Commons:Village pump
|
This page is used for discussions of the operations, technical issues, and policies of Wikimedia Commons. Recent sections with no replies for 7 days and sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=--~~~~}} may be archived; for old discussions, see the archives; the latest archive is Commons:Village pump/Archive/2023/10. Please note:
Purposes which do not meet the scope of this page:
Search archives: |
| Legend |
|---|
|
|
|
|
|
| Manual settings |
| When exceptions occur, please check the setting first. |
 Broadwick St, Soho, London: a water pump with its handle removed commemorates Dr. John Snow's tracing of an 1854 cholera epidemic to the pump. [add] | |||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
 |
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 7 days. |
October 05[edit]
Images cropped to remove timestamp and other[edit]
Images like File:SBB Historic - F 122 00736 001 - Niederteufen SGA AB Haltestelle Bahnseite.jpg got cropped by @Beao: to remove some minor element, reducing image sizes by 10% or more leading to a loss of perspective and the like.
As I lack to time to follow up with the user (beyond leaving them a note), maybe someone else wants to look into their contributions. Surely some may be perfectly reasonable, but the above clearly isn't and the volume requires checking, the user apparently not doing it.
- As I've remarked before (including, I believe, to User:Beao), this violates COM:OVERWRITE. Want a cropped version like this? Fine, upload it under a different file name. Jmabel ! talk 18:18, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
- Okay, I'd like some guidance on when overwrite is appropriate and not. Take these four images I just cropped, should they all be created as new images and a Template:Superseded added to the original? File:SBB Historic - F 122 00736 001 - Niederteufen SGA AB Haltestelle Bahnseite.jpg was of course a mistake, so that's obvious to me.
- File:The Confrontation - Stage 2 (10471405393).jpg
- File:ROH Rhett Titus.jpg
- File:HoracioMacedo1998.jpg
- File:Deslizamiento Cerro Chitaría en Santa Ana, Costa Rica - panoramio.jpg Beao (talk) 18:28, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for asking. For all of those I like your crop, but I probably would have used a distinct name. File:The Confrontation - Stage 2 (10471405393).jpg works out so well that I could easily see a case for overwriting, but on all of the others I could imagine someone wanting to take the effort to retouch it to rework the original at its original dimensions, and when you overwrite you make it less likely anyone will notice and do that.
- I know these are all judgement calls. And I want to mention that things like File:Northwest Mutual Fire Association office, Seattle, 1907 (MOHAI 2557).jpg--text in a border making claim to a PD photo--absolutely should be overwritten.
- You probably know better than I how often someone objects to your crops. I would guess that for every one you hear about, a few others probably thought of objecting to something but decided to let it slide. So even if this is coming up on 1 out of every 100 or so photos you are cropping, that's actually an indication that you are probably being too aggressive with this. And certainly any time someone wants to "split" these, they should win.
- The tricky thing about a rule that says "don't do this if it's controversial" is that you don't know in advance whether it will be. You (that's not a personal "you", I mean "anyone") have to adjust over time to the feedback on what is controversial. This same thing came up a few months ago in a broader sense and resulted in moving Commons:Ignore all rules to Commons:Be flexible. (You might find the discussion there interesting if you weren't following it at the time.) - Jmabel ! talk 20:57, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
- This discussion is an echo of my earlier post, where I went on at length about when to crop and when not.
- I agree with Sneeuwschaap when he says please, don't crop parts of images for removing watermarks. Such damaging of images is even worse than watermarks.
- Slicing off parts of an image destroys the overall, perspective, depth, look and feel of an image. All of the images mentioned here should not have been cropped. Again, we have the technology to remove unwanted watermarks, without cropping.
- The original creators of these pieces, cropped them before publishing them. That should tell you something.
- Deleting parts of images you don't deem informative, is not the way forward. The originator's of the images included those parts to balance the pictures.
- This picture is probably the worst affected, you've actually cropped off the road, kerb, sidewalk, and a potted plant. All of which are important artefacts.
- Here is an example of the only style of acceptable cropping. Any more than that, is 99 times out of a 100 unnaceptable.
- I also talked about cherished watermarks: Harcourt Paris (for example) is a cherished watermark. It denotes fashion photography.
- To sum up cropping and overwriting images is a last resort, a rare activity; it's not a routine specialization.
- Here is an example of why the crop tool was made available for use in the first place. It's an instance of where, and how this tool should be used. Any cropping outside of this very limited parameter is contentious to put it mildly. --Broichmore (talk) 15:11, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, I've learned a lot about the contentiousness around cropping the last few days :)
- How do you feel about my examples? I think File:ROH Rhett Titus.jpg is a good example of what I would consider a good watermark removing crop, considering it's just watermarked floor being cropped out, and the image not getting "cramped" by the crop. Would you prefer the watermark be retouched away? Beao (talk) 15:34, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
- Here is an example of why the crop tool was made available for use in the first place. It's an instance of where, and how this tool should be used. Any cropping outside of this very limited parameter is contentious to put it mildly. --Broichmore (talk) 15:11, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
The image without watermark is preferable only if it is identical to the watermarked image in all other respects. The cropping usually damages the images. There are some exceptions, but the user crops hundreds of images without any distinction. His activity must be stopped and reverted. For example, he cropped essential information from many dozens of butterfly images. Sneeuwschaap (talk) 15:42, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
- That was because someone marked it with the "Remove border" template. The information is in the description, or do you mean the scale explanation? I can add that to the description where applicable.
