month
  • More than one month
Manual settings
When exceptions occur,
please check the setting first.
Water pump next to the church in the town center of Doel. Doel, Beveren, East Flanders, Belgium. [add]
Centralized discussion
See also: Village pump/Proposals   ■ Archive
Template: View   ■ Discuss    ■ Edit   ■ Watch
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 7 days.

November 26[edit]

Special:UncategorizedCategories[edit]

We now have 2,544 uncategorized (parentless) categories, down from about 8,000 in the beginning of September. At this point, most of the "low-hanging fruit" is taken care of. User:Billinghurst and I have done the bulk of the cleanup, although a few others have also helped in various degrees. We could definintely use more help, most of which does not require an admin as such.

  • Most of the remaining listings are legitimate categories, with content, but lacking parent categories. They need parent categories and they need incoming interwiki links from any relevant Wikidata item.
    • A disproportionate number of these would best be handled by someone who knows Hungarian or Estonian.
  • Some categories just need to be turned into cat redirects ({{Cat redirect}} and have their content moved accordingly.
  • A few categories listed here will prove to be fine as they stand; the tool messed up and put them in the list because it didn't correctly understand that a template had correctly given them parent categories. Many of these are right near the front of the (alphabetical) list, and involve dates.
  • Some categories probably either call for obvious renaming or should be nominated for COM:CFD discussions.
  • Some empty categories (not a lot of those left, but new ones happen all the time) need to be deleted.
  • At the end of the alphabetical listing (5th and 6th page) are about 75 categories that have names in non-Latin alphabets. It would be great if people who read the relevant writing systems could help with these. Probably most of these are candidates for renaming.

Thanks in advance for any help you can give. - Jmabel ! talk 03:21, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm a bit confused about something @Jmabel: I checked the page and some of the categories on there are for example Category:April 2016 in Bourgogne-Franche-Comté (through 2023), but these were created years ago in some instances and already had parent categories from the start. How do categories like that end up there? ReneeWrites (talk) 02:09, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ReneeWrites: Insufficient follow-through and patrolling, combined with out of control back end processes.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 02:48, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ReneeWrites: Actually, in this case this appears to be some sort of flaw in the software that creates the Special page. As I wrote a couple of days ago, "A few categories listed here will prove to be fine as they stand; the tool messed up and put them in the list because it didn't correctly understand that a template had correctly given them parent categories. Many of these are right near the front of the (alphabetical) list, and involve dates." It looks like today's run added a bunch of these false positives and that (unlike the previous bunch) they are more scattered through the list. I believe all of the 100+ files that use Template:Month by year in Bourgogne-Franche-Comté are on today's list; none of these were there three days earlier. That probably has something to do with User:Birdie's edits to yesterday to Template:Month by year in Bourgogne-Franche-Comté; those are complicated enough that I have no idea what in particular might have confused the software. The categories still look fine from a normal user point of view, but the software that creates Special:UncategorizedCategoriesn is somehow confused.
Other than that: we're a couple of hundred fixed or deleted categories closer to where we'd want to be, compared to a couple of days ago. - Jmabel ! talk 04:23, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Server-purges should fix this but apparently it doesn't. Some categories that didn't appear last time after purging the cache have disappeared now so I'm more confused as to what the problem could be since the iirc the refresh time was after some pages were updated (it has problems when pages get all their categories from a template). There should probably be a phrabricator issue about this, albeit it's possible things work fine once there are always just a small number of cats there which seems increasingly feasible. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:35, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jeff G., could you explain what "... out of control back end processes" means, so I can understand your comment? --Ooligan (talk) 16:54, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ooligan: As I understand it, there are processes that run on WMF servers that run too long or get caught up in race conditions or whatever, and that get terminated after running too long. I think updating this special page may be one such process, sometimes. Certainly, updating the read / not read status of stuff on my watchlist seems that way, especially when using this new reply tool. Turning off the big orange bar before displaying my user talk page would be helpful, too. <end rant>   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:26, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jeff G., thank you. --Ooligan (talk) 19:44, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ooligan: You're welcome.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:11, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Even with those 100 or so "Bourgogne-Franche-Comté" false positives, we are now down to 2079. Again, we could really use help from people who know languages with non-Latin scripts, all of which are grouped toward the end of the list. Also, Hungarian and Estonian, scattered throughout. - Jmabel ! talk 23:08, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Now down to 1905, again including 100+ false positives. Still really need help from people who read Estonian, Hungarian, or languages with non-Latin scripts. - Jmabel ! talk 21:58, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And now to 1701, again with the same number of false positives and still with the same need for help from people who read Estonian, Hungarian, or languages with non-Latin scripts. Those are probably now the languages for about half of the remaining categories. - Jmabel ! talk 00:23, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Now 1471, with the same provisos and the same needs for help. - Jmabel ! talk 18:42, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We are making major progress. As of today, we are down to 1031 (and seem to be rid of the false positives, so maybe the progress looks more dramatic than it is, but it's still nice). Only a few left in non-Latin alphabets. Still need a bunch of help with Estonian and Hungarian.

