Commons:Village pump
|
This page is used for discussions of the operations, technical issues, and policies of Wikimedia Commons. Recent sections with no replies for 7 days and sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=--~~~~}} may be archived; for old discussions, see the archives; the latest archive is Commons:Village pump/Archive/2024/03. Please note:
Purposes which do not meet the scope of this page:
Search archives: |
| Legend |
|---|
|
|
|
|
|
| Manual settings |
| When exceptions occur, please check the setting first. |
 |
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 7 days. |
February 24[edit]
Huge amount of problematic name categories[edit]
The user @JuTa seems to have created dozens upon dozens of name categories for names that are not actual names, for example there are tons of categories for "compound" names which are really just a string of given names used by a single person ever, like Category:Johan Marie Jacques Hubert (given name) (and in some cases a couple of given names + a surname treated as a given name such as Category:Marie Therese Nordsletta (given name)), as well as creating surname categories for surnames + initials like Category:Y Goud (surname), and in the case of Category:Yashki(surname) (which I moved to Category:Yashki (surname) 3 years after it was created) I'm not even sure the person who wears it has it as a family name (I'm not overly familiar with how Indian names work). It seems to me like JaTu doesn't understand naming conventions of different cultures and many of the categories they have created are really problematic, but I don't know how to take care of all of them. StarTrekker (talk) 22:39, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- years-old open discussion: Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/08/Category:Robert Falcon (given name). RZuo (talk) 08:23, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
February 25[edit]
Can I make categories for characters in my own art, or similar[edit]
I am an ai artist and I want to upload a lot of my art here. I uploaded one already see here but I would like to categorize all my ai art into a category, and categorize all my andromeda pics into one category. Am I allowed to do this? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 18:16, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- Please dont. This is not a free AI art repository Trade (talk) 19:37, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- +1 to what Trade said. Even if Commons was a free AI art repository its not the best place for it anyway. You should really give Flickr a try if you haven't already though. They are super friendly to AI artwork and you'd have better control over your own images anyway. Plus its cool to have stats and groups specifically for AI artwork. That's where I host my AI artwork at and it has a lot of advantage to Commons. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:59, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Disappearing of sound in video files[edit]
In the last few days, newly uploaded videos lack sound (an example). It appears only if you set "source" in the player settings. This does not concern files, uploaded in previous times (an example). The same bug concerns files, uploaded in ru-wiki (topic). Sneeuwschaap (talk) 19:46, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- The bug was fixed by Phabricator users. Sneeuwschaap (talk) 02:01, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
February 26[edit]
Local knowledge of Bradford?[edit]
I uploaded two pictures, yesterday, the first is a view of Bradford here, and shortly after it another view here, before I realized they are in fact the same view, with one flipped.
Obviously the one from ArtUK is probably the correct view, but it's not a given. Can someone, with local knowledge clarify this. So I can flip the erroneous image?
What would be nice is to sort out the landmark spires in the picture and the map co-ordinates of the view too. Broichmore (talk) 19:31, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Broichmore: I'm not local to Bradford but one of the churches resembles this one built in 1815. It has since been demolished but (according to this YouTube video (at 1:14)) it stood on Rawson Square. From Hill To Shore (talk) 19:49, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Broichmore: this 360° view of the painting's museum indicates that the ArtUK version is indeed the correct one. --HyperGaruda (talk) 06:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
February 27[edit]
Renaming[edit]
Hi, can an admin look at this rename? I can't rename it to the requested name. First someone else changed it to 'side view', but the extension was bad ".jpg .jpg" (double). The uploader is not happy with that (side view) and now wants it to be renamed to the normal name, but I can't do it, an admin is needed to remove a file. Thanks in advance. See: File:13-06-27-gouda-by-RalfR-008 side view.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yug (talk • contribs) 13:03, 27 February 2024 (UTC) - Not Yug, I forgot to sign. - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 20:37, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Hello all,
I look for a template to tell other contributors to « Wait / pause, do NOT translate this wikipage yet ». Is there something else than {{Draft}} ? Draft is de facto not perceived as a Stop translation message : contributors are still translating the Draft-status template anyway. This template will be revamped, so good will translators are wasting their time. Is there a template to stop good will translators ? Yug (talk) 13:03, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Diana Sperling paintings[edit]
If someone in the UK can give a better idea of the subject/location of these Diana Sperling paintings I would be very grateful. According to the Bonhams auction description the book had sketches of "The Druids Temple, Holyhead; Tickford Park House; Hedingham Castle; The obelisk near Wellington; Charmout Church, Dorset, and others."
