↓ Skip to table of contents ↓ ↓ Skip to discussions ↓ ↓ Skip to the last discussion ↓

Welcome to the Village pump

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

Please note:

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

Purposes which do not meet the scope of this page:

Please do not make deletion requests here: use the relevant process for it instead.
For technical support and graphics talks (PNG, SVG, GIF, etc.), please post on the Graphics village pump.
To ask for image improvement, see:
- Graphic Lab/Photography workshop for photographs.
- Graphic Lab/Map workshop for maps.
- Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop for other illustrations.
To ask for video or audio improvement, see Commons:Graphic Lab/Video and sound workshop.
For translation requests, please post at Commons:Requests for translation.
For media requests, please post at Commons:File requests.

Search archives:

Start a new discussion

#	💭 Title	💬	👥	🙋 Last editor	🕒 (UTC)
1	Special:UncategorizedCategories	28	8	Joshbaumgartner	2024-01-22 16:40
2	Description of files	12	3	Broichmore	2024-01-19 11:46
3	Photo challenge November results	4	4	RZuo	2024-01-18 21:06
4	Picture of the Day (File:Caracas building.jpg)- Misleadingly labelled Photoshopped creation?	57	16	Ubcule	2024-01-19 20:33
5	Problematic file names and irrelevant categorization by sockpuppet group	14	4	LuciferianThomas	2024-01-25 03:20
6	Amazing resource - just found	6	2	Chris.sherlock2	2024-01-20 01:48
7	Your most memorable shot 2023 (January / February 2023)	3	3	Jmabel	2024-01-19 23:59
8	Question about Category:Søren Rasmussen (politician)	4	3	SVTCobra	2024-01-18 14:04
9	Letter of consent for portraits	17	6	Prosfilaes	2024-01-24 15:45
10	MediaSearch dysfuncional	6	4	C.Suthorn	2024-01-18 10:00
11	Category:Macedonia	2	1	Jmabel	2024-01-20 00:00
12	Name for a graphic art style	9	5	Jmabel	2024-01-21 01:10
13	Book classifications translation help	2	1	維基小霸王	2024-01-18 08:55
14	photographs E.H. Stuut, overleden 24 november 1931	2	2	Vysotsky	2024-01-22 16:12
15	Consultation with Commons community before holding contests	11	6	GPSLeo	2024-01-21 11:10
16	Vote on the Charter for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee	1	1	RamzyM (WMF)	2024-01-19 18:07
17	Is there a way to search for all the uploads from a user	9	6	Paradise Chronicle	2024-01-20 15:25
18	Images in Category:Sergei Shoigu	2	2	Alexpl	2024-01-20 20:31
19	Update Template:PD-Meyers-pages	3	2	SDudley	2024-01-21 01:08
20	Video to panorama	2	2	Broichmore	2024-01-21 12:36
21	Should we semi-protect highly used templates automatically?	8	5	Юрий Д.К.	2024-01-22 16:23
22	1000 longest file pages on Commons	3	3	JopkeB	2024-01-24 16:00
23	NoFoP in Ukraine and example request	4	3	JWilz12345	2024-01-21 21:58
24	Retrofit...	5	4	Llann Wé²	2024-01-24 03:55
25	CropTool	6	4	Sjoerddebruin	2024-01-23 08:33
26	Are there COM:INUSE exceptions, besides copyvios? What are they?	5	5	HyperGaruda	2024-01-24 20:59
27	Can I use Creative Commons share-alike images in a book without releasing the book into creative commons?	3	2	Immanuelle	2024-01-23 02:32
28	Machine translated descriptions	3	3	Jmabel	2024-01-23 20:51
29	How to handle claims of "own work"?	3	2	WikiDan61	2024-01-23 21:08
30	Figshare	1	1	Pigsonthewing	2024-01-23 15:49
31	Avars	2	2	Ruslik0	2024-01-23 20:11
32	Search should link to major project pages	1	1	ITookSomePhotos	2024-01-23 22:10
33	Retouching categories	3	3	Omphalographer	2024-01-25 18:01
34	Categories related to social impacts of technology	4	3	Adamant1	2024-01-24 20:07
35	Making text bigger	7	4	Elizium23	2024-01-25 22:37
36	User-made drawings of people	2	2	Jmabel	2024-01-25 21:51

Legend
In the last hour
In the last day
In the last week
In the last month
More than one month
Manual settings
When exceptions occur, please check the setting first.

Centralized discussion

See also: Village pump/Proposals ■ Archive
Should PD-CQ Roll Call be used for recent images? (5 January 2024) Technical needs survey (17 December 2023) When does PDART apply to textile works? (15 November 2023) Does this image contain "love hearts"? (17 August 2023) Overhaul of categories by period (5 December 2022) Version of Saudi flag to use (11 July 2022) Concern regarding revocability of KOGL licenses (22 December 2021) Should deleting content from your own talk page be forbidden? (11 November 2021) Revise the COM:FOP Sweden section (1 February 2021) Change technical name of LRs to license-reviewer from image-reviewer(2 November 2023) User talk:湯崩正海#Image Tagging File:青島ビール放尿動画事件.jpgとUser talk:湯崩正海#File:青島ビール放尿動画事件.jpgで議論しています。皆様のご意見を募集しています。是非、ご参加ください。(2 November 2023)
Template: View ■ Discuss ■ Edit ■ Watch

	SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved\|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 7 days.

November 26[edit]

Special:UncategorizedCategories[edit]

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

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

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

I'm a bit confused about something @Jmabel: I checked the page and some of the categories on there are for example Category:April 2016 in Bourgogne-Franche-Comté (through 2023), but these were created years ago in some instances and already had parent categories from the start. How do categories like that end up there? ReneeWrites (talk) 02:09, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ReneeWrites: Insufficient follow-through and patrolling, combined with out of control back end processes. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 02:48, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ReneeWrites: Actually, in this case this appears to be some sort of flaw in the software that creates the Special page. As I wrote a couple of days ago, "A few categories listed here will prove to be fine as they stand; the tool messed up and put them in the list because it didn't correctly understand that a template had correctly given them parent categories. Many of these are right near the front of the (alphabetical) list, and involve dates." It looks like today's run added a bunch of these false positives and that (unlike the previous bunch) they are more scattered through the list. I believe all of the 100+ files that use Template:Month by year in Bourgogne-Franche-Comté are on today's list; none of these were there three days earlier. That probably has something to do with User:Birdie's edits to yesterday to Template:Month by year in Bourgogne-Franche-Comté; those are complicated enough that I have no idea what in particular might have confused the software. The categories still look fine from a normal user point of view, but the software that creates Special:UncategorizedCategoriesn is somehow confused.

Other than that: we're a couple of hundred fixed or deleted categories closer to where we'd want to be, compared to a couple of days ago. - Jmabel ! talk 04:23, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Server-purges should fix this but apparently it doesn't. Some categories that didn't appear last time after purging the cache have disappeared now so I'm more confused as to what the problem could be since the iirc the refresh time was after some pages were updated (it has problems when pages get all their categories from a template). There should probably be a phrabricator issue about this, albeit it's possible things work fine once there are always just a small number of cats there which seems increasingly feasible. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:35, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jeff G., could you explain what "... out of control back end processes" means, so I can understand your comment? --Ooligan (talk) 16:54, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ooligan: As I understand it, there are processes that run on WMF servers that run too long or get caught up in race conditions or whatever, and that get terminated after running too long. I think updating this special page may be one such process, sometimes. Certainly, updating the read / not read status of stuff on my watchlist seems that way, especially when using this new reply tool. Turning off the big orange bar before displaying my user talk page would be helpful, too. <end rant> — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 19:26, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jeff G., thank you. --Ooligan (talk) 19:44, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ooligan: You're welcome. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 20:11, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BTW, we are still getting some false positives, e.g. Category:Letters with "e" as diacritic above and other similar categories. This makes me guess we are also getting some false negatives (parentless categories that don't show up in the report). - Jmabel ! talk 20:46, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for pointing this out. While many uncategorized categories are useless ones that should be deleted, there is indeed some low-hanging fruit in there, including ones that can be linked to an article on a Wikipedia. – b_jonas 18:49, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

