Commons:Village pump/Archive/2023/10

Marking as reviewed

Can anyone with reviewer right Mark this image as reviewed as the website of Government of Bihar may delete it in future making it difficult for me to proove that it was available there. File:Kapil Deo Kamat with Ram Balak Singh Kushwaha.jpg. Many images from this website were reviewed earlier by admins Satdeep Gill and Magog the Ogre. But they are not active right now. (As for example this File:Umesh kushwaha, khiru Mahto, Nitish Kumar.jpeg is from the same source)-Admantine123 (talk) 08:09, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

@Admantine123: I believe the normal way to request this is to put {{LicenseReview}} on the file page. I've now done that for you.

I tried (and failed) to access the referenced source page. Could well be an issue of which country I'm in (U.S.), because I can't even access the domain.. - Jmabel ! talk 15:42, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

You can click on the link twice or thrice to get the page as usually after clicking once they direct to main web page. Admantine123 (talk) 15:55, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

@Jmabel: I got a 502 Proxy Error, and then I was able to connect after some funny business with my local ISP. The file is actually from https://state.bihar.gov.in/biharprd/cache/33/QUICKLINK/1.jpg as displayed on https://state.bihar.gov.in/biharprd/Content.html?links&page=Photo%20Gallery but with no specific license visible.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 16:04, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

@Admantine123: what exactly is the basis for the claimed license (exact text & just where it can be found)? Might make it easier for someone to find & confirm. - Jmabel ! talk 16:09, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

The website policy of Government of Bihar says so. It allows it to be used by everyone for any purpose freely if one properly attribute them. The copyright policy is found on the bottom of the website. Admantine123 (talk) 16:11, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

[1], here you can see that they are free, as declared by Information and public relations department of Government of Bihar.- Admantine123 (talk) 16:13, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

On that page I see "Material featured on this website may be reproduced free of charge. However, the material has to be reproduced accurately and not to be used in a derogatory manner or in a misleading context. Wherever the material is being published or issued to others, the source must be prominently acknowledged. However, the permission to reproduce this material shall not extend to any material which is identified as being copyright of a third party. Authorization to reproduce such material must be obtained from the department/copyright holder concerned." So for each individual image, we need to see that it is not attributed to a third party. Also, "the material has to be reproduced accurately" makes me wonder about whether derivative works are allowed (if not, this is not a free enough license for Commons.) - Jmabel ! talk 17:06, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

@Jmabel: That reads to me like "no derivative works". Please do the needful.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 17:10, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: I'm hesitant to assume that, because (1) the license has clearly been accepted in the past and (2) it seems ambiguous to me. A crop identified as such is not "inaccurate". This may be more related to the "not be used in a derogatory manner or a misleading context," which is clearly a non-copyright restriction. But I do believe we should quote the key passage on the file page, not just use {{Attribution}}, as it does now. - Jmabel ! talk 17:15, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

The language "not be used in a derogatory manner or a misleading context" isn't a non-copyright restriction. It's a constraint on acceptable uses of the work, just like "non-commercial use only", and it makes the license non-free. Omphalographer (talk) 20:22, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

@Omphalographer: I beg to differ. It's pretty much the same as par-for-the-course personality rights in many countries. - Jmabel ! talk 23:35, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

@Admantine123: Reviewed, with a caveat about the terms. We may want a distinct template for this slightly odd license, in part to be clear about the caveat, but also to make it easy to find these if it is later determined that it does mean "no derivative works." - Jmabel ! talk 17:25, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Using accurately stands for using not in a derogatory manner and this thing is found on all government websites of India. Wikimedia commons have thousands of images from various Indian government websites and those published by press information bureau. There also if you read website policy they say the same thing. Indian administrators who are more aware of this thing have accepted it in past. Admantine123 (talk) 17:30, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I am sure about the thing because here [2] on the official website of Press Information Bureau, you can see the same disclaimer. Thousands of images from the same have been uploaded on Wikimedia commons with their derivatives and other uses. You may find category of Images uploaded by Press Information Bureau to see those image, which was taken from PIB only with the same copyright policy.- Admantine123 (talk) 17:36, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

By the way, i am also finding a proper solution to this as i don't want to disturb Indian Administrators time and again for reviewing the photos I will be uploading from Official Website of Government of Bihar. Satdeep Gill who is well aware of the case used to review my uploads. But, he is not active right now. And Bihar Government deletes the old images, so if not reviewed it will be difficult in future. Admantine123 (talk) 17:48, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Some others images reviewed by Indian admins are File:Nitish Kumar participating in Ram Navmi Shobha Yatra.jpg

