Commons:Village pump/Archive/2021/12

Remove visual editor

Hello. A few minutes I noticed that my edit window changed to VisualEditor. I was adding a gadget so I very well may have caused this. Is it possible to revert back to the old edit window, and if yes, how? I find the visual editor very clunky and requiring a lot more clicks. This is IMO inadequate for categorization work in Commons. Thanks. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 00:40, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

In the beta tab, untick Visual Editor and click on Save. Bidgee (talk) 00:58, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! That did it. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 01:07, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Backlog of deletion requests

On Wikipedia I noticed a user added an image which I recognised as being a scan from a book. Seeing it had been uploaded to Commons and assuming this was the correct process, I clicked "request deletion" (see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Albert Park Circuit 1950s.jpg for details). I noticed the same user had uploaded several files from a website which it would appear doesn't allow reproduction without permission, so I again requested deletion (see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Surfers Paradise Raceway.svg for details and the other files). But having checked back I see no-one has commented on these discussions, and indeed there is a backlog of months of files which haven't been discussed. I don't mean to appear rude, but for potentially copyrighted material this doesn't seem good enough. I know I probably should have tagged them for speedy deletion instead but I don't think that is permitted once a deletion request is opened? The same user also uploaded File:Wuhan Street Circuit.png and File:Circuit Pau-Arnos.png in apparent breach of the Ts&Cs of [1] (see also their talk page User talk:Apeiro94#File:Adria Circuit 2021.png where a file was deleted which had been taken from the same website) and also there is File:Charlotte Roval.png which is in breach of another websites Ts&Cs [2]. Thankyou for your assistance. A7V2 (talk) 21:49, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Deletion Requests (DR) are open for a minimum of 7 days, for clear copyright violations, you should have used {{Copyvio}} and only use DR when copyright is uncertain. Bidgee (talk) 22:04, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

@Bidgee Actually, I understand that non-controversial requests can be closed earlier (as keep, by any user; or as delete, by an administrator), provided that someone actually sees them. This is particularly true for copyright violations; Commons:Deletion requests#Closing discussions says:

Deletion requests for obvious copyright violations can be closed earlier. Brianjd (talk) 02:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

@Apeiro94: as uploader. @A7V2: since there was a response with no ping. - Jmabel ! talk 23:09, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

@Jmabel: You might be interested in {{Pinging}}.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 23:14, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

We are in need of more admins. I am working on some of the oldest DRs, from February 2021, but the backlog is not decreasing or too slow to notice. See COM:ADMIN for tasks and procedures to get involved. Ellywa (talk) 23:18, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes with only 204 admins (and assuming not all are going to be active) it seems like a LOT of time would be needed. Probably people not being particularly comfortable or familiar with copyright and such would be a problem too. Given it's true I should have tagged for speedy deletion instead, is that still an option now that I've requested deletion? I will tag all the other files I've mentioned now. Thanks. A7V2 (talk) 00:35, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

@Bidgee I see many files that are eligible for speedy deletion that are instead nominated for normal deletion. Normally the reason is G7, but sometimes F1, and rarely other reasons. I also want to know if I can tag these files for speedy deletion after a normal deletion request has been started. Brianjd (talk) 02:41, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

@Brianjd: I have added tags to the two pages I opened a deletion discussion for. I don't think there's any benefit waiting to delete clear cases of copyright. My thinking is that the original copyright holder shouldn't have to have their work here for longer than necessary due to someone here's mistake (me in this case). If it's not allowed, it probably should be! A7V2 (talk) 23:33, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

@Brianjd: Yes, non-controversial DR can be closed before 7 days but that tends to be for clear case copyright violations. Bidgee (talk) 03:04, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Category:Free emulation software Copyright and PD issues in 74 categories.

Category:Free emulation software Copyright and PD issues in 74 categories.

In files in the free emulation software category,

In 74 categories from A to Z,

Some files contain copyrights and PDs.

Copyright without the owner's permission and files with PD's permission

It's being left unattended.

The files are in Korean, Japanese, English, Chinese, German, Russian, French, and Italian.

In numerous documents, uploaded public files are being used without copyright discussion.

Here

Free emulation software (Category)

Subcategories This category has the following 74 subcategories, out of 74 total.

Free emulation software has 74 categories.

Duckstation, Joiplay, Redream, etc. that have been confirmed to be deleted.

Three needs to be deleted along with the category.

I think we need to consider whether to preserve or delete the remaining categories left empty.

Among these categories, it is important to check whether the uploaded files have copyrights and PDs.

There are dozens of files that need to be deleted and left unattended.

From 1964 (emulator) to ZSNES, we'll investigate everything in alphabetical order (A to Z)

All copyrighted and PD files must be deleted.

Out of the 74 categories,

Copyright and PD files without the owner's permission may be uploaded countless times.

End users should be prevented from uploading it.

Weki Media has copyrighted and strongly denied PDs.

If there's no way to solve this problem, Weki Media's public use will be damaged.

Unless this is resolved, damage can be repeated. 125.181.255.254 16:39, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

This user has left the same message on several discussion boards. I have closed down the duplicated discussions and only this one remains. Feel free to continue the discussion here. From Hill To Shore (talk) 17:06, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

If someone wants to dig through there, there looks like there's a few problematic images, but mostly it's free icons and interface shots of free software.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:37, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Global ban for 1Goldberg2

Per the Global bans policy, I’m informing the project of this request for comment: RfC/Global ban for 1Goldberg2. – Mrakia 12:07, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Privacy violation?