At this point, the remaining categories are probably about 80% or more either simply needing parents, or needing some sort of clarification or merge. Very few are outright deletions. - Jmabel ! talk 19:40, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

i think we could deploy a bot to monitor this page, send reminders to users who create uncategorised cat pages and add the uncat cats to a maintenance cat.--RZuo (talk) 11:16, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@RZuo: We have {{subst:Please link images}} for the reminder. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 15:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jeff G.: That's really about categories on images, though, not categories on categories. FWIW, a lot of these happen in one of two ways:

a small number of users create a fair number of categories and, as far as I can tell, can't be bothered to learn to do it right, or don't care that they leave a ton of work for others. They are not unaware of the situation: they've been told, but they keep doing it. I could name some names, but I'd rather not.
a lot of people seem to think the correct way to get rid of an unused empty category is just to blank it, which of course leaves a parentless category. This group is generally "educable", and for that purpose we have {{How to delete empty categories}}. - Jmabel ! talk 21:05, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Wow! Down to 456, again leaning heavily toward Central East Europe, especially Hungarian. - Jmabel ! talk 21:38, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And down to 190, some of which are doubtless false positives or current CfDs. - Jmabel ! talk 01:33, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We are now below 100 (89 this morning). It would be great if it can stay down to numbers like this. Eyeballing, I'd say about half of these are recent, and of course things like this are going to keep coming up, but we've caught almost all of the long-time backlog. - Jmabel ! talk 21:13, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment Thanks to everyone who helped cut down this thicket! Josh (talk) 16:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A further update: there are, at most, a handful of remaining long-term uncategorized categories. However, we still get about 30 new ones per day, mostly because people don't understand (or don't choose) to use {{SD}} and instead they blank the category. For what it's worth:

This is explained at {{How to delete empty categories}}.
It would be great if someone wants to internationalize that template.
It should usually be subst'd on the user talk page of the person who has blanked a page; details are on the Template page. - 21:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Categories with members, but no parents[edit]

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

January 11[edit]

Description of files[edit]

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

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

Y're a star From Hill To Shore

I should have brought my question to the village pump earlier, but then again, I do not want to be too much of a hassle to all of you. Cheers. Lotje (talk) 10:21, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just playing Devil's advocate here. If you were to alter the old text into modern English without retaining the original; in the more august British museums. You would be in deep trouble for vandalism, it's very frowned upon. They take great care to retain old spellings and even inherited mis-sorting, etc.

I'm guilty myself of cleaning up OCR errors of spelling in text, but really, those errors should be retained. When you want to find that text, in a page in the reference document, you can only find it, if you include the spelling errors. Food for thought! Broichmore (talk) 19:54, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Broichmore: I inserted both the old and the modern English in the same text with a reference to George E. Koronaios and would appreciate your comment/thoughts. Thank you so much. Lotje (talk) 05:38, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Broichmore: Excellent and valuable work. See below. Broichmore (talk) 10:34, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Lotje: Can you please clarify your intent here? We have three versions of text, so it would be useful to understand which version(s) you would like us to preserve. An example of the original source text would be, "Hiſtorians." An example of the erroneous OCR text (which includes errors from limitations of the technology) is "Hiflorians." An example of correcting the OCR text using modern character conventions would be, "Historians."

You have advised against "vandalism" to protect the original source text of "Hiſtorians," but also advocate not fixing the OCR text of "Hiflorians," which is an error from the scanning software. Which option are you advocating here? From Hill To Shore (talk) 07:47, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Without getting into a long treatise on this subject. If you search in The British Newspaper archive with the following text "thte. Yoik ; also by ihe' uther si,,,ksel,eis in' thi* City", you find this page and this page alone. You will not find it with the cleaned up text. Incidentally, Google can do nothing with that search.

By all means clean up the text, here, but by doing so, it is incumbent upon the editor to leave references and links to the original in your wake.

People need to be aware of these issues before they wade in with well meaning edits.

On an anecdotal level, while researching in the National Archives, I was handed a box of A4 sized maps of airfields from WWI. They were mostly out of order. So of course I started sorting them out, why not!. I was reprimanded for being helpful, as the mis-filing was in itself a historical artefact. Some officer at the end of the war, had deemed the papers to be of no further interest and had treated them accordingly. Therefore leaving researchers with an insight on the period!!!

I suppose I'm advocating the old English, and new English texts, side by side, along with permanent links to source.

This sort of thing, in this instance, would not be particularly useful to me as an English speaker, as I don't have a particular difficulty with old English. However I would find it invaluable, if Gothic German text, were translated, side by side with modern German. In that case, it would also help commercial search engines. Broichmore (talk) 10:30, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Broichmore: probably also here, a text side by side would be very usefull, because now, the text reads weard.

. Would you know howe to do this? Thanks. Lotje (talk) 12:58, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This file is properly cross referenced to the image and the book page. It's in modern English. The book is popular and much referenced, there are several ocr versions, it's not obscure. In this case you could go for broke, correct the OCR, leaving only the text appropriate to the image. You could even add to the text where any is missing. Broichmore (talk) 18:24, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you Broichmore, very much appreciating the effort you make to clarify this. If at any time, you have a spare minute, would it be a problem to show exactly what yo mean on the file itself? That could be a reference to me and other users. Much obliged. Lotje (talk) 05:12, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. Broichmore (talk) 11:46, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

January 14[edit]

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

(Disclaimer; Mentioning this primarily because it got my attention as Picture of the Day and as an example of Commons' best work it raises some questions. Edit; source is at "Image Source" below

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Does the building it represents even exist?

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

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

Thanks,

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

@Ubcule: You are absolutely correct about each detail. This is a thoroughly manipulated image. I like it too "as a purely aesthetic creation", but it is a fair question whether the building even exists. -- WikiPedant (talk) 17:26, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Blatantly false and misleading, as it stands. The file should be renamed and the description changed to an accurate one. ITookSomePhotos (talk) 17:46, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ubcule I tried to find some images of the actual building https://foursquare.com/v/universidad-nacional-experimental-de-la-fuerza-armada-unefa/4cb636818db0a143b5386816/photos http://www.unefa.edu.ve/portal/historia.php https://en.ultimasnoticias.com.ve/noticias/politica/controlado-incendio-registrado-este-sabado-en-la-unefa-de-chuao/?__cf_chl_rt_tk=qX_fVs8v54NdNFPXoJso_1focVdumb8w0HBJiSN7xAY-1705255883-0-gaNycGzNDSU the building clearly exists but the image looks wrong. If I counted right both of them are 16 stories, but this version looks a lot wider, and the perspective is clearly wrong, and you can clearly see proper perspective on the photos I linked. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 18:16, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Immanuelle: That's very useful, thank you for looking into that.

Yes, there seem to be some noticeable differences in the windows and the blue panels below; in the photos you linked, they appear to cover the width of one pane, in File:Caracas building.jpg, they appear to cover two. Ubcule (talk) 18:51, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Wilfredor, I'd be really interested in what you have to say about the creation of the image. Can you clarify for us, please? Kritzolina (talk) 19:33, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for inviting me to participate in this discussion, I remember that at the time I took several photos of the front and then unified them with Huguin (a panorama creation tool), I remember that the camera I used was a very small censor (it is not possible to use mirror or professional cameras in Venezuela was very dangerous), so with several photos that I took I placed them within the program and it automatically unified them. Since 8 years have passed since that photo, I don't even remember the place where I took that photo, but it looks pretty much like the ones you have shared. Wilfredor (talk) 22:01, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Wilfredor: - Thank you for responding.

A quick seach suggests that "Huguin" is likely a misspelling of Hugin(?) which I'm not familiar with personally. I notice the EXIF on the image says that you also used Photoshop CC 2014.

I've used Photoshop CS5 (admittedly a very old version nowadays) for panoramic stitching, and while it's good that, it's never done anything like this. Maybe CC 2014 and/or Hugin works differently, I don't know.

Whether this image was created via "manual" Photoshopping or whether Hugin or Photoshop did it without your knowledge via some automated pseudo-intelligent pattern fitting, the end result clearly goes beyond legitimate stitching and into deliberate fakery.

Regardless, this should- at the very least- have been labelled as a manipulated image. It's certainly one whose veracity we can't trust since we (and you) don't know what's been done to it.