File:Nitish Kumar participating in Prakash Parv.jpg File:Nitish Kumar meeting Dalai Lama.jpg, File:Nitish Kumar meeting ailing Lalu Prasad Yadav in Hospital.jpg

Admantine123 (talk) 17:53, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

For reference in the discussion, we are hosting a large number of files under {{OGL}} and {{OGL2}} that have a term that reusers must, "ensure that you do not mislead others or misrepresent the Information or its source." This specific term appears to have been removed from {{OGL3}}. From Hill To Shore (talk) 22:20, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

That term only appears to be present in OGL1. It's absent from OGL2; I'm going to open an editprotected request to correct the corresponding template. Omphalographer (talk) 22:42, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

It means in future the images from such websites can be uploaded under OGL1 licence, isn't it.? Admantine123 (talk) 08:28, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Indian laws are heavily derived from UK's law. That's why they have tried similar rules for the government materials. Admantine123 (talk) 08:33, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

From Hill To Shore, thanks for your input. It means in future i can upload the image from Government of Bihar website under OGL1 licence as it fulfills all the requirements. Also, can someone give me a link of this discussion, for future reference as many reviewers in future may be unaware of this discussion that has taken place right now. This discussion will be removed after addition of more discussion with passage of time in below section, that's why.- Admantine123 (talk) 08:24, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

@Admantine123: Sorry for the confusion but I mentioned OGL in the context of another licence that includes the right to alter a file but a restriction on using it in a misleading way. If consensus is that OGL files are okay, then that strengthens your argument that Government of Bihar files with similar restrictions should be okay.

However, I don't think OGL can apply to Government of Bihar files as OGL is designed for UK copyright law and relates to files under Crown Copyright. As India is an independent country with its own head of state, British Crown Copyright is not relevant, except perhaps for pre-1947 files that are probably PD anyway. From Hill To Shore (talk) 09:31, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Ok Admantine123 (talk) 11:10, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Mistake in naming

Hi all, I've made a big mistake in over 260 photos... the category is Category:Clemenston Drive, Rossmore, however I have them all in the category Category:Clemenston Drive, Kemps Creek. I have moved the category, but I need to move the images into Category:Clemenston Drive, Rossmore and rename them to start with the title "Clementson Drive, Rossmore xxx.jpg" (where xxx is the number). How would I do this quickly? Or can someone do this for me? I apologise for making all this work! - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 08:40, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

• @Chris.sherlock2: I'll do the mass rename of the files (under way as I write), and move them to the new category. If there are descriptions to be changed, can you do that yourself or do you also need that done for you? - Jmabel ! talk 17:58, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
• I believe the mass rename, the category deletion, and moving the files to the new category are all complete. Again, if there are descriptions to be changed, can you do that yourself or do you also need that done for you? - Jmabel ! talk 18:33, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

  Is there any chance you can help with this? I just need to change the suburb name. Is there any way I can do this in a batch if this happens in future? Thanks for your help! - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 22:17, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

  • @Chris.sherlock2: Sure. I'll do that. I did the file renames with the massrename tool, the re-cats with VFC (could have been done equally with cat-a-lot, maybe better) and will do this next piece with VFC as well. For massrename you need filemover privileges (I don't know whether you have those); however, you can certainly use VFC and cat-a-lot yourself. VFC is very powerful in terms of various wikitext substitutions, but you can get yourself in some trouble with it. Cat-a-lot is narrower in what it does (though its apparently good when you want to work on moving subcats as well as files, which VFC can't do) and therefore has less potential to go very wrong. - Jmabel ! talk 22:35, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

    Oh, that's great! I'll look into these when I get home from work. Thanks so much Jmabel, I really appreciate your assistance and advise! - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 23:50, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

  • Done. - Jmabel ! talk 22:38, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Error with Mediaviews Analysis?

Mediaviews Analysis show the error message: "Error querying Media requests API - Not Found" for several old files (files uploaded > 1 day). Is there ongoing improvement to this tool? Đại Việt quốc (talk) 00:11, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Images of numbers

Talking about Category:Numbers in Hindi and Category:Numbers in Telugu, both of them seem to list numbers in their respective languages, from 1 to 100, and in a very low resolution JPG format. I'm wondering if the applicable files in these categories could potentially be marked for deletion?