Someone uploaded a newer version of an image and want it to be renamed. It looks like they want to hide privacy violation, but this is not the way to do that. But is it copyright violation, or just someone who doesn't wanna be on Commons with a picture? Can someone (an admin or?) take a look at that, or look with me? I'm not sure. See: File:Alice_Pasche.jpg. Thanks! - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 11:17, 3 December 2021 (UTC) PS it's a cross-wiki upload from fr.wiki

 Done Deleted. Yann (talk) 12:38, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 14:34, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

You claim this is not the way to do that. Why? I think this is exactly that way to do that. Brianjd (talk) 05:55, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Pinging @Richardkiwi. Brianjd (talk) 05:55, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I see now that the file was overwritten with "junk"; in that case, you are right: this is not the way to do that. Brianjd (talk) 05:57, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

This was already 'done', so why are you meddling? There was no need to ping me afterwards or to 'suggest' something on my talk page. - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 12:15, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

@Richardkiwi I didn't know that {{Done}} meant that we weren't allowed to continue the discussion. I don't see it in the documentation for that template. Perhaps you would like to add it? Brianjd (talk) 12:22, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Upload form Url

Hello all, is there any way to mass Upload Bengali pronunciations form here? —MdsShakil (talk) 16:03, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

@MdsShakil: Not while they have a CC BY-NC-SA licence. Non-commercial licence restrictions are not allowed on Wikimedia Commons. --bjh21 (talk) 17:07, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

@Bjh21 According to Ticket:2018060410003007, Licensing is not a problem. Copyright holder agree with following license as mentioned here. —MdsShakil (talk) 17:17, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

File:Mozart Sonate (manuscript).djvu

Hi, This is actually different that File:Manuscript of Violin Sonata No. 27 in G major, K. 379.pdf. I can't find the source, and I am not even sure what it is. Any idea? Yann (talk) 17:12, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Copyright of photos of product wrappers

New user here. Suppose I buy a cookie at a store and then decide to take a photo of the cookie wrapper so that I can then upload the image. Would it be correct to mark the image as my own work?

I'm asking this because I'm planning to take photos of products whose wrapper contain the octagonal labels (e.g. "High in sugar", "High in fats", etc.) and upload them. I've already upload one photo, but before I start taking more photos, I wanted to make sure that they don't go against the guidelines.

Rdrg109 (talk) 18:18, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

• @Rdrg109: Not OK. That is definitely a photo of a copyrighted work (the package is easily over the threshold of originality for copyright). - Jmabel ! talk 20:10, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

  As a new user, I can't state whether this is sarcasm or not. Please let me know either way. Rdrg109 (talk) 20:27, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

  I can see that the image was deleted, so this is not sarcasm. I will consider this from now on then. Note that you can find similar images in this category Rdrg109 (talk) 20:33, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

  Copyright and determining where the threshold of originality is are complicated concepts not easily navigated, and unfortunately oftennot evenly judged and enforced either. However, I would guess (since I can't see the image you uploaded) that in the images you linked, the difference is that they focus on the warning labels, and what is visible of the packaging is very generic and non-artistic. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:42, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

  How could I have taken the photo so that it is not over the threshold of originality for copyright? Note that you can find similar images in this category and the following are similar to the one that I uploaded (link link link link link link) Would they also be deleted? Rdrg109 (talk) 20:43, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

  • @Rdrg109: File:Etiquetado frontal mexicano en una caja de cereal.jpg is an excellent example of doing the picture correctly. There is almost no copyrightable element visible, and what little there is (at left) is out of focus. - Jmabel ! talk 03:33, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
  • File:Snickers Almond (8587030482).jpg: borderline. There is not much copyrightable here, and what little there is is definitely de-emphasized by the way the picture was taken.
  • Sorry I don't have time right now to go through half a dozen examples one by one. - Jmabel ! talk 03:36, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

    That's enough. Thanks for the info! I will consider that form now on. Rdrg109 (talk) 05:20, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Category autocomplete is now case sensitive?

Hello, in the last few days I noticed that Category autocomplete has become case sensitive for a number of subjects (for instance - "Fishing boats of Portugal", but many others). I noticed this at home, and now in a different computer at the University, so it's not something from my system. Anyone else noticing this, too? What may have caused this (unwanted) change? -- Darwin ^Ahoy! 17:17, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I've noticed the same thing. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 19:12, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I have also. It could lead to starting unnecessary categories perhaps. Krok6kola (talk) 19:17, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm guessing that this is due to a change in Cat-a-lot. I've added a comment here. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 19:35, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi, using HotCat for a while already, has something changed recently? There are no longer all auto-suggestions for case-sensitive input - for example when I go by "Openstreetmap maps of fran...", there is no suggestion to continue with "...France", but just "...Frankfurt". I have to manually click and correct each letter that need to be upper case in order for the suggestion going with France, in that case "OpenStreetMap maps of France". This has become quite a hassle, because I now have to second-guess categories a lot more often. What do I need to change in my preferences; or is this something that Programmers need to fix? --Enyavar (talk) 12:48, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

i dont know whether this is related to hotcat, catalot or the search bar.

right now i also find that, if you type in the search bar in the upper right corner "Category:Videos from W", no matter whether the W is upper or lower cased, you cant find Category:Videos from Washington, D.C..

maybe some part of mediawiki broke.--RZuo (talk) 11:58, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I can not at upload choose Category:August 2020 in Baden-Württemberg, already "August 2020 in Ba" does not give enything. It soed not matter which case I choose. This has been occurring for a few days. May be someone can file a Phab ticket?--Ymblanter (talk) 12:27, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Same here, the case doesn't matter, I guess (working with HotCat). — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 14:08, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Cat-a-lot has reverted to the previous behavior for me. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 21:04, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Can confirm; it is frustrating to not know what caused this though. Thanks to whoever fixed it. --Enyavar (talk) 00:22, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

New user script: Warn you before opening large files

Hi, everybody! I have just created a new user script that gives you a warning if you're about to open a very large file from a file page. The default setting in the script is to give you a warning (a popup box asking you if you really want to open the file) if the width or height is larger than 10,000 pixels, or if the file is larger than 100 MB, but these are both configurable per user (see instructions on the script page). If you want to try it out, add the following line to your common.js:

mw.loader.load( "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jon_Harald_Søby/warnOnLargeFile.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript" );

The script also works for old versions of files in the file history table on file pages. Hope it will come in handy! Jon Harald Søby (talk) 01:53, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

looks like a great tool! i propose making this into a gadget.--RZuo (talk) 11:58, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

This should become a tool, because for users using mobile data opening such a large file can become very costly for them (I assume). --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 14:42, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Many coloured ligths

Any idea what these ligths are used for?Smiley.toerist (talk) 23:13, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

i tried googling "railway signal five light". it does appear that there are real railway signal machines that look like these five light combos, but it's kinda weird that ten of these are put together? and facing no rails? and all switched on?

my wild guess is they're probably being tested?

maybe you could ask the station operator's social media https://www.instagram.com/renfe/ https://twitter.com/Renfe ? RZuo (talk) 23:59, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

@Smiley.toerist: I haven't found anything here nor there. I'm pinging ping @CFA1877 and Savh: , Spanish "rail" users. — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 09:59, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi. I'm sorry, but right now I don't remember seeing such a case like this. I mean, I don't understand what (and why) are all the lights on and in that position, out or range. My impression is that these lights are not in regular service. And if they are in service, I do not know the purpose. CFA1877 (talk) 11:17, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I think it has nothing to do with signialing, but is some kind of monitoring system for the same of electricity supply for the different railway line sections. But why this would be needed to visible on the outside is a mystery. It makes me think of the monitoring ligths you often see by banks of computer hardware.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:19, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Hmmm, that makes more sense. But, as you say, it is a mystery that it is on the outside. CFA1877 (talk) 12:07, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Hiddencat or not hiddencat?