Ubcule (talk) 23:24, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hugin is a software to stitch panoramas. It does not create an image from scratch with 990 repeated patterns. So this image is clearly a photoshopped montage -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:01, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you upload images created with Hugin, you should use {{Created with Hugin}}. This goes even for "honest" panoramas. If you use it in a way that is not accurately representational, you should certainly say that as part of the description. As it is, nothing you did here even indicated overtly that this was anything other than a photograph. - Jmabel ! talk 03:39, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Wilfredor: So you're not "Retired"? — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 03:52, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I removed this template, thanks Wilfredor (talk) 14:11, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I want to add. Specifically referencing the building here https://fastly.4sqi.net/img/general/width960/67779603_4Sd52kUDlz7HgEqajaW7mscNfQTvuGq0FplGbDXRpQc.jpg there are 6 * 5 + 7 + 6 * 5 = 67 window segments. a group of seven in the middle, and on each side 6 groups of 5 windows, each group clearly divided by columns. The image in question has 56 windows so it technically is numerically possible, but it lacks the columns more clearly seen here https://fastly.4sqi.net/img/general/width960/67779603_bB_LLtzfh1Vcjjf92-pA3Rct1fLgwrGhvwl-c4JA74E.jpg Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 20:52, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Info I've started a discussion on removal of its FP status. --A.Savin 23:59, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment It is very deceiving that a long-term contributor submitted a fake image for FPC. It's QI status should also be removed. Yann (talk) 08:31, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see you added a template that explains that this image was massively altered, thank you for that, Yann. Wilfredor, could you please alter the original image description to clarify, what you did? Kritzolina (talk) 08:58, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have always tried to be clear in my nominations about the alterations. In the past I uploaded my RAWs to the commons archive, but today that project does not exist and many Raws were lost. Leave a comment here to start a withdrawal process for all my FPs from these FP categories Wilfredor (talk) 12:21, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Definitely, with accent on "long-term contributor". Unfortunately it is not the first time Wilfredor is deeming the community stupid, I just recall that disgusting ChatGPT-generated summaries for FP noms. Long-term contributors always have earned some confidence; Wilfredor apparently has been breaching it for years. That said, there are things that may be excusable for a newbie, but in case of Wilfredor, a serious sanction up to an indef block should be urgently considered. --A.Savin 13:25, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Chatgpt was a way to communicate better in a language that is not my own using this tool as a translator or based on a text that I wrote, these things were not done with bad intentions. Regarding the current image, which is what this post is about, I have opened a thread here to remove all my FPs as soon as it is not possible to prove that they have not been altered, finally regarding "Wilfredor apparently has been breaching it for years" is a serious accusation and I would recommend you a block request, you can make it formally and I will accept anything that the community considers relevant in this case. My intention was never to lie, deceive, or dignify the community Wilfredor (talk) 13:42, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Blocks are meant to be preventative, not punitive, A.Savin. So punishing Wilfredor for an image created and uploaded in 2016 wouldn't fly with the community. I am concerned this isn't the only such example. I seem to recall a bullfighting image that had issues, again from many years ago. But don't I think the idea of removing all their FPCs in one go, as Wilfredor has proposed, is going to help the project. Wilfredor, I'd much rather you examined the 185 FPs (and perhaps some of your other contribs) to see if you can remember if any have significant adjustments or are entirely fake like this one. Then we can get an idea of the scale of the issue. Removing them all might seem like the simplest option but it also skips this scrutiny, leaving us no wiser as to whether there are just a few bad photos or dozens of them. Also, Wilfredor, the candidate list talk page is on far more watchlists than the FP talk page, so it would be proposal if your discussion was there. Not many FPC regulars hang out at the VP. -- Colin (talk) 15:14, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was reviewing and found two where there are major alterations, the first is this where you can see in the history of the photo the alteration from the beginning, also in this other photo I added on the guitar a photo of a baby that the same subject in the photo showed me. The photo of the bulls that you mention is this photo in which I added a bull (see file history) and a bullfighter that were present that same day in that same bullring a few minutes before in another photo Wilfredor (talk) 15:28, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was checking again, in some photos I removed some dirty dust in the sky, I removed some garbage, nothing that really alters the result in a drastic way like this current photo. Except for this nomination made a few years ago, today I always try to be sincere with my alterations, an example was this nomination where I explain and even upload the original image without alteration Wilfredor (talk) 15:40, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That wasn't the one I remember, but possibly from that set of photos or similar. Maybe my memory isn't finding it. I see Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Plaza de Toros de Maracaibo 02.jpg also sparked controversy with a gigapixel upsize leading to bad results. To be honest, I think a fair few of more recent FP by many people using AI sharpening are "fake" with entirely AI-imagined feather or hair detail. But that's perhaps a debate for another day. -- Colin (talk) 15:43, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Wilfredor, could you please state clearly for every picture that you altered, which alterations you did? At the moment the image of the homeless person says waste was removed by retouching, but the photo of the baby is not mentioned at all. Can you please du this as detailed, as you can, at least with those images that have the PF status? So we know what we are looking at there? Kritzolina (talk) 16:53, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, when I say waste I mean photos in general, that is, I have removed dirt from the lens or speck of dust, dirt in the sky in other photos, not in the one of the homeless man, just add the photo of the baby on the guitar from a photo that the same homeless man showed me. I think the photo of the homeless person should be removed from FP status. Wilfredor (talk) 17:15, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My intention was not to hide it but to honor the person's baby, in the history you can see the first image without the baby Wilfredor (talk) 17:31, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On this picture, there is a templat stating that this image was retouched, removing waste. Adding in the pic of the baby is not mentioned. Please go change this, so everyone can see what it was that was retouched. It is fine to do such things, if you are transparent about them. Will you mark such changes of images going forward clearly? Kritzolina (talk) 18:04, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I reverted the baby picture letting the original one (the first image uploaded in the history of this file in commons) Wilfredor (talk) 18:58, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. Would you please either revert to original or clearly mark what you did on all the other FPs where you made significant changes like that? And do you promise not to do any such tamperin without clearly marking what you did in the future? Kritzolina (talk) 19:24, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I promise to use the template and add in detail any changes I make in the future. I also promise to review my photos and see if I make changes. I always upload the original first without alterations, then on that original I apply noise reduction, but to add greater clarity to the matter, in the future I will soon upload my RAW file to the internet archive, in this way there is a faithful proof of the original image without alterations Wilfredor (talk) 20:13, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you very much for helping to identify and clearly lable all images that were altered. Kritzolina (talk) 09:12, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would like to second these thanks. If now all substantially changed photos are clearly labelled and described as such, we have made great progress. --Aristeas (talk) 09:35, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, that's similar like about blocks for personal insults. A block cannot change anything on the offense already taken, but not blocking would send a wrong message to the offender and to anyone. Do we wish similar cases in future, be it from Wilfredor or someone else? For sure, blocks are meant to be preventative, not punitive, I'm not questioning this. --A.Savin 16:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes and if Wilfredor was going around personally insulting people in these last few days, or had responded in this discussion that he didn't care about the pictures being fake or not, and would continue uploading fakes, then I'd support some measure. We are all a mix of angry and upset about this, but Wilfredor has apologised repeatedly, and is helping to identify which images may be problematic. I'm sure Wilfredor is now acutely aware that uploading any new images with such fakery will be viewed very dimly indeed. It is time to clean up any mess and move on. -- Colin (talk) 08:43, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment Using ChatGPT to translate texts from one’s native language to another should NOT be a reason to be blocked. I often do that when I’m just too lazy to think in an alien language like English. RodRabelo7 (talk) 17:40, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps you've confused something -- ChatGPT etc. are about generating texts, not translating. --A.Savin 19:50, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ChatGPT can translate text. I use it for that all the time. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:52, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And so do I… For example… RodRabelo7 (talk) 20:59, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So what? I'm talking about Wilfredor's summaries that were ChatGPT-generated from scratch and attempted to be sold as genuine comments. --A.Savin 22:10, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The ChatGPT FPC texts did indeed try our patience (though this one you linked seems well within the normal bounds of what many nominators say at a nomination). But again, I think Wilfredor got the message that he was pissing people off with them, and has AFAIK stopped with the lengthy novels. . -- Colin (talk) 08:48, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fair enough, thank you for your assessment of this situation, much appreciated. Regards --A.Savin 14:11, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've posted a comment at the FP removals discussion regarding the claimed motivation/supposed-mea-culpa for uploading the faked image which seems to somewhat contradict what was said here.

(In short; Wilfredor (talk · contribs) says above that they "don't even remember the place where I took that photo", yet in the FP discussion, they "liked it as a way of expressing the dictatorial regime's obsession with controlling people", something that is neither mentioned nor alluded to anywhere in the title or description which doesn't even mention that it's a military building). Ubcule (talk) 21:52, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is not contradictory, and was motivated by a recommendation from Charles Wilfredor (talk) 22:25, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Wilfredor: The contradiction in question was between

(a) your claim that you liked it as an expression on the nature of the military/regime when elsewhere, versus
(b) you didn't remember anything about the building and made no mention of (a) elsewhere. Ubcule (talk) 22:33, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I remember that this image was to protest the regime and I don't remember how this image was generated exactly at this moment. I know I used Hugin because it was the software I used at that time, I remember that it was a panoramic photo because I took several photos to be unified later. I don't remember the specific building in this photo or the camera I used to take this photo, or how I got there to take that photo, I only partially remember some details. Wilfredor (talk) 22:38, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, I've said what I have to say on the first bit and don't plan to repeat that further.

