Commons:Village pump

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Shortcut: COM:VP

↓ 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/2022/08.

Please note:

  1. 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.
  2. Have you read our FAQ?
  3. For changing the name of a file, see Commons:File renaming.
  4. 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).
  5. 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:

Search archives:

Village pump and gaslight at a meeting place in the village of Amstetten, Germany. [add]
Centralized discussion
See also: Village pump/Proposals • Archive

Template: View • Discuss  • Edit • Watch
# 💭 Title 💬 👥 🙋 Last editor 🕒 (UTC)
1 How do you prove an image is anonymous and has no source on the internet? 10 8 LPfi 2022-08-12 14:52
2 "Commons talk:Photo challenge/themes" is missing section edit links 3 2 Jarekt 2022-08-08 21:19
3 KRAKESANDT ship 8 3 De728631 2022-08-09 14:52
4 Type Error 5 3 Tulsi 2022-08-10 06:26
5 Many plural category names not matching the policies 20 7 Jmabel 2022-08-15 14:49
6 Wikimedia Sound logo 1 1 Jon Kolbert 2022-08-08 20:37
7 Bot migration of all images in a category 4 3 Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 2022-08-09 20:55
8 Uploading the law texts of Indonesia 18 5 Hans5958 2022-08-13 05:03
9 New version of file won't show up 5 4 Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 2022-08-10 21:49
10 Naval History and Heritage Command - NARA Series 1 1 0mtwb9gd5wx 2022-08-11 02:49
11 Photo challenge June results 1 1 Jarekt 2022-08-11 03:25
12 Sourcing 11 4 Jmabel 2022-08-12 20:45
13 Marienburg Castle, Germany 1 1 HyperGaruda 2022-08-13 12:09
14 Giving photos to a library = transferring copyright? 2 2 Jmabel 2022-08-13 03:15
15 Is it OK license reviewing files not uploaded by yourself, but "license-review-tagged"? 2 2 Jeff G. 2022-08-14 10:12
16 "suppress-redirect" right? 5 4 Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 2022-08-15 17:57
17 Good pictures button broken again 4 2 Mateusz Konieczny 2022-08-15 18:13
  • 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.
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 7 days.

August 01[edit]

How do you prove an image is anonymous and has no source on the internet?[edit]

Historical images are often nominated for deletion because they are marked "source=own work" and the uploader is listed as the creator. Commons:Project scope/Evidence requires that we provide a url if we download an image from the internet, but many images stored at Commons from the past are marked "own work" presumably because someone has scanned or rephotographed an existing image. What is required beyond the due diligence of a reverse image search against the billion images online, and doing a standard Google Image Search based on the name of a person, place or thing, to show that no author has been named, and the image is anonymous; and that there is no source online and the image was a scan or a photograph of an existing image. Epistemology doesn't allow the absolute proof of absence, so how much must be done to declare an image anonymous, to avoid deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) 09:29, 1 August 2022‎ (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): I have nominated several scans or photographs-of-photographs for deletion with the rationale "COM:Derivative work: original source and photographer unknown", especially if they look decades old. Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle is also applicable if there are doubts about the copyright status. MKFI (talk) 11:22, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If an image is really very old and cannot be found in the internet after a reasonable search, I think we can treat it as anonymous. Ruslik (talk) 11:24, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We also have {{subst:Dw no source since}} for this.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 11:38, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • That is a template to delete the image, when you scan an historic image, the scan itself is the source. --RAN (talk) 23:33, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
{{Scan}}, {{Self-scanned}}, or {{Photo scan}} are options where the scanner is not the uploader, and do not imply "own work". Ideally these templates would be accompanied by text describing where in the real world the scan came from (a book/magazine, a library, a museum, an archive, etc.). --Animalparty (talk) 00:59, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here are really three different questions. If you are going to upload a work, whether there are copies on the net is irrelevant, as long as you state your source and it is older than those internet sources. Whether the work is anonymous often is relevant, and if you source doesn't attribute the author, detective work is needed, although not necessarily enough.
If you are an admin, then you may have to resort to the PRP if you think the work could still be under copyright and you don't find evidence to the contrary.
If you are a user who wants to save the file from being deleted, then finding information about the work and stating any information clearly at the file description page is more or less the only way. A {{other date|probably|< 1860}} would make an admin at least think twice before deleting the file as recent work under copyright. Replacing "own work" with "probably anonymous" (do we have a template for that?) would also help. Unfortunately, just removing the "own work" may have it deleted through the {{No source since}}, as some admins think 1700th century works have to be deleted unless we find the source.
LPfi (talk) 07:33, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): I think you have it backwards. If you didn't made the image, you don't need to prove that it can't be found on the Internet, you have to prove that it is in the public domain, and details change by country but usually to prove that you need to prove that the photographer died more than 70 years ago. And please don't mix "anonymous" with "I don't know the author".