- I've mostly stopped cropping, so there is no need to stop me. Beao (talk) 15:46, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
- I mean all the information in the cropped part, including the scale explanation. If "someone marked it", why did you blindly fulfilled these requests? Sneeuwschaap (talk) 16:50, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
- The catalog number is the other piece of information, and that is already in the description and file name. I guess I could add a Template:Metadata from image if that makes things clearer. That template says "Commons discourages placing visible textual information in images", but I'm not sure about what's actual decided policy and what's somebody's opinion. Unless you mean the color calibration data?
- I fulfilled the requests because they seemed reasonable. Beao (talk) 19:54, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
- The colour reference scales on the butterfly pictures are crucial, they speak to the accuracy of the colours in the images.
- An invitation to remove a watermark is not an invitation to crop or trim the image. What's king here is the aesthetic and practical intention of the original creator.
- You've taught me something here I was not aware of the "Remove border" template, which leads us to this hidden cat. I'm shocked to see so many images tagged "erroneously or needlessly" in this dangerous way.
- It doesn't take much looking at random to find potentially contentious items:
- This white border on the left doesn't particulary need cropping because you cant see it on a white background. It would if you were to use it on a website with a black field. Which is not likely. However minimal cropping (actually trimming) would not be contentious.
- This is a postcard overwritten twice with two different physical cards, the same card but different printings. Personally I see no need to have uploaded the newer two. Having said that, this should be three files. The one with the black border is particularly superflous, its size undesirable., 3.18mb has not improved on the 142kb version.
- This is marked for border removal, which is highly debatable. It could be argued that the border is an artist signature, a fashion statement of the time (i.e. period piece speaking of the DDR), an official artefact,. etc. It's also marked for restoration? (do they mean modernisation or colouration?), which it plainly doesn't need, and in fact would be unwanted. Bear in mind that overwriting a file as opposed to creating a separate file, linked back to the original, doesn't save space on the server.
- File:ROH Rhett Titus.jpg, this watermark is a spoiler, seeking payment for use, nothing contentious in trimming that, it adds nothing only detracts. Thie image is devoid of aesthetics, it's a rare occurence in that the bottom clipped off area adds nothing. In fact the image was unbalanced to start with IMO. Broichmore (talk) 10:26, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- I mean all the information in the cropped part, including the scale explanation. If "someone marked it", why did you blindly fulfilled these requests? Sneeuwschaap (talk) 16:50, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
October 06[edit]
Identifying Tuscany 2002 trains[edit]
also File:Arezzo station 2002 1.jpg, File:Pratovecchio-Stia station 2002 1.jpg and File:Pratovecchio-Stia station 2002 3.jpg. A picture gallery of the electric locomotives would be usefull, for people who dont have an extensive knowledge of the Italian locomotive types, as identification numbers offer little guidance. Smiley.toerist (talk) 08:47, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
- Found: is Category:LFI EABiz 7–9 in a new livery.Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:25, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
October 07[edit]
October 08[edit]
Show red line for road on infobox[edit]
I have created a relation ID for Category:Gladesville Road, Hunters Hill and added it to the wikidata it. It is not showing in the Infobox map - how would I achieve this? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 15:20, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Chris.sherlock2: it's there under "Authority File". - Jmabel ! talk 16:29, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
- Sure, but I know there are roads where the road is highlighted in red. - 00:12, 9 October 2023 (UTC) Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 00:12, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Chris.sherlock2 Could you give an example of a category with a highlighted road? That might help us figure out how to do it ... El Grafo (talk) 08:12, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- One example is category:Forrest Highway. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 09:08, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- Seems like Forrest Highway (Q1437953) pulls that information from en:Template:Attached KML/Forrest Highway via KML file (P3096). However, I'd argue that using geoshape (P3896) with a GeoJSON file on Commons would probably be the cleaner solution (like with Tashkent (Q269) using Data:Uzbekistan/Tashkent City.map. Unfortunately, documentation for Commons' Data: namespace tends to suck. El Grafo (talk) 09:45, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- One example is category:Forrest Highway. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 09:08, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Chris.sherlock2 Could you give an example of a category with a highlighted road? That might help us figure out how to do it ... El Grafo (talk) 08:12, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- Sure, but I know there are roads where the road is highlighted in red. - 00:12, 9 October 2023 (UTC) Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 00:12, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
What change was made?[edit]
Can someone explain what change is made in this diff: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Starbucks_at_Earlsbridge_Boulevard_-_20230903.jpg&curid=136938522&diff=810160358&oldid=798509028 ? // sikander { talk } 🦖 23:03, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Sikander: Looks like there was an invisible left-to-right mark between Brampton and the right brackets. If you copy the highlighted text into an editor like Notepad++ that can display control characters, it'll be visible. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:59, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
October 09[edit]
Review of India.gov.in photos[edit]
Why the admins and reviewers hesitate to review the GODL-INDIA licenced photos from Government of India owned websites. I see they are tagged unreviewed for 10 years and so. I also uploaded some photos years ago from india.gov.in, which is a Government of India website. It updates itself after every new election and old photos and Profiles of parliamentarians are deleted. But they are still unreviewed. Please note Lok Sabha don't comes under Government of India but India.gov.in is a Government website.