I don't see any purpose for them since the digits in these languages are already available as/can be easily replaced uploaded in SVG, and they also show no global use. ~ Saur ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:18, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

• I would be all for replacing those with better files (39× 33? 17×27? Really?), but I think they are in scope. Pinging @Hindustanilanguage. - Jmabel ! talk 17:39, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to delete. These numerals can be represented as text (e.g. १, २, ३; ౧, ౨, ౩); there's no need for hundreds of images of text. Omphalographer (talk) 18:49, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

It's common to have files in different formats. If you think you can improve the jpgs, please upload them. Enhancing999 (talk) 09:41, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I personally would not upload them in any format. JPG (low res!) is the only format these are available as of now and I want to determine if these are worth keeping; they are well within project scope but fall short of serving any practical purpose. ~ Saur ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:32, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Image deleted for 'no license' even though VRT ticket was sent

Hello, last week I uploaded an image of the actress Stacie Mistysyn with permission from the actress via email. She used the Interactive Release Generator and a VRT ticket was pending when it was deleted for having 'no license'. ToQ100gou (talk) 03:40, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

@ToQ100gou: presumably you are talking about File:Stacie Mistysyn 2022.jpg and File:Stacie Mistysyn 2022 (cropped).jpg. You never tagged those with {{PP}} or {{Permission pending}} (as discussed in the first paragraph of Commons:Volunteer Response Team#Licensing images: when do I contact VRT?) so it's no surprise the were deleted. Sounds like something to take up at Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard (if at all) rather than here. Whether you do so or not, though, if the rights are sorted out via VRT the image will be undeleted. One thing here that seems odd (and I don't need a response, just pointing it out to you for your process of moving this forward): it is unusual that an actress would be the holder of the relevant copyright, rather than a photographer or an organization. - Jmabel ! talk 04:01, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Jmabel, I'm afraid you are mistaken here. Both files are tagged as Permission Received in the last version before deletion (ticket:2023092310000496) - they were deleted because the bot did not detect a license tag on the page. Having quickly reviewed the ticket: the emailer says to have chosen Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International, but VRT is waiting for a response since Sept 28 because of an outstanding question to complete the verification procedure. Ciell (talk) 18:14, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

@Ciell: sorry about that, you are correct. I just noticed the lack of {{Permission pending}} on the last version before deletion, didn't realize that it had been there ane was removed. Anyway, I presume these will be undeleted once that outstanding question is resolved.

Kind of weird to remove {{Permission pending}}, tag them as {{Permission received}}, but not add the license. @Krd: is this expected behaviour? It was your bot that did that. - Jmabel ! talk 18:39, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

The bot can't read our VRT-tickets. ;-) Ciell (talk) 08:53, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Question about inappropriate images. Where do we report it?

Where do we report inappropriate images? Starlighsky (talk) 04:18, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

• @Starlighsky: depends what you mean by inappropriate. If it's child pornography, contact legal-reportswikimedia.org. If it's anything else, it would help if you could indicate the nature of the inappropriateness. (I assume you are not linking the image(s) to try to avoid the Streisand effect, but "inappropriate" is too vague to give you a solid answer, we'll need a bit more than that.) - Jmabel ! talk 05:08, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, if the "inappropriate" refers to personality rights violations you should send a mail to legal-reports@wikimedia.org or info-commons@wikimedia.org. If the inappropriate refers to something else you can file a regular deletion request. GPSLeo (talk) 06:57, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  Agreed. For more information on regular deletion requests, see Commons:Deletion requests El Grafo (talk) 07:18, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  To be more specific, it is pornography. Starlighsky (talk) 13:18, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  Adult pornography we don't censor --A.Savin 13:28, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  • If there is an issue of apparent non-consent by the person depicted, then we're back to legal-reportswikimedia.org; any pornographic image of an under-age person is inherently non-consensual, because they cannot give consent. Otherwise: plenty of pornography is in scope, plenty of pornography is out of scope. If there's a solid reason it's out of scope, nominate it for deletion just like any other file. The following images and categories are definitely NSFW, so you may not want to click on them, but for example File:Félicien Rops - Sainte-Thérèse.png is not only in scope, it's a rather historically important image. File:Tiusty Woman on BDSM Cross.png is nowhere near as important, but is well within scope. Plus we have entire categories like Category:Heterosexual oral sex or Category:Pornographic shows. - Jmabel ! talk 18:14, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