As for "I remember that it was a panoramic photo". Well, regardless of how that image was created and whoever or whatever (Hugin, Photoshop, etc.) was responsible for the end result, the evidence makes clear beyond any doubt that it goes way beyond a simple panoramic stitch. Ubcule (talk) 23:01, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The software used at that time was Adobe Photoshop, according to the metadata (copy-paste this link https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b5/Digitally_altered_image_of_UNEFA.jpg to verify) -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:13, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Basile Morin: - You don't need that site, Commons already shows EXIF metadata (click on "show extended details" under the Metadate heading) and I'd already noted the involvement of Photoshop above.

However, as I mentioned elsewhere, this doesn't prove anything definitively- it's *possible* that Photoshop was simply used for (e.g.) final sharpening and level adjustment of an image created elsewhere.

Not saying I think that's the most likely explanation, just that we can't claim that for sure, and probably shouldn't.

As I said at the FP, the unreliable details of *how* the image was manipulated or created are ultimately less important than the (pretty much indisputable) fact that it *is* manipulated to the point of fakery and should be clearly tagged/labelled as such. Ubcule (talk) 21:46, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image source[edit]

I hadn't planned on adding more, as this discussion seemed to have run its course. However, while I was searching for this page, I inadvertently came across File:Windows in Caracas Building.jpg:-

This was uploaded a couple of years earlier and is obviously the source image (if you look closely you can even find the same window block that was cloned for the other one).

I suspect the blue panels might have been retouched, and the perspective and lens distortion has almost certainly been corrected.

Despite that, I'd say this one *is* obviously either a real photo, or a "genuine" stitched panoramic of multiple images (as the other claimed to be).

Whether this should have any further bearing here, I don't know.

If Wilfredor (talk · contribs) or anyone else wants to add more, feel free to do so. Ubcule (talk) 19:26, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think this topic has gotten out of control, I have already admitted my fault in this false image, I don't know what else you want? I think you are creating drama with this whole thing. Wilfredor (talk) 22:12, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In case anyone is interested: File:Vista Aerea de Caracas, Venezuela 2.JPG was shot seconds before File:Windows in Caracas Building.jpg, so presumably Wilfredor took these photo's from about the same spot. Looking at how the buildings are arranged, Wilfredor was probably somewhere up in Category:Previsora Tower and our blue mystery building is then Torre Lincoln (https://www.google.com/maps/@10.4954311,-66.881645,70m/data=!3m1!1e3?entry=ttu). --HyperGaruda (talk) 23:03, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@HyperGaruda: - Nicely spotted. Looking at those photos, you're almost certainly correct that it's the Torre Lincoln, which is apparently an office building. (See here to note the identical style of the windows). Ubcule (talk) 23:43, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Does this mean that the original criticism was regarding another building? Wilfredor (talk) 00:22, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Wilfredor: - Both images are definitely of the same building, whatever its identity.

If you or anyone else misidentified it as the UNEFA building, that was presumably an honest mistake, but the correct identity is still of interest.

(Any criticism was solely regarding the misrepresentation and mispromotion of a heavily-modified image, and while the criticism was legitimate, I think that was already pushed far enough above).

I had my reservations about prolonging the discussion, but mentioned File:Windows in Caracas Building.jpg solely because it was clearly the source of an image whose origins we had spent already much time discussing.

In my defence, I intentionally chose not to push further on a couple of issues this discovery might have raised and mentioned you in case you wanted to respond.

Ubcule (talk) 20:31, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The image has been renamed "Digitally altered image of UNEFA" (probably in accordance with this comment by the author). But Torre Lincoln (or Lincoln Tower) seems located 4km away from UNEFA. Different places and incorrect file name, then, maybe -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:25, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't remember where I took that photo, I don't know why I said UNEFA Wilfredor (talk) 20:01, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Most likely because the facades are similar, but not identical and- if so- it's an understandable mistake. Ubcule (talk) 20:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

January 15[edit]

Problematic file names and irrelevant categorization by sockpuppet group[edit]

Hello. I have noticed that the sockpuppet group Category:Sockpuppets of Anonymous Hong Kong Photographer 1 has uploaded a large amount of files with incorrect file names (with irrelevant abbreviations and wrong place/station names), and they have also added irrelevant categories in various files that they uploaded. As moving requires a lot of work here on Commons, I would like to raise attention and request for assistance on this matter. Thank you! (Please {{Ping}} me on reply) --Luciferian Thomas 16:09, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@LuciferianThomas I enjoy renaming files. Is there any way I can see a list of them on aggregate? Like a search function for all of them? That would be very useful since we are operating with multiple users. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 22:28, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are hundreds of accounts it's kinda insane Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 22:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sadly it does seem to be extremely hard to track down every single one of them, but I would think that it is possible to start from Hong Kong MTR station categories (e.g. Category:Hang Hau Station) and their subcategories to do them one by one. The worst thing about it is the mix of authentic and bad file names, so it just can't be simply done on batch. Luciferian Thomas 01:45, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@LuciferianThomas I'm not sure if I'm knowledgeable enough to do this. I've never been to Hong Kong and don't know much about the country. Do you think we could add some kind of maintenance category to all of them? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 16:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I honestly am not sure whether they're actually sockpuppets. It's difficult to believe that one person could be doing all this, it's difficult to believe that multiple people could be doing something this specific independently, and it's difficult to believe that an organized endeavor to do this could be kept quiet.DS (talk) 21:14, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

re @DragonflySixtyseven: The general point being the very consistent naming conventions (whilst containing incorrect information), most of the sockpuppets having a very consistent user page style and image description format. Looks too consistent to be multiple people, yet very true. Anyhow, sock or meatpuppet, they are still clearly disruptive.

re @Immanuelle: if rules allow, I can definitely start scanning through files and add maintenance cats since that's how much I can do right now. That is, if someone endorses my actions so I can link to here whenever questioned. I would really request for filemover myself to fix the issues but I don't know if I am actually good to go for the right (As a rough guideline, administrators usually require editors to have made at least 1,000 useful, non-botlike edits or a large amount of justified renaming requests at Commons before they will consider granting the filemover right, maybe I have the latter part?) Luciferian Thomas 00:08, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@LuciferianThomas I feel they would be blocked on Wikipedia, but images are hard enough to go wrong with that we want the uploads even if the bad itkes case a lot of issues Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 06:42, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@LuciferianThomas I made a category Category:Photos by Anonymous Hong Kong Photographer 1 but I'm being rate limited so hard to populate it Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 18:27, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes I did accidentally misclassiify a lot of files and will fix it soon Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 18:52, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@LuciferianThomas for future reference I got the category wrong and Category:Photographs by Anonymous Hong Kong Photographer 1 Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 05:48, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Opinions welcome at Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/01/Category:Photos by Anonymous Hong Kong Photographer 1. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 19:39, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alright, I will add files that require renaming to the subcat then. I probably will just put everything that's related to metro into the category first, coz the abbreviations hidden in the file names don't make sense some times anyway. Luciferian Thomas 01:44, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Immanuelle I have started moving some files, but there is literally a heck load of files that need renaming, so I would really need your (and other filemover's) help. Luciferian Thomas 03:20, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Amazing resource - just found[edit]

I literally just located the CSIRO's Radio Astronomy Image Archive. For anything older than 1958, it's in the Public Domain. Anything newer than that, and it's under CC-BY-4.0.

They specifically state:

Images in the archive that are owned by CSIRO are made available for appropriate publication and re-publication, including media, Open Access books and offline electronic formats, with no limitations in duration.
For images taken on or after 1 January 1955 the copyright is held by CSIRO (@CSIRO). These are provided with a Creative Commons by 4.0 licence. These images must include a credit line ‘Image Credit: CSIRO Radio Astronomy Image Archive.’ There are no other copyright restrictions on these images.
Under Australian law, for images owned by CSIRO, taken prior to 1955, the copyright period has expired and there are no copyright restrictions. However, CSIRO requests that the credit line ‘Image Credit: CSIRO Radio Astronomy Image Archive.’ be included with all CRAIA images.