Admantine123 (talk) 05:38, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- [https://www.india.gov.in/about-portal] it explicitly says that the website is of Government of India, yet reviewers choose to keep the images unreviewed. It is fit for GODL licence Admantine123 (talk) 05:55, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- It is not clear if the GODL applies to all images from the Government of India, or only to some. AFAIK, there is no definitive statement from the Government of India about this. Yann (talk) 11:00, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- GODL applies on all the information and images created or hosted by government departments. National Data Sharing and accessibility policy is clear on that. Admantine123 (talk) 11:15, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- References? Yann (talk) 12:01, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- The tag when applied to any file contains a description that writes that it applies to all data generated by Indian government agencies that were created using taxpayers money. Admantine123 (talk) 17:28, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- References? Yann (talk) 12:01, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- GODL applies on all the information and images created or hosted by government departments. National Data Sharing and accessibility policy is clear on that. Admantine123 (talk) 11:15, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- It is not clear if the GODL applies to all images from the Government of India, or only to some. AFAIK, there is no definitive statement from the Government of India about this. Yann (talk) 11:00, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Copyright question[edit]
I managed to find a set of images of a historic Australian company. The book is from the 1880s. My question, can I upload these images, given the age of the book? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 10:11, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, this is in the public domain. If no author is mentioned, you can use {{PD-old-assumed-expired}} or {{PD-Australia}} + {{PD-US-expired}}. Yann (talk) 10:58, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks! - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 12:45, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Opportunities open for the Affiliations Committee, Ombuds commission, and the Case Review Committee[edit]
You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki.
More languages • Please help translate to your languageHi everyone! The Affiliations Committee (AffCom), Ombuds commission (OC), and the Case Review Committee (CRC) are looking for new members. These volunteer groups provide important structural and oversight support for the community and movement. People are encouraged to nominate themselves or encourage others they feel would contribute to these groups to apply. There is more information about the roles of the groups, the skills needed, and the opportunity to apply on the Meta-wiki page.
On behalf of the Committee Support team,
Category:Okinawa, which is a disambiguation category, currently contains nearly 200 images. I have no expertise on the place; someone who does might want to sort through these. Some of them may have nothing to do with Okinawa at all, since a fair number have "Phuket" in their file names. - Jmabel ! talk 18:09, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- Got it down to 12 images now. ReneeWrites (talk) 23:40, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
October 10[edit]
Nagorno-Karabakh village name categories all being changed into Azerbaijani[edit]
So there is an issue with the village names of the Nagorno-Karabakh region that Azerbaijan blockaded for the better part of a year, then attacked, forcing the local Armenian government to fold and the Armenians to flee. So all of the villages have both Armenian and Azerbaijani names, and although most of the villages were all or vastly Armenian populated even before the conflict re-emerged in the 1980s, all of the category names are being changed to the Azerbaijani names, which the newly fled locals and Armenians in general are not always familiar with, and even non-Armenians who may know one name or the other probably cannot type in Azerbaijani to write Daşbulaq. This in my opinion is a type of disenfranchisement being done to the Armenians from the region, and a purposeful policy by the Azerbaijani government of erasing any trace of Armenian history or habitation there, which eventually gets carried out by users here for whatever their own reasons (be it the desire to organize things a certain way, or other reasons). In any case, I think the easy solution for this issue is to include both names, so that either name will be useful in finding what you're looking for. For example, what I just did with "CategoryːDaşbulaq (Astghashen)" and "Çanaqçı (Avetaranots)". Or I guess we can have a dual categorization system for settlements of Nagorno-Karabakh. Can we get some kind of discussion going and find a practical solution to this issue so that there is an actual policy in place we can refer to instead of changing things around or people just not knowing what to look for? Thanks, --RaffiKojian (talk) 04:43, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- Usually when a category can go by two different names that are both correct, one of them will be turned into a category redirect for the other (see COM:REDCAT). Category:Astghashen is a redirect to Category:Daşbulaq, so if someone was looking for Astghashen and added their pictures to that category, it would show up at Daşbulaq as a subcategory. Putting both names in a category name isn't really how things are done on Commons, as far as I know. ReneeWrites (talk) 08:53, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- I can see how in most circumstances that would make sense, but in a case like this where there is a government that is trying to wipe out the name used by locals, and there is a battle on which name to use, and the only people born and raised there may have never even heard of the Azerbaijani name, I hope that the idea that being inclusive of both names would be a better solution for this circumstance. RaffiKojian (talk) 09:16, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- Note Category:Donostia-San Sebastián, about a major city in Spain. That category uses the Basque name first, then adds the Spanish name second. It is unusual to do it that way on Commons, but not unheard of. However, this has been done as a result of a more or less peaceful solution, not because one side military conquered the city from the other. With conquest, we usually use the name of the most recent conqueror because that is usually the most used name - but that con be nothing other than convention. In this case here I would prefer a consensual solution, and maybe like the Basques did it. --Enyavar (talk) 10:33, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- That's an interesting example, thank youǃ I personally think the Basque solution is certainly better than what is being done now. RaffiKojian (talk) 13:21, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- Basque is an autonomous region of Spain and the Basque names are recognised alongside the Spanish ones. This is not the case with Azerbaijan. — Golden talk 19:35, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- So if there can be a policy for the Basque names, there can be one for Nagorno-Karabakh, which also presents pretty special circumstances I think. RaffiKojian (talk) 20:13, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- Basque is an autonomous region of Spain and the Basque names are recognised alongside the Spanish ones. This is not the case with Azerbaijan. — Golden talk 