File:World laws pertaining to homosexual relationships and expression.svg

Hello, I wonder if it is too soon to call a change of border with Somalia and Somaliland? If not, Caawiyahaderon's edit may need to be re-rendered in text editable state (from the preceding revision), as I took the map out of Inkscape earlier this year. Sorry for the rushed message, but I am sleepy. --Minoa (talk) 00:48, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Is there some reason why you are overwriting the same file and not creating new ones? That would avoid the entire problem of how soon it is to declare a border change. There will be one file with the previous border and another version with the new border. Individual Wikis can then choose which version best suits their page. They could even include two versions to show how the map has changed over time. From Hill To Shore (talk) 06:45, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

The file is marked as always up to date and therefore this file should be overwritten. If old versions are needed they need to become uploaded as new files. GPSLeo (talk) 08:16, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

FYI: I asked a similar question below (see Commons:Village_pump#Rules_regarding_unrecognized_countries). I think it's too soon, reading Wikipedia the border change doesn't seem recognized by most reliable sources. In Caawiyahaderon's map, Somaliland, Khatumo State, and Somalia appear as three independent countries, even though I understand that Khatumo State could be a state of Somalia (instead of being part of Somaliland before). poke @Caawiyahaderon A455bcd9 (talk) 07:34, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Commons Gazette 2023-10

• 7 September was the 19th anniversary of the founding of Wikimedia Commons.
• Currently, there are 186 sysops.
• Commons:Adiutor is a new tool for maintenance tasks.

User:Vikipolimer was appointed temporarily as administrator and interface administrator from 4 to 11 September to facilitate set-up of Adiutor.

---

Edited by RZuo (talk).

---

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) 11:56, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Rules regarding unrecognized countries

Hi, @Caawiyahaderon modified dozens of maps to reflect recent fights in the disputed w:Sool region of Somalia/Somaliland. Is it how things should be done? A455bcd9 (talk) 08:14, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

To be more accurate, I modified them to reflect the proclamation of Khatumo state earlier this year. Caawiyahaderon (talk) 12:57, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

@Caawiyahaderon: Usually, unless you are making a clearly uncontroversial improvement or have the consent of the original uploader, you should create your own derivative version of a file rather than overwrite. - Jmabel ! talk 18:17, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Understood. The majority of the files I overwrite were on files that were styled as present-day/ current, and as such were suitable as being kept up to date. Nonetheless, although the real life border situation is stable, the political situation continues to mature. As such, I am motivated to discontinue overwriting. Caawiyahaderon (talk) 22:45, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources backing the status of Khatumo state as an unrecognised country? Wikipedia presents it as a state of Somalia. I'll revert some of your edits in the meantime and I think you should do the same. A455bcd9 (talk) 07:31, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

As of this moment, Khatumo is in talks with Somalia about unifying the territories, however the talks have not been conclusive, with FGS not recognising Khatumo as one of its federal states. By extension, the de facto status of Khatumo is one of provisional independence until unification is formalised. As Commons-wikimedia editors the most logical step we can take henceforth is see whether talks to change the provisional status of Khatumo between FGS and Khatumo are fruitful. The most unconstructive (and dangerous for travellers) step we could take is to revert maps to the outdated status of 2021 when Sool was under Somaliland control. Already earlier this year a traveller was in a conundrum assuming Sool was in Somaliland, which put him in a lot of trouble. Please @A455bcd9: , it is imperative that you do not revert maps to the outdated status of 2021 because (a) the provisional status of Khatumo hasn't been solved hence controversial, and (b) the jeapardy this poses to travellers. The projection for the current provisional status of Khatumo to be solved is either late 2024 or early 2025. Until that time, neither me, nor you should alter the maps of Sool / Khatumo as that would fall under the bracket of controversial edit. Thank you. Caawiyahaderon (talk) 11:05, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

@Caawiyahaderon: That is an extremely flawed argument. No one should be relying on a Commons map to tell them the precise details of a political situation at any moment in time. We are not a government or news service. We bear no responsibility for people deciding to enter a militarily contested region and your implied argument that we should expand Wikimedia Commons' scope to take on that responsibility is a dangerous move. All we can do here is make a simple decision; make a map showing a contested border or don't make a map showing a contested border.