Thanks to whoever fixed the "false positives" thing. - Jmabel ! talk 21:36, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As of today, we are (amazingly) under 1000, with only two remaining in non-Latin alphabets. 947 as of today. I suspect that anyone who speaks languages from Central and Eastern Europe could still help out considerably here. - Jmabel ! talk 20:22, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BTW, we are still getting some false positives, e.g. Category:Letters with "e" as diacritic above and other similar categories. This makes me guess we are also getting some false negatives (parentless categories that don't show up in the report). - Jmabel ! talk 20:46, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for pointing this out. While many uncategorized categories are useless ones that should be deleted, there is indeed some low-hanging fruit in there, including ones that can be linked to an article on a Wikipedia. – b_jonas 18:49, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At this point, the remaining categories are probably about 80% or more either simply needing parents, or needing some sort of clarification or merge. Very few are outright deletions. - Jmabel ! talk 19:40, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Progress continues. We are at 777. - Jmabel ! talk 20:43, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

i think we could deploy a bot to monitor this page, send reminders to users who create uncategorised cat pages and add the uncat cats to a maintenance cat.--RZuo (talk) 11:16, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@RZuo: We have {{subst:Please link images}} for the reminder.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jeff G.: That's really about categories on images, though, not categories on categories. FWIW, a lot of these happen in one of two ways:
  1. a small number of users create a fair number of categories and, as far as I can tell, can't be bothered to learn to do it right, or don't care that they leave a ton of work for others. They are not unaware of the situation: they've been told, but they keep doing it. I could name some names, but I'd rather not.
  2. a lot of people seem to think the correct way to get rid of an unused empty category is just to blank it, which of course leaves a parentless category. This group is generally "educable", and for that purpose we have {{How to delete empty categories}}. - Jmabel ! talk 21:05, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As of the start of the year we are down to 680; probably 100 of these have been dealt with in the last couple of days but others have doubtless come into this state. The vast majority of these are appropriate categories (mostly for individual people) that just need appropriate parent categories and, in some cases, should be attached to a Wikidata item or have one created. You don't need to be an admin to help out, just good at categorization. - Jmabel ! talk 21:09, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wow! Down to 456, again leaning heavily toward Central East Europe, especially Hungarian. - Jmabel ! talk 21:38, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And down to 190, some of which are doubtless false positives or current CfDs. - Jmabel ! talk 01:33, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


more interesting cats for maintenance: Special:WantedCategories.--RZuo (talk) 16:53, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

January 05[edit]

Do you use Wikidata in Wikimedia sibling projects? Tell us about your experiences[edit]

Note: Apologies for cross-posting and sending in English.

Hello, the Wikidata for Wikimedia Projects team at Wikimedia Deutschland would like to hear about your experiences using Wikidata in the sibling projects. If you are interested in sharing your opinion and insights, please consider signing up for an interview with us in this Registration form.
Currently, we are only able to conduct interviews in English.

The front page of the form has more details about what the conversation will be like, including how we would compensate you for your time.

For more information, visit our project issue page where you can also share your experiences in written form, without an interview.
We look forward to speaking with you, Danny Benjafield (WMDE) (talk) 08:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Danny Benjafield (WMDE): Are you monitoring this post for answers to your question? I ask because its phrasing suggests that you posted this same text in several venues. If you’re not, then I suggest that the section title should be something like “WMDE interview about Wikidata integration” or some such, instead this misleading, spammy title. If you are, then here’s my answer: I use it to create automated interwiki links, especially between Commons categories and Wikipedia articles (in any language) — and that’s a part of Wikidata I appreciate and consider useful and well developed. The rest of Wikidata? Nah. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 05:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Eh, all Wikis have their flaws Trade (talk) 23:59, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Tuvalkin Hello and thanks for your reply and comment. Indeed the announcement was posted to nearly all Wiki Community portals to get responses from a wide cross-section of Wikimedians. What, why and how you use Wikidata in other projects is of value to us, as are the reasons why you don't. Should you like to discuss this further, please reach out to me on my Meta Talk page or the WD4WMP Discussion page. Thank you, -- Danny Benjafield (WMDE) (talk) 09:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note that Wikidata is also used by non-WMF projects. There is the fundamental problem though with incorrect and/or incomplete Wikidata information. Guido den Broeder (talk) 13:20, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree to this. Often there is false or misleading info hidden in the structured data of false and nearly always is information missing, usually including information that could have been set automatically via the file's categories for example.
I think it would be better if people wouldn't spend so much time on duplicative efforts to add structured data to files when such is already set / implyable from the file's categories. It just makes things more difficult and laborious to maintain and takes up valuable time. Instead, it would be better if these things were set (synchronized) automatically via scripts based on file (and page) categories where they can be. Currently, a lot of things can't be set (or removed and changed) automatically this way (e.g. not every image in a person category also depicts that person) but in the future they could be by leveraging machine vision where users would then only (semi-automatically) review bulk changes or do slight modifications to automatic-synchronization-changes. Wikidata could improve the quality of AI training data, search engines, and semantic/reasoning AI systems among other things also outside of WMF projects but if it was currently used it would probably decrease quality due to lots of issues with data and missing/incomplete info. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:55, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

January 08[edit]

Photo of Bunsaku Arakatsu[edit]

Hello, this photo of Bunsaku Arakatsu (this one) was taken on 1 July, 1943 by Kyodo News. Is it public domain? Because 1. It was published before 1 January 1957. 2. It was photographed before 1 January 1947. There is more info here of a different version of the same photo. -Artanisen (talk) 04:37, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, this is most probably covered by {{PD-Japan-oldphoto}}. Yann (talk) 10:52, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Selfies of "Wikipedians"[edit]

Some people post selfies here without categorizing them. As a person who likes to give pictures some meaning, I and (some others, I noticed) categorized them as "Wikipedians." The logic is simpleː by uploading a selfie, people became contributors to the project, and therefore automatically can be categorized in the Wikipedian-category. But now I have my doubts.