19:35, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- That's an interesting example, thank youǃ I personally think the Basque solution is certainly better than what is being done now. RaffiKojian (talk) 13:21, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- Note Category:Donostia-San Sebastián, about a major city in Spain. That category uses the Basque name first, then adds the Spanish name second. It is unusual to do it that way on Commons, but not unheard of. However, this has been done as a result of a more or less peaceful solution, not because one side military conquered the city from the other. With conquest, we usually use the name of the most recent conqueror because that is usually the most used name - but that con be nothing other than convention. In this case here I would prefer a consensual solution, and maybe like the Basques did it. --Enyavar (talk) 10:33, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- I can see how in most circumstances that would make sense, but in a case like this where there is a government that is trying to wipe out the name used by locals, and there is a battle on which name to use, and the only people born and raised there may have never even heard of the Azerbaijani name, I hope that the idea that being inclusive of both names would be a better solution for this circumstance. RaffiKojian (talk) 09:16, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- These locations are within Azerbaijan, and the country doesn't acknowledge any names for these settlements other than the official ones. Prior to Azerbaijan regaining control of the region, the consensus was to use de facto names. Hence, when the village was under Armenian control, its category name was Armenian. But this is no longer applicable, so maintaining an unofficial name as the category name, especially when most of these alternative names were not widely used to begin with, doesn't seem logical. — Golden talk 17:47, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- Yes indeed, the exact problem is that Azerbaijan not only "does not acknowledge any names for these settlements other than THEIR official ones", they have a policy of eliminating everything to do with Armenians possible, from the complete destruction of every possible monastery and cemetery of Armenians in Nakhichevan to the renaming of Armenian villages in Nagorno-Karabakh to Azeri names, even if a single Azeri has never ever lived in it. Does that seem "logical"? Armenian names are used by the people who have always lived in those villages, and they should continue to be used in Armenian villages. You have been spending weeks completely eradicating Armenian names and regions, and I am not interested in supporting such a whitewashing of my people off the face of Wikipedia or Wikimedia. There is a precedent and it is totally fine. This site has a robust format that allows both names to be used, and there's no need to disenfranchise the actual people who the villages are most relevant to because of Azerbaijan's policy of hate. RaffiKojian (talk) 19:41, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- We're not here to right great wrongs. While I understand and empathize with your cause, we adhere to a predetermined protocol in Commons. As Enyavar highlighted, we typically use the name of the most recent conqueror following a conquest. In this case, Azerbaijan is the most recent conqueror. If we were guided by "justice", we wouldn't have categorised former Azeri-majority villages controlled by Artsakh under new Armenian names they were assigned by Artsakh. However, that was the practice for many years. — Golden talk 19:46, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- They also said, that can be nothing other than convention. There is no reason not to use both names, other than to erase the Armenian name and to disenfranchise them. I think your actions on these three categories I have worked on show you are not especially interested in a discussion in any case, you are even calling it vandalism for me to include an Armenian name at all, even next to an Azerbaijani name, while participating in this discussion. I think in any case this is a pretty unusual situation and that a slightly accommodating solution will make all of the files related to Karabakh both much easier to navigate/find and inclusive, with no downside. RaffiKojian (talk) 19:58, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- I called only this edit of yours "vandalism" because you attempted a speedy deletion of the correct category version, intending to retain only your preferred version. Don't put words in my mouth. — Golden talk 20:04, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, you did so just moments after you put a speedy deletion tag on my category. So we are here to discuss what the "correct" category is. RaffiKojian (talk) 20:11, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- I called only this edit of yours "vandalism" because you attempted a speedy deletion of the correct category version, intending to retain only your preferred version. Don't put words in my mouth. — Golden talk 20:04, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- They also said, that can be nothing other than convention. There is no reason not to use both names, other than to erase the Armenian name and to disenfranchise them. I think your actions on these three categories I have worked on show you are not especially interested in a discussion in any case, you are even calling it vandalism for me to include an Armenian name at all, even next to an Azerbaijani name, while participating in this discussion. I think in any case this is a pretty unusual situation and that a slightly accommodating solution will make all of the files related to Karabakh both much easier to navigate/find and inclusive, with no downside. RaffiKojian (talk) 19:58, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- We're not here to right great wrongs. While I understand and empathize with your cause, we adhere to a predetermined protocol in Commons. As Enyavar highlighted, we typically use the name of the most recent conqueror following a conquest. In this case, Azerbaijan is the most recent conqueror. If we were guided by "justice", we wouldn't have categorised former Azeri-majority villages controlled by Artsakh under new Armenian names they were assigned by Artsakh. However, that was the practice for many years. — Golden talk 19:46, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- Yes indeed, the exact problem is that Azerbaijan not only "does not acknowledge any names for these settlements other than THEIR official ones", they have a policy of eliminating everything to do with Armenians possible, from the complete destruction of every possible monastery and cemetery of Armenians in Nakhichevan to the renaming of Armenian villages in Nagorno-Karabakh to Azeri names, even if a single Azeri has never ever lived in it. Does that seem "logical"? Armenian names are used by the people who have always lived in those villages, and they should continue to be used in Armenian villages. You have been spending weeks completely eradicating Armenian names and regions, and I am not interested in supporting such a whitewashing of my people off the face of Wikipedia or Wikimedia. There is a precedent and it is totally fine. This site has a robust format that allows both names to be used, and there's no need to disenfranchise the actual people who the villages are most relevant to because of Azerbaijan's policy of hate. RaffiKojian (talk) 19:41, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- The correct and usual way we handle changes of place names on Commons is, in this case, keep the Armenian names as subcats of the Azeri names and put files made during the Armenian times under the Armenian names.