ThePinkShoes (talk) 14:50, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
February 28[edit]
Wiki Loves Monuments in Italy: new note on authorizations liability[edit]
Hi, I have been following the discussion on the deletion of some images uploaded during Wiki Loves Monuments in Italy.
Wikimedia Italia asked Deborah De Angelis, a lawyer with specific expertise on copyright issues and Creative Commons licenses, to write a note on the liability of the authorizations used within the contest. You will find in the note two specific case studies, which I hope will help clarifying whether we should keep or not many images on Wikimedia Commons.
Please note that this memo is not legal advice to any person reading it and that I am not a lawyer and I am just sharing this document to facilitate a further discussion and informed decisions on this matter.
According to this memo written by De Angelis, who is also the drafter of the most recent authorization letter used by Wikimedia Italia, there would be no liability to host the images in question since these would be properly CC licensed.
Just as importantly, it suggests that the images are appropriately licensed and as a result, they would also be "free" for downstream re-users in the same way any other Creative Commons licensed material would be.
Since other platforms don't have this kind of blanket authorization from the government copyright holder, hosting these images on Commons presents a unique opportunity to "free" these images for all reusers on the Internet since once they are hosted on Wikimedia Commons with the authorization, the memo suggests that they are properly licensed as Creative Commons.
I would also like to draw your attention to the fact that if the Commons community did reconsider the policy and allow images with authorizations, it could open up opportunities to "free" works in other jurisdictions, not just in Italy. That could be a great opportunity to make Commons a place where many images restricted by panorama laws could be freed.
Paolo Casagrande (WMIT) (talk) 09:53, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Paolo Casagrande (WMIT) are the authorizations also valid under U.S. law? Note that unlike in Italy, the U.S. does not automatically treat commissioned monuments as under PD-USgov. Many public memorials there are still under sculptors' copyrights. As Italy does not have formal FoP, any copyrighted sculptures there are also at mercy of U.S. law, which is much stricter. Commons recognizes the validity of Uruguay Round Agreements Act that restored U.S. copyrights to eligible foreign works. Not sure if U.S. courts will recognize the agreements between Wikimedia Italia and the Italian cities (communes), if ever one sculptor (or his heir) changes his mind and begins a lawsuit against Wikimedia using U.S. law and not Italian law. U.S. courts tend to side with sculptors than end-users. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:07, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Also, regarding "if the Commons community did reconsider the policy and allow images with authorizations, it could open up opportunities to free works in other jurisdictions, not just in Italy..." easy said than done. At least in two countries (Australia and Sweden), FoP exceptions for public monuments are under danger of being restricted to non-commercial (ping @Eric Luth (WMSE): for the Swedish situation). In Australia, the aborigine groups and some artists' societies are calling for Australian FoP for monuments to be revoked or restricted to non-commercial. Wikimedians in Estonia are having a hard time convincing their parliament to open up their public places to global reusers because their authors (mainly sculptors) are against public use of Estonian public spaces. Therefore, the Italian situation may not be the same as those in other countries, even in two countries where FoP for monuments are still recognized as of now.