In these types of situations, I think it is wiser to create separate files. One shows a border recognised by group X and the other shows a border recognised by group Y. The idea that there can ever be a single version of a map showing political boundaries is flawed. It will either be correct or incorrect depending on your perspective. Commons has the ability to store both versions and reusers can decide which version is appropriate. From Hill To Shore (talk) 11:33, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't disagree, and concur; my main submission is that Khatumo as a status is (a) transitional (b) provisional and we will arguably get a conclusive information on its status probably in late 2024 as talks between president Firdhiye and the SFG are ongoing at the moment. I myself pledge to refrain from making further edits on the contested status until such an agreement has been reached between SFG and Khatumo. Caawiyahaderon (talk) 12:59, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

You modified almost 250 maps to add a border that you acknowledge is still imprecise ("we will arguably get a conclusive information on its status probably in late 2024"). I think you should revert all your edits and upload separate files instead. Then let users choose and decide whether they want to display the ongoing Khatumo conflict or not. I assume that those interested in the diplomatic missions of Abkhazia, the legality of cannabis for medical purposes, the percentage of adherents to Hinduism, or the availability of Mozilla VPN in the World would prefer the current versions... A455bcd9 (talk) 13:13, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Should Artsakh set a precedent?

{ping|Golden}}, {ping|AntonSamuel}}, {ping|Ecrusized}}, {ping|彭鹏}}, {ping|Koavf}} . I started a discussion at File talk:2023 Nagorno-Karabakh War.svg where I noted that changes in borders for the Artsakh region were swift. However that page probably doesn't get a lot of onlookers. So yeah, the title of the thread, should Artsakh set a precedent for disputed area situations such as Crimea, Ambazonia, Khatumo etc.? If yes, then we could all act uniformly on border changes. If not, it forecasts disharmonious decisions on border changes. I have pinged editors whom have recently overwritten or updated the Artsakh situation. Caawiyahaderon (talk) 13:51, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Read the description of the map that you referred to: Map of the 2023 Nagorno-Karabakh war showing Azerbaijan day-to-day advances. That's why changes are reflected quickly there. But you don't see people editing random maps on Commons to add, remove, or change the Azeri borders. Especially on totally unrelated maps such as File:Availability of Mozilla VPN in the World.svg (wtf...). (btw: You might be interested in reading w:Wikipedia:Wikilawyering if you haven't already) A455bcd9 (talk) 13:58, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

The people I pinged are edited multiple Artsakh files. SSC-Khatumo has been in control of Sool since January 5; thats 10 months. I'll wait on the Artsakh editors on whether 10 months of control is compelling enough for border changes. Caawiyahaderon (talk) 14:06, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

This link doesn't even mention Khatumo... Is there a map in a reliable source showing SSC-Khatumo as an independent state? A455bcd9 (talk) 14:17, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Content issues about how and if the borders of such territories are to be represented on maps are not resolved at Commons but in the respective Wikipedia projects. Any kind of overloading files should be avoided if this is likely not to find the consent of the original uploader, see COM:OVERWRITE. If in doubt, it is best to upload new maps under new file names. At Commons, we take only action if COM:OVERWRITE is violated and/or if there is consensus in a deletion request that an unused(!) map appears inaccurate and thereby out of COM:SCOPE. --AFBorchert (talk) 14:20, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Here's a Somalia flag being flown in Las Anod, capital of Sool. Here and here are sources that this opposition call themselves SSC, an alt name for Khatumo. This source says Villa Somalia chief of staff describes Sool revolution as "gathering of people of SSC". Here's a map showing SSC / Khatumo as distinct from Puntland or Somaliland. Here's a reliable source tribally distinguishing Harti inhabitations from the rest of Puntland or Somaliland. Here's a map distinguishing the Sool, Sanaag Cayn regions from both Puntland and Somaliland. Caawiyahaderon (talk) 14:26, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Check w:Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Anyway, as noted byAFBorchert: I think it's better here not to COM:OVERWRITE and "it is best to upload new maps under new file names". A455bcd9 (talk) 14:31, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I struck through my former comments as I feel like the people in this thread are in concurrence. Caawiyahaderon (talk) 15:01, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Caawiyahaderon. What about reverting your 250 edits and upload new maps under new file names (or find the consent of the original uploader) per COM:OVERWRITE? A455bcd9 (talk) 09:55, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Does CCBY-NC-ND permitted on commons

I am from the Global South. I've been around for some time and play a role as one of the local organizers for the Wiki Loves campaigns within our region. While I have not actively participated in discussions on the platform, I have greatly appreciated the substantial knowledge exchange among contributors here. It is indisputable that a significant portion of the content submitted by participants in these campaigns consists of low-quality images. In response to this challenge, we have formulated a strategy involving engaging professional photographers. However, we have identified a significant issue regarding the compatibility of most licenses authorized by Wikimedia Commons, particularly in terms of commercial use, which has not resonated well with professional photographers who have shown interest in collaborating with us. See here Commons:Licensing Additionally, I have observed instances where images bearing the CCBY-NC 2.5 license have been uploaded to Wikimedia Commons without facing deletion. This observation has aroused my curiosity about whether professional photographers can utilize the CCBY-NC 2.5 license. Clarifying this matter can attract more experienced photographers and elevate the overall quality of the photographs in our collection.