- Horrible to see some people above echoing Azeri govt propaganda to wipe out Armenian history. Butcher2021 (talk) 21:35, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- I don't think a user with 9 total edits in Commons should be telling anyone what the correct way to handle place names on the site is, much less label someone as "echoing goverment propaganda" simply for following Commons guidelines. — Golden talk 21:44, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- Well, it seems likely nobody else is going to chime in, so let me give/summarize 3 suggestions for consideration. As I've said a few times, this wiki is a robust format and we can easily incorporate both names so that it is easy for everyone to find what they're looking for. I am fine with various approaches to this, including what Butcher 2021 suggested, what I originally suggested which was Azeriname (Armenianname) and I have been thinking that alternatively we can just put both village names as separate categories for each village. Then the Azeri village name category would go under the larger Azeri regional category like "Villages in Khojaly", and the Armenian one would go under "Villages in Askeran" and then the Armenian one would stop at the next level of say "Villages of Nagorno-Karabakh". That would make it simple to categorize and find villages and regions for both parties. This last option, which I had not suggested before is actually my favorite option. Simple, clean, and only doubling up at the village level. RaffiKojian (talk) 05:30, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- Just my opinion, but naming the categories something like Azeriname (Armenianname) just seems weird. There's basic rules about how to name categories and the don't involve naming them multiple things or doing it in a way that incorporates multiple subjects. What it does intitled though is going with which name is popular and if you look at how much each name is used there's a clear winner, which probably depends on the circumstances but is most likely Azerbaijani, and that's fine. But putting multiple languages in the name of the category would just be obtuse and unhelpful. The same goes for having categories for both names, which would just lead to people being confused as to what images should go in which and in the best case lot of duplication, if not also files being put in one of the categories randomly when they don't belong there. Again, the rules are clear that there should only be a single category per subject.
- Well, it seems likely nobody else is going to chime in, so let me give/summarize 3 suggestions for consideration. As I've said a few times, this wiki is a robust format and we can easily incorporate both names so that it is easy for everyone to find what they're looking for. I am fine with various approaches to this, including what Butcher 2021 suggested, what I originally suggested which was Azeriname (Armenianname) and I have been thinking that alternatively we can just put both village names as separate categories for each village. Then the Azeri village name category would go under the larger Azeri regional category like "Villages in Khojaly", and the Armenian one would go under "Villages in Askeran" and then the Armenian one would stop at the next level of say "Villages of Nagorno-Karabakh". That would make it simple to categorize and find villages and regions for both parties. This last option, which I had not suggested before is actually my favorite option. Simple, clean, and only doubling up at the village level. RaffiKojian (talk) 05:30, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- I don't think a user with 9 total edits in Commons should be telling anyone what the correct way to handle place names on the site is, much less label someone as "echoing goverment propaganda" simply for following Commons guidelines. — Golden talk 21:44, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- An alternative though would be to create redirects for the least popular names. That's what we do in all other cases and there's no reason to make an exception just for this instance. Especially if it involves turning category names into a complete translation string or whatever of the locations name. Like where would end at that point? In the United States there's places that are named in English, Spanish, and Native American depending on the time period and who your talking to. It would be ridiculous to have a category name that amounts to "English (Spanish) (Native American) (Whatever else)" though. You have to draw the line at English if it's the most popular even if that puts people who speak other languages. -Adamant1 (talk) 05:44, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- The thing is that your examples are quite different from the situation I'm describing. There aren't American settlements where all the inhabitants call the place some other name, and have used it exclusively both in their lives and even officially in their government for decades.
- An alternative though would be to create redirects for the least popular names. That's what we do in all other cases and there's no reason to make an exception just for this instance. Especially if it involves turning category names into a complete translation string or whatever of the locations name. Like where would end at that point? In the United States there's places that are named in English, Spanish, and Native American depending on the time period and who your talking to. It would be ridiculous to have a category name that amounts to "English (Spanish) (Native American) (Whatever else)" though. You have to draw the line at English if it's the most popular even if that puts people who speak other languages. -Adamant1 (talk) 05:44, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- I the case I'm describing, many Armenian villages have had one name for hundreds of years, and those were the names at the municipal and regional level, and no other name was used, and now that they've been ethnically cleansed, suddenly this foreign name that in practice has not been used in decades, if ever, should be canvassed across this site? These are places that don't get written about a lot in the western press obviously, but the name Kyatuk (where I was uploading some of my photos to) has some other name that so far as I can tell was imposed by Azerbaijan at some point when they weren't even in charge there, and now suddenly the name should be something that nobody who is from Kyatuk for well over a century has even heard? I can't even tell you what it is, I'd have to look it up. So that's why I'm saying, this is a pretty unique situation and the renaming is part of the effort to stamp out the Armenian identity and history there. Personally I'd suggest what I suggested on Wikipedia long ago, which is that for villages that were all or majority Armenian before the first war, we use the Armenian name, and villages that were all/majority Azeri before the first war we use the Azeri name. In time we can see what happens with the region and if a different solution makes sense, but again, just putting both names either in the way you did not like, or as a mirrored category structure (which I also suggested) seems like an easy win for anyone who is looking for files related to these settlements. RaffiKojian (talk) 11:28, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- I don't think it's that different to the example I gave you in America. The Native America's called specific places something for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. They were subsequently ethnically cleansed and pushed out of those areas, but often still call them by their original names. Whereas, the white European settlers who live there now don't. But it wouldn't work to just go with Native American names regardless of if it's "right" or whatever because know one outside of a small minority uses them. Plus, it's not our job to use the platform as a forum to right great wrongs or whatever by changing everything to their original names before colonialism happed. No offense to locals, but at the end of the day this is a global project and categories need to be findable by people who aren't part of an extremely small minority of local towns folk.