Roughly, we can divide the selfie-uploaders in four categoriesː

  1. Those who upload one or more selfies, and are never seen again;
  2. Those who make a selfie, use it in a Wikipedia-user-profile and are never seen again;
  3. Those who make a selfie, use it in a Wikipedia-user-profile, make a few edits on the same day, and are never seen again;
  4. Those who make a selfie, use it in a Wikipedia-user-profile, and start editing.

I would propose to use the speedy-deletion-template "db-selfie|help=off" for the selfies in first two categories, since those are only self-promomotion. Meanwhile we can keep the selfies in the latter two. We could discuss the third category, but then we might get endless discussions on how many "a few"are. What do others think about this? Regards, Jeff5102 (talk) 08:15, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Per current policy the third type should be deleted as well. However, keep in mind that people may contribute to other projects than Wikipedia. For that same reason, this may also not be the best category. Guido den Broeder (talk) 08:23, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd support that. Including deleting selfies in the third category. A few edits could easily be defined as "X amount of edits over Y time" if anyone has an issue with it. But there's no reason someone who only makes 3 or 4 edits on the same day and then is never seen again should have a selfie on their profile. Otherwise people uploading for clearly promotional purposes could just it, make a few edits, and then someone couldn't have the image deleted. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:46, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In "Media_needing_categories" I regularly see low quality Category 1 selfies. Is it worth nominating the photo for deletion and then having someone else delete it? In my opinion, the effort would be better used for more important things. Wouter (talk) 15:27, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. I'd go for "Wikimedians" rather than the more specific "Wikipedians".
  2. perUser:Wouterhagens, if there are only a couple of images from a given person, I probably wouldn't bother with the hassle of deleting. If they are uploading a ton of useless personal images, and doing nothing else, that merits the process to delete. - Jmabel ! talk 20:06, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    For me it also depends on what they write on their user page. If the only contribution is to create the user page and introduce themself as "business men" or "famous rapper" I delete the photos and the user page. If they write something about photography or open knowledge I assume that they are really interested in contributing here and would not delete anything. GPSLeo (talk) 20:53, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @GPSLeo: yeah, I'm also a lot more likely to DR if their only other action is to start a category about themselves. - Jmabel ! talk 01:13, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To me it looks like what COM:F10 is already saying, so what exactly is being proposed? An amendment to COM:F10? Supplementary information? Instructions to be added to {{Db-selfie}}? In other words, how do you intend to process the results of this discussion? --HyperGaruda (talk) 20:43, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, There was a discussion some time back about how many contributions are needed for personal images (not just selfies) to be accepted. Then there was an agreement that around 300 useful contributions across all Wikimedia are needed to consider someone active, and to accept personal images. Yann (talk) 21:20, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think that actually adding a specific number is actually wise. A user who contributes 3 (three) or 4 (four) large high quality Wikipedia articles, each launched as a single edit will seem "less active" than a user who makes 300 (three-hundred) largely cosmetic edits. Then the question is, are selfies actually that largely of an issue that they require constant deletion? Obviously personal images without any educational value of non-contributors should be actively excluded, but placing an objective number on what makes someone "a contributor" as opposed to "a non-contributor" actively promotes the idea that quantity of edits are more important than quality of edits. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 00:27, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It depends on whether you define "that large of an issue" in terms of importance or of how many there are. Even using the most conservative definition here -- categories 1 and 2 -- there are thousands and probably tens of thousands. The main value of having a number here is doing less work -- going through 50 edits to various pages that may not be in English takes a lot more time than going through 20 edits to someone's userpage.
In terms of importance, that probably comes down to how much you personally relate to the Terrible Trivium scene. Gnomingstuff (talk) 08:08, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Selfies of the third type are not eligible for speedy deletion; COM:CSD#F10 is clear to specify "no constructive global contributions". However, they could be eligible for regular COM:DR. This is for good reason, as it is often controversial how many edits are required before considering that a "user is or was an active participant on that project" (COM:INUSE). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:43, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If we start defining things, we should also define how much time we give people to return for more edits. Do we delete after a week? A month? Several months? This all feels super bureaucratic and unnecessarily so. I'd rather leave things as they are and trust the existing processes. --Kritzolina (talk) 08:30, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's kind of basic maintenance isn't it? Like take this guy. He only had three edits in 2021. Uploading a selfie and two other images are probably COPYVIO. Maybe he'll come back eventually, but so what? At least IMO 2 years and no contributions other then uploading a selfie and COPYVIO should be enough to justify just deleting the selfie. Maybe it's not necessarily and could be construed as bureaucratic, but then there's also no reason to think the user will ever actually contribute to the project in any meaningful way either. So what's the issue with deleting the selfie in that case? --Adamant1 (talk) 08:48, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This semmes to be a pretty clear cut case. Like I said - we can deal with these cases without creating new rules. But if we start creating new rules, we would need to deal with the grey areas and everything would become complicated. Kritzolina (talk) 09:28, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Currently, if a new user creates an account and uploads a selfie a minute later, that selfie becomes immediately eligible for F10 (and I do in fact see taggers applying this criterion this way in practice). I think this is unnecessarily BITEy, and we should give them time to become a productive user. I suggest making F10 a "delayed" criteron similar to F5; the uploader will have 7 days to rectify the situation by either 1) using the image on a page that is not a user page or talk page; or 2) becoming a constructive contributor. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:28, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Would support this (and apologies if I've mistagged anything in this way) Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:23, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Types of files covered[edit]