- Luckily, a radical proposal to ignore all other countries' laws and only follow U.S law just to finally allow unfree architecture (Burj Khalifa, Louvre Pyramod etc., since the U.S. law allows architectural FoP anyway) was thumbed down by a representative of Wikimedia Foundation itself, and instead the representative will call the foundation to prioritize on FoP movements. Should that proposal pushed through, then perhaps all of Italian monuments allowed here under WMIT-city government agreements are deleted en masse, since these might be binding under Italian law but not under U.S. law. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:19, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- @JWilz12345 The sculptor cannot "change its mind" IMO, since the copyright in this cases is of the public administration... When we don't have a waiver, for the works for which the URAA is relevant (post 1976), the term is 95 years and not 70pma... Otherwise with your line of reasoning we should always assume that in the US the copyright is of the author even when the customer has it, which seems a really awkward interpretation to me (that would mean that a foreign society or entity could not legally have a copyright in the US!)... Friniate (talk) 10:42, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- This legal guide for example explicitly talks about foreign works made for hire. It's only circumstantial, ok, but if it would be impossible in the US for a foreign society or entity to have a copyright on something, then the legal guide shouldn't take that possibility into account at all... Friniate (talk) 11:31, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Friniate your reasoning is only valid in the Italian context. I doubt that would hold water in U.S. courts. The Commons already experienced the brunt of the 2012 Oldenburg DMCA take downs, in which even images of sculptures in countries where FoP covers monuments were also deleted by WMF, using the U.S. law as the basis. The agreements are legal in the Italian law, but I doubt U.S. courts will honor such should sculptors file copyright claims. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:32, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- I've looked further into the matter finding this. It seems that the agreements between the author and the buyer are indeed valid for the US law, but only for 35 years, after which the author can exercise his rights and have the copyright reverting back to him. An exception are of course works for hire in the US meaning (that means if the author was an employee, etc). What I'm wondering though is: what if (as it's the case with the WMI waivers) the society or the entity has renounced to its rights before the 35-y threshold (that means, in the period in which they are for sure the rightful copyright holder)? Isn't there a rule also in the US law that says that once in CC-BY-SA a work cannot have the copyright restored?
- Note in any case that this entire matter wouldn't cover pre-1976 works for which the URAA doesn't apply (they were already in PD under the italian law at the URAA date), that are the vast majority of the works currently tagged with PD-ItalyGov, so please let's not talk about massive deletions for all these images or for the template itself. Friniate (talk) 12:23, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Moreover, correct me if I'm wrong, but the commons policy now despite the Oldenburg case allows to upload images of statues in the countries with FoP for scupltures like Germany, isn'it? So the WMF takes them down only if it comes a notice, but in the other cases not, am I wrong? EDIT: I see that we have even a template for this very category, Template:Not-free-US-FOP, currently used by 2031 images XD I think that we could create a similar template also for images of italian buildings built between 1976 and 1989 and that are covered by WLM-waivers Friniate (talk) 12:39, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- @JWilz12345: The authorizations are valid under U.S. law exactly as an authorization written by the copyright holder is. So, the answer is "yes", otherwise all permission written to COM:VRT wouldn't be acceptable.
- The issue here is different. @Paolo Casagrande: WML is organized in this case by an external organization, acting outside from Commons' community. And, because of that, it encountered all the problems we well know. First of all, the permissions are not verifiable because the templates do not link to the relative text but to a general database. For me, these permissions are only acceptable if a link to the URL with the relative document is available for all images, and if this permission is verified by a trusted user, e.g. using {{Licensereview}}. Otherwise it stays something external of our project, verified by some unknown WMIT member with no connection whatsoever to Commons' community. There are other issues, due to the fact that the text of the permission wasn't double checked by community trusted users, i.e. Commons' admins or VRT agents; for me, the permission for the photos mustn't be restricted to the month of September only. Note: I trust Deborah De Angelis, but it's again a proof that WMIT considers itself outside of Commons' community, using our platform rather than contributing to it searching for a good understanding between the two communities. --Ruthven (msg) 20:12, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Moreover, correct me if I'm wrong, but the commons policy now despite the Oldenburg case allows to upload images of statues in the countries with FoP for scupltures like Germany, isn'it? So the WMF takes them down only if it comes a notice, but in the other cases not, am I wrong? EDIT: I see that we have even a template for this very category, Template:Not-free-US-FOP, currently used by 2031 images XD I think that we could create a similar template also for images of italian buildings built between 1976 and 1989 and that are covered by WLM-waivers Friniate (talk) 12:39, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- @JWilz12345 The sculptor cannot "change its mind" IMO, since the copyright in this cases is of the public administration... When we don't have a waiver, for the works for which the URAA is relevant (post 1976), the term is 95 years and not 70pma... Otherwise with your line of reasoning we should always assume that in the US the copyright is of the author even when the customer has it, which seems a really awkward interpretation to me (that would mean that a foreign society or entity could not legally have a copyright in the US!)... Friniate (talk) 10:42, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