And all images are a source because you found it somewhere. The source may be scanned from a book (please cite the book), picture hanging on a museum (please specify museum), property of a descendant of the subject, bought on a flea market, family archive or so, but usually photographs don't pop out of thin air.--Pere prlpz (talk) 13:34, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Citing a book is not always relevant, if it is the scan of an old postcard. Better of course to have the original postcard. Old postcards (70+) can in practice often be classified as anonymous, under the following conditions:
  • No phofograf identification. (or other information that can identify the photografer, do as much research as posible)
  • Not from a local postcard editor, who likely takes his own photografs. Big postcard editors use pictures on a industrial scale and buy the rigths or the pictures are taken by employees. (example Category:Postcards published by Nels/Thill The same rules apply as by newspapers (collective work): Unless the article is signed, it becomes PD after 70 years.Smiley.toerist (talk) 13:30, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Still, if you scanned the postcard from a book, that book is your source and should be stated, if possible. It is of course good to tell that the image is a postcard and give as much info as possible on the original. And if the postcard was made from a painting, that painting should ideally be identified, with author, creation and publication year etc. However, it might be that your book has another postcard, which looks similar. Not stating the actual source can cause much confusion. –LPfi (talk) 14:52, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

August 08[edit]

Type Error[edit]

Screenshot TypeError.jpg

What is this? Since the latest software update, I'm seeing this ugly message every time when clicking on pages of Commons + Commons talk namespace, on some user talk pages including my own. Any chance to have it removed again? Regards --A.Savin 10:49, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@A.Savin: I haven't seen it. I normally use the Monobook skin. I can see your userpage just fine. I even tried it incognito and with "?useskin=monobook", no errors.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 11:34, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I use Monobook too, user pages are fine. Problem only for "Commons:...", "Commons talk:...", parts of "User talk:..." --A.Savin 11:37, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@A.Savin User talk fine too, I posted a test for you.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 11:50, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And Commons:Village pump/Technical#JS error. — Tulsi 24x7 06:26, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Many plural category names not matching the policies[edit]

Object vs. topic categories[edit]

Hello, I think the policies for COM:CAT#Category names should be updated because it is not matching anymore with the common practice on the commons. Or we need a widespread renovation of the commons. Why?

In the section there you can read:

  • (1) Types or groups of objects or people should generally have names in plural form.
  • (2) General themes or activities require a name in singular form.

So there are two types of categories:

  • (1) we can call these maybe "object categories" (from German Wikipedia “Objektkategorien”)
  • (2) we can call those maybe "topic categories" or "theme categories" (from German Wikipedia “Themenkategorien”)

If you look at the examples mentioned for (1) they have plural names, but no one is a real "Types or groups of objects", all are used as "General themes"! That means that in addition to the objects...:

And the examples mentioned for (2) general themes (or "topic categories") showing that there is mostly no differentiation between object categories and topic categories. The general themes for the object categories above would be mostly the singular version! But either they are redirects to the plural name category (Category:Tool, Category:Artist, Category:Sculpture, Category:Pope) or they are disambiguation categories (Category:Lake). Only Category:Painting (and Category:Papacy) are working.

And because there are so few "topic categories" or "theme categories" with correct name in singular form on commons, many wikipedia articles have no connected commons category, "only" a connected gallery page (e.g. w:Lake (→Lake), w:Painting (→Painting), w:Sculpture (→Sculpture), w:Pope (→Papae)). And if there are no gallery pages like for Tool often both the Wikipedia article (e.g. Tool) (topic) and the Wikipedia category (e.g. Tools) (objects) are connected to commons Category:Tools (topic related content but the name of an object category). Or articles like w:Artist connecting to the Category redirects (→Artist).

And so it became common practice on the commons that the most "topic categories" or "theme categories" have incorrect names in plural form instead of names in singular form. And to avoid a small chaos we are putting the object subcategores like (Artists by country, by culture, by date,...) at the beginning of the subcategory lists using sort keys like "*" or "+" or just " " instead of grouping them under Artists and renaming the topic category to Artist.

So what to do???

  • We can start to separate more "topic categories" from "object categories" like it is explained on COM:CAT. So for example having both Category:Tools for the objects which is a subcategory of Category:Tool (with the other related Categories or Files). (A similar discussion about that was under Category:Cube where one result was that it would help to have both a topic Category:Cube and an object Category:Cubes. But it was noted that this whould be confusing because it is not common on the commons yet.)
  • We keep the common practice of theme categories with names in plural form → in this case we had to update the section Category names under COM:CAT.