There are thousands of photos. I just thought folks might be interested! Some of the photos are interesting not just for the scientific endeavours, but actually they show places in a historical context we otherwise may never have seen. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 16:24, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Holy crap - there's images of a Mark I computer, Sir Edward Appleby, another I just came across has one of the directors of the CCIT in animated discussions with another scientist.... the historic nature of these photos is incredible! - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 16:48, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmm:

Low resolution versions of the scanned images are provided on this website through an interactive application described below. These are made freely available.
High resolution digital files for the images in this archive are held by CSIRO Space and Astronomy. Please read the following notes when making requests

(my emboldening)

Maybe our friends in Wikimedia Australia can coordinate a formal request for the high res images, en masse? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:14, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would ask, but they kicked me out as a fully paid up member. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 23:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Contact has been established with CSIRO (no need for everyone to do it!). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:11, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you - really appreciate this Andy! - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 01:48, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your most memorable shot 2023 (January / February 2023)[edit]

It’s that time of the year again: since 2018, we have shared our most memorable shots of the past twelve months with each other. Now in its sixth iteration, the “Most Memorable Shot” has become a tradition we cherish at the beginning of each new year. Please feel invited to share your most memorable picture of 2023 on this page. -- Suyash Dwivedi (talk) 18:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Who is "we"? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:35, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Photographers' User Group, but others are also welcome to contribute to the page. - Jmabel ! talk 23:59, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

January 17[edit]

Letter of consent for portraits[edit]

Dear contributors, following a discussion regarding the consent to take a child portrait on an FP nomination, I would like to encourage discussion on the substance and form of the letter of consent that photographers should provide in order to upload portraits. The author of the portrait raised concerns that Commons:Photographs of identifiable people and Commons:Personality rights are very vague, and they do not give any guidance on what should the letter of consent look like, what should be its substance, what should be the language, should there be a signature and who performs the check of its veracity. In fact, the problem is that the author was able to provide proof of consent, but there was no clear guideline on how to do it. Your thoughts are welcome. Thank you.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:24, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While I have no opinion about child portraits in particular there should at least be a letter of consent from the model with images containing nudity if not in other instances. Although it would probably be good policy to require them with portraits of children to. At least modern ones where the person has a high chance of still being alive and/or a child. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:32, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We should not require consent for notable people, or people appearing at public events, at least. I have often approached speakers at a conference or similar event and said "May I take your picture for Wikipedia", and they have kindly agreed. Had I then asked them to complete an email exchange or sign paperwork, they would not have had the time. Furthermore, we should not decimate Wikipedia's BLP article illustrations by applying any such requirement retrospectively. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:27, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agree with the above comment. Concerning nudity, I think clear consent in some shape or form from the depicted person should be required. This may be a difficult issue and there would need to be clarification whether people obviously deliberately nude in public would also need to submit individual consent for CCBY. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:40, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can’t believe this has to be said, but nude images of children are extremely risky. There must be extremely limited valid uses for such images, indeed I’m fairly certain most of these images might be breaking the law and should probably be reported to authorities. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 03:50, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was mainly speaking of adults. Although there's probably some images along the lines of what your talking about on here. But I think they would probably be OK due to their eductional nature in most, if not, all cases. I really don't know though. But at least in the United States even drawings of nude children are considered illegal. So hopefully it's very limited on here. We should require consent forms in both cases regardless though. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:59, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your source for "drawings of nude children are considered illegal"? w:Child pornography laws in the United States says otherwise.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:42, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It highly depends on the context of course, but per the article you linked to "Child pornography under federal law is defined as any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct involving a minor (someone under 18 years of age). Visual depictions include photographs, videos, digital or computer generated images indistinguishable from an actual minor." Although sexually explict drawings of minors can also count even if they aren't listed in that. Again, depending on the situation. But courts to be extermely liberal in their defitions. For instance so called "lolicon" (computer generated or hand drawn) is a grey area, but people can still prosecuted for possing it depending on the images and jurisdiction. Tangentially related, but people can and have been proscuted simply for taking photographs of their children in the bath tub. So I wouldn't put to much weight into the whole "sexually explicit" part of it. Since at the end of the day it mostly doesn't matter. Really, Commons shouldn't be hosting anything involving a child or a likeness of one that's even slightly questionable. There's really no reason to side from clearly non-sexual depictions of children in obviously eductional context anyway. Although I still think there could risk there if say someone were to categorize the images on explicit sounding criteria or somthing like that. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:26, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you want to argue, give a citation. Don't just bullshit off the top of your head. See Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:44, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Prosfilaes: just bullshit off the top of your head Just because I didn't provide a citation doesn't mean it's "just bullshit of the top of my head." I litterly cited the Wikipedia article saying that "digital or computer generated images indistinguishable from an actual minor" are considered child pornography. Outside of that you can do basic Google Search for "are drawings of minors considered child pornography" that say they are. I'm not going to waste my time citing a bunch of legal cases and news stories, of which are many, just because you can't be bothered to use Google or treat me like I just baselessly pulled it out of my ass for no reason. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:43, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, if you don't provide a citation, it is just bullshitting. If you want to argue a point, you do a Google search and show your sources. Instead you blather.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:56, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

99% of the comments on here don't come with citations. Yet I don't see you trollishy whining about how the people who wrote them are just bullshitting like your doing to me for whatever reason. That said, I'd totally agree with you that it would be important to cite sources if this was s more formal discussion, where I or anyone else was suggesting changing the policies to not allow for images of children. Know one is doing that though. I'm certainly not. So there's really no need for sources outside of your apparent need to argue. Just to cite the Wikipedia article again though since you seem to be ignoring it "U.S. law distinguishes between pornographic images of an actual minor, realistic images that are not of an actual minor, and non-realistic images such as drawings. The latter two categories are legally protected unless found to be obscene." I'm sure you'll just dismiss that like everything else I've said as more "bullshit off the top of your head" or whatever though lmao. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:16, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Adamant1 - I think this is getting a bit hostile on both sides. I strongly disagree (and disapprove) with the assertion you are bullshitting, but it’s similarly not helpful to say that Prosfilaes is being trollish.

What might have been helpful, however, is to refer directly to the PROTECT Act of 2003 (18 U.S.C. § 1466A) which criminalizes material of “a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture or painting" that "depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct and is obscene" or "depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in ... sexual intercourse ... and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value”, and which was upheld by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

That said, it would have been quite easy for Prosfilaes to read the article you cited (and yes, it was cited) rather than accusing you of bullshitting. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 08:34, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh darn. You did state that. I apologise. Prosfilaes, how about engaging with the material cited rather than accusing him of citing nothing. You were provided with actual citable material, but you seem to have chosen to ignore it. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 08:38, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, obscene works are often illegal in the US. Which is a far cry from "drawings of nude children are considered illegal"; in fact, it specifically says that drawings of nude children are not considered illegal unless they are considered obscene or are "digital or computer generated images indistinguishable from an actual minor".--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:45, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Prosfilaes, there is absolutely no need for the tenor of your response. It’s almost like you are trying to generate conflict. Please stop. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 22:25, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm tired of him posting source-free posts that make claims (especially legal ones) that are wrong; he's drowning out correct sources. When I asked him for a source, he quoted the page I gave him and said "Although sexually explict drawings of minors can also count even if they aren't listed in that."; i.e. another sourceless claim. We could talk about w:Legal_status_of_fictional_pornography_depicting_minors#United_States which does not back up the blanket assertion but does provide context for the complex situation.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:45, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Macedonia[edit]

Category:Macedonia is supposed to be a disambiguation category. It currently contains 212 files. I would be great if someone familiar with that part of the world would help get these into their proper categories. - Jmabel ! talk 19:37, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No one appears to have taken this on. Jmabel ! talk 00:00, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Name for a graphic art style[edit]

Do we have a category for this graphic art/lettering style, common on posters from the late 1960s (especially in the Western U.S.)? I've placed it in Category:Psychedelic art and Category:Hippie art and design and it could imaginably go somewhere under Category:Pop art, but there should be something more specific here, and I don't have a name for it. - Jmabel ! talk 21:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would also like to know if the font ever got a formal name. --RAN (talk) 18:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Richard Arthur Norton (1958-: the originals would all have been hand-lettered; the psychedelic style in particular often features curved baselines to which the glyphs conform, which was impossible before the digital era. Fonts were expensive to develop so could not be too idiosyncratic for the commercial market. That said, such typefaces as Eckmann (1900) and Hobo (1910) can be seen as precursors. Quite a few digital fonts have been created over the last couple of decades to emulate the full-blown psychedelic style, along with revivals of their antecedents. The example reminds me of Roller Poster: see the blurb at myfonts.com, which refers to this 1903 poster and mentions a few more such fonts.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 23:15, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Psychedelic Art Nouveau is what I think of. Although it's not totally the same art style, but probably close enough. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It certainly has Art Nouveau influences, but I don't think the term "Psychedelic Art Nouveau" has a lot of currency in art-historical circles. If you search on that, among other things you get a fair amount of Jugendstil (from the original Art Nouveau era) mixed in with this 1960s style. It wouldn't be a bad name for the category if it was understood to have no scholarly basis, but I'd really hope we can find something a little more rooted in scholarly literature. - Jmabel ! talk 05:58, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That seems almost redundant to me, as Nouveau / Jugendstil / Viennese Secession influences pervade the psychedelic style. I might call the lettering of the example ‘psychedelic decadent’ for its extreme valuation of style over legibility, but I doubt that’s a recognized term either.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 23:15, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Remarkably, it looks like a style that was practiced by literally dozens of significant artists, whose works now often sell for a good deal of money, never acquired a name. - Jmabel ! talk 00:02, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Usually genre names surface decades after the event. The Tate is pushing the term, Pop Art? A term thats been arround since the 60's I seem to remember. Might this be, a part of such? Can't say I'm totally happy with it; yet, it may stick. The original suggestions seem appropriate. Broichmore (talk) 10:38, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It certainly falls within the broad movement of Pop Art, but that isn't in any way specific to the Art Nouveau influence and "psychedelic" lettering that characterizes the work of several dozen mostly West Coast U.S. artists. (There is also a lot of use of symmetric images and a fair amount of use of paisley.) There is basically none of this before some time in 1966, and it is ubiquitous in the West Coast music scene within less than a year, then largely fades out by the end of 1969, especially on its West Coast home turf (it lasts a little longer in places where it arrived later). It was somewhat revived in the 1980s in artwork for bands heavily influenced by the music of that era, though most alluded to it rather than copy it outright. But "Pop Art" includes (for example) Andy Warhol, Jasper Johns, Roy Lichtenstein, and even Claes Oldenburg, whose work looks nothing like this. - Jmabel ! talk 01:10, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