February 29[edit]
Author name that is not username[edit]
Hi, is there still some way to use an author name other than your username that’s less cumbersome than manually editing it? It used to be that there was a field in the upload wizard to enter your name, but this has been removed. I want my works to be attributed to my real name, not my username. On a related note, would it be possible to automate changing the author name on my uploaded works where it’s my username? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theanswertolifetheuniverseandeverything (talk • contribs) 10:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Anselm Schüler: I changed author name for you on three files. Please sign your posts. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, I'm used to the rich editor that auto-adds it. Thank you for the help. But is there a way to avoid this in the future? Theanswertolifetheuniverseandeverything (talk) 11:52, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Theanswertolifetheuniverseandeverything: Preferences (top right of the page) → Upload Wizard. Here you can add an author's name instead of the default username. --HyperGaruda (talk) 19:56, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, I'm used to the rich editor that auto-adds it. Thank you for the help. But is there a way to avoid this in the future? Theanswertolifetheuniverseandeverything (talk) 11:52, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Designing a new Wishlist: Meet Jack, the new Lead Community Tech Manager[edit]
Hello community, I want to introduce Jack Wheeler, who has recently joined the Wikimedia Foundation as the Lead Community Tech Manager and is responsible for the Future of the Wishlist.
Jack would like to have a conversation with the community to get input for the design of the new Wishlist Survey, starting with how to define a "Wish."
Community Tech would appreciate you chatting with him; your input will be invaluable.
You can check out Jack's first message to the community where you can find a link to proceed to book time to talk to him, or share your ideas.
Best regards,
On behalf of the Community Tech team, STei (WMF) (talk) 11:03, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Disappearing pages from pdf, a bug or a hack???[edit]
Hello, is this a bug or a hack??? File:Gezelle, Rijmsnoer om en om het jaar (1897).pdf was correctly uploaded on commons and all pages had the corect texts. But a strange thing happened with pdf-page 212 : during the transcription on wikisource at s:nl:Pagina:Gezelle, Rijmsnoer om en om het jaar (1897).pdf/212, the page 212 of the pdf turned blanc!!! I downloaded the pdf from commons to my computer, and on my computer the page 212 had still his text... I prepared and uploaded a new and complete pdf, all seemed oke again. But now in transcribing pdf-page 313 (the transcription is done correctly) the pdf-page 313 turns blanc also s:nl:Pagina:Gezelle, Rijmsnoer om en om het jaar (1897).pdf/313 !!! How is that possible? A bug, a hack??? --Havang(nl) (talk) 12:27, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Prolly just some vague anomaly in the original file. pdf gets pretty complicated, so there are some situations where mediawiki/thumbnailer gets incorrect information. You can file a bugreport about it. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 22:34, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- @User:TheDJ Where to file the bug report? --Havang(nl) (talk) 13:59, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Havang(nl): Ultimately on phab:, but you should probably read mw:How to report a bug to work out where to go. --bjh21 (talk) 16:19, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- @User:TheDJ Where to file the bug report? --Havang(nl) (talk) 13:59, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Categorization in the Data-namespace[edit]
Hi there, I asked some time ago about ways to browse the data-namespace. It turns out at this moment in time there's little in the way of categorization. There have been some efforts to use a naming convention (e.g. this seems to work, but it is cumbersome to navigate and very inconsistent, most files are put directly in the root of the namespace, and this doesn't quite help navigating. Also, there are different file types (geojson .map files, tabular data .tab files etc.). I discussed this with @Romaine who pointed out that there have been some efforts for categorization, where the category actally lives on the talk page (as putting a category on a file corrupts the structure of the actual data file) such as here. This results in categories like this one, which I think would be a very acceptable way to navigate the environment. Any ideas on a concerted effort to make the entire namespace more accessible like this? Milliped (talk) 14:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Create redirect for Genderqueer → Category:Genderqueer[edit]
Pansexuality is a redirect to Category:Pansexuality. I think that Genderqueer should be the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Okterakt (talk • contribs) 23:26, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Okterakt (talk) 23:26, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Suggestions on how to display a digital recreation of a statue?[edit]
I had a file that was deleted because some users believed it wasn't within scope because it only showed the digital recreation (thinking it was only fantasy). At least that's what I gather, since in the "Deletion Discussion" my questions were not answered.
