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 ↓
🌐 Village pumps for other languages
COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES (index)
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/2022/06.

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:

 

Start a new discussion

Village pump in Sabah, Malaysia. [add]
Centralized discussion
See also: Village pump/Proposals • Archive
Template: View • Discuss  • Edit • Watch
# Title Replies Participants Last editor Date/Time (UTC)
1 Desktop Improvements update 2 1 SGrabarczuk (WMF) 2022-06-23 21:42
2 Putting a CC 1.0 license automatically for North Macedonian official images 19 5 Jmabel 2022-06-26 15:45
3 Photo inherited from photographer - required information? 6 4 SternaElegans 2022-06-22 21:48
4 Old, vintage, historical, or what?... 6 4 RTG 2022-06-27 18:30
5 Copyright question 8 2 Jmabel 2022-06-23 20:27
6 Maquettes 13 7 RTG 2022-06-26 21:20
7 Commons Archive 3 2 Yann 2022-06-24 15:51
8 Spectrum 3 3 RTG 2022-06-26 10:30
9 Questionable & useless 2 2 Yann 2022-06-25 13:33
10 Is re-licensing own work possible? 3 3 RTG 2022-06-26 10:27
11 Annotation bug ? 3 3 Wouterhagens 2022-06-26 19:48
12 Move category with silly name 2 2 B25es 2022-06-27 11:00
13 Name mountain river in the Tatra mountains 5 4 Lotje 2022-06-27 15:49
14 File update still displays old image 3 3 Jeff G. 2022-06-27 19:07
Legend
  • In the last hour
  • In the last day
  • In the last week
  • In the last month
  • More than one month
Manual settings
When exceptions occur,
please check the setting first.
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 7 days.

May 11[edit]

freedom of panorama in the US: paintings on buildings[edit]

Hi, newbie here doing some research about FoP. I've understood that freedom of panorama in the US only applies to buildings, which do not include other 3D arts and 2D art. However according to Leicester v. Warner Bros., paintings on the exterior of buildings are integral parts of the buildings, thus included in the FoP. Is it safe to say that those paintings, murals and graffitis are with FoP so suitable for Commons (talking only about paintings right on the buildings, not about posters or separate paintings which are not parts of buildings)? Taking the mural in Quebec City for example, if this were located in the US and within time period of copyright protection, would this mural still be under FoP in the US because it's an integral part of the building? Thanks --Suiren2022 (talk) 01:36, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 21[edit]

Desktop Improvements update[edit]

Making this the new default

Hello. I wanted to give you an update about the Desktop Improvements project, which the Wikimedia Foundation Web team has been working on for the past few years. Our work is almost finished! 🎉

We would love to see these improvements become the default for readers and editors across all wikis. In the coming weeks, we will begin conversations on more wikis, including yours. 🗓️ We will gladly read your suggestions!

The goals of the project are to make the interface more welcoming and comfortable for readers and useful for advanced users. The project consists of a series of feature improvements which make it easier to read and learn, navigate within the page, search, switch between languages, use article tabs and the user menu, and more. The improvements are already visible by default for readers and editors on more than 30 wikis, including Wikipedias in French, Portuguese, and Persian.

The changes apply to the Vector skin only, although it will always be possible to revert to the previous version on an individual basis. Monobook or Timeless users will not notice any changes.

The newest features
  • Table of contents - our version is easier to reach, gain context of the page, and navigate throughout the page without needing to scroll. It is currently tested across our pilot wikis. It is also available for editors who have opted into the Vector 2022 skin.
  • Page tools - now, there are two types of links in the sidebar. There are actions and tools for individual pages (like Related changes) and links of the wiki-wide nature (like Recent changes). We are going to separate these into two intuitive menus.
How to enable/disable the improvements
Global preferences
  • It is possible to opt-in individually in the appearance tab within the preferences by selecting "Vector (2022)". Also, it is possible to opt-in on all wikis using the global preferences.
  • On wikis where the changes are visible by default for all, logged-in users can always opt-out to the Legacy Vector. There is an easily accessible link in the sidebar of the new Vector.
Learn more and join our events

If you would like to follow the progress of our project, you can subscribe to our newsletter. You can read the pages of the project, check our FAQ, write on the project talk page, and join an online meeting with us.

