Commons:Village pump/Archive/2023/07

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

Commons Gazette 2023-07

Volunteer staff changes

In June 2023, 1 sysop was elected; 1 sysop (bot) was removed. Currently, there are 184 sysops.

Election:

Removal:

Other news

We've partnered with the Wikimedia Foundation to adopt a tool called Flickr2Commons. We want to look after it and extend its features with the long term in mind. Keep your eyes open for "Flickypedia", which we plan to re-release towards the end of the year.

A representative of the Wikimedia Foundation elaborated that they would be working together with the Flickr Foundation and that future updates would be posted on Commons:WMF support for Commons.
  1. ↑ Nigeria Passes New Copyright Act 2022!. World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) (May 12, 2023). Retrieved on 30 June 2023.

Edited by Abzeronow, Donald Trung Quoc Don and RZuo.

Commons Gazette is a monthly newsletter of the latest important news about Wikimedia Commons, edited by volunteers. You can also help with editing!

--RZuo (talk) 19:05, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

It's strange when you just write ((self|PD-user-w))

When it is simply written as {{self|PD-user-w}} (such as File:Arbitrary-gametree-solved.svg), the project name and author name ("Example " is displayed) is incorrect --Vcvfou698069 (talk) 07:15, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

That is definitely suboptimal! And the template is apparently being used properly; the fields besides the license name are marked as "default: empty" and "optional" so why does the template choke on an acceptable syntax? Elizium23 (talk) 07:19, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Because the sub-template of {{PD-user-w}} has required fields but the parameters are missing. From Hill To Shore (talk) 09:56, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
User:Qef who did this has not been active in over a decade, so they won't be available to help sort this out. - Jmabel ! talk 15:15, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Paintings in the public domain

Am I missing something here. Seems to be a lot of items still in red? Copyright has expired! Broichmore (talk) 11:13, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

See Commons:URAA-restored copyrights. Several of the paintings are still protected by copyright in the USA. Per Commons:Licensing, Wikimedia Commons only accepts media that are explicitly freely licensed, or that are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work. --Rosenzweig τ 12:11, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Why? He's an Englishman and the work was done in England. The paintings are in a London museum. Broichmore (talk) 13:04, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
And our servers are in the U.S. - Jmabel ! talk 15:16, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
As Jmabel and Rosenzweig say, we have to follow US copyright law where any artwork from the UK after 1927 has restored copyrights due to a US law (URAA). There will be artwork restored next year as the US copyright will expire. I don't like URAA either, but it's a law we have to follow. Abzeronow (talk) 15:56, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Renaming a file which pictures a disputed territory

Getting straight to the point, should this file (Fishing ships repair facility - Kerch, Russia - panoramio.jpg) be renamed to Fishing ships repair facility - Kerch, Ukraine - panoramio.jpg? If so, I am quite sure there are other files that would have to be renamed as well. RodRabelo7 (talk) 05:25, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

While I often prefer a neutral middle ground (like "Kerch, Crimea" in this case), renaming it to "Kerch, Ukraine" would make sense, considering the picture is from 2007 when it was undisputedly in Ukraine. --HyperGaruda (talk) 05:54, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Agreed, though it would be worth adding the year into the filename, perhaps [File:Fishing ships repair facility, Kerch, Ukraine 2007 - panoramio.jpg] - MPF (talk) 09:34, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Night like this.png

Is it okay for the nominator to close a deletion request after a day with no votes? I feel a bit iffy about that--Trade (talk) 11:41, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Huh. While it's likely a legitimate action for the specific uploader to be blocked, I think two different users need to be involved in such an action. I find this at least irregular. --Enyavar (talk) 12:05, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
I hope we can convince Yann not to close his own DRs in the future since he have a bit of a habit of rushing them Trade (talk) 12:13, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
@Trade: did you notify User:Yann you were starting a topic about their actions? If not, that's a bit rude. It's like the digital equivalent of gossiping behind someones back.
After this file was nominated for deletion another admin blocked the uploader for these kind of uploads. Bit pointless to keep it open so Yann deleted it. Multichill (talk) 16:29, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
I was trying to figure out if closing ones own DR was within the guidelines Trade (talk) 16:38, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Well, since David S. Soriano was blocked by another admin for a month for uploading such files, to me this validate a speedy deletion. Yann (talk) 18:30, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
@Yann The point Trade is getting at is you shouldn't close your own deletion request/discussion. It should be another admin that deletes the files and closes it the request. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 20:38, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Of course, unless this is considered a speedy deletion. If there is any issue, I will undelete this. Yann (talk) 20:49, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Language of categories of literary works