January 18[edit]

photographs E.H. Stuut, overleden 24 november 1931[edit]

ik zou graag met de plaatser van deze foto's willen praten. E.H. Stuut is mijn grootvader. De foto's zijn in het Wereldmuseum Amsterdam, geschonken door een ir. G.A. Mol, maar daar staan geen voorletters bij. Alleen "Stuut". I — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biakkarinbaria (talk • contribs) 13:58, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Biakkarinbaria: u heeft het vermoedelijk over de foto's op de pagina Category:Photographs by E.H. Stuut? Deze zijn middels een script naar Wikimedia gekopieerd vanaf de gedigitaliseerde collectie van het Tropenmuseum/Wereldmuseum. U kunt de gebruiker van dit script (en dus de plaatser) bereiken door een berichtje achter te laten op diens pagina User talk:Multichill. --HyperGaruda (talk) 22:13, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

beste Biakkarinbaria, De uitbreiding tot een categorie E.H. Stuut is van voormalig Wiki-collega Eissink, die me dit ooit meldde: "Het betreft een landbouwkundig ambtenaar te Indonesië, E.H. Stuut. Hij volgde een opleiding aan de Koningin Wilhelminaschool in Batavia, waardoor ik vermoed dat hij daar ook is geboren (mede gezien het feit dat de archieven hier vele Stuuts geven, maar geen enkele die in aanmerking komt). Hij schreef artikelen in vaktijdschriften, precies over de onderwerpen die op de foto's terugkeren, waarbij ook de locaties overeenstemmen, dus de fotograaf moet wel E.H. Stuut zijn. Aangezien hij in 1904 het eerste jaar van de vakschool afrondde, zal hij ergens in de tweede helft van de tachtiger jaren zijn geboren. Hij overleed als jonge veertiger, in 1931, bij een vrijwel vergeten scheepsramp. Zijn voornamen vond ik slechts eenmaal, in een archiefinventaris: het betreft Emiel Herman Stuut (?, ca. 1885/90 – Sarolangun, 24 november 1931)."

Wiki-collega Gouwenaar meldde daar bovenop: "Zijn namen en werkzaamheden zijn ook te vinden in Stamboeken Burgerlijke Ambtenaren, die bewaard worden in het Nationaal Archief."

Laat het me gerust weten als u iets anders zoekt! Vysotsky (talk) 16:12, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

January 19[edit]

Consultation with Commons community before holding contests[edit]

Should it be appropriate for organizers of some photography contests to consult Commons community, like this Village pump, before holding such events?

I express some concern that many of the submissions of the still-running Commons:UAE in Lens Competition are unfree, showing works of art by living or recently-dead architects and sculptors, considering the country having a restrictive Freedom of Panorama for broadcasts only (not photos). True to that, a couple of such images have been recently-nominated, including dozens showing Sheikh Zayed Mosque and a couple of Burj Khalifa images I nominated (this, this, and this). The homepage of the photo contest does not give a warning to participants that recent works of living or recently-dead artists should not be shared on Commons.

In my opinion, there should be consultation with Commons community first before holding such contests. Ping @Alexandermcnabb: who made a FoP-related topic at Commons talk:UAE in Lens Competition. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:43, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I totally agree - although presumably well intended/well meaning, the contest is pointless. Exacerbating the Freedom of Panorama issue, the practicalities in the UAE are that virtually no building or monument in the country beyond a limited number of notable heritage sites is younger than 70 years (in 1954, the Trucial States was a number of small coastal settlements and an interior dominated by Bedouin nomads) old - let alone their architects! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:44, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I also note, you're just going to end up flooding COM:DR... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:47, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Alexandermcnabb DRs are always backlogged. Regarding FoP-related DRs, it has been normal to have a country having almost 100 open nominations. One time in 2021, Philippine FoP DRs reached almost 200, largely by a certain Mrcl lxmna. Currently, there are more than 60 open Ukrainian FoP-related DRs (Category:Ukrainian FOP cases/pending).

The no-FOP issue is not just a matter concerning monuments of UAE, the Philippines, or Ukraine; it is also a matter for monuments of more than 100 countries throughout the globe (COM:Freedom of panorama/table). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:53, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I stand corrected, there are 47 open Ukrainian FoP cases (I failed to check the updated count). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:54, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It'll be good idea to ask organizers of Commons:UAE in Lens Competition, why Commons:Freedom of panorama and Commons:Derivative works (see Arabic books published by Emirati writers) were not mentioned on competition's home page. Through not everybody may read rules completely, such explanations may reduce number deletion requests and related conflicts. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:46, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Totally agree. There's been at least a couple of WLM contests in the last couple of years where they uploaded a bunch of FOP violations that everyone else then had to sift through. WLM Italy in 2013 being one example. At least from what I've experienced they aren't exaxtly understanding when their images eventually get nominated for deletion as COPYVIO either. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:19, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That said, even if these almost all get deleted and we can only start undeleting long after I, for one, am dead, it's probably just as well to get these images. Equivalents taken now and not free-licensed can't become PD until 70 years after the death of the photographer; for these, we'll be able to undelete 70 years after the death of the architect, which especially for the older buildings is likely to come sooner. (And we can delete even sooner if their FoP laws were to change.) - Jmabel ! talk 00:06, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would be more optimistic and would hope for an international treaty on freedom of panorama that allows us to undelete all these files. GPSLeo (talk) 09:31, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@GPSLeo that may come to reality only if Wikimedia Foundation itself is involved in the advocacy and not delegating FoP matters to affiliates and user groups (only a few user groups and affiliates have interest in introducing or expanding FoP in their regions). WMF only got involved by granting take down request of the late sculptor Oldenburg's camp, even those that are found in countries with valid FoP for public monuments, just because of applying U.S. law. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:59, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Local policies are a subject for local chapters like WMEU for the copyright policies in the EU. But UN treaties are a topic for the WMF lobbyists in cooperation with WMEU and the local chapters (WMCH, WMAT, WMFR, WMDE) if the negotiations take place in Geneva or Vienna. But New York and written statements are definitely in the responsibility of the WMF. GPSLeo (talk) 11:10, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vote on the Charter for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee[edit]

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to your language

Hello all,

I am reaching out to you today to announce that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) Charter is now open. Community members may cast their vote and provide comments about the charter via SecurePoll now through 2 February 2024. Those of you who voiced your opinions during the development of the UCoC Enforcement Guidelines will find this process familiar.

The current version of the U4C Charter is on Meta-wiki with translations available.

Read the charter, go vote and share this note with others in your community. I can confidently say the U4C Building Committee looks forward to your participation.

On behalf of the UCoC Project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 18:07, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is there a way to search for all the uploads from a user[edit]

I want to use it in order to do catalot on uploads by sock puppets of a certain user. I’ve tried other methods but got too many false positives. It cannot be the uploads page since cat a lot doesn’t work there. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 20:07, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not sure if it's what you have in mind, but if you use the VisualFileChange it can list all uploads by a user if you put their name in the text box thing while having "user name" as the selected option. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:12, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In the Tools toolbar at the right there is a link to 'User uploads'. See for instance uploads by Immanuelle. Ruslik (talk) 20:23, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ruslik0 strangely that works on my own profile but not others. I am trying to categorize it for Boboworkplace Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 22:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Immanuelle: Are you saying https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:ListFiles?limit=500&user=Boboworkplace&ilshowall=1 doesn't let you use Cat-a-lot? - Jmabel ! talk 00:23, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jmabel yes it does not let me use cat-a-lot, but this lets me use cat a lot Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 01:01, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bizarre.