CC @Kaizenify

Olaniyan Olushola (talk) 10:46, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

@Olaniyan Olushola: See Commons:Licensing. Non-commercial or no-derivative licenses are not permitted. If nothing else, this helps to protect those who reuse our content, probably most of which don't really have a great understanding of the licensing. It's not their fault really. It's complicated. But not understanding the terms of the license isn't a defense if they get dragged into court. GMG^talk 10:53, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

(After edit conflict) We can't accept any files licensed as "Non-Commercial" or "No Derivatives" as they are against the core spirit of Wikimedia Commons. The only way I can think of for files with either of these conditions to be on Commons is if the files have been dual licensed as both Non-Commercial & Commercial, or both No Derivates and "Derivatives acceptable." In the case of dual licensing, we could note both licences for information but would be retaining the files under the more permissive licence. It is more likely though that the NC files you have seen on Commons are in breach of our policies. Please nominate any such files for deletion. Feel free to seek advice here if you are unsure if deletion is the right route. From Hill To Shore (talk) 11:00, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

@Olaniyan Olushola: See also the justifications at COM:LJ.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 11:04, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Photographs by date by country as a task for bots

Dear colleagues, my question is about the tree of categories Category:Photographs by date by country. As far as I understand, it must be affixed to all photographs uploaded to Commons. Template:Taken on with location parameter adds files to this kind of categories — that is how it works for the files transferred from panoramio and flickr, as far as I understand; otherwise one can add the category manually. But the vast majority of photos do not have such categories added, since they appeared only in 2016 and most uploaders do not know about them anyway. At the same time, many photographs have a date in the file description and at the same have some categories by country.

It seems to me that there is the task for a bot here: for all photographs that have exact date in the file description and belong to any category in the trees Category:Structures by country and Category:Nature by country, to wrap the date with the template Template:Taken on using the country from the category in location field. At the moment I only see two possible nuances. 1) Date in the description might be different from the date in EXIF. I believe that the date from the description is preferrable because even in my own experience camera time was sometimes erroneous and I had to correct it after uploading. 2) Template:DTZ used in a file description. Probably for the files using this template simple adding of the category instead of using Template:Taken on would be the better solution. Or might it be that this is true in any case and for all files?

I'd like to know if there are any concerns and objections considering this idea. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 18:05, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

The date on the page is often not the date the photograph was taken. Many times it is the date of upload (as the uploader doesn't understand what date we want). Other times it is the date of first known publication. It could also be an estimated date inserted to give a rough indication of a photograph's age. This will also partially duplicate bot work recording dates as structured data statements. From Hill To Shore (talk) 18:18, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

See, Upload Wizard automatically uses the date from the camera. This date might be wrong (and an uploader can fail to correct it) but in this case this wrong date will go also to structured data statements and in general we shall never know something is bad here; I don't think though that these cases are numerous. Or the date that the Wizard takes from the camera might be corrected manually by the uploader, and in this kind of cases we are expected to rely on the uploader. But I would not suppose that an uploader would manually replace the right date with the wrong one. If the date is estimated (only a year or a year and a month), the bot would not touch this file at all. Consequently, I estimate the share of files for which the proposed decision would lead to the placing them into a wrong category as very small. As for structured data statements in general, this is the subject for general decision: if we don't need categories from the tree Category:Photographs by date by country, let's delete them in favour of structured data statements; as far as we don't do that, it seems reasonable to care about filling these categories. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 18:38, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

You are thinking only of files that come to us through the upload wizard. We also have many bulk uploads of files, often with poor data quality. I have spent months fixing the data from one archive and have barely scratched the surface. Yes, if structured data makes a mistake your process will make a mistake too, but why double the workload of those of us trying to repair the data? I am not even sure what benefit you expect to gain from this by burying millions of files deep in the category tree. Are we ready to switch to structured data today and abandon categories entirely? Not really. Is it worth automatically dumping millions of files in wrong categories just to prove a point about the utility of one part of the category tree? Again, not really. It would just create more work for no gain. From Hill To Shore (talk) 20:10, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