Regards, --W like wiki good to know 17:26, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I do not really experience issues between policy and practice. Perhaps you should not try to see this from a DE-wiki perspective. After all, we distinguish our own category types, as listed in Commons:Categories#Major categories. Both DE-wiki types you mentioned would be classified as Commons' topical categories. Instead, try to interpret our plural/singular rules as purely grammar-based; read up on en:w:Noun#Countable nouns and mass nouns if you'd like. --HyperGaruda (talk) 19:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The distinction between object and topic categories seems to be common practice for species: Equus ferus (object) contains Horses (topic).
Maybe this works for species, but it is not an approach I would want to generalize.
I think singular category names are helpful for more abstract topics. Everyone knows that there is not just one Shetland pony in the world (so the category name could just as well be plural).
But not everyone knows that the Petersen graph is one particular graph, while Crown graphs are a family of graphs.
Other example: There are many Pyritohedra (because the concept leaves geometric freedom), but there is the Cubic pyritohedron and the Dodecahedron. --Watchduck (quack) 20:28, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(The following was an answer to the "Lake-related signs" comment in the section below.)
@W like wiki: Theoretically there is nothing wrong with your idea to have Thing as a wrapper containing Things and Thing related stuff. But in practice people would just get confused, and use the singular and plural categories synonymously. And the amount of work needed would be prohibitive on its own. --Watchduck (quack) 01:25, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Watchduck: I moved your comment here, hope it is ok. So maybe "new" things are confusing in the beginning, but just look at Category:Tools for example: There are 109 subcategories, 19 of them are highlighted with a special sortkey. In the remaining 90 subcategories there are 78(!) categories which could be sorted under a not-yet-existing "object category" for tools. Just try to find the 12 subcategories which are not tools but related topics and hiding between them. For me this is much more confusing! --W like wiki good to know 03:31, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I don't think we generally need separate categories for singular v plural as such a distinction would probably cause more confusion than help unless there is a common distinction such as countable and uncountable meanings of the same topic like horse(s) the animal and horse meat etc but in such case a category like Category:Horse meat v Category:Horses would probably take care of that. Just having a generic/catch all category at Category:Lakes seems more appropriate than having a category for pictures of lakes (which may be in the singular if only 1 lake is in the picture or the plural if more than one) and a category for things like lake-related signs which would probably be too confusing. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:13, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, it would be too confusing. We can be absolutely sure that the distinction between Lake and Lakes would be ignored by most users. Theoretically the idea is not bad, but it could only work with a dedicated namespace. So we could have Object:Lake and Category:Lakes, but only the latter could be added to images. @W like wiki: I deduced from your proposal, that no image would ever belong in an object category. Is that correct?
Anyway, I think this is futile. If we started to introduce taxonomy related namespaces, we would probably end up duplicating the work of Wikidata. (See item Lake and property subclass of.) I think the section about intransitive subcategories is more likely to contain the solution to the problems we are trying to solve.

Location vs. identity categories[edit]

I'd like to add another issue to this mix, if anyone is trying to systematize: much of the hierarchy is a successive refinement of geography, and that is an "is-located-in" relationship, not an "is-a" relationship. E.g. Category:Texas descends from Category:United States, but the relationship is very different from (for example) Category:Parlors descending from Category:Rooms.

Some related issues:

  1. We often intersect geographic categories with other categories (e.g. Category:Rooms in Washington (state). That intersection typically partitions the other category (rooms, in this case) but still carries just an "is-located-in" relationship to the geographic category.
  2. Occasionally a category falls appropriately under a mainly geographic category without falling geigraphically in the relevant place: e.g. books about a particular country, embassies by the country they represent, a country's building at a World's Fair.
  3. We get pretty ad hoc about the hierarchy in the relatively unusual cases of (for example) a country that is partly located in more than one continent, or a U.S. city that spans multiple counties of the same U.S. state.
  4. Sometimes we have geographically-related inheritance in our category hierarchy that just means adjacency: e.g. a building under a category for a street, a park under a category for a lake.

And then, of course, as we go down the hierarchy location and identity can come back together in a category for a particular building, park, room, etc. - Jmabel ! talk 01:01, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Again, that is the kind of thing Wikidata is concerned with: Drawing room is an instance of room, and Texas is part of contiguous United States.
We should not try to duplicate that work. If things go well, the taxonomy part of categorization will one day be usurped by Wikidata. --Watchduck (quack) 09:45, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Watchduck: I agree completely, just don't want anyone to waste their time plunging into this without understanding how complicated it is. - Jmabel ! talk 14:49, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Subcategories that are not subsets[edit]

Not a politician in Iowa
Not a horse
Not a lake
Images added by Watchduck (quack) 21:20, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What they are and how to call them[edit]