@Achim55, 4nn1l2, Verdy p, and Auntof6: and others is it certain that Category:Images from the Estonian Museum of Natural History geological collection is an administrative category and hence should be provided with hiddencat-tag?--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:54, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

This is clearly not an administrative category and should not be hidden! Brianjd (talk) 08:03, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

See the policy at Commons:HIDDENCAT, which mentions that many non-topical categories are hidden, but doesn't say what categories should be hidden.

This category seems non-topical and administrative to me. Spot-checking some similar categories, I see several that are hidden and one that's not. But in the absence of any guidelines/policies of what categories should be hidden, I'd say it's up to individual editors. Not ideal, I know. -- Auntof6 (talk) 08:58, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

@Auntof6 I don't see how this is any more administrative than, say, the subcategories of Maps by source. But perhaps I am simply demonstrating your point, that this situation is not ideal.

Also see Commons:Village pump/Archive/2021/11#Categorization question, which points out another inconsistency and suggests that this is a larger problem. There are also countless other discussions about hidden categories. Brianjd (talk) 09:07, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Brianjd and disagree with Aunt6 here. This is a category by source, and there's no need to hide it. Hiding categories are those needed for maintenance purpose, and that do not provide metadata classification. But the indentification of sources is an important goal of Wikimedia, and it should not be hidden (even if these sources imply some possible maintenance to assert their legal right for imports).

Things would be different if these sources are jsut from individual users (private categories created by them for their own purpose, even if I think that these categories should not even exist, unless that user has a known, verifiable and asserted identify with public interest, e.g. from known artists, that decide to make their creations opensourced or in the public domain, in that case we'll need a proof from them and an assertion securely checked: in that case knowing these sources should not be hidden because we'll need that to preserve neutrality and correctly tagged contents that may be oriented so that reusers will know who has an interest, posibly commercial, to publish that content; but most users in Commons create opensourced contents or uploads photos from the observable public space and we can still track them by the fact that they are the uploader, without needing any categorzation; but some users upload a lot of things and want to organize their work and present it by subcategories, or to track their current work progress, and possibly add their own maintenance categories in their TODO lists, and in my opinion they should better just create subpages in their users pages to collect links to these contents, and otherwise categorize them in normal categories for general topics).

For now this category for contents uploaded from a public museum are properly tagged and subcategorized as a subcollection for that museum, and this does not need to be hidden at all; it is clearly not "administrative" and clearly not for maintenance purpose, and it has excellent value for metadata purposes and labelling, just like we have categories for images in the public domain coming from US agencies (such as the CIA) which are not neutral when they are built as a large colelction supposed to cover a whole domain of knowledge and present it according to their view (such collection may not be really exhaustive to cover these domains, even if these sources are considered "reliable" only because they are wellknown and easily verifiable as their sources, rather than for the content itself which may be tweaked and politically oriented, for example the presentation of borders and international claims as they are recognizd by the US, but not necessarily every country in the world)! verdy_p (talk) 10:17, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, on the other hand, a category that currently contains 6000+ files is rather useless for people searching for images, the original purpose of categories. --Túrelio (talk) 10:21, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

This is also the case for categories created for various US or UN agencies... This does not mean that categorizing content there is enough! We need other categorization scheme by topic (subjects, epochs, artistic styles, colors, materials...). The same is true for categories related to public libraries. May be that category is now overpopulated and could be improved by splitting it further in subcollections. verdy_p (talk) 10:26, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

@Túrelio Not necessarily. Having this category displayed in the categories lists on individual files might be useful. Some people can apparently scan long lists of images quickly; this might be useful for them. But most importantly, there are tools that can combine multiple categories and other criteria, such as FastCCI and PetScan, and categories like this could be very useful with such tools.

If you still want to divide this category into subcategories, go ahead. Creating this category was obviously the first step towards achieving that.

So however you look at it, this is a good category to have. Brianjd (talk) 10:33, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree, that this is clearly not an administrative category. Not to mention, that by marking this hidden nearly 1400 images got first marked as uncategorized and were then categorized under "Estonian Museum of Natural History" which is plain stupid. Yes, it would not be enough to mark images only into that geological collection category, but that [i.e the fact that this category contains a lot of images] does not make it an administrative category. That should be so obvious, that I don't see what is there to even ask about it or to make that kind of edit in the first place. Kruusamägi (talk) 14:47, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Category:Images from the Estonian Museum of Natural History geological collection is a tracker category added by {{EMNH geo}} and according to Commons:Categories source categories are hidden. This has been standing practice on Commons for many years.

Images should be categorized by topic too and not only be in this category. You might find Commons:Guide to batch uploading & Commons:Guide to content partnerships useful. Multichill (talk) 16:30, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

1. Clearly just placing something in this category would never be sufficient categorization.
2. @Multichill: So are you saying that if someone takes an image of something in that collection at that museum themself, they should not add this category? - Jmabel ! talk

Exactly, source categories are to track who took or contributed a file. So for example Category:Images from the Rijksmuseum should only contain image that are from the Rijksmuseum (https://www.rijksmuseum.nl/en/rijksstudio) and not photos by people who visited the Rijksmuseum. Every file, regardless of it's source, should also have one or more topic categories like Category:Paintings in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam or Category:Models of ships in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam.

Generally source categories are used for tracking and not split up and diffused into subcategories like normal topic categories because that would make it harder to track these files. Tools like https://glamtools.toolforge.org/baglama2/ work on these (flat) tracker categories. Multichill (talk) 20:52, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

It is kind of common, that images should often be placed into multiple categories. Only this one category would not be enough anyway, but that is not a reason for it to be a hidden category.