I presume that the files with poor data quality as a rule would not meet both criteria I mentioned above: these files frequently don't have exact date in the file description and usually are not categorized into relatively deep categories (like, say, Category:Streets in Latvia), so their data of poor quality would stay intact if my proposal is adopted. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 20:44, 5 October 2023 (UTC),

Nope: "exact" but incorrect dates are actually pretty common. I've probably fixed a dozen in the last 2 or 3 days, and I wasn't on a hunt for them. - Jmabel ! talk 20:59, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Sure it happens. But do you remember if in these cases the files were categorized correctly? My point is that correct structure of the date and correct categories together provide us with a certain degree of reliability. For example, 20 minutes ago I corrected the wrong date in this file (the error came from EXIF) but it is quite typical that the categories had been wrong too. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 21:06, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Nor is this "required," just desirable. And wherever {{Taken on}} (or, when there is less precision, {{Taken in}}) can be used, I would say they are better than an explicit category.

I'd be very wary of doing this with a bot, because there are quite a few pitfalls, as noted. - Jmabel ! talk 18:22, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Subcat not showing

This could just be a caching issue (though I did purge), but Category:Cecilia Augspurger shows Category:Augspurger (surname) as a parent, but does not show up on the page for the latter category. - Jmabel ! talk 00:25, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

@Jmabel: I see Category:Cecilia Augspurger in Category:Augspurger (surname). MKFI (talk) 06:45, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

& so do I now, so it was just a weird caching issue. - Jmabel ! talk 15:24, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Jmabel ! talk 15:24, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Image brightness

I've noticed when uploading files that the image as displayed on a Wikicommons page is slightly darker than the image displayed directly on my monitor when viewed side-by-side. I'm using an Apple studio monitor. Anyone else noticed this or is it just me? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 12:26, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

• Is it a png file? The thumbnail problem with png files is already known. --RAN (talk) 13:04, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Not to answer for Murgatroyd49 but I have the same issue with JPEG files. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:12, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

This is due to the fact that the preview size of any file on Commons is only 800 pixels, but when viewed on a computer it depends on the resolution of your monitor, which is usually larger. I have 3200x2000 pixels monitor resolution. Commons itself doesn't edit the file code. Юрий Д.К 19:28, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Template:Extracted from deleted

I've been trying to deal with some of the long-neglected, switching over to {{Extracted from deleted}} as requested. It doesn't display quite as I'd expect: the UI doesn't show the second parameter (which is supposed to be a link to why the original file was deleted). See, for example File:Emma Dumont (2018).jpg. - Jmabel ! talk 23:56, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Pinging @Alexis Jazz, TKsdik8900, Great Brightstar. - Jmabel ! talk 23:59, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done -- Great Brightstar (talk) 06:02, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

@Great Brightstar: Thanks! Much better. - Jmabel ! talk 15:06, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Need help with WLM submission

I uploaded a submission to the Wiki Loves Monuments contest. However, one of the categories is "missing author" and "missing place of creation" Would someone out there be able to help? Davest3r08 (talk) 10:57, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

@Davest3r08: I dealt with the "place of creation" thing (state). I don't see any warning about a missing author, what exactly are you seeing?

Also, this certainly needs more categories: I've added Category:Restaurants in Silver Spring, Maryland, but you might be able to change that to a more precise subcategory, and I suspect there are other relevant categories (probably something more specific than Category:Diners; a category for the year it was built; maybe others). - Jmabel ! talk 15:17, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

This file did not pass file verification

An external partner gets the error message This file did not pass file verification when uploading a video *.mpg with about 690 MByte. No further information available in Upload Wizard. Any help is appreciated. best --Christian Philipp (WMAT) (talk) 13:53, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

@Christian Philipp (WMAT) not sure if it's helpful but the limitation on size are describe in this page Commons:Maximum file size. If I get it correctly you should use Chunked uploads. PierreSelim (talk) 14:37, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, the description in Commons:Maximum file size states: The maximum file size for any file on Commons is 4 GiB (4,294,967,296 bytes[1]). Uploads using the Upload Wizard, other tools that support chunked uploads, and server-side uploads must be smaller than this limit. - I understand that the upload Wizard supports chunked uploads and thus can be used for large files (see also Help:Chunked upload). I remember an option in the Upload Wizard to use chunked uploads, but I did not find it, I think it is standard now. --Christian Philipp (WMAT) (talk) 14:46, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

better hints? --Christian Philipp (WMAT) (talk) 04:13, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