Does anyone have any theories on this? It should work. - Jmabel ! talk 01:07, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jmabel and Immanuelle: It works for me, I was able to categorize 13 uploads by Boboworkplace into Category:Photos by Anonymous Hong Kong Photographer 1. Perhaps cat-a-lot doesn't show up for those who have just hit their rate limit. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 02:15, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jmabels solution also works for me. I actually made use of that already several times in the past as well.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 15:25, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

January 20[edit]

Images in Category:Sergei Shoigu[edit]

Good evening! I have a big request for you to sort out the photographs with Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu in high resolution, since they were transferred from the photo album on the website of the Russian Defense Ministry. There is a lot of work to be done here - I have uploaded over 300 photographs, many of which are not distributed by year, and some personalities are not identified. --MasterRus21thCentury (talk) 18:18, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, you mixed up the dates a lot, like in File:Sergey Shoigu international meeting 123.jpg - is that in "2014" (Description Date) or in "2016" as written in the Category:Sergey Shoigu in 2016 ? Alexpl (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Update Template:PD-Meyers-pages[edit]

Hello!

I'm working to see if we can reduce the number of pages that utilize the PD-1923 template which has been superseded by PD-US-expired since 2019. To that end, I noticed that the Template:PD-Meyers-pages still uses PD-1923 in its underlying source. This means that any pages using that template are therefore using PD-1923. I am unable to edit this template page, so I was hoping someone could go in and replace 1923 with Expired instead.

Best, --SDudley (talk) 22:00, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What is the benefit? {{PD-Meyers-pages}} is transcluded on 3,720 pages. More generally, {{PD-1923}} is used on over 300,000 pages. What does the project gain from replacing PD-1923 with {{PD-US-expired}} that is worth the extra load on the servers? From Hill To Shore (talk) 22:18, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This might be personal philosphy, but I think as we move further away from the 1923 date it will become more confusing to users who don't know what it means. I say this as a person who knows the terms, but also started editing in the last year.

We have many other tags that are year specific, thus being either exactly related to a year that still has meaning, or an indicator of years. For example Template:PD-1996 and Template:PD-US-1978-89 both note specific years that will be relevant for years to come.

And with no future term extension on the horizon and the change of date yearly means that Template:PD-US-expired will likely not change names. So while I understand the temporary load now, it still feels like a smaller loader than the totality of migrating everything. I know that personally I will keep making changes, and that will whittle it down, but it isn't realistic for a single person to change them all. SDudley (talk) 01:08, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Video to panorama[edit]

Hi, Is there a software for converting a video to a panorama, i.e. File:Panorama 360° depuis le Pic de Gleize.webm? Thanks, Yann (talk) 22:12, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here, and here. Broichmore (talk) 12:36, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

January 21[edit]

Should we semi-protect highly used templates automatically?[edit]

There are a number of templates that is used in more than one million pages but not protected at all, such as Template:NASA-image/layout. I propose that we should semi-protect all templates and modules used in more than 500 pages, and template-protect those with usage larger than a higher number (such as 5000). GZWDer (talk) 11:11, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Who's allowed to edit semi-protect templates? --Adamant1 (talk) 20:49, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Adamant1: Autoconfirmed and confirmed logged-in users. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 21:32, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jeff G.: Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:43, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Adamant1: You're welcome. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 22:21, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I tend to

Support this. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 19:56, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support Sounds reasonable. I can't think of any reason random users should be able to edit a template with more then 5000 uses anyway. As long as the standard is that many uses or close to it. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:43, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Protection, if the template has over 500 uses Юрий Д.К 16:23, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1000 longest file pages on Commons[edit]

https://quarry.wmcloud.org/query/46372

if anyone's interested in maintenance. some of these long texts are unnecessary or can be presented in a better way. RZuo (talk) 12:23, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Special:LongPages also need attention. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:53, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But Special:LongPages contains gallery pages. What would you like to do with them? JopkeB (talk) 16:00, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NoFoP in Ukraine and example request[edit]

Abzeronow kept this File:P1410069 Церква Непорочного Зачаття Пресвятої Діви Марії (Тернопіль).jpg (and other files) with resume Most of the files as DM or cropped to rid of new works.. This file is big pixel 5456 × 3632 and I cropped file to new File:Церква Непорочного Зачаття Пресвятої Діви Марії інтерьєр (cropped).jpg - that clearly violates copyright. I still believe that the original file violates copyright. Or not? --Микола Василечко (talk) 14:58, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Link to the DR is Commons:Deletion requests/File:P1410069 Церква Непорочного Зачаття Пресвятої Діви Марії (Тернопіль).jpg. I agreed with this: "Obviously yes, it is a good illustration of the interior architecture of the church. The painting is there more accidental, and it is not the main goal of taking this photo. The entire idea of de minimis rule is that placing a copyrighted object (such as a painting here) should not prevent from taking a photo of a public domain location (here a church interior) as long as this painting is not the main object of the photo." The painting is not the main focus of the photograph, the general architecture of the church is. Abzeronow (talk) 18:16, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But the file is big size and anyone can cut a painter's work (File:Церква Непорочного Зачаття Пресвятої Діви Марії інтерьєр (cropped).jpg) from it. And this means that WikiCommons promotes copyright. --Микола Василечко (talk) 19:00, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I ping @Piramidion: (who commented at Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2023/05#NEW copyright law of Ukraine) for this particular case. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 21:58, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

January 22[edit]

Retrofit...[edit]

Hello.

I didn't find any cat about retrofitted vehicles and I'm not sure of the right words to create those cats (in France we only use "retrofit"). Of course, I'm talking about vehicles wich the thermic engine has been replaced by a electric motor. So: "Electrically retrofitted vehicles" or just "Retrofitted vehicles"? I don't know.

Thanks for your time. LW² \m/ ^{(Lie ² me...)} 00:50, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Llann Wé²: I'm definitely mention "electric" in there somewhere, since I don't think that's implied in English. "Electrically retrofitted" to me sounds like the process of retrofitting was electric, which isn't really right. "Converted electric vehicles" might work, but to me that sounds like the vehicle was electric before conversion. "Vehicles converted to electric power" feels correct to me, but is a bit wordy. --bjh21 (talk) 11:11, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd agree with "Vehicles converted to electric power". - Jmabel ! talk 22:04, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agree with the above: "retrofitted vehicle" can mean a lot of different things like putting in a different internal combustion engine, redoing the interior, converting a garbage truck to a snow plow, or building a glider winch on top of a worn-out lorry. Category:Retrofitted vehicles might make a good parent category for any and all of these. But for this specific kind of conversion, something like Category:Vehicles converted to electric power would be better. El Grafo (talk) 08:24, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks a lot @bjh21, @Jmabel, @El Grafo. I'll create Category:Vehicles converted to electric power. LW² \m/ ^{(Lie ² me...)} 03:55, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

CropTool[edit]

Is CropTool down again? Rosiestep (talk) 01:01, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I get the error message "Wikimedia Toolforge Error. This Grid Engine web service cannot be reached. Please contact a maintainer of this tool.

Tool maintainers can find more details from the documentation on Wikitech. tools-proxy-06.tools.eqiad.wmflabs; Wouter (talk) 11:07, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Rosiestep and Wouterhagens: The latest is at Commons talk:CropTool#Not working! — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 12:37, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, Jeff G.. ----Rosiestep (talk) 13:18, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Rosiestep: You're welcome. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 13:21, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The tool appears to be working again! Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 08:33, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are there COM:INUSE exceptions, besides copyvios? What are they?[edit]

I have noticed strange behaviors in deletion requests, especially those related to AI-generated content. Some users attempt to circumvent the COM:INUSE policy, claiming that the nominated files are not being used in good-faith. Ultimately, can COM:INUSE be disregarded based on a personal interpretation of the use of files in Wikimedia projects? RodRabelo7 (talk) 04:55, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@RodRabelo7: I think the "good faith" qualifier comes from COM:NPOV, which says "A file that is in good faith use on another Wikimedia project is, by that very fact, considered useful for an educational purpose". I've not been paying much attention to the recent "AI" fracas, but I've got the impression that this is usually applied in cases where a file is being used on another project for the sole purpose of preventing its deletion on Commons. --bjh21 (talk) 11:07, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd say that if something is in use on any major Wikipedia, we have to defer to that 100% (other than possibly arguing the case on that wiki), but on a sparsely edited Wikipedia like, say, Piedmontese or Neapolitan, we can't presume there even is such a thing as a meaningful consensus. Where to draw the line is harder to say. Similarly for other sister proects. For some sister projects -- e.g. Wikiversity -- most pages are one-person undertakings, and if the person involved "has a dog in the fight" it gets harder to assume good faith, especially if the image was added after the DR began. - Jmabel ! talk 22:13, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would add that an image that is only used in a declined draft article which is very unlikely to be accepted but might linger for six months before being deleted could be disregarded as being in use. Particularly if the image uploader and draft creator are the same person. MKFI (talk) 07:56, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not too long ago, I also learnt that COM:SCOPE itself includes the line In the sections below, any use that is not made in good faith does not count, thereby indeed exempting certain files from COM:INUSE. --HyperGaruda (talk) 20:59, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can I use Creative Commons share-alike images in a book without releasing the book into creative commons?[edit]

I am interested in writing a book. I want to use images here without releasing the book proper into creative commons. I will have links provided to all the images, and any modified images will also be in creative commons. But would that mean the text of the book itself would have to be released into creative commons? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 18:39, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You do not need to release the text under a cc-by-sa license. The book is just a combination of text and images. It is not a derivative work of images. Ruslik (talk) 19:50, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ruslik0 thank you Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 02:32, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

January 23[edit]

Machine translated descriptions[edit]

Hi, I am wondering if it would be ok to add machine translated descriptions to the images and how to do it. My use case would be for example that the photos from Finna are basically finnish only which is language what most people cant read. These images arent really searchable either for same reason. However photos which are also in Europeana are machine translated to EU-languages.