For instance, we have this file. There are categories "Sapphire", "Images from the Estonian Museum of Natural History geological collection", and "Photographs by Tõnis Saadre". In my opinion, only the last of them should be hidden category and not the one with the museum. Why should there be a big number separate categories (like "Gemstones in the Estonian Museum of Natural History" and similar)? And if a visitor takes a photo of an item in that museum, then that visitor is also an image source. Why should that be treated differently? (that is: visitor images in main categories and museum-made images in hidden categories) Kruusamägi (talk) 02:26, 7 December 2021 (UTC) 

@Multichill Which part of Commons:Categories says that source categories should be hidden? Brianjd (talk) 06:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• Not hidden. We should hide "non topical" categories. Many categories arrive as a result of some non-topical source (a particular museum, a particular specialist photographer) but they then turn out to have strong topical value too, either from some specialism, or simply because the originator is so prominent in themselves that the group becomes significant.

This category (>6k) is too large to be of much navigational value though, so these images need some additional sub-categories adding. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Since the previous discussion I initiated was mentioned here, I spot-checked random members of Category:Men by name by country and discovered there's no consistency whatsoever, if anyone cares.RadioKAOS (talk) 10:54, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Server error for old revisions of file

Looking at the description page File:40_Bank_Street_Heron_Quay_London.jpg, the File history table is not displaying previous revisions, but instead the text "Thumbnail for version..." as a clickable link. Clicking on it gives an error message, such as "File not found: /v1/AUTH_mw/wikipedia-commons-local-public.e3/archive/e/e3/20060220184425%2140_Bank_Street_Heron_Quay_London.jpg". I don't see any deletion or revision-hiding in the log for that file. I spot-checked a few other files with old revisions, and they seem to display properly, so it's not a universal problem with file-history display. DMacks (talk) 05:26, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Language clarification on UK legislation uploads by Fae.

Courtesy link to a Bot request. Commons:Bots/Work_requests#Language_clarification_on_UK_legislation_uploads_by_Fae. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:19, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Website

Hello, what type of license do the images on this site have? Can I use them in wikipedia? Your admirer --AngryBiceps (talk) 21:09, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

• I see no indication of any free license at all. @AngryBiceps: do you have some reason to think that they are anything other than copyrighted with all rights reserved? - Jmabel ! talk 21:41, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

  Much thanks :) AngryBiceps (talk) 22:10, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

@AngryBiceps: Hi, and welcome. Technically, they are offered under the "Standard YouTube License", which we do not accept, per COM:YT.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 22:08, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you :) AngryBiceps (talk) 22:10, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

@AngryBiceps: You're welcome.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 14:28, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by:   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 14:28, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Restoration at a future date

When I come across an image that needs to be deleted, but will be in the public domain in 10 years, how do I mark it so it gets auto-restored on the correct date? --RAN (talk) 17:53, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

@RAN: On a DR page, you can use a noincluded cat like Category:Undelete in 2031. On a file description page, you can include your reasoning in a copyvio or speedy template.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 18:02, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

If there is a deletion request for the file, add <noinclude>[[Category:Undelete in 2031]]</noinclude> (please don't forget the "noinclude" tags) to it the deletion request page. If there is not, add it the file name to the others on the category description page of Category:Undelete in 2031 after it the file was deleted. Adjust the year as needed. --Rosenzweig τ 18:04, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

• Perfect, thanks! --RAN (talk) 18:12, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

  @RAN: You're welcome!   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 18:18, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by:   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 18:18, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

png to svg

What is the best free online png to svg converter that gets it right the first time, there are a half dozen online that do a poor job. I want to convert File:CGA Örbom.png. --RAN (talk) 13:14, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• I spent years working in computer graphics (CAD, to be specific) and I'm pretty confident in saying that there is no great way to convert raster to vector. At best, you can get some degree of approximation. - Jmabel ! talk 16:51, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I do not see that image as a good candidate for vectorization. Digitizing the individual lines would require a lot of coordinates and would make the file huge. In addition, the vectorization would start copying the noise in the cross hatching rather than giving the expected sharp and colinear edges. Unlimited scaling also does not seem reasonable. At small scales, all the lines blur together to give a good image. At medium scale, we can appreciate the image and see the lines. I suspect at large scale, the lines would overwhelm the image unless one stepped way back. Glrx (talk) 19:28, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks! I was able to do an etching into a nice svg, but it took me a long time to get it right. I will see if I can find the image to show you. --RAN (talk) 03:54, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Unsigned bot

Hi, The "Unsigned bot" stopped working. Any idea? Yann (talk) 10:55, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

@Yann: I have not yet gotten a response from Eatcha about this request.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 16:33, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Insufficient data from a SPARQL request on wikidata

I pull images through a SPARQL request on wikidata, to access the license, and to give proper credit I use the following request:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=query&prop=imageinfo&iiprop=extmetadata&titles=File%3a##FILENAME##

Like:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=query&prop=imageinfo&iiprop=extmetadata&titles=File%3aAnnunciation%20(Leonardo).jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=query&prop=imageinfo&iiprop=extmetadata&titles=File%3aLa_belle_ferronni%C3%A8re,Leonardo_da_Vinci_-_Louvre.jpg

Now I noticed a problem on File:Annunciation (Leonardo).jpg. I am not getting the author (the photographer), but only the artist, and in the data I receive the author (photographer) is only mentioned in the Categories field and nowhere else. On File:La_belle_ferronnière,Leonardo_da_Vinci_-_Louvre.jpg (from the same Artist and the same author) I can access the author (photographer) via the artist field because there is a separate Photograph object. How can I reliably access the Author via the API to give proper attribution? Thanks. DarthBrento (talk) 19:01, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Adding data + document file formats

Have there been recent discussions about what data + document file formats to add to the list of "acceptable file types"? --SJ+ 20:20, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Copyfraud vs. watermark

I was cleaning the Copyfraud category and there are several examples of institutions adding watermarks to images so that you have to pay if you want a clean copy to publish in a book. I don't think that is copyfraud, no one is falsely claiming they own the copyrights, they are just making a monetary decision to force you to pay if you want a higher resolution, watermark-free copy to publish in a book. Most of the other examples are clear claims of copyright of public domain images. See: File:Copyfraud darmstadt.jpg (watermarked with the name of the institution) versus File:Hiram Boardman Conibear obituary.png (rote notice added to every article from every year) and File:British Museum Fortuna statue, with copyfraud notice.jpg (my favorite). I want to remove the watermark ones from the category, unless the watermark specifically makes a copyright claim. What do you think? I will add in the category "Images with watermarks". --RAN (talk) 04:06, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Eizabethan Prosthetic Arm

• This is a good example of Alamy making money from a photgraph that is freely available on the internet - compare it with the image on the right. I know for a fact that the original photgrapher does not receive a penny from Alamy (or anybody else for that matter). In their blurb, they claim that their fee is for "for access to the high resolution copy of the image".