Hi, It seems to me that the categories of literary works should be in the original language of the works (with redirection in English).

What do you think? Yann (talk) 15:37, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't mind these changes, but for Category:Romance of the Three Kingdoms, would it be in Category:三國演義 or Category:三国演义? Abzeronow (talk) 16:01, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
According to Romance of the Three Kingdoms, the original title is 三國演義, so this should be used. Yann (talk) 17:32, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
三国演义 would be the title used by most Chinese speakers, but 三國演義 would also have the fact it was the original title of the work. I could see similar dynamics with Category:Water Margin and Category:水滸傳, as well as Category:Journey to the West and Category:西遊記. Abzeronow (talk) 18:33, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose @Yann: If you don't mind me asking why literary works in particular? What's so special about books that categories for them should be in the original language compared to everything else? The reason I ask is because there was just a proposal related to having categories for political parties in the "original language" that went no where. Partly because who opposed the change thought the proposal should be to alter the policy in general instead of just applying an exception to it in a single edge case. I don't really see why the same shouldn't apply here. Even though apparently it's not a proposal for some reason. I.E. there should be a proposal to have the policy in general changed instead of trying to make exceptions to for weird edge cases. In the meantime "Beyond Good and Evil" is clearly more common and widely used then "Jenseits von Gut und Böse." So I don't really see why the name of the category should be changed unless the policy is. The same goes for the other categories. That is unless there's a good reason why literally works should be treated differently then everything else. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:02, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
  • You said "Beyond Good and Evil" is clearly more common and widely used then "Jenseits von Gut und Böse." If you are an English speaker, yes. Otherwise no. Why making a rule for literary works? Because they are made of words. Da Vinci didn't name his work "Mona Lisa" or "La Joconde". But Nietzsche named his work "Jenseits von Gut und Böse", not "Beyond Good and Evil". Yann (talk) 17:23, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
most cats of publications are already titled in their original languages.
but for a small number of works that have popularly known names, like War and Peace, Romance of the Three Kingdoms, Detective Conan... i think it's better to retain the popularly used English names. especially if they have been adapted into movies, games, etc., they are often associated with such English names, even if the names sometimes are not literal translations.--RZuo (talk) 17:42, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
We should be consistent in our naming scheme. We shouldn't have to look for the translation if we know the original name of the work. And we can have different categories for adaptations: a French novel adapted in a Hollywood movie should have a French name for the original work category, and the English title for for the movie. Yann (talk) 19:00, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
that will lead to problems for subcats. should Category:Cosplay of Dragon Ball become "cosplay of ドラゴンボール"? Category:Audio files of Arabian Nights become "audio files of أَلْفُ لَيْلَةٍ وَلَيْلَةٌ"? RZuo (talk) 21:05, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
  • "Don Quixote" is no less Spanish than "Don Quixote de la Mancha". Spanish-language references to the book are almost as likely to abbreviate the title this way as English-language references. - Jmabel ! talk 21:16, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
    To be finicky, "Quijote" has been the officially sanctioned Spanish spelling since 1822 (from the top of my head). The 1605 original was spelled "QVIXOTE" in allcaps, so YMMV. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 13:00, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
  • I don’t dislike "Война́ и мир", but is should be noticed that the stress marking "а́" instead of plain "а" is not used outside dicionnaries and primers, and certaininly not for a novel that’s surely not entry-level Russian. Besides, even "Война и мир" is the current spelling, post-1917, while the original was titled "Война и миръ". (Compared with the Quixote case above,) this might be relevant as the pre-1917 spelling the trailing hard sign denotes did distinguish the homophones "миръ" (peace) and "міръ" (world), which the current spelling does not. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 13:15, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
  • "Tour Eiffel" is not a root category about the building: "Eiffel Tower" is, despite it being an undisputable French building. The same goes for books.
Just so that there is no misunderstanding, I am totally fine with Category:Книга_Большому_чертежу or Category:Földrajz a polgári fiú-iskolák számára, as long as that non-English category only contains files or possibly sub-categories with scans from different editions. Essentially, the leaf nodes of the category tree - we actually should keep them in the language they were published in. Almost nobody will search for these titles unless they already speak <Russian/Hungarian/whatever>, and if someone stumbles across them for a different reasons, the other parent categories make clear what the book is about. As soon as there are scanned editions in different languages (say, a German translation for an original Swedish book), the parent category of both editions should be the English title.
We just can't have a rule that the original language must take precedence for the root category of major book titles. The parent category of Category:Les Mille et Une Nuits, trad. Galland would have to be :Category:ألف_ليلة_وليلة translations, right below :Category:ألف_ليلة_وليلة?? And let us not forget that the הברית הישנה and the Καινή Διαθήκη were written in different languages, so what's the correct parent category for these two books? Or, the root categories are in Arabic, Greek or Chinese, but the subcategories are kept in English again? This is entirely unpractical, even with some redirects. With the current setup, this way lays madness. The original title instead of the literal English translation might be okay with books like Category:Theatrum Orbis Terrarum, where the Latin name isn't usually translated to English anyway.
 Support YES to keeping the content of single complete editions as the leaf nodes under original-language categories;
 Oppose NO to moving the whole branches of each book title, especially internationally known bestsellers with multiple translations and adaptations.
--Enyavar (talk) 16:39, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 Oppose Goes against COM:LANG policy. ReneeWrites (talk) 18:50, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Editor perception of problematic images