I'd like to start a new thread on a different issue. Currently, it says "F10. Personal photos by non-contributors: Low-to-medium quality selfies and other personal images of or by users who have no constructive global contributions." I often see other types of files such as PDF resumes which ought to be speedily deletable but technically do not qualify. Also, if some notable person uploads a selfie and adds it to their Wikipedia article, we shouldn't speedily delete that. May I suggest a revision: "F10. Personal files by non-contributors: Low-to-medium quality selfies and other personal files of or by users who have no constructive global contributions, which are not legitimately in use." -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:37, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Support Yes, obvious out-of-scope files should be covered under F10. Yann (talk) 10:49, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Support.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:07, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Support --Adamant1 (talk) 12:14, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Comment I deleted such kind of files unter the G10 (advertisement) criterion. With the proposed change F10 and G10 would basically become the same. We could make this change and then use G10 for pages only and F10 for files. GPSLeo (talk) 12:46, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Support Makes sense. Signatures are another common offender here, as are professional photos that aren't "selfies" but out of scope. Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:24, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Add SVGZ support[edit]

As title, since this can make uploading and downloading an SVG file somewhat faster.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:49, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please file such requests on https://phabricator.wikimedia.org. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:37, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Downloads already use on the fly compression.. This isnt really needed and im pretty sure we already declined this request at some point in the past. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:03, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Second TheDJ.
I doubt this would make any difference in upload or download: the transfers are compressed using gzip.
Furthermore, I do not want Commons to save SVGZ files natively. They are XML files, so they should be saved in the (inflated) XML format.
Glrx (talk) 20:26, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, I see.--RekishiEJ (talk) 04:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

January 09[edit]

Expedite cfd[edit]

i'd like to draw your attention to Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/01/Category:Hua Guofeng era and expedite the deletion discussion, because these categories lead to overly broad cat trees under these persons' categories. RZuo (talk) 10:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just to be clear: RZuo made this request here four minutes after starting the discussion, so this is presumably a request for participation, not for closure. - Jmabel ! talk 19:27, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help with translation[edit]

I’ve taken a stab at translating the description of File:Veduta generale di Sydney.jpg but it’s not quite right. In particular, I do t know what “sai mesi” might mean, can anyone help? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 13:38, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Mesi" = "months", "sai" seems to mean something like "as you know, ". Guido den Broeder (talk) 15:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It may be a spelling error as "sei" means 6. So "sei mesi" is "6 months." From Hill To Shore (talk) 17:13, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

January 10[edit]

Reusing references: Can we look over your shoulder?[edit]

Apologies for writing in English.

The Technical Wishes team at Wikimedia Deutschland is planning to make reusing references easier. For our research, we are looking for wiki contributors willing to show us how they are interacting with references.

  • The format will be a 1-hour video call, where you would share your screen. More information here.
  • Interviews can be conducted in English, German or Dutch.
  • Compensation is available.
  • Sessions will be held in January and February.
  • Sign up here if you are interested.
  • Please note that we probably won’t be able to have sessions with everyone who is interested. Our UX researcher will try to create a good balance of wiki contributors, e.g. in terms of wiki experience, tech experience, editing preferences, gender, disability and more. If you’re a fit, she will reach out to you to schedule an appointment.

We’re looking forward to seeing you, Thereza Mengs (WMDE)

Duplicate categories for Chinese characters[edit]

Why do we have Category:八 (numeral) in addition to Category:八? The former contains such images as File:Emblem of Nagoya, Aichi.svg (which at least in en:Nagoya is not connected to the number, except maybe through the mention of 八寸名古屋帯), while the latter contains file:012 - ba1 - eight.svg and file:China Emblem PLA.svg, which obviously are. Most other images in the latter category appear to represent the number, too. See e.g. the description for File:ACC-b00933.svg. ◅ Sebastian Helm 🗨 13:00, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Guideline for Student Online Participation[edit]

Disagreements should be kept healthy: When a diverse group of students interact, some of the students may have different views. It is important to respect the views of all the participants. Refrain from personal issues and the use of inappropriate language during discussions. Express disagreements in a constructive manner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeldawildschut (talk • contribs) 19:20, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Zeldawildschut: and you are posting this on the Village pump because… - Jmabel ! talk 19:37, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should files have "panoramio" in their names?[edit]

I've seen a lot of files like File:白山神社（新潟市） Hakusan jinja - panoramio.jpg with panoramio in their names. I think this is related to the original image source.

With that in mind should they be moved as per criteria 2:

An example given is "File:Flickr - law keven - Anybody know a Good Dentist^......Happy Furry Friday Everybody...-O))).jpg (no relation to file content) -> File:Lion-tailed Macaque, Colchester Zoo, England.jpg" but that one is a lot longer than these ones. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 22:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wouldn't move them just to remove "panoramio" from the filename. However, if there is another reason to move the file (such as correcting errors), the "panoramio" should be removed from the filename during that move. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:06, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Concur with Pi.1415926535. It's an accurate indication of source, there's nothing terribly wrong with it, but it's not particularly a plus. - Jmabel ! talk 01:31, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Immanuelle: Agreeing with the above, I'd just mention that criterion 2 applies to the file name as a whole. In this case, "白山神社（新潟市） Hakusan jinja" adequately describes what the picture shows and so criterion 2 doesn't apply. The presence of spurious words in the name doesn't change that. --bjh21 (talk) 13:32, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

January 11[edit]

Description of files[edit]