Would the watermarks on this image, were it to be loaded from Alamy, be construed as "Copyfraud". Martinvl (talk) 16:45, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

• I would say not fraud, just a smart business model, find something free and then find a way to charge for it. In economics class, it was called "selling ice to the Inuit", now it would be called "selling bottled water when water from the fountain is free". P.S. I just warned a person at Wikidata that dedicated a photo collection to the public domain, that they should have done it by creative commons with attribution since Alamy does not always pick up the attribution data from Commons if it isn't formatted consistently. --RAN (talk) 20:31, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I have separated the images that are "watermarked to prevent free use" from those making a false claim of copyright ownership (copyfraud). Museums and archives use both techniques to prevent free use, and to encourage paid licensing of a higher-resolution, watermark-free image for commercial purposes. --RAN (talk) 21:10, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Searching my uploads

Is there a way to just search for svg files in my uploads? --RAN (talk) 21:27, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

User talk:Fæ

User:Fæ is sadly no longer active, but User talk:Fæ is still very busy. Automated archiving there has failed, and the page is exceedingly long; can someone familiar with the bots that do such work please take a took, and fix it? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:45, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

I changed the bot parameters, hopefully it works, and I also hope Fæ doesn't mind. :-) - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 23:00, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Has someone taken over Fae's role in uploading the new image releases from the Library of Congress? --RAN (talk) 23:33, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

AFAICT, no-one has taken on any of the very useful tasks Fæ used to undertake; I asked about this here, recently, and got no replies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:43, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

@Richardkiwi: Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:43, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

• I am back to loading individual ones manually, which is time consuming, and I only do ones of interest to me. I asked him to teach me the software before he left, but I asked too late. There also was a problem with his uploads from the LOC, in that maybe one in 500 images didn't load, for whatever reason, and was skipped. I wanted him to go back and see if he could reload the missing ones automatically. --RAN (talk) 20:22, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Chrome extension for cropping that scrolls down past the bottom of my screen

I am not sure if I can describe this easily. I cut articles out of public domain Library of Congress newspapers for Commons, mostly obits. The LOC scans a double page and displays the double page. I want to be able to to do a screen grab of just the obituary, where I create a rectangular box to cut and paste the image of the article, but I want the box to continue to scroll past the bottom of my screen. All the Chrome screen-grab extensions I have tried so far allow me to create the rectangle for cropping, but they stop at the bottom of my screen, and I have repeat the process for the bottom half of the image. If I make the image small enough to fit on my screen I lose resolution and cannot perform OCR. Now I download the whole double page image and have to search for the obituary again by reading both pages, sometimes I can't relocate the name I am looking for on the double page. Any suggestions? --RAN (talk) 00:53, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

@RAN: You could increase the resolution of your video card to the maximum your monitor supports, or upgrade one or both.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 01:33, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Another workaround I have been using is to change Graphics Options > Rotation > Rotate to 90 degrees. It has the length of the article now oriented with the horizontal length of my screen, but reversing it is difficult, my computer does not support hotkeys for the change back and forth. You are right, probably better to get a new kick-ass computer and bigger monitor. --RAN (talk) 01:40, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Use bigger hardware to overcome lousy software, that's one solution of course. My fvwm allows my setting a large virtual resolution. When I maximise the browser window all the image would fit on my (virtual) screen and the window manager would handle the scrolling. Might not work that well with truly huge files, but for any newspaper scan the approach works well (avoid resizing the window manually, as the normal size would then also have to be restored manually, unless you have a button for setting a default size, but such a button is easy to configure). –LPfi (talk) 13:39, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

@RAN: would temporarily switching to a different browser be an option? In Firefox you can just right click somewhere on the page, then go "take screenshot" -> "save full page" (and then crop to the desired portion of the page afterwards). El Grafo (talk) 19:32, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

• Wow, excellent, let me take a peek at that, I haven't been using Firefox in years, let me install it and see if it helps. --RAN (talk) 19:38, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

RfC Structured Data on Commons Stable Interface Policy

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T290671

Hello everybody! The Structured Data engineering team would like to share with the community the draft of a new operational policy, regarding the stability of public interfaces and data formats here on Wikimedia Commons. The policy is largely based on the same operational policy established on Wikidata back in 2016.

This policy will not impact the project's content, nor the community processes, but the team wants to follow community process for its adoption. Any user interested in providing feedback on the policy can do so in the relative talk page.

We would like to wait until Sunday December 19 for any feedback on the proposal. If there are no objections by the end of the week, the policy should be considered adopted. -- Sannita (WMF) (talk) 21:01, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

The blanking of "User talk:Rodhullandemu"

For context, user "Rodhullandemu" has recently been banned by the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) likely for threatening a poor vandal that just wanted to have some fun. I had the idea to open up a thread here to discuss if it might be wise to unblock their ability to upload images here but in light of this ban such a discussion would be futile. In relation to this I noticed a recent trend that the WMFOffice has started blanking user talk pages as they did here. Not only did they remove other people's comments they removed the archiving system, in fact the WMFOffice seems to systematically remove anything except for block notices, sock-tags, Etc. which just seems like spiteful gravedancing to me. While blanking user pages is (unfortunately) acceptable, blanking user talk pages is something that as far as I know isn't something that is regularly done in any non-Francophone Wikimedia website.