This discussion was initiated by an editor. Am I correct in assuming that any image in Commons has been scanned many times by CSAM programs and poses no threat to anyone of being accused of child sex abuse? --WriterArtistDC (talk) 00:29, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  1. @WriterArtistDC: I have no idea what you mean by "preception". A "precept" is a "general rule"; I don't think there is such a word as "preception".
  2. We cannot presume that every image on Commons has been scanned even once by anything. At any given time, some images have been uploaded in the last few seconds.
Jmabel ! talk 02:33, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
  1. This is called a typo.
  2. I was referring to the images in this particular article, none of which are recently uploaded.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 02:45, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
    There is no systematic (let alone automatic) process for scanning image files on Commons, if that's what you're asking. It's a Sisyphean task. Most files that are problematic in one way or another get fished out early by individual users who patrol recent uploads. Others are found later during curation work, some go undetected for many years. Files that have been around longer are more likely to be OK, but that's about it. Does that help? El Grafo (talk) 13:22, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
What file on that page are you concerning about? Some of the files could be regular personality rights violations but definitely no sexual abuse. GPSLeo (talk) 14:35, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

By now, every image at Commons older than ?? has been scanned numerous times by GPT-style big-data learning alogorithms. This leads to the question that if CSAM should be among them, this software (which is supposedly near-AGI) has long since been reported to the responsible authorities, since otherwise it would itself violate the law? — Preceding unsigned comment added by C.Suthorn (talk • contribs) 15:13, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Anyone good at identifying near-shore marine life?

Lots to identify in Category:Charles Richey Sr. Viewpointi I got there yesterday at a super-low tide and took a bunch of photos. Somewhere between 30% and 50% show plants or animals probably worth identifying, and other than Pisaster ochraceus I'm hopeless.