Hello, anybody hanging around who might be able to clarify what to do with for example the text (describing the text in today's English)? Keeping the original text is not would make it easier to retrace texts, and on the other hand, the actualized English would make it more comprehensible. Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 09:28, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looking at the source text, it was written using en:Long s (ſ). The OCR capture of the scanned text has recorded those characters as "f" (as the computer couldn't distinguish between ſ and f) which is what was inserted into our description here. The text has now been updated to replace "f" with "s". Retaining "f" is clearly wrong as that wasn't correct English either then or now. The choice then is between using "ſ" to preserve the original text or "s" to reflect modern uses of font sets. I'd suggest using the "s" to be of more use to a modern audience - those interested in the original text can always refer to the source file. From Hill To Shore (talk) 10:17, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Y're a star From Hill To Shore I should have brought my question to the village pump earlier, but then again, I do not want to be too much of a hassle to all of you. Cheers. Lotje (talk) 10:21, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

copyright whitelist[edit]

I asked some weeks ago about the licenses status of archive.org magazine rack collections.

The answer I got was that it is up to me to do research on the license status.

This answer is not satisfactory. A project such as this here would do good to keep a list of collections that are ok to use. There are several compelling advantages:

1. Entries in the whitelist will be more competently researched. Such an entry will exist for years, while my own research for one image will last a couple of minutes or it will not be worth it.

2. It allows work to be done by users that don't want to invest into a crash course in copyright law. As I understand, commons expects its users to do just that, even though it would not be necessary.

3. An entry in the whitelist can be referenced by a file. If the entry is found to be in error, files that were uploaded in error can be tracked down. This list would then also serve as a service to license holders and it provides a place were they can go on record with their claim. Nowakki (talk) 09:44, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is not possible to produce a whitelist of the copyright status of magazines. A magazine is a collection of works all potentially subject to their own licensing and copyright situation. Because Commons policy is that we require files to be suitably licensed (or out of copyright) in both the country of first publication and the US, it is not possible to set a universal rule. Sure, you may find that the September 1940 edition of a US magazine didn't follow copyright registration correctly and therefore should be PD, but that same magazine could include copies of photographs first published in London and subject to UK copyright. You must examine the situation of each file individually and articulate a rationale for upload. It is not possible to create a shortcut process to absolve uploaders from having to think. From Hill To Shore (talk) 09:55, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
1. But it is possible to create a whitelist for the first step: determining the copyright status of the magazine itself.
2. If such a magazine follows the policy of tagging works under copyright protection where and when they are published, that could be mentioned in the whitelist and then the list would cover steps one and two. Also true for content that is clearly an own product of the magazine staff. Nowakki (talk) 10:11, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But then your suggestion is no longer a "white" list where everything is safe from copyright but a "grey" list where the answers are ambiguous and people will still need to conduct the same research. As uploaders will continue to require an understanding of copyright principles, I think Commons' approach on providing guidance on copyright principles is the right one. Feel free to work on your list if you want but it will be a herculean effort for limited benefit - it will all come back to the principles. From Hill To Shore (talk) 10:26, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If a magazine publishes images without a copyright notice and without stating the author, how am I supposed to determine the copyright status? Nowakki (talk) 13:32, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is the difficulty we all face as volunteers at this project. We find a file we think is useful to upload, we consider the circumstances and apply the copyright principles set out in our guidance. If we think we have a clear justification and can meet COM:PCP then we upload and include all relevant details in the file information. Many times we conclude that we don't have enough information to continue the upload and the file is never added to Commons. Sometimes we do upload but get things wrong; the consensus of a deletion discussion may decide that the file should be deleted. We can think of improvements to the guidance we offer but there are no easy answers here. From Hill To Shore (talk) 13:56, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What about: "The copyright owner can request the file be removed".
That's not on COM:PCP. The copyright holder has that legal obligation, does he not? Of course assuming good faith, which would amount to:
1. Magazine issue is not protected
2. no copyright tag or author next to the image or anywhere else in the issue.
I don't know how frequently commons received complaints, feel free to give me some insight into that end of the process. Nowakki (talk) 14:18, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Nowakki: I would suggest that rather than creating a list, a better approach is to document your research in the category page for the magazine in question. See Category:Time Magazine for an example. The category is naturally linked to and from the corresponding files, and is where people uploading new issues are likely to be looking anyway. The only thing this lacks from your proposal is bundling multiple magazines together into a list, but I don't think that's particularly useful. --bjh21 (talk) 12:52, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your recommendation is to do it informally and haphazardly. And for me as an amateur to do it myself.
I think the problem should be solved professionally and systematically. Until then i will just do something else than upload files. Nowakki (talk) 13:34, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Nowakki: "Your recommendation is to do it informally and haphazardly. And for me as an amateur to do it myself." Erm, yes. Welcome to Wikimedia Commons (and the wider Wikimedia community), where a bunch of amateurs do things informally and haphazardly. If you wanted formal professionalism, I fear you've come to the wrong place. --bjh21 (talk) 13:45, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The software we are using was not written by amateurs.
There are people who have been with the wiki projects for over 10 years.
Even if the above was not true, something approaching professionalism well enough can be created by a large enough number of amateurs. Nowakki (talk) 13:58, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nowakki people would have to add the information to a whitelist anyway. So it's not having one would be any less work. At least not in the short term. Although it would be good information to have and it makes me wonder anyone has created such a list before. Do you know of any examples? --Adamant1 (talk) 14:20, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do not and the list could have been started years ago and we would not be having this conversation. Nowakki (talk) 14:24, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is that something your interested in working on (maybe with other people) or are you mainly just here to criticize the project for not having one sooner? --Adamant1 (talk) 15:00, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just to criticize.
The project has to be efficient, no?
Think of me as a hobbyist auditor if you want. I am just asking questions. Nowakki (talk) 15:24, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I mean, sure. But it doesn't just magically become that way and there's a lot of different areas to work in on here. Anyway, I was going to suggest starting a Wikiproject for magazine, since it's an underserved area already, and going from there. It doesn't sound like that's something you'd be interested in though. I will say that it's a lot easier to find out what's copyrighted or not just by organizing images related to the topic. You can't really know what is or isn't copyrighted if you (or anyone else) isn't working in the area and keeping track to begin with. There is lot of ways to document and track those things just through editing in the area though. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:47, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If it's a magazine from the United States you can probably just look at one from a year in say the 60s and if there's no copyright notice then it's reasonable to assume issues before that one won't have a notice either. The same goes for in the other direction to. Like if an issue from 1954 has a notice then the ones after most likely will also. That can narrow it down some. It's not like you have check every page either. Just the first couple, which should be trivial if your manually uploading them anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:57, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You should check every page. For one, there's a long list of places where a copyright notice can be, including the last page of the main work. Secondly, individual works can have their own notices. Works without notice are pretty rare, and each work should be checked individually when uploading.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
https://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/cce/firstperiod.html offers a list of many periodicals and information about renewals in them. It's long and complex. Generally speaking, you can use US publications from before 1929, but after that it gets complex.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:53, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I mean, sure. There could be a copyright notice in the middle of the magazine, but realistically what's the possibility that there is one (at least for the magazine itself, which is what I was talking about)? I look at it like a "due diligence" thing. It's totally reasonable IMO to look at the first and last few pages of the magazine for a copyrighted and then upload it if there isn't one. That's at least better then nothing. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:53, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Adamant1: Please look also at the Table of Contents and the pages before and after that.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:36, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jeff G.: That's perfectly reasonable to. I just don't think someone should have to look through the whole magazine with a fine-tooth comb before they can fairly conclude it's probably not copyrighted. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:58, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My idea was to store what issues are copyrighted or not in tabular data that could then be checked and updated by a Wikiproject or the like. That would probably be going a bit overboard though. But it would be good information to have readily available for each magazine and issue anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:01, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