Would it be wise to make a policy or guideline against the blanking of User talk pages and then ask the WMFOffice to respect that? I personally do not see what benefit it has to blank user talk pages. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 14:58, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

 Comment, I am afraid to talk directly to the WMFOffice as I am convinced that they simply ban-without-appeal anyone that interacts with them, the fact that Rodhullandemu stated multiple times that he was talking to the Trust & Safety Team makes me believe that this was the case, if anyone would talk to them do not mention that such a policy was my suggestion. As the growth of users getting WMF banned seems exponential with no transparency, so I can only assume that very little or no reason could be a cause for a ban. So this policy suggestion is not something against the WMFOffice simply weighing in if the current practice is beneficial to the community or not. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 15:02, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

@Donald Trung: FYI, I corresponded with them via email in 2019 about Hasive, and my account lived to tell the tale.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 16:15, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi, While I find the ban warranted (i.e. among other reasons for exporting the conflict on WD), I have no objection to restore the archiving system of his talk page. Since he uploaded many images, there is a need to send a DR notice somewhere, if anyone wants to monitor his page. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:18, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree. That is one reason. We should also not hide history. We cannot just pretend these users never existed.

For the user page, I believe we should not blank them either, as long as the content isn't objectionable (if edits during the conflict were, restore an older version and add the template to that).

I think the spirit of the attribution clauses of many free licences require that we attribute the users' presentation of themselves (including possible links to an external site), not a blank page with a "banned" template. If I cannot trust WMF to keep my user page, then I would have to make the author line point to an external page inste4ad of to Commons.

–LPfi (talk) 21:57, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

There is no requirement for the WMF to keep your userpage if you are globally banned. -- Guerillero 10:29, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Realistically for WMF globally banned users, the userpage should be blanked and locked with a message to redirect any editing queries to another venue. Both for the user's own wellbeing and to prevent the usual peanut gallery effect, good faith editors leaving messages not realising they will get no response, other editors using the talkpage as some sort of shrine and so on. The 'breaking archiving' argument is largely pointless, for a globally banned user, notifications serve no purpose, as they will never be able to do anything about it personally. If the page is locked for editing, nothing will need to be archived in the future. The same argument is perfectly valid for someone who is temporarily blocked/banned however, as they may return at some point. That is almost certainly never going to happen with a WMF banned user. That they had many contributions is a red herring, any media on commons nominated for deletion will show up in the usual places and have the usual audience. With the only real difference being the absence of the globally banned user. The idea that somehow the deletion discussion will be missed, and by implication treated unfairly, if Rodhullandemu's talkpage does not contain a notification is bordering on 'this user's contributions require special treatment'. I might actually make it a suggestion to the WMF T&S team they do implement a blank & lock policy, because allowing other editors to constantly notify someone who has been forcibly seperated from the community is not good for their mental wellbeing. Better to make a clean break of it. Only in death (talk) 11:39, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I think that for the talk page, archiving and adding a template explaining the situation would be the best solution. The archives may still be interesting for many purposes, so hiding them away is usually not a good idea. For the user page, as long as we keep any works of the user, we need to attribute them, and linking a blanked page for attribution is nonsense. If the WMF doesn't respect this, then WMF cannot be trusted for attribution purposes, and anyone should link to a page under their control instead, if they have a persistent one. We do not want attribution links to go to Facebook pages instead of Commons, so respecting the user page is not only a question of being fair and true to the spirit of the attribution requirement. –LPfi (talk) 14:04, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I have the target of the redirect at User talk:GeographBot on my watchlist, and find that useful, even though obviously GeographBot itself will never benefit from deletion notifications. While I'm not likely to add any humans' user talk pages to my watchlist for this reason, I can easily imagine that others might, and that to me would seem to justify keeping user talk pages unprotected except where there's an actual problem that protection would solve. --bjh21 (talk) 18:00, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

• Is this about a matter of policy, or about objecting to the ban? The OP seems to be conflating the two things. It also seems a little paranoid to say that the office will ban you just for talking to them. It makes it hard to take this seriously to see such a ridiculous sentiment expressed. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:29, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
• I see nothing wrong with WMFOffice's actions - They exist purely to boot people out. Expecting them to mess around with archiving is bit OTT. They should continue to blank pages and if people really wanna re-add the archive back then fine. I agree with their userpage blanking too. –Davey2010^Talk 23:25, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Photo challenge October results

Autumn leafs: Entries • Votes • Scores

Rank	1	2	3
image
Title	Faggeta di Canfaito (Marche, Italia) nella nebbia autunnale	Autumn trees against the sky in Six Mile Canyon near Virginia City, Nevada, USA	In the Bruderwald in Bamberg
Author	IvoK.	Semiautonomous	Ermell
Score	24	14	12

Loneliness: Entries • Votes • Scores

Rank	1	2	3
image
Title	Lonesome dromedary in Wahiba Sands (Oman)	In a beautiful town, in the south of France	Одиночество в большом городе
Author	DEspel	Celeda	Андрей Малков
Score	14	13	12

Congratulations to IvoK., Semiautonomous, Ermell, DEspel, Celeda and Андрей Малков. -- Jarekt (talk) 03:20, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Question about image deletions

huge apologies but I have no idea how to post a discussion! Do people just edit this section and talk?? I have had a series of photos deleted that I uploaded. I took the photos so there is no copyright on them. I don't know if I checked the wrong box when uploading, but I replied to comments I received on those images a couple of months ago to confirm I was the author. Perhaps I did not reply in the correct area as I was not notified of a reply. @Taivo deleted some of the images and I tried to comment on their talk page but I can't see where my comment appeared. I have been casually adding to wiki over a few years but only do bits and pieces so have never joined the chat areas before so don't know how to actually engage/chat to other editors. MRichards01 (talk) 03:28, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

This is the right way to post a comment, yes. I see you got some answers from Taivo and in the deletion requests and their talk pages (the talk pages of those are for meta-discussion and seldom used). If you have questions on any individual files, just ask. Asking the closing administrator, such as you did with Taivo is one recommended route, but as you started this discussion, you can equally well continue here. Please link the deletion request or the deleted image, so that it is more easy for others to check what happened. For Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by MRichards01 it seems there is conflicting information, but perhaps these are just free access, not free to edit and reuse. That is a common problem: "free" or "open" are not well-defined. For your own photos a few ways to provide evidence have been suggested, but there are more ways. –LPfi (talk) 13:44, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

"White American history"

I believe Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/12/Category:White American history probably deserves broader attention than a typical CFD, so I am mentioning it here. - Jmabel ! talk 01:54, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Recordings of EmacsConf in Wikimedia Commons

I've contacted the organizers of EmacsConf through #emacsconf to ask them about uploading the recordings to Wikimedia Commons. For what I could perceive from their answers is that they are willing to do what would be more beneficial to the community and these are some questions that popped up.