- I the case I'm describing, many Armenian villages have had one name for hundreds of years, and those were the names at the municipal and regional level, and no other name was used, and now that they've been ethnically cleansed, suddenly this foreign name that in practice has not been used in decades, if ever, should be canvassed across this site? These are places that don't get written about a lot in the western press obviously, but the name Kyatuk (where I was uploading some of my photos to) has some other name that so far as I can tell was imposed by Azerbaijan at some point when they weren't even in charge there, and now suddenly the name should be something that nobody who is from Kyatuk for well over a century has even heard? I can't even tell you what it is, I'd have to look it up. So that's why I'm saying, this is a pretty unique situation and the renaming is part of the effort to stamp out the Armenian identity and history there. Personally I'd suggest what I suggested on Wikipedia long ago, which is that for villages that were all or majority Armenian before the first war, we use the Armenian name, and villages that were all/majority Azeri before the first war we use the Azeri name. In time we can see what happens with the region and if a different solution makes sense, but again, just putting both names either in the way you did not like, or as a mirrored category structure (which I also suggested) seems like an easy win for anyone who is looking for files related to these settlements. RaffiKojian (talk) 11:28, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- And just an FYI, it's not that I don't like your suggestions, I could really care less, but they don't work and go against the policy about how to name categories. The same goes for the suggest that the name should be based on if the town was majority Armenian before the war or not. What matters is if it's majority Armenian now and if the name is recognized outside of the village. Not what the prominent ethnic group in the area was before the 90s. If I'm looking at the right village Kyatuk only has 6 people anyway. Regardless of if it's "right" or not, it would be ridiculous to change the name of the category just for those six people (who probably don't even use Commons BTW) at the cost of literally everyone else. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:41, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- Well in fact nobody ever will look up Kyatuk, much less an Azeri, that was just a random example. But I disagree with you on 2 points. 1) You're saying there are places in American that Native Americans call one thing, and the white settlers who live there now call another. In this circumstance, there is nobody else that lives there. They were just cleansed 2 weeks ago and there is no new inhabitants, Azeri or otherwise, nor is there any plan for such so far as I know. 2) You are assuming the world is looking for these villages under the Azerbaijani names, but in most cases I don't think they are, but that is irrelevant since my double category solution includes both. So I'm not sure why you say "it's not going to work". It would work rather elegantly I think. But putting all of that aside, these categories we just changed in the past few days. I don't see why the rush to go and rename them all exclusively to names that are neither known to the locals many times, nor are they the most commonly used names in many cases. But rather than try to figure out for each and every village which is the most commonly used name, why not just put two categories for each village, and everybody finds what they want and we have a simple solution. Even Google Maps uses this same, very unique solution in Nagorno-Karabakh if you take a look. RaffiKojian (talk) 18:13, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- I get the feeling that the main issue here is that you're viewing Commons as similar to Wikipedia, and you believe that changing category names will have a significant effect. But Commons isn't really used for learning new information. We change category names to what the controlling party uses because people who will visit these places, take photos, and upload them to Commons will likely search for the name they saw on a road sign and that's no longer the Armenian name. To address your concern, we could include the Armenian name in the descriptions within the village categories. — Golden talk 18:32, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- If the Azeri names are now official (are they? or is this still informal?) we probably have to use them. But, yes, every category for a place that also has a well-known Armenian name should have an {{Ar}} template with the Armenian name, and should have a redirect from an Armenian-language category name. - Jmabel ! talk 18:39, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- I've applied Jmabel's suggestion to the following category as an example: Category:Badara. I've included descriptions in three languages: English, Azerbaijani, and Armenian. The Armenian description uses the Armenian name for the village, and a redirect from the Armenian name to the category also exists: Category:Patara, Nagorno-Karabakh (Category:Patara is already used for a village in Turkey in this case). I don't know Armenian, so I used Google Translate but I believe RaffiKojian does know it, so I would appreciate his assistance with the translations. — Golden talk 09:36, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
- @RaffiKojian: is this solution acceptable to you? I know you don't love it, and I don't blame you, but it feels to me like the best way to follow Commons' rules and still not lose the Armenian names. - Jmabel ! talk 17:56, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
- It's true I don't love it. I have made a tweak (also in the Badara category) which will make it at least a fair bit more manageable/livable for me. See what you think. I created a new category which Badara will fall into called "Settlements of the former Askeran Region", and that falls into the new category "Settlements of the former Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast". It still will be extra work for many users to figure out the names of the villages in each category that they want to visit, but at least having them all in one place helps a little. And still not sure why the Basque model is not usable here, and why there's so little flexibility when the wiki allows so much robustness, but anyway, here we are. Oh and also I assume there will be no problem with adding the transliteration of the Armenian names as I have done in Badara, so that if someone types them in Latin characters they come up in a search. RaffiKojian (talk) 04:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- @RaffiKojian: is this solution acceptable to you? I know you don't love it, and I don't blame you, but it feels to me like the best way to follow Commons' rules and still not lose the Armenian names. - Jmabel ! talk 17:56, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
- I've applied Jmabel's suggestion to the following category as an example: Category:Badara. I've included descriptions in three languages: English, Azerbaijani, and Armenian. The Armenian description uses the Armenian name for the village, and a redirect from the Armenian name to the category also exists: Category:Patara, Nagorno-Karabakh (Category:Patara is already used for a village in Turkey in this case). I don't know Armenian, so I used Google Translate but I believe RaffiKojian does know it, so I would appreciate his assistance with the translations. — Golden talk 09:36, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