January 12[edit]

Photo challenge November results[edit]

Congratulations to Debanutosh, Shougissime, Foeniz, Changku88 and Ibex73 Jarekt (talk) 03:25, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you Foeniz (talk) 10:12, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Commented out, as this is again forcing horizontal scrolling for the entire page. I thought that had been fixed, but apparently not. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:46, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Something’s wrong with SteinsplitterBot[edit]

See Special:Contributions/SteinsplitterBot, Special:ListFiles/SteinsplitterBot, and Category:Images requiring rotation by bot... --RodRabelo7 (talk) 15:53, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --RodRabelo7 (talk) 19:55, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Today's MotD[edit]

This probably isn't the right place for this, but today's Media of the day File:A Case of Spring Fever (1940).webm, seems to be blatant copyright infringement of an episode of Mystery Science Theater 3000. While the original film (File:CaseofSp1940.ogv) is public domain, the MST3K content isn't and doesn't seem to be even mentioned in the files description. Am I missing something here? Many thanks. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 15:57, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agree, the MST3K commentary and additions would still be copyrighted. -- William Graham (talk) 19:26, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Yann: .--RZuo (talk) 20:42, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OOPS. I didn't realize that this is not part of the original. I will replace this by another version. Yann (talk) 21:15, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
✓ Done I will upload an even better version tomorrow. Yann (talk) 21:58, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DIY copy stands[edit]

I seem to recall one of our chapters (Wikimedia Indonesia?) published plans for a simple DIY copy stand. I can't find, them in Category:Copy stands or by searching. Can anyone oblige, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:40, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Checkuserblock[edit]

these blocks often have a summary of "Abusing multiple accounts: {{Checkuserblock}}".

i wonder if it might be better to actually link to a page that explains what it is. something like 

Abusing multiple accounts: Checkuserblock.

--RZuo (talk) 20:42, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Which, for anyone not looking at the source, is "Abusing multiple accounts: [[Template:Checkuserblock|Checkuserblock]]". - Jmabel ! talk 22:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, the template is used to display the detailed reason in the block notice. See this for an example. Hide on Rosé (talk) 04:04, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Hide on Rosé: The question wasn't about the block notice, it was about the summary given. Templates are not expanded in summaries. Presumably, RZuo's point was that he would prefer us to write the summary in a manner that would create a live link to the template. (I'm not sure if that's a good idea, but your remark seems orthogonal to that.) - Jmabel ! talk 07:44, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You mean like this? Hide on Rosé (talk) 07:52, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, that would actually be useful! - Jmabel ! talk 18:39, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

January 13[edit]

Mass rename requests[edit]

I have another 50,000+ to rename.

Prior advice i got was to state in the {{rename template that no redirect should be left behind.

I feel reluctant to go ahead and flood the queue again. People working on it are real troopers, over 10,000 requests have already been approved and the effort is ongoing (despite the action being voted against).

Or should I wait until they figure out how to write scripts?