I have raised a related issue before: Commons:Village pump/Technical/Archive/2020/05#Mark subcategorization as non-diffusing. This is how a picture of a university campus gets categorized as a politician from Iowa. Here we have Lake-related signs‎ which are not in fact lakes, but end up in the categorization tree anyway. -- King of ♥ 20:41, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is quite similar to what I tried to say in the subsection on the cube discussion page. I suppose it is also related to the topic/object categories mentioned above. But I think it is best to keep the singular/plural topic separate, so I moved your comment under a subheading. Maybe you want to take a look at the fictional categories Neon graph and Argon graph, where I use a dedicated sort key for non-diffusing subcategories. I intend to bring that up in a separate discussion. --Watchduck (quack) 21:02, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@King of Hearts: Exactly, this is a related issue and a good idea! But I have no idea if it is technically feasible!? An other way is the one I discribed above: to put only lakes in Category:Lakes ("groups of objects") and to put this category together with Category:Lake-related signs‎ under the topic Category:Lake. So Lake-related signs‎ are not anymore Lakes. --W like wiki good to know 22:39, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not sure this is what a non-diffusing subcat is supposed to be. An example of the way I've seen it used is in English Wikipedia at en:Category:LGBT actors. That is a non-diffusing subcategory of en:Category:Actors. All actors remain in the main category (or in other types of subcategories of it), but the LGBT ones are highlighted.
Another example is en:Category:Female heads of government. That category highlights female heads of state because there are relatively few of them. If the females were segregated into a subcategory, that would remove them from the main category and make them less visible.
In short, a non-diffusing subcat is used with categories that contain the same class of thing, but where a subset is being highlighted. -- Auntof6 (talk) 23:13, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I guess here I am using the term "non-diffusing" in a different way. In your case of cross-sections by gender/ethnicity/etc., the subcategories are clearly a subset of the main categories, but for editorial reasons we intentionally include items in both to avoid othering the people in the special subcategory. In my case, the subcategories are not even a subset of the main categories, but are rather a related topic which could sort of be considered a subtopic, albeit where it is not necessarily the case that instances of the subtopic are always instances of the main topic. -- King of ♥ 23:25, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@King of Hearts: What Auntof6 has described is the definition in Wikipedia, so we better don't redefine the term to mean something else on Commons. However we call it, I think we mean the same: Horses contains white, famous and wild horses, which are more specific horses. But it also contains Horse equipment, which does not contain horses. I tend to call the latter case a non-refining subcategory. --Watchduck (quack) 01:25, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@King of Hearts: I think I got it. Look at transitive relation. It is one property of Hyponymy (→Commons:Categories#Types of reflected relations) and means:
  • If X is a hyponym of Y, and Y is a hyponym of Z, then X is a hyponym of Z. or
  • Every tree is a plant, every plant is a organism, so every tree is a organism.
In wikidata the property subclass of (P279) has this transitive relation.
So what you mean with "Non-diffusing" is maybe "Non-transitive", right?
PS: Another word for Nontransitivity is Intransitivity:
  • "Wolves feed on deer, and deer feed on grass, but wolves do not feed on grass.[1] Thus, the feed on relation among life forms is intransitive, in this sense."
W like wiki good to know 14:27, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, "non-transitive" sounds like the right term. -- King of ♥ 15:43, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, top! --W like wiki good to know 16:10, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What to do with them[edit]

@King of Hearts and W like wiki: Ok, so let's call them intransitive or non-transitive. The question remains, how the transitive and intransitive subcategories should be separated. (E.g. white, famous and wild horses from horse burials, maps and husbandry.) I think the transitive case should be assumed by default, and the intransitive case be marked as an exception. I think a dedicated sort key would be the most practical choice. As mentioned before, I have tried this approach in the fictional categories Neon graph and Argon graph. (I have also added it to the real category Related to the rhombicuboctahedron, so it is shown last in Rhombicuboctahedron.) I would not use the sort key directly, but use a template. (Let's say {{Relcat}} — analogous to {{Setcat}}, the sort key for image sets.) I am sure the bots could learn the meaning of this sort key, so they will know which images should or should not show politicians in Iowa. --Watchduck (quack) 12:47, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

August 10[edit]

Uploading the law texts of Indonesia[edit]

Hello, everyone. I have plans of uploading the law texts of Indonesia, and I just uploaded some of it (~60), but I've got some questions before I continue.

  1. Is it really fine for me to upload all of these? Obviously this is fine because these are public domain, and then I use this website from the House of Representative, based on the links of the associated Wikisource page, but looking at the scale that I need to upload ~1200 files for all the Undang-Undang, I would need assurance if it is fine.
  2. Should the file names be changed to English (e.g. "Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 39 of 1999", based on this official translation from the related ministry), or is it fine to keep it in Indonesian (e.g. "Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 39 Tahun 1999", based on this official text from the same ministry?
  3. Is the category of "Law of the Republic of Indonesia of 1999" fine for the years? I have made the category of "Law of the Republic of Indonesia", but with that scale I would need to separate to years, if that's fine for WC.
  4. Would I need to request a bot (flag) for it? url2commons is fine, but I need to a plenty of bodge because it is quite limited on other fields (e.g. Date). Also, my plan is to also add the associated structured data and other related data, and I think that's too much for url2commons.
  5. As I said, I have uploaded some of it. Here's one example. Apart from the naming and the category, is this right enough? Am I missing something to add, such as categories or such. Am I doing some things wrong? I learned from lots of files on the Commons, but I'm afraid to miss something important here.