- If the Azeri names are now official (are they? or is this still informal?) we probably have to use them. But, yes, every category for a place that also has a well-known Armenian name should have an {{Ar}} template with the Armenian name, and should have a redirect from an Armenian-language category name. - Jmabel ! talk 18:39, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- I get the feeling that the main issue here is that you're viewing Commons as similar to Wikipedia, and you believe that changing category names will have a significant effect. But Commons isn't really used for learning new information. We change category names to what the controlling party uses because people who will visit these places, take photos, and upload them to Commons will likely search for the name they saw on a road sign and that's no longer the Armenian name. To address your concern, we could include the Armenian name in the descriptions within the village categories. — Golden talk 18:32, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- Well in fact nobody ever will look up Kyatuk, much less an Azeri, that was just a random example. But I disagree with you on 2 points. 1) You're saying there are places in American that Native Americans call one thing, and the white settlers who live there now call another. In this circumstance, there is nobody else that lives there. They were just cleansed 2 weeks ago and there is no new inhabitants, Azeri or otherwise, nor is there any plan for such so far as I know. 2) You are assuming the world is looking for these villages under the Azerbaijani names, but in most cases I don't think they are, but that is irrelevant since my double category solution includes both. So I'm not sure why you say "it's not going to work". It would work rather elegantly I think. But putting all of that aside, these categories we just changed in the past few days. I don't see why the rush to go and rename them all exclusively to names that are neither known to the locals many times, nor are they the most commonly used names in many cases. But rather than try to figure out for each and every village which is the most commonly used name, why not just put two categories for each village, and everybody finds what they want and we have a simple solution. Even Google Maps uses this same, very unique solution in Nagorno-Karabakh if you take a look. RaffiKojian (talk) 18:13, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- And just an FYI, it's not that I don't like your suggestions, I could really care less, but they don't work and go against the policy about how to name categories. The same goes for the suggest that the name should be based on if the town was majority Armenian before the war or not. What matters is if it's majority Armenian now and if the name is recognized outside of the village. Not what the prominent ethnic group in the area was before the 90s. If I'm looking at the right village Kyatuk only has 6 people anyway. Regardless of if it's "right" or not, it would be ridiculous to change the name of the category just for those six people (who probably don't even use Commons BTW) at the cost of literally everyone else. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:41, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Your Feedback Needed: Upcoming Design Improvements to UploadWizard[edit]
Hello everyone! We are delighted to share with you our current designs for improving the UploadWizard, particularly the "release rights" part. Your feedback is crucial.
You can see the designs and the prototype at the dedicated page for the UploadWizard Improvements.
We have specific questions that your insights could greatly help answer. Please take a look at the prototype and share your thoughts on the talk page.
For other updates on ongoing WMF initiatives and projects that support Commons, be sure to check out the WMF support for Commons page.
Thanks in advance! - Udehb-WMF (talk) 10:10, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
[edit]
Hello, This photo was taken in 1944-45 so it should be public domain, but The National World War II Museum sells a license for the high resolution version. Artanisen (talk) 20:35, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- Anyone is perfectly entitled to sell for money an asset that's also legitimately available for free from elsewhere. Also anyone wishing to use it is welcome to obtain it from a free source, such as Commons. Part of our broad role is to explain this to consumers. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:34, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
- The museum is fairly generous, you can download it as a 2.49 mb jpeg image for free, thats fairly high resolution IMO!--Broichmore (talk) 09:07, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Artanisen: Yes, it should be public domain per COM:JAPAN, The National World War II Museum is perpetrating copyfraud in this case. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 05:32, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- I do not see the organization making a copyright claim on their website, so not copyfraud. They are just charging for hires images, organizations have server/bandwidth costs, just like us. --RAN (talk) 02:14, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
October 11[edit]
Hi, This page wasn't updated since 8 September 2023. I contacted Steinsplitter, the bot owner, on 24 September but no answer. Yann (talk) 09:32, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Yann: Per Commons:Village pump/Archive/2023/09#Stalled category moves, Steinsplitter was emailed on 24 September, but has not been heard from since 12 September. Also, please merge (or delete the existing pages) for the categories you requested to be moved to existing pages on COM:CDC. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 05:44, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Large number of fails[edit]
Hi, I get a large number of fails during upload and deletion since yesterday evening (CET). Any idea? Yann (talk) 14:12, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
- I don't, but have you tried using alternative methods, like Chunked Uploader? I've found that to work when standard uploads won't. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:16, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
- I can approve that there are issues right now, especially for files above 2 GiB and sometimes very small files (stash error) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 17:03, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
- I always Chunked Uploader for files above 40 MB, and that's where it fails today (phab:T328872). There are also a large number of failed deletions, see phab:T348667. Yann (talk) 17:23, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
- Revert and manual revert are also affected by this phab:T348375. GPSLeo (talk) 18:36, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
- I always Chunked Uploader for files above 40 MB, and that's where it fails today (phab:T328872). There are also a large number of failed deletions, see phab:T348667. Yann (talk) 17:23, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
- There are also problems with Pattypan uploads recently. It might be related... — Draceane talkcontrib. 07:22, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- Does anyone know the fix for this. I cant see the thumbnail or the image? If I were to change the file size, I can upload over image, then I can see the thumbnail and the image, for the second upload, and confusingly the thumbnail and image for the first. Must be a better way. This is two days running this has happened. --Broichmore (talk) 11:59, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- I reuploaded it, but the issue remains. It is indeed a MediaWiki bug. All thumbnails are OK, except 640 × 443 pixels. Yann (talk) 12:28, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- I forced the creation of a 650px thumbnail, and it looks OK to me now. Yann (talk) 12:41, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- I have the errors especially for files above 700 MiB still (at least often)--PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 19:03, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- I forced the creation of a 650px thumbnail, and it looks OK to me now. Yann (talk) 12:41, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- I reuploaded it, but the issue remains. It is indeed a MediaWiki bug. All thumbnails are OK, except 640 × 443 pixels. Yann (talk) 12:28, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- Does anyone know the fix for this. I cant see the thumbnail or the image? If I were to change the file size, I can upload over image, then I can see the thumbnail and the image, for the second upload, and confusingly the thumbnail and image for the first. Must be a better way. This is two days running this has happened. --Broichmore (talk) 11:59, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
October 12[edit]
Gift card pseudospam[edit]
Have seen multiple users uploading banner ad type images in the past couple of days ("Do you qualify for a free phone?", "Your opinion is important!", "You have been chosen to participate in our Loyalty Program for FREE!"), in each case with a short "asdgjhg" type description and no link attached.