FIles in question are recently uploaded with wrong filename. Sanborn maps using year, volume instead of volume, year. Whatever inconsistency exists in Sanborn file names, it is not necessary to keep this one. Nowakki (talk) 05:42, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm confused, and seem to get more confused rather than less as this proceeds.
  1. Is there any reason names of maps from this particular source all need to follow a single pattern? Not that it wouldn't be nice, but as you presumably know, there are all sorts of issues with mass renames.
  2. Unless there is a reason they all need to follow a single pattern, why would year, volume be any less useful than volume, year? - Jmabel ! talk 07:47, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You'd have to keep track which file uses which format when processing the files.
For example when generating an index, when writing an application that uses commons
as a data source. Nowakki (talk) 10:21, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you're processing files from Commons, you should avoid assuming any particular filename format. Much better to do something based on the description page or structured data. For instance, if I want to find the Commons file corresponding to a particular image from Geograph Britain and Ireland, I can look up the corresponding sort key in Category:Images from Geograph Britain and Ireland and I'll find it no matter what naming scheme the uploader has used. This isn't always possible (for instance if you're writing a MediaWiki template), but even then a redirect is usually good enough. --bjh21 (talk) 17:09, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If the filenames are strict and all that searching becomes unnecessary that would be better.
Imagine you upload one book as 500 images, one per page. Do you include the page number in the filename or do you put it into the description only? Finding a page only requires to search through 250 descriptions on average and users will be happy to put up with an extra layer of nonsense and be more likely to write the application or process the files automatically?
If somebody does the work to make it better, why not allow it to be made better? Nowakki (talk) 18:10, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have tried everything possible. The Sanborn collection commons offers remains less useful than the one i made in one day on my own computer at home. There is one piece of metadata that stands out: the filename. Commons thinks the filename should be treated with very little importance. Because this works very well for random files that Joe the Plumber uploads.
MEANINGFUL FILENAMES ARE AN OPTION THAT SHOULD BE ENCOURAGED. Retrain your workforce. I am out. Nowakki (talk) 10:15, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's no need to shout, Nowakki. --SHB2000 (talk) 02:20, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposal to globally ban Guido den Broeder[edit]

Hi, this is to let you all know that there is a proposal to ban User:Guido den Broeder at m:Requests for comment/Global ban for Guido den Broeder. You are receiving this notification as Guido den Broeder has made at least one edit to this wiki as per the m:Global bans policy. Best, --SHB2000 (talk) 05:44, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Upload Wizard wording[edit]

In the section "Please select the option that best describes the purpose of this work" of the Upload Wizard, the options are

  • This work provides knowledge, instructions, or information to others.
  • This work is for my personal use e.g. photos of myself, my family or friends, or I am required to upload it for my job.

Neither of these, to my mind, seems to absolutely capture the idea of a "free media repository", as Wikimedia Commons is described. I suggest that some wording such as "a resource for others to use" is added to the first option. ITookSomePhotos (talk) 19:02, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The "I am required to upload it for my job" clause is also inappropriate, given the role of Wikimedians in Residence, and colleagues in GLAMs and suchlike from whom we solicit image donations. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:05, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Uploaded images are supposed to be realistically useful for educational purposes. Personal images or images uploaded for tbe uploader's job have a high likelihood to be deleted because they are out of scope, even though there are some exceptions. In my opinion, the wording is o.k. if chosing this option produces just a warning. GLAM people and Wikimedians in residence should know what they are doing and will not be deterred by the wording. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 18:30, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

January 14[edit]

Can someone help me with autowiki browser for categorizing toki pona logograms?[edit]

I decided to start making categories for Toki Pona logograms by word, since we have a lot of them. With the exception of certain rare words we have almost all of our images in exhaustive sets of images resembling fonts.

I created the category Category:Toki Pona logograms by word to store such categories.

I made a page here User:Immanuelle/Toki Pona categorization showing each subcategory I want to create, the content I want for the category, and the list of files I wish to be categorized in each one. This is very time intensive so is anyone up to use AWB to make it easier? I'm not knowledgeable enough about AWB to know if this is a reasonable request or not, since it might not be able to do nested tasks like this. Otherwise I'd like to work on this for a couple days, and I'll disable the categories so they are not disruptive.Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 00:01, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Edit conflict) @Immanuelle: most of what you describe can be done with the Cat-a-lot gadget, aside for creating the category pages themselves. You can activate it in your Preferences, and when not using it you can minimize it to a small box.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 00:34, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Odysseus1479 that is what I was looking for, but I do not see the post it note thing. Is the documentation out of date? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 03:14, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Odysseus1479 I got it working, but unfortunately for this application it does not save time. I think AWB is the only way to make it not tedious. I created all categories though so they can be freely added if that will help the future AWB user Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 04:11, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Now I reworked the page to just a couple irregular ones that lack proper categorization due to irregular file names Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 18:50, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Sobsz this may concern you. The one category I was not able to get into the list is Category:Simple SVGs of Toki Pona in sitelen pona since they contain the (variable) english translations Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 00:21, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Not around" template[edit]

I have manually imported en.Wikipedia's {{Not around}} and modified it for use on this project.

It can be added to the talk pages of long-departed users (three months inactivity is the suggested minimum) to inform people using those pages to ask for advice or assistance. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:30, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Picture of the Day (File:Caracas building.jpg)- Misleadingly labelled Photoshopped creation?[edit]

(Disclaimer; Mentioning this primarily because it got my attention as Picture of the Day and as an example of Commons' best work it raises some questions)

I just saw yesterday's "Picture of the Day", File:Caracas building.jpg. My initial reaction was that this was an outstanding picture.