Thank you! SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 16:59, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Join us on Tuesday

Join an online meeting with the team working on the Desktop Improvements! It will take place on 28 June 2022 at 12:00 UTC and 19:00 UTC on Zoom. Click here to join. Meeting ID: 5304280674. Dial by your location. The following events will take place on 12 July and 26 July.

The meeting will not be recorded or streamed. Notes will be taken in a Google Docs file and copied to Etherpad. Olga Vasileva (the Product Manager) will be hosting this meeting. The presentation part will be given in English. At this meeting, both Friendly space policy and the Code of Conduct for Wikimedia technical spaces apply. Zoom is not subject to the WMF Privacy Policy.

We can answer questions asked in English and a number of other languages. If you would like to ask questions in advance, add them on the talk page or send them to sgrabarczuk@wikimedia.org. We hope to see you! SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 21:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 22[edit]

Putting a CC 1.0 license automatically for North Macedonian official images[edit]

Hello.
I am trying to upload two albums from Flickr (this one and this one), using Commons:Flickr2Commons. I made a test by only uploading File:Премиерот Ковачевски во дводневна посета во Рим и Ватикан -23.05.2022- (52092992938).jpg.
However, I have an alert message at the licensing part, due to the image being under CC 1.0. What should I do to have Flickr2Commons add a {{cc-zero}} into the licensing section of all the images I want to upload from this user which are under CC 1.0?
The image belongs to Category:Files from the Government of the Republic of Northern Macedonia Flickr stream, which has no problem with the CC 1.0. Veverve (talk) 07:04, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, from their "About us" section, "Published photos/videos are available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International license." I think there might be a way to change all the licenses at the upload stage with Flikr2Commons, but if not, archive the "About us" section on the Wayback machine, and get someone with the ability to write a script or program AWB and swap out all the tags automatically in a few minutes. Alternatively you just upload them all and spend a couple of hours copy/pasting the appropriate tags. ~ R.T.G 09:36, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RTG: thanks for your input!
  • The individual pictures are given as being under CC 1.0 (e.g., this one); and all pictures on WCommons imported from this Flickr account are marked as such in Category:Files from the Government of the Republic of Northern Macedonia Flickr stream. So, which statement of license has priority, CC 1.0 or 4.0?
  • Who do you think I should contact to make a script? Apparently, Flickr2Commons is very easy to use; and for what I want to do it does the job very well, except the part with the licensing problem. So, I would prefer not to have to try other Flickr import scripts.
@Magnus Manske: sorry to bother you. Since you are the script's screator, could you tell us if there is a way to accomplish what I want? Veverve (talk) 09:59, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Veverve: We know of eight different "CC 1.0" licenses per COM:L#Well-known licenses (the unnumbered ones start at 1.0), please be more specific.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:19, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not "cc1.0", it's "cc0 1.0" (or PD1 or something like that). I have come across this before and if the uploader is active, they generally change the licenses for me, if it is their own work. Send them an email on Flickr and explain that you are trying to upload to Commons for Wikipedia, that cc0 is not sufficient, that you need cc1 or better. I think they have a way of changing the licenses as a batch, I'm not sure how that works though. ~ R.T.G 11:28, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you are only trying to upload a small portion of the streams images, use the Commons uploader. It can handle a few hundred images and you can copy paste the relevant license. Bit of work in that if there is hundreds of images but if there is only a few dozen it might be feasible. ~ R.T.G 11:34, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RTG: The uploader is active... but the uploader is also the official Flickr of the state of North Macedonia, so I do not have much hope for an answer or that the team behind the account will go throught the administrative red tape to change the license of their 30 000 images.
I am trying to upload around 100 images, so doing i manually is not something I will do.
All images within Category:Files from the Government of the Republic of Northern Macedonia Flickr stream are marked on WCommons as either under the {{cc-zero}} or CC 4.0 license, and are from the same uploader. @Alex Cohn: even reviewed this image and marked it as being under CC 4.0 (despite the page of the image stating it is under PD). So, are the licenses used and their inconsistency really a problem? Veverve (talk) 12:15, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just using the {{PDMark-owner}}? This is used for many organizations for some reason publishing their photos with PDMark instead of CC-Zero. In 2020 we decided to accept this. --GPSLeo (talk) 12:26, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GPSLeo: The issue is manually adding the license for hundreds of photos. Copy/pasting for an hour can be a daunting task I guess. @Veverve: Their "About us" says cc-by-4, but they have selected public domain tags consistently. The confusion with the Flickr PD tags is: one is for the author, and one is for someone who