This is pure speculation but it might be that Commons doesn't recognise the video codec. There are lots of different video encoding methods that claim to produce .mpg files but without the right codec, you can't play back the file. Does the "external partner" know which .mpg codec was used to create the file? Alternatively, are they sure that the video file is not corrupt? Can it run on other devices than the source camera/recorder/computer? From Hill To Shore (talk) 06:01, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Otherwise the file may be converted to VP9 before uploading --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 15:57, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

I think its unlikely to be a codec or file size issue. What is the name that the file was going to be uploaded under and which user tried to upload it? Is the file available to view somewhere else on the internet? (If not, and you know how to do it, can you post the output of running ffprobe (from the ffmpeg command line tool) on the media file?) The most likely cause for this issue is if the file had an extension of .mpg but was not actually in mpg format. Bawolff (talk) 00:22, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

@Bawolff: best hint so far. The user is User:ÖGLB-Benutzer, file File:AnteroomUNESCO_1.mpg. The file is not available on a public url :-( I will forward your ffmpeg hint. best --Christian Philipp (WMAT) (talk) 04:02, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

hey there,

thx for your infos.

so it's an MPEG container with

MPEG-2 video and

MPEG audio. That should be fine. Here are a few extra details:

1920×1080/25fps/pro gressive/max bitrate is 50.

audio is at

384KBits/s/48kHz/ste reo/16-bit.

everything without metadata.

actually I have already reformatted the video at least 10 times and tried everything possible. also from other computers (including my colleague from work).

Unfortunately, we're really stuck.

the video is 'tiny' and only have approximately 700mb.

there is a version on the internet (Vimeo) but with other upload specifications. if it would help, i can send you the link.

best, ca ÖGLB-Benutzer (talk) 05:52, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Reflective signs

Reflective sign

Unless I'm mistaken, we have no category for reflective signs or surfaces, like that depicted above. Or do we? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:59, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: I think these are grouped under Category:Retroreflective signs. From Hill To Shore (talk) 21:22, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Most traffic signs in developed countries are reflective. Do we really want to add this to tens of thousands of images? - Jmabel ! talk 23:13, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Maybe not; but in the case of the images already in the category, or this one, where (respectively) the reflective properties or the structures that case them, are apparent, I think we should. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:26, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletions nominated by user Doclys

The new (as of September 23, 2023) user @Doclys: has already made more than 800 contributions of which many propose speedy deletion of categories. In my case Category:Hovhannes Babakhanyan. I wonder where the images that were in the category went. Same for the other categories nominated for speedy deletion. Wouter (talk) 12:20, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

You can ask the users who proposed or requested the deletion of images from the category you created, like this one. Doclys👨‍⚕️👩‍⚕️ ^{🩺 • 💉} 12:34, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Category:Hovhannes Babakhanyan appears to be empty, so speedying it would make sense. Was there previously content in it? Is there content that should be in it? - Jmabel ! talk 15:53, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

• I have prevented this category from SD: we had had other images of this actor, those were not categorized correctly and ended up being deleted as promotional and unused, see here. I have undeleted one of them and added it to the category. Maybe user @Krd: might consider undeleting the rest of them as long as the pictured person seems to be notable. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 20:22, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Photo from October 1945

Hello, this photo ([photo 32) is "a panoramic view of Kure Naval Port (District) taken in October 1945." is it public domain? Because in Japan a photo is public domain if: it was published before 1 January 1957, it was photographed before 1 January 1947. -Artanisen (talk) 18:47, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

The photo should also be in public domain in USA. Ruslik (talk) 20:19, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

@Ruslik: I can't access the linked page, but by "should also be in public domain in USA" do you mean (1) "is, in my best understanding, public domain in USA" or (2) "would need to be public domain in the USA in order to be uploaded to Commons [and I have no idea whether it is]?" - Jmabel ! talk 02:59, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

The latter. Ruslik (talk) 20:53, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Burger King recall PSA copyright

I would like to upload the Burger King recall PSA on Commons (as there is an article of the recall on Wikipedia, this is in the scope of Commons), but I don't know who produced the PSA (thus I don't know the copyright status for this). Two parties were involved in the recall: the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, a U.S. governmental organization, and Burger King, the distributor of the toys. Davest3r08 (talk) 16:16, 8 October 2023 (UTC)