• Will it be useful to Wikimedia Commons?
• What would be the differences to uploading them to archive.org?

It is worth mentioning that all the recordings can be found in the official site of EmacsConf. In addition to that, anyone can contribute to that site as explained in the Edit section of the page (this requires running some commands in the command line).

Additional context: Some of my reasons for proposing this idea were (1) People can contribute by adding subtitles in 444 languages (2) Subtitles vandalization can be easily reverted by contributors to this site (3) Contributors don't need an account (4) Adding subtitles to a video is frictionless thanks to the user-friendly interface of Commons (5) Videos can have structured data which make them easier to find (i.e. part of (P361) EmacsConf (Q103942956), instance of (P31) lightning talk (Q926186), language used (P2936) English (Q1860))

I would appreciate any information to make a better decision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdrg109 (talk • contribs) 18:34, 13 December 2021‎ (UTC)

• Just an aside so no one else needs to check: these are licensed CC-BY-SA-4.0. - Jmabel ! talk 21:38, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

The videos have been published and can be found in Category:EmacsConf 2021.

• Will it be useful to Wikimedia Commons? As stated in Welcome, "Commons is a media file repository making available public domain and freely licensed educational media content". All talks of EmacsConf meets these requirements, so there's no problem in uploading them.
• What would be the differences of uploading them to archive.org? Each of them have their features. Some users might prefer to use archive.org, while others Wikimedia Commons.

I think my questions have been solved.

Rdrg109 (talk) 17:11, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Questions about Wuppertal rail 1990 pictures

I try to find the locomotive type '360', but its not Category:Henschel DHG 360 C.

These stainless steel coaches where typical in Germany, but cant seem to find them in Category:Railway coaches of Germany.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:42, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

The '360' locomotive is a renamed DB Class V 60. The coaches are N-class coaches of Deutsche Bahn. --Raugeier (talk) 12:09, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Do you know the type of (old) electric locomotive? I cant read any dentifying number. It looks old with a flat nose.Smiley.toerist (talk) 23:57, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Looks a lot like an E 41. (DB class 141) -- Herbert Ortner (talk) 12:55, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

The filenames of both images should be slightly corrected as the station is called de:Oberbarmen (not Oberarmen). --Túrelio (talk) 11:57, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

University of the Netherlands: video lectures from scientists which should be uploaded

Play media

Lecture by chemist prof. dr. Nathaniel Martin (Leiden University) about the history of antibiotics.

Dear fellow wikipedians There are some interesting 15-minute lectures of scientists which are Creative Commons and should be uploaded to Commons and used on the English Wikipedia. Here is the license which states that all videos of this YouTube channel are Creative Commons:

• YouTube - Universiteit van Nederland

There are already many videos that are used on Wikipedia, especially in Dutch (I contributed to adding these Dutch videos a lot myself):

• Category:Videos_from_the_Universiteit_van_Nederland

But, there are also a lot of English videos that still need to be uploaded to Commons so they can then be used on the English Wikipedia. Here are 56 video’s in English:

• University of the Netherlands

I uploaded already 7 of them:

• How does propaganda change our beliefs
• Why won’t antibiotics cure us anymore
• How could your holiday help the reefs
• How is our sick planet making us sick
• Where is all the plastic in the ocean
• Why are Western people wrong about how the ‘global poor’ use the internet
• Why do we need to fix the humanitarian aid system

Now it is pity that the tool to (semi-)automatically upload videos from YouTube to Commons does not work so well:

• Video2commons

However, you can do this via, for example, the following tool: [3]. Commons does not accept mp4 but does accept webm format, so the videos have to be converted to webm. A small number of these videos maybe will not find a consensus to add them to Wikipedia. This has happened in the past because a small number of videos are seen as not neutral enough or of too low a level. But the vast majority are of excellent quality. This must therefore be considered on a case-by-case basis. But this is a lot of work to watch all these video’s so that’s whay I call for help. Sometimes the titles of the lectures are a bit provocative or not so neutral, but you can solve this by starting the video on second 20, for example via |start=20|. See example above. You can determine which frame is used as thumbnail, if desired, via |thumbtime=909|.

So hopefully people will want to help out with this, either to upload the video to commons or to add them to the English wikipedia. --PJ Geest (talk) 13:38, 15 December 2021 (UTC).

Problem with reuploaded pdf multipage file

Hello, for the first time, I reuploaded a pdf correcting two pages of the pdf, but the reuploaded File:Guinault - Sergent ! (1881).pdf does not show correctly, neither at commons nor at wikisource. How to get it correctly done. --Havang(nl) (talk) 11:29, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Commonist, not working?

I just tried to upload pictures, with Windows Commonist. Worked last time, long time ago. Now "Fails". Error messages says someting like "Invalid cookie header", and "Token parameter must be set". Anybody knows what happened? What can be done? I have like 100 pictures, muste be uploaded with pre-set license and categories, so Upload wizard takes way too much time, it must be uploaded one time all stuff. Note that it is the Source, Author, Permission, License that has templates, but that does not work with Upload wizard. Any suggestions? Or any batch "change-image-parameters" available? --Janwikifoto (talk) 22:57, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

At the risk of being "that guy", did you clear your cache, log out and log back in, or use a different browser? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:10, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Commonist uses a windows java program. So it does not upload from a browser. I can not see how a browser would affect. --Janwikifoto (talk) 07:30, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

BUT, but, there is the Log4j security holw, that affects Java... maybe Commonist and other Java has been disabled on Commons front-end...? --Janwikifoto (talk) 07:31, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@Janwikifoto and Koavf: Sorry, Commonist does not work at the moment. Please see Commons talk:Commonist#missingparam: The token parameter must be set for details. You may use VFC to change your file description pages en masse.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 11:14, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

WCQS upcoming release to production

We are excited to announce that Wikimedia Commons Query Service (WCQS), currently in beta, will soon be in production with a planned General Availability date of 1 Feb 2022.

Please see this page for more details: [4](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:SPARQL_query_service/Upcoming_General_Availability_release)

Thanks for your patience! MPham (WMF) (talk) 08:44, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

IPs deleting structured data

Every day there are around 30 edits by IPs just deleting all structured data of files. Is there a possibility to create an AbuseFilter to prevent this or do we need to request a new Mediawiki feature for this? --GPSLeo (talk) 13:54, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

@GPSLeo: This is wrong board, try to ask at COM:AN. Or directly Steinsplitter. It is kinda hacking, but is is possible to some extent. Anyway, it seems that recently there have been some unskillful changes to ABF, so the Italian IP vandal can still delete SDC statements, but another IP cannot undo it due to ABF. :-) 91.221.17.220 14:00, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Is this a good idea?