That's all my question at this moment, I think. I hope you guys can assist me with this. Hans5958 (talk) 15:08, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can answer one part of this: there is no requirement that filenames be in English, Indonesian is fine. - Jmabel ! talk 18:18, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, I see. Part of my reason is that enwp says that should be spelt "Act" and not "Law". I wanted to avoid that confusion, so it's good that Indonesian is acceptable. Thanks! Hans5958 (talk) 03:15, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
1) There is no limit to the number of files you are allowed to upload. So long as you verify that the material is public domain and is indicated appropriately, then you are good to go.
2) As Jmabel said, an Indonesian title is perfectly fine. If you wanted to add an English translation of the description field alongside the Indonesian description, that would be a bonus, but is not at all required.
3) Yes, breaking them down into "of year" categories is great. In fact, since all of these are documents by design, I would suggest just having Category:Law of the Republic of Indonesia be a subcategory of Category:Documents of Indonesia rather than including the latter on individual files. Does that seem reasonable?
4) If you are manually checking and uploading each file, you don't have to have a bot. Given the scale though, if you think it would save you some time, you could certainly apply to create a bot account to handle the load, at Commons:Bots/Requests. A bot flag is not strictly necessary.
5) I see nothing wrong on that example file. I can't think of any additional categories to add. Category:Law of Indonesia is already in Category:Indonesian text, which takes care of the language demarkation; your "of year" categories take care of the dating. The What, Where, When aspects are handled. Huntster (t @ c) 19:08, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
1) Ah, okay. I learned that it is appropriate to use {{PD-IDNoCopyright}} for them, but it's good that I'm sure that I could add them.
2) I see. I added the English description since it is easy to infer using the pattern, but good to know that it is optional. I also have responded to Jmabel's message, if you are interested to read that.
3) I get that the hierarchy is Laws... of 1999, then Category:Law of the Republic of Indonesia, and then Category:Law of Indonesia, but I'm not sure what you meant of putting Category:Law of the Republic of Indonesia to be under Category:Documents of Indonesia. I thought it's enough to be put on Category:Law of Indonesia, isn't it?
4) Ah, so it is fine to use bots without the flag WITH the given permission on Commons:Bots/Requests? That's a little different on WP. I think I'll build up my bot script first, then ask for permission later.
5) That's really nice. Thanks for the review.
Hans5958 (talk) 03:34, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Huntster I forgot to ping you on this one. I'm not sure if that's even necessary. Hans5958 (talk) 03:37, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Regarding 3), some of the individual documents have been placed in Category:Documents of Indonesia. Since all contents of Category:Law of the Republic of Indonesia should be documents, I was suggesting placing the Law category in Documents of Indonesia rather than the individual legal documents. Huntster (t @ c) 04:14, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Huntster: Yeah, correct. So Category:Law of the Republic of Indonesia would be under Category:Documents of Indonesia and Category:Law of Indonesia, right? Hans5958 (talk) 07:00, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hans5958, exactly. If you don't see an issue with that, I can take care of the transfers. Huntster (t @ c) 18:26, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think I can manage it myself, I just wanted to get it right. Thanks for the clarification! Hans5958 (talk) 02:04, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I like to separate the license with == {{int:license-header}} ==, i.e. [1]. Thanks, Yann (talk) 19:14, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The license part are something that I confused of. One say to put it inside the description, and the other say to put it in its own section. I put it inside, but I will try to put it outside next time. Thanks for the advice. Hans5958 (talk) 03:35, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hans5958, it's ultimately up to personal choice whether you put the template in the description or in its own section, but it's true that it is most common to see them in their own section as Yann illustrates. I'm not aware of any particular method being proscribed here, though. Huntster (t @ c) 04:20, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Another question: Would categorizations such as Category:PDF files and Category: 2020 in Indonesia be needed on each of the file? Hans5958 (talk) 07:16, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hans5958, Category:PDF files is unnecessary as Category:Law of Indonesia is already in Category:PDF files in Indonesian. And it would be more appropriate to just put the "of year" categories like Category:Law of the Republic of Indonesia of 2018 directly in Category:2018 in Indonesia and similar categories. What could be done for the individual files is put them in date categories like Category:2018-09-10 if the publication date is apparent. Huntster (t @ c) 19:16, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, that's a better idea. There's the publishing date (diundangkan) which I can (and should) use, apart of the validation date (disahkan) (see example). Thanks for the advice! Hans5958 (talk) 02:03, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why is Category:Law of Indonesia in Category:PDF files in Indonesian? I think a law read aloud would belong in the former but not the latter. What about translations, law book images, law making sessions, conflicts related to Indonesian law etc. I find it pretty strange that e.g. Category:Human rights in Indonesia‎ is a (sub)subcategory of Category:PDF files in Indonesian. I know categories deteriorate when going down (up?) the tree, but his fast? Category:Law of Finland isn't under Category:PDF files in Finnish (and shouldn't be), instead JPGs and DJVUs of law text is under that category (a subcategory could be made). –LPfi (talk) 15:12, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is also something in the back of my mind, because there are even DJVU files on it. I hope this is just something that is overlooked. Hans5958 (talk) 05:03, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New version of file won't show up[edit]