How can I be able to present it in order to fall within scope and be accepted by Wikimedia guidelines?
I come here because my questions were NOT answered during the "Deletion Discussion". And I am not asking for the video to be undelete or reinstated.
The image in question is a digital recreation (a digital sculpture model if we want to be more technical) of what the indigenous statue Venus of Tamtoc would look like in real life. I made this work not only as an artist but also as an Anthropologist, so both expertise were used to show how this statue would realistically look.
The file was a seconds-long webm video, which showed a nude young woman moving.
What some users were quick to note were the following: 1) Nudity, 2) A fantasy woman, 3) A woman who would not resemble the statue, 4) lack of comparison, 5) not in scope or instructional.
One user noted that after consulting the statue it did resembled. So my first would be if I should upload a file which shows both the statue AND the recreation I did, both together. Perhaps even showing a comparison of sorts. And maybe even with text which explains the features and such (i.e. the scarifications shown by the original statue). If that's not instructional, I don't know what would be? But -- like I said -- I make this question so that I know if this type of file would fall within scope of Wikimedia.
My second question is... In case this did fall within scope, then would the image of the statue had to be free in Commons, or to what degree should it be in order for me to be able to include it in this file to be uploaded to Wikimedia? This particular part, to me, is a tricky one regarding Wikimedia guidelines. How would any of you proceed in such a case?
Perhaps I did not made the file instructional enough. Or more clearly showing the comparison in a visible manner. Although I did mention it in the description, some users still insisted in how a similarity would be hard to determine. And eventhough I am biased because it my own work, I also think there is also a bias from some users since it is not European art. For instance, I asked what if someone would upload a painted portrait of Joan of Arc. It would fall in scope because it is art and probably made by a specific artist using a specific tecnique during a specific time period. But how come this painted woman would not be considered a "fantasy woman". Again, during the "discussion" the user who requested the deletion (or other users for that matter) did NOT answered this and my other questions. This idea of a "fantasy woman" would be a dangerous precedent -- at least for non-European art that portrays non-European historical figures. No one knows how Joan of Arc looked like, or Emperor Charlemagne, and still we as a society accept art that portrays historical figures, like Christ or Moses, as being normal. But my file was deleted for being "fantasy woman".
I will not apply for undeletion. But if I keep uploading the digital recreation in a different manner (be that an image or a video) Wikimedia users may, again, delete it under the before mentioned premnices. So how to present this in a way that does fall in scope and be accepted by the Wiki community as a file that presents instructional or information. Is my idea of how to do it correct? And if there is absolutely no way the Wiki community will ever accept something like this, should we start nominating for deletion art that portrays historical figures?
For more information, the deletion "discussion" was made here Commons:Deletion requests/File:Venus de Tamtoc 2.webm
Thanks in advance. Miguel Angel Omaña Rojas (talk) 01:25, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- The one file that was kept File:Venus de Tamtoc 1.png is not very accurate, in the image the right breast is covered by a hand but in the original statue the breast is bare: File:Venus de Tamtoc.JPG. --RAN (talk) 02:54, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
deletion of my all images[edit]
Why delete all my uploads from User:Shonyx 136.158.60.178 01:47, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe because you are bringing a lot of unnecessary drama to the project? Maybe because you are violating copyrights? Just guessing. - Jmabel ! talk 05:33, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- What is going on with this user? Most of the DR's comes off as being rather unhinged Trade (talk) 13:02, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Trade: Both user and IP are now blocked. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:49, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:49, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- What is going on with this user? Most of the DR's comes off as being rather unhinged Trade (talk) 13:02, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
March 01[edit]
Mixture of photographs / pictures from different eras / different buildings[edit]
Hi. I was viewing pictures from the UK House of Commons. The category mixes photographs from the current House of Commons, as it was rebuilt under Churchill's premiership, with those of pre-WWII, and even those from the early XIXth century before the fire that destroyed most of the Palace of Westminster. Shouldn't these eras be separated? David.Monniaux (talk) 12:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- @David.Monniaux: This is a sort of thing we sometimes do, and sometimes don't. Feel free to break it down into subcategories, but if you do then please provide enough description for each cat so that it should be moderately straightforward for editors to find the correct category and expect to put some time into category maintenance here over the course of years. - Jmabel ! talk 16:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- If it's a different room, I'd consider splitting it. What isn't really helpful in there are the crops of photos in that category where the chamber isn't visible (sample). Enhancing999 (talk) 14:37, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Commons Gazette 2024-03[edit]
Volunteer staff changes[edit]
In February 2024, 2 sysops were elected; 1 sysop was removed. Currently, there are 188 sysops.