- Sabrinamodnzu (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)
- Samarajack (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)
- ERHERHR10 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)
(Samarajack and ERHERHR10 are definitely uploading the same images.)
Is this a bot spam scheme - but where the bot is either broken, or intending to return and add the links later on if the images aren't deleted (so that we're less likely to blacklist the domain)? A human spammer trying to use Commons as an image host for embedding offsite? Or something else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Belbury (talk • contribs) 11:50, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- My bet is on a human spammer. 1) the file names have repeating characters as if someone is smashing buttons on a certain spot on the keyboard - truly random looks different. 2) They are using UploadWizard. It might be possible to create a bot to use that interface for uploads, but it would be so much easier to just use options for Commons:Command-line upload instead. El Grafo (talk) 12:04, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
.svg.png)
Comment I blocked Sabrinamodnzu as VOA, Samarajack for reuploading files after warning, and ERHERHR10 for socking. Yann (talk) 12:16, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
October 14[edit]
Uncategorized categories[edit]
- Does anyone know what process (a bot, I presume) fills Special:UncategorizedCategories and who might be responsible for it? Is this documented somewhere?
- Does anyone have any idea why some categories that have had parent categories for years show up there? (e.g. Category:November 2011 in the United Arab Emirates.
Jmabel ! talk 21:09, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- At the risk of making some errors, 1.) special pages are just populated by the MediaWiki software itself on a semi-regular (weekly?) basis and 2.) this kind of thing usually happens due to caching errors and if you purge the page, it should fix it (...?) and these kind of things are much more common when categories are transcluded from templates. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:43, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- Presumably if the page itself has had the parent categories visible for months (which in this case it has), purging won't change anything, but I'll try it and I guess in a couple of days we'll see. - Jmabel ! talk 01:16, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Jmabel and Koavf: When categories are transcluded from templates, the templates should also be purged if purging the categories didn't work. Null editing may also help, but that is not logged, either. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 03:01, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Presumably if the page itself has had the parent categories visible for months (which in this case it has), purging won't change anything, but I'll try it and I guess in a couple of days we'll see. - Jmabel ! talk 01:16, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
October 15[edit]
openfoodfacts.org[edit]
This website states: Products images are available under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike licence. They may contain graphical elements subject to copyright or other rights, that may in some cases be reproduced (quotation rights or fair use). Is this enough to upload copyrighted packaging images from there onto Commons or it's a kind of Commons:License laundering? Examples: File:Huile olive citron de menton.jpg; File:Tom yum pate.jpg; File:Sorbet calamansi.jpg; File:Kumquats confits.jpg; see more: Special:LinkSearch/*.openfoodfacts.org. Komarof (talk) 07:46, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
- There are countless photos of packaging on WMC so this would be a broader question and probably has already been discussed. I think all those images should be in Category:Images from Open Food Facts and it would be nice if you added them to there. There are also similar populated cats for similar products/food-related open content websites. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:55, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
- These would be OK if not cropped or focus on the copyrighted label. I nominated 2 files. Yann (talk) 11:02, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
- I added all I could find to Category:Images from Open Food Facts as suggested above. Probably, there are some more focused on the copyrighted label ones now. --Komarof (talk) 11:41, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
- I wouldn't go quite as far as to call this license laundering, but it's a sloppy way of handling licensing on the part of Open Food Facts and it should be approached with caution. Open Food Facts may have received a valid license for the photograph from their contributors (or perhaps an invalid license, if users copied an image from another web site), but they certainly didn't create the product labels, so they cannot license that content for reuse if it's above the threshold of originality. Omphalographer (talk) 00:25, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi, How should we name this category? Both French and English Wikipedia use en:Échallens while the German one uses de:Echallens. But this is a French speaking region. Yann (talk) 12:09, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
French Wikipedia appears to use both spellings, but it's unclear which referenced it uses. It even mentions some references with "Échallens" that are actually using "Echallens".
"Echallens" is the locally used spelling (see logo to the right). When searching for references with Yann, we noticed official Swiss topography goes with "Echallens" and blog he found has "Échallens". I'd stick with the local spelling. Enhancing999 (talk) 12:23, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
- Accents are usually omitted with capitals only, that's why the logo has no accent, but accents should be used whenever possible. Yann (talk) 12:47, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
- It may be a rule they follow on French Wikipedia, but not by locals (or the Swiss Federal Office of Topography). Enhancing999 (talk) 17:16, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
File not found: /v1/AUTH_mw/wikipedia-commons-local-public.[edit]
I have found a problem with some files uploaded via the WLM greece upload form. The files look like they are not uploaded localy in Commons, like File:Ναός Αγίου Γεωργίου στο Γυμνό 1635.jpg. When clicking on the link instead of a picture there is a File not found: /v1/AUTH_mw/wikipedia-commons-local-public message. There is also an error message while publishing, local-swift-eqiad. How can it be fixed? --C messier (talk) 19:51, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
- @C messier: All looks fine to me. What exactly is the URL that you are saying was problematic and gives you a "file not found"? - Jmabel ! talk 21:01, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
Cannot rotate[edit]
File:Malay dancing, KITLV 1407367.tiff cannot be rotated, perhaps because of the extention "tiff", I have tried to rename it so as to replace it rename on "jpg", it is not possible.
Question: How to rotate that pic ? --Io Herodotus (talk) 21:47, 15 October 2023 (UTC)