Hey there good people. I've uploaded some time ago this picture here : [2]. Yesterday, I decided to upload a better, clearer version and succeeded in doing so, but when I click on the picture to look at it, it only shows the older file I've uploaded some time ago. What's up with that? I'd really appreciate if someone could correct this for me, and it is pretty much a minor thing to adjust. That's it, much obliged and many thanks! Merry editing :) --Witcher of Izalith (talk) 17:15, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Witcher of Izalith: I do get the new 1 MP version. Perhaps a caching issue? Have you tried clearing your browser's data? --HyperGaruda (talk) 17:37, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@HyperGaruda: Hey you're right! I went there on a private window and it indeed showed me the new file I've uploaded. Thanks a lot for that! I have no idea, however, how to clear my browser's data (firefox) to make it up to date and correct this little bug.--Witcher of Izalith (talk) 17:41, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Witcher of Izalith: Please see COM:PURGE.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 20:08, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Under heavy server load, it can take several minutes to generate the thumbnail that you see in the upload box, so even purging may not have the new version display right away. This is especially true when a bot is uploading a big batch from an archive. You need a combo of patience and purging the cache. --RAN (talk) 21:49, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

August 11[edit]

Naval History and Heritage Command - NARA Series[edit]

[3][4][5][6] interesting photos in PD 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 02:49, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Photo challenge June results[edit]

Dance: EntriesVotesScores
Rank 1 2 3
image Dance classically with strobo flesh.jpg Dance and joy.jpg Dance disco with strobo flesh.jpg
Title Dance classically
with strobo flesh
Dance and joy Dance disco with
strobo flesh
Author Mölchlein Annatsach Mölchlein
Score 14 13 11
Air transport: EntriesVotesScores
Rank 1 2 2
image TR.AL.Antalya 2011-10-01 Airport 01 16x9-R.jpg Luftverkehrsinfrastruktur 001 2009 01 04.jpg Pulizie sottobordo.jpg
Title Antalya Airport, Turkey Split-flap display and airport check-in
in Terminal 1 of Frankfurt Main Airport
Operzioni di pulizia pista sotto
l'Antonov 225 Myra a MXP
Author Roy Egloff F. Riedelio 66colpi
Score 11 9 9

Congratulations to Annatsach, Mölchlein, Roy Egloff, F. Riedelio and 66colpi. -- Jarekt (talk) 03:25, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

August 12[edit]


What template should I use to mark that the file is unsourced not in the Commons' sense but in the Wikipedia's sense? For example, I want to mark this file. 08:27, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Getsnoopy: Where did you get the data for File:Access to Electricity.svg?   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 09:39, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jeff G.: If the OP haven't uploaded the file, they are probably unable to provide the source. This is a common problem on Commons, and they are asking for the template to use for marking the file. The best I know for the purpose is {{Fact disputed}}. "Data source not given" can be used as first parameter. I don't know how the Commons community sees this.
The file linked is marked to be updated regularly, so any source used in the past might not be the source of later edits, which is a problem. I don't know how we handle it. However, the SVG source code states "according to World Bank estimates", which isn't ideal, but I assume the World Bank doesn't have competing statistics on this, so you can check whether individual countries are up to date. I added that info to the file description.
LPfi (talk) 14:45, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Marienburg Castle, Germany[edit]

In the description of Marienburg Castle, Germany, the Picture of the Day for 12 August, 2022 in the US, the description says the picture was taken from the southeast, while light and shadow say it had to have been taken from the southwest. —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2600:6C40:6A7F:E889:E9C5:4C98:3989:FE02 (talk) 21:10, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looking at how the different parts of the building align, compared to aerial images at coordinates 52.1722°N, 9.7669°E, the original southeast description seems correct. --HyperGaruda (talk) 12:09, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

August 13[edit]

Giving photos to a library = transferring copyright?[edit]

According to COM:New Zealand, it looks like the works of w:Clifton Firth (1904-1980) are still under copyright (life + 50). However, he gave photos to Auckland Libraries in 1974. Who owns the copyright of these photos: his estate or the Libraries? Joofjoof (talk) 00:55, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • @Joofjoof: Typically the transfer of physical objects does not transfer associated intellectual property rights, but you could contact Auckland Libraries, who would presumably tell you whether they own the copyrights or someone else does (probably not the estate itself at this point, but there may have been an heir to those rights). - Jmabel ! talk 03:15, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