Examples:

Jmabel ! talk 23:08, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

maybe on reddit or some forums frequented by marine biologists you could get help faster.--RZuo (talk) 22:06, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

BaGLAMa 2

The BaGLAMa 2 tool displays statistics up to and including January 2023. It has not been updated since then. However, one of the statistics only goes up to December 2022, which refers to files related to the Benglish language that often have names in Bengali script. I therefore suspect that after November 2022, a file with a name in Benglish script was added, causing the BaGLAMa 2 script to crash, and that the script has not been able to run since january 2023, nor has it been fixed. One possibility would be to remove the statistics for the bengalic files and restart the script, another would be to fix the script.

https://glamtools.toolforge.org/baglama2/#gid=1016&month=202212&giu=bnwiki&server=bn.wikipedia.org

--C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm) (talk) 09:10, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if the tool could be fixed, too. Gestumblindi (talk) 18:49, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
The bug report for this is: https://bitbucket.org/magnusmanske/glamtools/issues/96/the-tool-baglama-2-is-not-showing-data — Sam Wilson ( Talk • Contribs ) … 23:33, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
I have no login for bitbucket. It is also not mentinoened there that it is probably gid 1016 that is stopping it to work. ping @Magnus Manske C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm) (talk) 03:29, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

upload a file

help. I'm new and I don't know how to upload a file 1- what is the extension of a file to upload it 2- what program do I need to upload the file thank you so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aldo R. Suarez Asuarez Art (talk • contribs) 12:48, 7 July 2023‎ (UTC)

Category:2020 photographs of Hannover

Do we have community consensus for creating such categories and mass-moving there files from Category:2020 in Hannover? Ymblanter (talk) 09:52, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Courtesy @Labintatlo: Ymblanter (talk) 09:53, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
And what about moving files from YYYY in CityCity to MMMMM-YYYY in CityCity? In my Opinion these Categories with photographed, day-date, month-date often do not help but make finding images more difficult, as a search for YYYY in CityCity will get no results. That is only possible with tools like deep cat, catscan whatever. Tools that are not known by reusers. Therefore this information of date and place shuld be moved to SDC (and it is something that can often be done by bot). ping @Multichill @Schlurcher. C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm) (talk) 10:43, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
I do not have a strong opinion either way, but I think we should decide on one format and stick to it. I had a hundred of photographs moved on my watchlist today, and I am not sure I see an added value for the move. Ymblanter (talk) 14:00, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
For the ones that are specific to photographs taken on a particular day, there is a longstanding consensus not to take those below country level.
Category:2020 in Hannover is much more typical, and I see no advantage to Category:2020 photographs of Hannover. Typically over 90% or our media will be photographs. There's no point to moving them down a level. - Jmabel ! talk 14:33, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
See also Category:Photographs of Hannover by date, Category:Photographs of Germany by date by city (guess how many of them reach at least 50,000 inhabitants). --A.Savin 15:24, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
I think these must be upmerged to photographs of Germany by day and Hannover per year, I guess we have consensus for this. Ymblanter (talk) 05:40, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
I wouldn't have any problem with Hannover by month if there are enough photos to merit that (I'd say 500 or more per year). - Jmabel ! talk 15:05, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
I agree with this, smth like August 2020 in Hannover would be ok if there are enough photographs. But I am not sure I am happy with 2020 photographs of Hannover. Ymblanter (talk) 15:48, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
I reverted the Hannover category, but I did not look at the others. Ymblanter (talk) 11:59, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose split. These "photographs of" and "black and white photographs of" are multiplying, and they're utterly useless. It's particularly annoying when we have a useful split like "2023 in Hannover" as a sub of "Hannover", but when "Photos in Hannover" comes along it's then rippled into a hundred new split sub-categories.
As JMabel says, we're about photographs as our default position. In a few cases, we might have "maps of" or "diagrams of" in addition, as they're the exception cases. It's rare that photographs are the exception case, so rae that we will ever need a category stating that. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:24, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
my habit is usually adding my files to "month yyyy in city", but i often see other users moving them somewhere further down and i dont care. i find it pointless to move them to "city photographs taken on yyyy-mm-dd" though.
"yyyy in city" is too broad for most big cities. breaking down into months is sufficient for most cities.
categorising by month has another advantage over by day, as quite often events last over several days. they will appear in one/two single monthly cats but with daily cats they will be spread all over the place. users wont see the connection between them.
imo, "month yyyy in city-district / village" (1 level below city/municipality) should be the lowest level in date-place intersection cats.--RZuo (talk) 22:06, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
So, I would say the consensus that we should disestablish "Hangover photographs taken on 2435-12-09" etc. is clearly there, now sadly the more difficult part: to find someone willing to do all the cleanup work (properly, if possible). --A.Savin 22:16, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
@A.Savin: amused by your "hangover" typo. - Jmabel ! talk 22:38, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
I can do at least some of this, but we probably need to write it down somewhere, so that we do not come to the issue all and all over again. Ymblanter (talk) 07:25, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
just saying, actually this "city date" format is not that old.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?ns14=1&sort=create_timestamp_asc&search=intitle%3A%22photographs+taken+on%22+-prefix%3ACategory%3APhotographs&sort=create_timestamp_asc
users have spotted this peculiar cat tree structure early on, but those cfd are still open. XD
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?limit=500&ns4=1&prefix=Commons%3ACategories+for+discussion&sort=create_timestamp_asc&search=%22photographs+taken+on%22
there're some more cfd.
so, the earliest discussions were started only a few months after these cats emerged, but unfortunately those discussions have still not reached a conclusion.--RZuo (talk) 08:24, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
the earliest "month yyyy country photographs" was probably Category:September 2013 Sweden photographs created at 10:51, 11 March 2016‎ by User:J 1982.
most earliest such cats were created by this user on that day https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&namespace=14&newOnly=1&target=J+1982&wpfilters%5B0%5D=associated&offset=2016031113&limit=300 .--RZuo (talk) 09:30, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Deletion requests: Use descriptive reasons (nominators and/or closing admins)