However, after a while, it started to look too good to be true. Upon closer inspection, it became obvious that:

  • All windows and panels- except the deliberately "odd" ones- are completely identical. (The blue panels all have the same faint light spot at the bottom left. They all have the exact same noise/artifact patterns).
  • The vertical blinds in the two adjacent windows (just to the bottom-right of centre) are identical.
  • Two windows (top right and bottom left) feature air conditioners which are clearly identical in both cases.

Yet there's no sign or acknowledgement that this isn't just the photograph of a real building most people would otherwise assume that it is.

This isn't a complaint about retouched images on Commons. We have plenty of those- including many I've uploaded myself (albeit not as good as this example!) However, IMHO:-

  • They should be marked as such if they've modified the underlying reality beyond a trivial or inconsequential extent.
  • They're not being misleading about what they are, or what they're supposed to represent.

Is such a heavily modified/sanitised image even an accurate representation of that actual building? And if- as I suspect- the entire image was constructed from scratch by cutting-and-pasting, was there ever even an "original" photo of the building (as a whole) used as its basis?

Does the building it represents even exist?

I still like it as a purely aesthetic creation, but this isn't Flickr.

Would be interested in hearing the thoughts of others (including creator Wilfredor (talk · contribs)).

Thanks,

Ubcule (talk) 15:46, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ubcule: You are absolutely correct about each detail. This is a thoroughly manipulated image. I like it too "as a purely aesthetic creation", but it is a fair question whether the building even exists. -- WikiPedant (talk) 17:26, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Blatantly false and misleading, as it stands. The file should be renamed and the description changed to an accurate one. ITookSomePhotos (talk) 17:46, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ubcule I tried to find some images of the actual building https://foursquare.com/v/universidad-nacional-experimental-de-la-fuerza-armada-unefa/4cb636818db0a143b5386816/photos http://www.unefa.edu.ve/portal/historia.php https://en.ultimasnoticias.com.ve/noticias/politica/controlado-incendio-registrado-este-sabado-en-la-unefa-de-chuao/?__cf_chl_rt_tk=qX_fVs8v54NdNFPXoJso_1focVdumb8w0HBJiSN7xAY-1705255883-0-gaNycGzNDSU the building clearly exists but the image looks wrong. If I counted right both of them are 16 stories, but this version looks a lot wider, and the perspective is clearly wrong, and you can clearly see proper perspective on the photos I linked. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 18:16, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Immanuelle: That's very useful, thank you for looking into that.
Yes, there seem to be some noticeable differences in the windows and the blue panels below; in the photos you linked, they appear to cover the width of one pane, in File:Caracas building.jpg, they appear to cover two. Ubcule (talk) 18:51, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Wilfredor, I'd be really interested in what you have to say about the creation of the image. Can you clarify for us, please? Kritzolina (talk) 19:33, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for inviting me to participate in this discussion, I remember that at the time I took several photos of the front and then unified them with Huguin (a panorama creation tool), I remember that the camera I used was a very small censor (it is not possible to use mirror or professional cameras in Venezuela was very dangerous), so with several photos that I took I placed them within the program and it automatically unified them. Since 8 years have passed since that photo, I don't even remember the place where I took that photo, but it looks pretty much like the ones you have shared. Wilfredor (talk) 22:01, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Wilfredor: - Thank you for responding.
A quick seach suggests that "Huguin" is likely a misspelling of Hugin(?) which I'm not familiar with personally. I notice the EXIF on the image says that you also used Photoshop CC 2014.
I've used Photoshop CS5 (admittedly a very old version nowadays) for panoramic stitching, and while it's good that, it's never done anything like this. Maybe CC 2014 and/or Hugin works differently, I don't know.
Whether this image was created via "manual" Photoshopping or whether Hugin or Photoshop did it without your knowledge via some automated pseudo-intelligent pattern fitting, the end result clearly goes beyond legitimate stitching and into deliberate fakery.
Regardless, this should- at the very least- have been labelled as a manipulated image. It's certainly one whose veracity we can't trust since we (and you) don't know what's been done to it.
Ubcule (talk) 23:24, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hugin is a software to stitch panoramas. It does not create an image from scratch with 990 repeated patterns. So this image is clearly a photoshopped montage -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:01, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I want to add. Specifically referencing the building here https://fastly.4sqi.net/img/general/width960/67779603_4Sd52kUDlz7HgEqajaW7mscNfQTvuGq0FplGbDXRpQc.jpg there are 6 * 5 + 7 + 6 * 5 = 67 window segments. a group of seven in the middle, and on each side 6 groups of 5 windows, each group clearly divided by columns. The image in question has 56 windows so it technically is numerically possible, but it lacks the columns more clearly seen here https://fastly.4sqi.net/img/general/width960/67779603_bB_LLtzfh1Vcjjf92-pA3Rct1fLgwrGhvwl-c4JA74E.jpg Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 20:52, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Uploadwizard wiped link to user profile[edit]

i think wizard has wiped links to user pages. i just randomly saw 3 users' new uploads, which all have no link to their user pages but only their usernames in the author field. i dont think this is a coincidence. RZuo (talk) 17:37, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

by looking at photos on User:Yahya/Entrepreneurs/2023_December_1-15, it seems wizard started making no links on 15 dec 2023. RZuo (talk) 17:51, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pinging @Sannita (WMF) - Jmabel ! talk 18:05, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I didn't notice it before, but with my uploads, the wizard stopped linkin my userpage with the start of the new year. --Kritzolina (talk) 19:38, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How is this an improvement?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 02:26, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

January 15[edit]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump&oldid=841670306"