August 14[edit]

Is it OK license reviewing files not uploaded by yourself, but "license-review-tagged"?[edit]

Hi. I know it's not OK license reviewing files uploaded by yourself. But... I added {{License review}} to this file uploaded by User:Mototsa, since it's apparently free licensed and it would be nice having that one license reviewed. Would it be OK that picture being license-reviewed by me, or a "third person" is needed there? Strakhov (talk) 10:05, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Strakhov: I think that would be OK.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 10:12, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

August 15[edit]

"suppress-redirect" right?[edit]

Hi, I'm a contributor in good standing since 2006 with more than 3,000 edits on Commons. I have the file mover right, and mostly use it to correct/change ambiguous file names to unambiguous ones. Each time I do that, the edit leaves a redirect behind, and I'm unable to click the option away in the tick box.

Is there such a right as "suppress-redirect", which I've seen mentioned in some discussions here, and if so, trusted file-movers should be given that right. The way it is now, it adds to the workload both of the file-movers, but mostly of the administrators, who have to spend time and energy to delete what I assume are numerous unnecessary redirects. Asav | Talk 10:09, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Asav, per Special:ListGroupRights, file movers already have the suppressredirect right. --Ratekreel (talk) 14:37, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Asav That's because in almost all cases, files should NOT be moved without leaving a redirect. We don't know who is using "our" files elsewhere on the web and deleting redirects for moved files breaks attributions and creates w:Link rot. When in doubt, leave a redirect. El Grafo (talk) 14:56, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are cases when it's prudent no to leave redirects behind, such as newly created files and ones with obvious misspellings. It's not Wikimedia Commons' duty to see to links in any and all websites on the globe
Anyway, what's the point with a tick box if it has no function?
Thirdly, what does the suppressredirect right do if it doesn't allow the user to suppress redirects? Asav | Talk 17:06, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with @El Grafo here.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 22:47, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"When in doubt, leave a redirect" is a part of Commons:File renaming#Leaving redirects, a Commons official guideline. Further, Asav, "reckless breaking of file links via the suppressredirect user right is considered an abuse of the file mover right and is grounds for immediate revocation of that right." Please stop doing so immediately.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 08:29, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • If I remember correctly the redirect box is greyed out if the image is in use somewhere in the WikiUniverse, it needs the redirect for the the next step, to swap out the old name for new name in each project. Downstream users can always find the image at Commons using a reverse image search. We should always delete redirect names that have misidentifications and incorrect dates, the next person to come across the bad identification or date may think the old one has correct information. --RAN (talk) 17:57, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Suppressing redirects breaks links, also in the case of misspellings. If the old name is old, we should assume it is in use, and serving external sites is one of our missions. How is a reverse image search supposed to work for an image you just linked to? With misidentified files you may want to break existing links, on the assumption that uses are about the subject told, not the subject shown, but that isn't relevant for all errors in the name (if the error is trivial, no one might use the file in the nominal sense). And nobody will come across a redirect and think the old name has the correct information – it is just about already existing uses. –LPfi (talk) 08:27, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • "Downstream users can always find the image at Commons using a reverse image search." - for start, this requires substantial manual digging. What is irritating and NOT appreciated at all. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:35, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Apart from that it is not possible at all. How do you make a reverse image search if you don't have an image but just a broken link? Andreas Stiasny (talk) 07:47, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First of all, many of these answers are nonsequiturs. I'm not interested to be told how a responsible file mover is supposed to act. I asked two questions:

  • What's the point of the suppressredirect right if it does nothing, and certainly does not give users the right to suppress redirects?
  • What's the point of a tick box that's eternally greyed out?

Furthermore, I always mark renamed/moved file redirects as {{Speedy}} after making sure they're not in use in Wikimedia, and they're always speedily deleted by an administrator. In other words, we're both just using unnecessary volunteer time that could be better spent. Asav | Talk 09:18, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"many of these answers are nonsequiturs" - not really, they are response to your desire to destroy valid redirects. "correct/change ambiguous file names to unambiguous ones. Each time I do that, the edit leaves a redirect behind" If name was misleading then I see possible value, but destroying redirect from merely ambiguous file name is harmful Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 05:02, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"I always mark renamed/moved file redirects as {{Speedy}} after making sure they're not in use in Wikimedia, and they're always speedily deleted by an administrator." - can you give examples? As someone maintaining external linking to Wikimedia Commons I always found such actions to be highly obnoxious and serious waste of time. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 05:04, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again, this does nothing to answer the questions or resolve the problem. I have no intention of feeding you any information when you're obviously not going to be helpful. I wish there was someone who could give constructive answers to these questions. Asav | Talk 06:54, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The answers have been constuctive. Redirects from file renaming are helpful and should almost never be deleted or supressed. What is your problem with redirects? They cost almost nothing. Storage is cheap. It seems you are constructing a problem where there is none.
The box is greyed out when supressing the redirect is not wanted because the file is known to be used. In my opinion it should also be greyed out when the file is not linked in any wikipedia but has been uploaded long time ago.
Unfortunately there are administrators who delete redirects from file renaming. This is a bad thing and I'm afraid it happens because they don't know the rules or did not understand them. Andreas Stiasny (talk) 07:27, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good pictures button broken again[edit] and other categories has "Good pictures" button. Sadly it does not work at all, just shows "Connecting..."