Randomly came across Commons:Deletion requests/File:Suðurlandsvegur, Hellisheiði, Aug. 16 (2) - 7.jpg and thought: Hm, Reykholt is a quite respected contributor (last active in 2018), so what might have been the "no educational value" issue? As an admin, I was able to check the deleted image and saw that it was a blurry photo of the Hellisheiði plateau near Reykjavík, Iceland, taken from a moving vehicle, probably a bus. If this were the only image of Hellisheiði we had on Commons, or one of a few, I would even say that it has educational value, as it still conveys the typical look of Hellisheiði's landscape from the road there. But as there are many, and many better, photos in Category:Hellisheiði, I completely agree with the deletion, as that photo doesn't add value to the selection there. Still, non-admins would have been left to wonder what the reason for deletion might have been. If either the nominator or the closing admin had just added something like "blurry picture from moving bus, quality too low", everyone could understand why it was deleted. So, and this is the point I want to make here, I recommend to always use descriptive reasons, so for example not just "no educational value", but also a short reason why there's no educational value. This enhances transparency and shouldn't cost too much time. Gestumblindi (talk) 19:06, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

+1 -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:45, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
As long as it's one or the other (i.e. as long as there's a reason somewhere on the page), I agree.
While we're on the topic, I know that some admins use "per COM:CSD" or similar for their speedy deletions. We should probably have some sort of guidance against that. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 Agree -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:22, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 Agree –LPfi (talk) 10:28, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Scanning images for copyright violations?

How does Commons scan contributions for copyright violations?

If my memory is correct, someone with Wikimedia Commons deleted an image uploaded by Creator:Stephanie Kelton, because it was a photo of her taken by a professional photographer. She insisted that she had purchased the copyright, not just a print of it, from the photographer; Wikimedia Commons would not accept it.

I ask, because Wikipedia:KKFI just got caught with a copyright infringement on their website, and they are looking for some means of protecting themselves besides haranguing all their volunteers NOT to upload anything to their website about which the copyright might be plausibly questioned.

Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 21:07, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

@DavidMCEddy: Mostly we just have a lot of eyes on it, and also try to abide by the precautionary principle, which is to say that if there is any reasonable doubt about the copyright status of a file, we choose not to host it. - Jmabel ! talk 22:42, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks very much. DavidMCEddy (talk) 23:12, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Is there a reason why we dont have a bot scanning for copyvio? Surely we could limit it to new users to keep the volume down Trade (talk) 02:15, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Where can i read more about the case with KKFI? Trade (talk) 02:16, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
@Trade: how would you propose that a bot be able to detect the copyright status of an image? Much of the time it is hard enough for humans to do. - Jmabel ! talk 05:17, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
wikipedia:Content ID (system) is a thing, and it works for Google at scale, so I don't see why WMF could not implement a similar system if they were suitably motivated. However, WMF has a metric ton of volunteer labor to throw at this problem, and probably a much lower volume of daily uploads, so I doubt it would come to fruition in the foreseeable future. Elizium23 (talk) 07:40, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
That system relies on registered copyright claims in a non-public database, if I understand the Wikipedia article correctly. That is little use to us. The proportion of copyright violations that would be covered by that system (or our possible own version) is tiny and thus not worth spending money or manpower on. –LPfi (talk) 10:41, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
@Jmabel, as a first step it would help patrolers and patroling admins, if a bot checked every upload for hits in the web prior to time of upload and, if present, tag them as copyvio-suspect. This step could be done completely automatically in order to save the time and bandwidth of patrolers. --Túrelio (talk) 08:11, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Or maybe just mark them as missing permission Trade (talk) 15:52, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
I dont. Just need to check if the image have been published online before. Trade (talk) 15:53, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
There are at least 2 things which could be done by a bot:
  1. Tag files from an external source by new users with "no permission" (except when there is already a license review).
  2. Tag files from an external source and without a license as copyright violations.
This would improve quite a lot cleaning the backlog of copyvios. Yann (talk) 16:02, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
reminds me of User:OgreBot/Uploads by new users, a pretty good tool. RZuo (talk) 16:18, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
checked every upload for hits in the web prior to time of upload means it is going to flag every PD image that is already online, every sub-TOO image that is already online, etc., and (barring some really clever tech) miss anything that is differently cropped; might or might not find something that's just differently encoded, depending on how it works. In short: yes a bot could give us some clues (pretty much the same ones we get with TinEye or Google Image Search) but cannot "scan for copyvios" as such. - Jmabel ! talk 16:14, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Suggest to accept old files with GFDL presumed

According to {{GFDL-presumed}} it is not a valid license but a speedy deletion candidate. I have checked the iw links and as far as I can tell the only wikis that have more than a few files marked with this template are meta (463 files in m:Category:Presumed GFDL images) and English Wikibooks (196 files in b:Category:Presumed GFDL images). Apart from that there only seems to be a few random or not clearly categorized files.

The files on meta are in my opinion interessting as they are suggested wiki logos and a part of the history of wiki.

So I wonder if we could make an exception from the "not acceptable" just like we do with {{Grandfathered old file}}. For example files uploaded no later than 2006.

I know that if we make an exception to allow the files from meta then other files could end up on Commons too. But as metioned above it does not seem to be more than a few hundred and some of them are perhaps not even eligible for copyright and they are allready on a wiki project and wiki servers. So I do not think there would be any legal risk to accept them. --MGA73 (talk) 18:00, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Most of these have close to zero meta data. On their own they are pretty much pointless. They could potentially be useful for historic reasons, but if imported straight the way they are now they are devoid of context. If they at least had a little bit of a description along the lines of "this draft for the XY logo competition was created by User:Z" ... That way, they would really be stretching the boundaries of COM:SCOPE as well. Unless someone wants to go through all of them and add proper documentation, I think it's best they remain at meta. El Grafo (talk) 13:15, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
It is correct that there are very few meta data. It was not unusual years ago that there were no meta data. Many of the files are in use in pages like m:Wikiversity/Logo/archive-vote-1#Gallery and I think that in such cases it is easy to see the context. If the file is not used in a page it would be much harder to figure out that the file was uploaded as a part of a logo contest.
As it is right now then even if someone makes a good description etc. then the file could not be moved to Commons because {{GFDL-presumed}} is not accepted. --MGA73 (talk) 13:40, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
I guess what I'm trying to say is: I would feel much more inclined to support an exception to that if they had well-curated meta data on their file description pages. Why bother making exceptions for something nobody cared about at all for 15+ years? El Grafo (talk) 14:10, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Yeah I can understand why. I cared but I have to admit I was busy on other wikis so I did not do much about files on meta :-) Anyway I will go to meta and ask if we should delete a bunch of files with other issues. --MGA73 (talk) 14:44, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Category for publications by organisations？