So question is that would it be OK to copy these machine translated to file information template or to SDC captions?

About technical implementation I think that in template text should be wrapped to template which would tell that it is machine translation. Description texts in Finna and Europeana are CC0.

Example

commons image
Same image in Europeana

{{Information
|description={{fi|1=8mR-luokan purjehduskilpailut Pohjoissatamassa}}
{{machine translation|en=Sailing competition for the 8mR class in North Harbour|sourcelang=fi|translationmethod=Europeana|translationdate=2024-01-23}}
|date=1920 -luku n.
|source=Finna: [https://www.finna.fi/Record/hkm.HKMS000005:km0000lrb4 hkm.HKMS000005:km0000lrb4]
|author={{Creator:Unknown}}
|permission=
|other versions=
}}

--Zache (talk) 11:22, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If the translated text ls clearly tagged as being machine-translated, and the service used does not own copyright in their translations, I don't see why not. A tracking category should be included, and the tagging removed once a human has checked it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:53, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm always very hesitant to add machine translations. A user can get such a translation any time they need it. The one advantage, though, is for search.

On something this short and simple, a machine translation is probably pretty reliable. I've found, though, that automated translation software still makes a lot of mistakes, including sometimes getting the sense of something dead opposite to what it says. - Jmabel ! talk 20:51, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How to handle claims of "own work"?[edit]

In an upload such as File:Mercyhealth RGB wTag HighRes.jpg, where the uploader has (clearly falsely) claimed a major company's logo as their "own work", but the logo itself does not meet the threshold of originality to qualify for copyright protection, what is the best course of action? It's easy enough to place the {{Pd-textlogo}} template on the file, but what do we do with the false claim of ownership? WikiDan61 (talk) 12:32, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@WikiDan61: treat it the same as a blank, and add the company as author. - Jmabel ! talk 20:52, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jmabel: Thanks! WikiDan61 (talk) 21:08, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Figshare[edit]

Do we have tool for importing open-licenced files from Figshare? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:49, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Avars[edit]

What is the difference between "Eurasian Avars" and "Avar Khaganate" ? Io Herodotus (talk) 18:53, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

en:Eurasian Avars is a more general term, which includes all Avars. Ruslik (talk) 20:11, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Search should link to major project pages[edit]

If I search in Wikipedia for e.g. "Village pump" or "Help desk", I get a helpful link to the relevant Wikipedia project page, in case that is what I am looking for. Suggest that the same thing should happen in Wikimedia Commons for commonly searched-for pages, e.g. typing "village pump" in the search box should put up a link to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump at the top of the page above the main content. Yes, you can say that there may be "obvious" other routes to these pages but even so, it would be a nice feature for Search to provide links too. "Special search" may find them, but the sort of users who might type e.g. "help" into search expecting to find help on using Commons probably would not know to do that, or how to do that. ITookSomePhotos (talk) 22:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

January 24[edit]

Retouching categories[edit]

Right now Category:Retouched pictures is a subcat of Category:Digitally manipulated photographs (and of nothing else). This seems wrong to me. Not all retouching is digital (until a few decades ago, none was). Also, the whole interweaving of categories here gets weird. Going down the hierarchy, Category:Retouched pictures -> Category:Retouched images by type of retouching‎ -> Category:Images with blurred out license plates‎, but Category:Images with Gaussian blurs‎ and Category:Intentionally blurred images‎ (a parent of Category:Images with blurred out license plates‎) are directly under Category:Digitally manipulated photographs, not under Category:Retouched pictures at all. Etc., I don't want to overwhelm with examples, but the whole area is a bit of a mess.

Is anyone interested in taking this on and seeing if you can come up with a better arrangement of these categories? - Jmabel ! talk 01:42, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Adding to that, {{Retouched picture}} defines it as "digitally altered", so the template itself probably also needs a second look. --HyperGaruda (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Perhaps it'd make more sense to tag pictures based on the extent of retouching that's been performed on them, rather than what tools were used to do it? Knowing the difference between an image that's been retouched for color correction and one that's been edited to remove a person from the photo (for instance) is much more important than knowing whether it was edited on a computer or in a darkroom. Omphalographer (talk) 18:01, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categories related to social impacts of technology[edit]

I have been looking for, and failing to find, categories related to social impacts of technology. This came up because I am looking for parent categories for Category:Katya Klinova, a prominent thinker on the social impacts of artificial intelligence. - Jmabel ! talk 06:00, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What about creating a category named Sociotechnology for media related to the social impacts of technology? The name is kind of clunky, but it works and at least there's a Wikipedia article it can be associated with. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:27, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's Category:Technology in society (especially the ethics subcat there) and I have created a subcat for AI-related issues. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:29, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not a great category name either. Especially considering the vagueness of the Wikidata and Wikipedia entries. Really, I'm kind of tempted to do a CfD since it's clearly at odds with the guidelines for category names. But that's a separate issues. So I'm not going to litigate it here, but I do think something like Category:Sociotechnology would be clearer and at least more legitimate as a concept due to being used in academic circles. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:07, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

January 25[edit]

Making text bigger[edit]

Do we have access to any other text modifiers other than < big > to make text big? RAN (talk) 05:00, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Have a look at Category:Text formatting templates; notably {{Big}}, {{Resize}}, and {{Font-size}} may do what you want. enwiki offers a selection of them as well: w:en:category:resizing templates Elizium23 (talk) 05:32, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! We probably need Commons:Formatting text, to match Wikipedia and Wikisource. We use different names for text templates than Wikisource and English Wikipedia. --RAN (talk) 13:30, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you know what fonts are available at Commons? --RAN (talk) 16:11, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

None, fonts are installed in the OS and browser. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:33, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See also category:MediaWiki SVG font lists for vector files. Arlo James Barnes 21:15, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That category involves meta:SVG fonts which is quite a specialized application: within an SVG image file, you can use directives to have the MediaWiki server render that image with the named fonts.

Since RAN's concern seems to involve HTML/CSS rendering of plain text, we'd be dealing with OS/browser fonts. Elizium23 (talk) 22:37, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User-made drawings of people[edit]

Hi everyone! Do we have a policy or something about user-made drawings of real (historical or living) people? By chance I have found a series of drawings made by @JVC3ETA: of various people of which we have otherwise no images (or very few). Some of the drawings are quite old (10 years or more), and over time they have been used in several Wikipedia voices, i.e. this one (10+ pages), this one (20+ pages) or this one (30+ pages). Personally I feel that, as a general rule, drawings made by users shouldn't be included in encyclopedia pages (they are affected by the author's perspective and competence, they are not real life pictures and they don't have historical or artistic value); I'm not sure if they should be hosted on Commons at all, but I'd like to hear from the community. -- Syrio posso aiutare? 21:29, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Syrio: There is certainly no policy banning these as such. Anything that is in use in a Wikipedia will necessarily stay on Commons, the only exceptions being if the inclusion in a Wikipedia as a bad-faith action precisely to avoid deletion or, of course, if the image is a copyright violation.

So:

If the image appears to be a copyright violation, please nominate it for deletion.
If the image is not a copyright violation and is in use on one of our sister projects, please leave it alone.
If neither of those applies, and you believe the images is either too low-quality or unlikely to be an accurate representation, then feel free to nominate it for deletion, but please do not be surprised if others judge the matter differently and it is kept.

Jmabel ! talk 21:51, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We have images of every pope, and about 200 of them are illustrations made at some point in history, long after they were dead. --RAN (talk) 03:55, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

January 26[edit]

Commons:Village pump