Browser console network inspector shows that it gives "Firefox can’t establish a connection to the server at wss://"

I tried using petscan but it also failed ( ).

At this point I am tempted to write script that would recurse down category, fetch every image and check is it quality image. Yes, it will take a lot of time to process but maybe it will actually work.

Is there maybe such script already existing? Or some actually working took?

Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:13, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mateusz Konieczny: Please see MediaWiki talk:Gadget-fastcci.js and Help talk:FastCCI. The maintainer is Dschwen.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 12:48, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, wrote at's_always_down? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 18:13, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I must say that writing script that fetches lists of all premium content such as FI, QI, VI and then fetches entire category tree and compares for matches, while storing all query results in caches is really easy and nice to write. It took less time that trying to report bugs in PETSCAN/CATSCAN/Gadget-fastcci/etc (though it is solving much smaller problem, as I am fine with extremely slow responses, single user, not exposing it via web and with far worse interface) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 18:13, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

August 16[edit]

Open Call to Join the Northern and Western Europe (NWE) Regional Funding Committee[edit]

The Wikimedia Foundation’s Community Resources team and the Northern and Western Europe (NWE) Committee invite you to apply to become a committee member in the Northern and Western Europe (NWE) region. The NWE Committee supports the Wikimedia Foundation Funds programs' participatory grantmaking practice. The deadline for applying is September 4, 2022.

The NWE Committee reviews grant proposals from affiliates and other community members within the Northern and Western Europe region who are seeking grant funding from the Wikimedia Foundation. Committee responsibilities include: providing thought partnership to help support applicants and strengthen their strategy and proposals; evaluating and recommending promising proposals for funding; and helping recruit and spread the word about grants. Orientation and training is provided for new members.

Serving committee members will have the opportunity to advise on funding decisions and proactively share recommendations and mentorship to support grantees in the Northern and Western Europe region in their development, growth, and sustainability strategies; that contribute to a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. You will also strengthen your capacity in participatory decision-making processes while learning about our community's incredible work and the different contexts that influence their work.

Deadline for submitting committee candidacy:

  • September 4, 2022

Please reach out to nwe_fund @ wikimedia  · org for questions about the NWE Committee.

Warm regards,

On behalf of the NWE Regional Funding Committee. Mike Peel (talk) 09:00, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delay of the 2022 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees election[edit]

Hi all,

I am reaching out to you today with an update about the timing of the voting for the Board of Trustees election.

As many of you are already aware, this year we are offering an Election Compass to help voters identify the alignment of candidates on some key topics. Several candidates requested an extension of the character limitation on their responses expanding on their positions, and the Elections Committee felt their reasoning was consistent with the goals of a fair and equitable election process.

To ensure that the longer statements can be translated in time for the election, the Elections Committee and Board Selection Task Force decided to delay the opening of the Board of Trustees election by one week - a time proposed as ideal by staff working to support the election.

Although it is not expected that everyone will want to use the Election Compass to inform their voting decision, the Elections Committee felt it was more appropriate to open the voting period with essential translations for community members across languages to use if they wish to make this important decision.

The voting will open on August 23 at 00:00 UTC and close on September 6 at 23:59 UTC.

Best regards,

On behalf of the Elections Committee

Zuz (WMF) (talk) 09:14, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Recategorizing multiple categories (batch tool)[edit]

Hi, I'm trying to recategorize hundreds of categories in Category:People of Indonesia to Category:People of Indonesia by name. Is there any tool to do that? I'm currently using Cat-a-lot and VisualFileChange (perform batch task), but they're for categorizing files, not categories. Can someone either point me to the right tool, or the right place to ask for help doing it (some kind of automated tool)? Thanks. Bennylin (yes?) 11:54, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Bennylin Not sure if you're already aware of this, but Cat-a-lot works for categories too. Just click on or near the name of a category to select it in the same way you would for a media file. El Grafo (talk) 12:41, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@El Grafo I tried, it doesn't work on categories when I tried. It worked on files. Do I have to change some settings or something? Bennylin (yes?) 12:49, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Bennylin It's been a while since I last used it, but there's a setting "Allow categorising pages (including categories) that are not files" in the Cat-a-lot preferences that probably needs to be activated for this. El Grafo (talk) 12:56, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I found it! Thanks and apology for not reading the doc clearly. Bennylin (yes?) 13:05, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

August 17[edit]