i'm thinking of creating a cat as a flat list for cats like Special:AllPages/Category:Publications of (e.g. Category:Publications of the United States government Category:Publications of European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control). they are publications whose authors are organisations.

currently there're Category:Publications by author, which i assume is for persons, and Category:Publications by publisher, which is about the publishing company instead of the author.

should there be such a cat? what's a good name?--RZuo (talk) 22:06, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

This sounds more like a metacat than a "flat list. But, really, in this case organizations are functioning as publishers. - Jmabel ! talk 22:45, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
i think i'll name it cat:publications by organization.
there's actually already Category:Documents by organization.--RZuo (talk) 08:21, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Sitting high

In Munich I took pictures of people sitting high on a bridge in the evening sunligth. These sitting places are only accessible with a climb. Is there any special category for people sitting high?Smiley.toerist (talk) 08:56, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I would rather our volunteers dont get themself killed by doing such risky positions Trade (talk) 02:18, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
There are more risky walks and sitting places. I have added a fifth image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smiley.toerist (talk • contribs)
I did not find a category like the one you mentioned. It should be under the Category:Sitting. You could start and create one. --Kritzolina (talk) 19:23, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Except for the last one, these really are nothing out of the ordinary: they're sitting about 1.7m over the walkway, not much different than dangling your feet off the upper bunk of a pair of bunk beds. But the last one does seem like we might want a special category, for people walking/sitting on the superstructure of a bridge (as the usual walking/driving surface). Similarly, I'm sure we have some images of people walking the cables of a suspension bridge. - Jmabel ! talk 02:14, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Category:Rooftopping is a related concept.--RZuo (talk) 08:21, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Problems with those images

I have recently requested a split. Please note that I am in no way asking for this plit to be reverted.

Here is the summary of the situation:

  1. The image File:Flag of Comtat Venaissin.svg (Open Clip Art).svg was uploaded in 2006 on WCommons by @Gryffindor: , allegedly from Open Clip Art but with no URL
  2. @Patricia.fidi: added the alleged Open Clip Art URL, but stated the image was their own work
  3. The Open Clip Art link is permanently dead so nothing can be checked
  4. In 2014, @Superbenjamin: uploaded a new version of the file, all the while keeping the Open Clip Art license. This license was kept despite the fact the user made no mention of the new version of the image they uploaded being on Open Clip Art (the now-dead URL was not changed).
  5. The two images have now been split. The 2014 image is at File:Flag of Comtat Venaissin.svg. However, the version uploaded by Superbenjamin does not have proper licensing since it does not fall under the Open Clip Art license, and there is no mention of a source for this image or that the image is own work.

Veverve (talk) 12:06, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

As far as I can see the new version is just a minor edit of the original version (change of color and thicker lines). The original version was licensed {{Cc-zero}} via the {{PD-OpenClipart}} template.
Usually we assume that if someone upload a new version on top of an old version they accept the existing license. If someone just make minor edits I doubt they are above COM:TOO and therefore eligible for copyright. I would worry more if it was a completely different file. --MGA73 (talk) 14:58, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
@MGA73: what license do you feel I should add to the newer version, then? Veverve (talk) 15:46, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
@Veverve: I added {{Cc-zero}}. --MGA73 (talk) 15:49, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2023/07&oldid=784288247"