User:Niketto sr. has begun using Magnus Manske's ListeriaBot to create and manage galleries such as Paintings depicting the Ciociaro costume. I'm not sure this falls within policy. Galleries are supposed to be collections of particularly good images on a specific subject curated by the community. These galleries warn that the bot will eliminate manual entries, so that the community can not change its work. It seems to me that that is outside of our understanding of Commons Galleries. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:51, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

If you wish to create and manually maintain Gallery:Paintings depicting the Ciociaro costume, there seems to be nothing stopping you. It can happily exists alongside the page mentioned above, which seems both useful and interesting. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:54, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Yann and User:King of Hearts, you often have a different point of view from mine. Is this a good idea? Thanks, .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:22, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I don't see any issue here, if someone wants to create and maintain such galleries. We can have different types of galleries, with or without comments, order by date or by another criteria. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:21, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

David Shankbone converts license to public domain

I have a technical request - is anyone able to change the license of all of user:David Shankbone's uploads from Creative Commons to public domain? He invited this in September 2021 at User talk:David Shankbone.

Background - David Shankbone is probably the world's most popular photographer in terms of how many times his photos have been published. He became popular because his photos were good, they were of celebrities, he took a lot of them, and they were the only freely licensed photos which existed for many people. Newspapers and magazines around the world used them whenever they mentioned a celebrity and needed a free photo. This is a flagship photography collection of Wikimedia Commons, and changing the license to make the files more free would be useful.

• en:David Shankbone
• David Shankbone (Q12899557)
• user:David Shankbone on Commons

Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:29, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

As this is an astonishing move, it should be doublechecked whether this is really his authentic will. In addition, it should be clarified whether he means really "self-public domain" or CC-Zero.--Túrelio (talk) 20:38, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

He probably does mean "self-PD", but of course he can't do that.

Also Shankbone's website is dead, so who knows what's going on. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:57, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

@Túrelio and Andy Dingley: On his talk page suggestion to change Wikimedia licenses he says that recent posts to his flickr account reflect his wishes, where he is using the Creative Commons Public Domain Mark 1.0. I am willing to try to contact him for clarification if someone makes the case that doing so is necessary, but Shankbone is a person who understands Creative Commons labels and I think him asking for "public domain" while using and referring to the CC public domain mark on flickr passes our usual standard for a statement of licensing wishes.

Whatever the case, if we have more free permission, then - what next? There are about 5000 images here. Someone suggested to me by private message that we could use a unique template comparable to {{RogerPuta}} or {{PD-Highsmith}}. If we had such a template set up, then is there a process for removing all existing copyright licenses to replace it with such a template? What sort of consensus or review process should we have before doing something hasty? Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:35, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: PDM is not a recommended license, and it is best avoided if an alternative is available. I think the Highsmith idea is pretty reasonable. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:39, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Agreed on both aspects. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:44, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I get it, public domain does not exist everywhere, and CC0 is much more clear intent. The plan is for a CC0 license since his intent is to make the images maximally free, right. Then we set up a template like highsmith with a CC0 license, then sort out a swap from existing license templates to this new one. Let me see if I can contact Shankbone. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:02, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

draft letter

Hello David, We at Wikimedia Commons have a request: could you agree to apply this license, the CC0 1.0 Universal (CC0 1.0) Public Domain Dedication, to your Commons uploads? https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ Thanks for stating your wish to assign a more open and permissive copyright license to all of your Wikimedia Commons uploads as you stated on your account talkpage. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:David_Shankbone We discussed your statement in the Village Pump forum. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/special:permalink/614506479#David_Shankbone_converts_license_to_public_domain The situation is that the copyright dedication that you are using on Flickr is for "public domain" as understood in the United States and some other countries, but for countries without a legal concept of public domain, that status does not apply and consequently the files carry some copyright restrictions. We interpreted your statement to mean that you wanted to maximize openness and use, but there was a request that we get your clarification. For comparison, here is the license you applied on Flickr. https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/ If you agree, then either forward this email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org where it needs to go, or just reply to me and I will forward it to that address. The standard text is below - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Volunteer_Response_Team#Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries I hereby affirm that I, David Miller / David Shankbone, am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the following media work: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:ListFiles/David_Shankbone I agree to publish the above-mentioned work under the Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal. I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. David Miller / David Shankbone 2021-12-17

@Andy Dingley, Túrelio, and King of Hearts: Can any of you please review this email draft before I send it? Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:25, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I'd swap the first two sentences: compliment first, then request. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:05, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

"The following media work" doesn't make sense since it's not one media work, and providing a link where only the most recent 50 are listed can lead to ambiguity. Also "abide by the terms of the license" doesn't really make sense for PD. I would do instead "I hereby affirm that I, David Miller / David Shankbone, agree to release all images, media, and other files which I have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons under the Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal. I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, without restriction. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project." -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:09, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: I agree with King of ♥ on this, but other readers should know that the "reply to me" option is only available for VRT Agents.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 08:47, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Barbados needs updating

Barbados is now a republic and will not have (e.g.) Crown ownership of anything. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:55, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Have they updated their copyright law yet? Ruslik (talk) 19:46, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:53, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@Koavf: We have to wait for them to draft their new copyright law before we change COM:Barbados to refer to the draft. Same goes for passage and implementation.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 08:53, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Sure. I'm just pointing out that it needs to be done. It may be gated by a lack of a new law. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:13, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

License review backlog

Hi, There is a huge backlog of Category:License review needed (currently 36,443 files!!!), and Category:License review needed (audio) (currently 8,309 files!). These clearly won't be manually reviewed. This is a big problem: if any of these sources change the license, we can't prove that the file is under a free license (e.g. File:Shah-i Mashhad-1.jpg, source is dead). Do we have any other option? Yann (talk) 22:21, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth, https://web.archive.org/web/20081003104432/http://www.b-glatzer.de/sim/ exists but https://web.archive.org/web/20081003104432/http://www.b-glatzer.de/sim/legalnote.htm doesn't. :/ —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:15, 17 December 2021 (UTC)