Election:
- User:Matrix was elected (21/4/1) on 27 February.
- User:Bedivere was elected (21/2/0) on 29 February.
Removal:
- User:Nick was removed on 13 February due to resignation. He had served as sysop from 6 January 2008 to 10 April 2011, and from 1 May 2014.
We thank him for his service.
Other news[edit]
- CropTool received necessary maintenance. Its lossless mode is working again.
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) 20:36, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
March 02[edit]
Picture of building, file renaming 10 years later when owner changes (as "obvious error")[edit]
If the tenant or the owner of building changes after the photo was taken, this isn't an "obvious error" in the filename. So the rename at [1] doesn't meet our criteria for "obvious errors".
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Frankfurt_am_Main-_Betriebszentrale_DB_InfraGO_des_Regionalbereichs_Mitte_und_Netzleitzentrale_DB_InfraGO-_Haupteingang_9.1.2012.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
An obvious error would be be a typo in the name, but this isn't the case.
I brought this to the attention of the renaming user (User_talk:Mosbatho#Rewriting_history?), but they don't want to revert it, even they don't seem to check themselves if it is an "obvious error".
What is the suggested course of action?
- Request a rename in the opposite direction and
- ask file renaming rights to be removed from the user's account?
Enhancing999 (talk) 13:47, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- Namen sind Schall und Rauch. Names are quite meaningless. Edit wars on file names do not enhance the project. As long as the description and categorization and usage is correct, everything is fine. Just my 2 cents. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 14:44, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- That doesn't seem to tbe community POV, see Commons:File renaming. Obviously, file description has the same error. "InfraGO" didn't exist in 2012, but only in 2024. Enhancing999 (talk) 19:05, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- Files names are very important. They should describe the file contents as well as make it findable and properly indexed in search engines, mainly the WMC search engine. I think this is too much a detailed issue to be discussed here. I don't know why you haven't proposed a file-title change with your rationale. I think it could stay as is if the file-title was correct at the time it was taken. The information about when it was taken should be well-visible in the file-description. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:58, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- Ich halte das für ein ein sehr grundsätzliches Problem. In allen WMF-Projekten können alle Seiten von allen beliebig hin und her verschoben werden. Ausnahmen sind nur wenn ein Account noch sehr unerfahren ist, wenn ein Account dieses Recht individuell entzogen bekommen hat und wenn eine bestimmte Seite individuell gegen Verschieben geschützt ist. Nur Commons hat ein spezielles User-Recht für das Verschieben von Seiten, das der eine Teil der User hat und der andere nicht. Und das bezieht sich dann auch nicht auf alle Seiten, sondern einzig und allein auf den Namensraum "File:". Das ist eine bedeutende Abweichung vom gesamten sonstigen Brauch bei WMF-Projekten und ich gehe daher davon aus, dass das nicht so ist, weil mal ein Developer eine alberne Wette gegen einen anderen Developer verloren hat, oder weil einige hier glauben, das wäre sowas wie ein wirksamer Regentanz gegen die Dürre in der Sahara.