promises it is public domain. Macedonia government are either releasing to the PD, or they know for sure these images are PD, otherwise they are liable for any sales lost, not to mention the cost of deciding in court how much that liability should cost. If these 33,000 images are in copyright, that is a LOT of mistakes on their part. So it is public domain (for those marked as PD identified), under the direction of a government body. ~ R.T.G 13:22, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think with VFC this would not be much work. The different license in the description is an other problem. For videos from YouTube we always use the license written in the description or the video itself if these license differs to the selected one. --GPSLeo (talk) 13:33, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit difficult to follow there. They've used this public domain tag up to 33,000 times as a recognised government body. Government bodies are authorities on legal matters. They do have the authority and responsibility to license these images to the best of their ability. If the authors are not working on the governments/publishers behalf, that is 33,000 accidents. They'd have had a few complaints by now. It is definitely right to use PD on the ones published with a PD tag on Flickr in this circumstance. ~ R.T.G 13:42, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeff G.: by chance, do you have a solution to how I could add {{cc-zero}} top those one hundred images? Maybe you know someone able to make a script? Veverve (talk) 02:59, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Veverve: I'm not sure I follow all of the above (including how you are confident that change would be correct), but assuming there is a sane way to find them either via a category or a search, it should be easy enough to make the change with VFC. - Jmabel ! talk 03:26, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jmabel: thanks! I will try it whenever I can.
    including how you are confident that change would be correct: I do not see how it would not be correct, or how all all the pictures uploaded on WCommons from this account for years would have the wrong license. Veverve (talk) 04:07, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Veverve: Exactly what makes those 100 file description pages unique?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:02, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G.: the fact I get an alert message at the licensing part, due to the image being under CC 1.0, i.e., I get this error: Template:Flickr-public domain mark. Therefore, I must manually add a {{cc-zero}} as a license for each image. Veverve (talk) 11:07, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Veverve: Sorry, I was not precise enough. How exactly may we find them?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:11, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G.: I have put the URLs to the albums in my first message: this one and this one. Veverve (talk) 12:33, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Pin VFC won't work from a list of URLs. We need a search that will find these, or who uploaded them in some particular time frame, etc. It's OK if the search includes some other files, but inconvenient if it includes (say) thousands of other files. - Jmabel ! talk 15:45, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Photo inherited from photographer - required information?[edit]

I had a photo deleted [1], I believe because I did not supply some essential information. I inherited the photo from my father, so I believe that I do have the right to put it into the public domain, but I could use some guidance on getting it right this time. Specifically-

  1. Does the fact that I am licensing an inherited work affect which licence I should use?
  2. How do I ensure that all the required information is present so that this doesn't happen again?
  3. Is it possible to edit the information after uploading a file?

I am almost a first-time user, so please forgive any inadvertent breaches of protocol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SternaElegans (talk • contribs) 16:16, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @SternaElegans: You never answered the question you were asked at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Joan Payzant.jpg, so after a few weeks the deletion went ahead as unchallenged. You can still presumably get it undeleted by addressing the issue, but at this point it needs to go through Commons:Undeletion requests. - Jmabel ! talk 18:00, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for this - yes, I missed the question because I had forgotten to update my user profile following a change to my email address, and only was made aware of the deletion by a friend, much later. I'll contact Undeletion requests and see what happens. SternaElegans (talk) 21:48, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ad 2: there is {{PD-heirs}} for example. Best wishes, --Mateus2019 (talk) 20:12, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mateus2019: the image was licensed with {{Cc-by-sa-3.0-heirs}}, which seems appropriate. - Jmabel ! talk 20:39, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Who is the photographer? When he died?" was asked at deletion request - which precision is needed for "When he died?"? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 21:26, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mateusz Konieczny: As much precision as is available. But that's not the point. The point is that if your picture is nominated for deletion as a possible copyvio, and you don't respond at all, it will probably be deleted. - Jmabel ! talk 21:30, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Old, vintage, historical, or what?...[edit]

Hello!