- Ich gehe davon aus, dass es deshalb hier "Filemover" gibt und andere Accounts, die dieses Recht nicht haben, weil das Verschieben eines Files mit einer besonderen Verantwortung verbunden ist. Dass also die Filemover besonders verantwortungsvolle Leute sind, die in der Lage sind alle einschlägigen Regeln zu kennen und jederzeit zu beachten und die, wenn eine ihrer Entscheidungen in Frage gestellt wird, ohne weiteres diese Entscheidung selbst überprüfen, ggf overrulen und auf jeden Fall erklären. Das alles scheint hier nicht der Fall gewesen zu sein und es sollte eine Selbstverständlichkeit sein, dass in so einem Fall, der Filemover von Admins oder anderen Filemovern um eine Stellungnahme gebeten wird und wenn in einer vernünftigen Zeit keine plausible Erklärung erfolgt, das Filemover-Recht entzogen wird. C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 15:23, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- Zufällig lese ich davon, dass es hierbei um einen Move geht, den ich vollzogen habe. Man hätte mich diesbzgl. informieren sollen, was allerdings nicht erfolgt ist. Lieber C.Suthorn, das stimmt so nicht. Sehr ausführlich habe ich den Filemove erklärt und auch der Antragsteller, welcher den Filemove initiierte und die Ursprungsbegründung geliefert hatte. Also, dass da irgendetwas ohne Erklärung erfolgt sei, ist falsch. Mosbatho (talk) 17:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- Wo hast du den Antragsteller kontaktiert? Auf User talk:Mpns sehe ich keine Diskussion. Aus welchen Gründen siehst du den Grund Nummer 3 hier gegeben? GPSLeo (talk) 18:20, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- Zufällig lese ich davon, dass es hierbei um einen Move geht, den ich vollzogen habe. Man hätte mich diesbzgl. informieren sollen, was allerdings nicht erfolgt ist. Lieber C.Suthorn, das stimmt so nicht. Sehr ausführlich habe ich den Filemove erklärt und auch der Antragsteller, welcher den Filemove initiierte und die Ursprungsbegründung geliefert hatte. Also, dass da irgendetwas ohne Erklärung erfolgt sei, ist falsch. Mosbatho (talk) 17:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Category:Benjamin Franklin has got 93 categories (24 of them red, some America-related, some United-States related). Wonder if this is the leading category in the Has-most-categories-competition? --Herzi Pinki (talk) 14:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- The categories seem to be taken from the English-language Wikipedia. This isn't a bad strategy as they tend to have generally more detailed category trees for people than the Wikimedia Commons, when making those red links blue it's probably also important to connect them with the right Wikidata item. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 15:28, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- A lot of those categories seem unlikely to be relevant to Commons, though. For instance, Category:84-year-old deaths, Category:English-language spelling reform advocates, and Category:Respiratory disease deaths in Pennsylvania are all focused on categorizing Franklin as a person, not categorizing the media files associated with him. Commons categories don't need to describe every property of an entity; that's what we have Wikidata and Wikipedia for. Omphalographer (talk) 22:57, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
March 03[edit]
License for Wikipedia[edit]
Is there a license that is used on Commons but may not be used in certain wikipedias?2A02:810D:4ABF:DBE4:997E:DB0E:63D3:1323 13:18, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, and welcome. Yes, we have many licenses backed by VRT permission that may not be copied except by a VRT Agent. Our well-known licenses should have analogs on the Wikipedias. Is there some license you want to use on certain Wikipedias that you can't find there? Wikidata should be able to help you look. Please be specific. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- Your question is not clear, but you don't need a specific license for Wikipedia if a file is available on Commons. Except a few exceptions (see COM:VPC#Disney's early works are still protected by copyright in German-speaking countries), any file on Commons can be used on any Wikipedia. Yann (talk) 13:39, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Category:William Richardson[edit]
Category:William Richardson and the Wikidata entry appear to be a conflation of two or more people with the same name. An engraver from the 1700s and an author of books and a man from the 1860s. I will move the images of the 1860s man to Category:William Alexander Richardson, can someone look at the other entries and see if they are for the same person or split them into new categories and create a new Wikidata entry for them? RAN (talk) 17:16, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- I also removed "President of the Ashford Chamber of Commerce" from the entry for the illustrator. I fixed some of the errors by splitting off William Alexander Richardson, but I think what remains may still be a conflation. --RAN (talk) 00:35, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Creator:Robert L. Knudsen[edit]
At the template Creator:Robert L. Knudsen "Storm Lake" appears twice, how do I get rid of the second one? RAN (talk) 20:17, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- Creator templates normally only fetch data from wikidata, but this one is filled out. remove the sections you find unnecessary or redundant (if they are already recorded on wikidata). RZuo (talk) 20:25, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks! I wasn't aware you could override Wikidata in the template. --RAN (talk) 00:30, 4 March 2024 (UTC)