For a Frenchy like me it's some times hard to find the right Commons' english denominations. That's for all vehicles (land, air, water) I can find in 'uncated'.

How may I be sure it's an historical truck, a vintage automobile or just an old bike??? Before 1900? Before WWI? WWII? B&W pics? Before Diesel? Before Hybrid? After this world? Question of dates of production? If they are still made? If they are so rares?

Please, let me know? Thanks. lol LW² \m/ (Lie ² me...) 22:53, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None of those terms should be used in categories on Commons - they're fundamentally subjective, and what things qualify will change as time passes. Categories should be precise and stable: 20th-century trucks, 1930s automobiles, etc. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:19, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agree with Pi.1415926535. This isn't a foreign vs. native-speaker issue, it's a fuzzy vs. clear thinking issue. These are poorly named categories. - Jmabel ! talk 00:03, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Llann Wé²: Before cars were called "diesel" and "hybrid", they had another name, like "steam locomotive". ~ R.T.G 10:45, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I know but I'm lost... Historical vehicles in Archaeological objects, Vintage vehicles Obsolete technologies...
So, I'll leave that like it is and will continue to add in these cats...
lol LW² \m/ (Lie ² me...) 15:51, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Vintage" tends to be of a specific date or period. It is used, particularly in fashion and prose to describe something not quite ancient, but that is for the feel rather than the accuracy. "Historical" is often used to describe anything within the range of recorded history, but it tends more toward significance, recorded or not. I would set the bar pretty low for entry to that "historical" category but that would be what sort of bar certainly, significance, perhaps even changing it to "Historically significant" whereupon it might balance itself out, but that is not enough for this dilemma. "Vintage" says "cars made between 1919 and 1925 or 1930"... What we call old cars in English is, "Classic cars" isn't it. Vintage, as applied to that category, 20s/30s, that's sort of a clothing and fashion sales term, and I don't think it is always so narrowly defined. And even if you used it like that it is still insufficient for "all vehicles" material. There is no definition as to what date, or stage of development for instance, before which these vehicles are part of the category. That could even be a way to get the best names though, "pre-" vehicles, or vehicles "before X". "Classic" tax and insurance tends, or used to tend be between 25-30 years old. Which isn't enough for horse drawn carriage, but it might help set a bar over which vehicles should not be included. So after that I am looking at synonyms and trying to get something which includes both horse drawn carriage and combustion, while also including things like ships and helicopters per your request, but also very specifically past and all of the past. "Earlier generation vehicles" seems clunky at first but, after going through a lot of synonyms, most words that have a nice feel for this narrow your options to items specific to the historical timeline, or else they are more conversational than categorical like, "Precursory" and "Archaic" or "Bygone" and "Timeworn". "Earlier generation vehicles" can be defined pretty easily for each specific type of vehicle. In terms of combustion driven cars, well today it is, just about, the introduction of microchip controlled motors. Before that, arguably the introduction of ignition systems and so on. So it is up to you but I went through it and that's what I got. Best of luck with it. ~ R.T.G 18:30, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 23[edit]

Copyright question[edit]

If a record is public domain and someone digitizes the record and releases the digitized verzion for download without a specified license, is it public domain? – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 17:38, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ilovemydoodle: Hard to answer that with full generality.
  • "Record" is so ambiguous: "sound recording"? "statement of a fact"? "transcription of a proceeding"? etc.
  • "Digitizing" also covers a lot of ground: e.g. remastering a sound recording can involve copyrightable creative choices.
So it would help a lot if you asked a more specific question. - Jmabel ! talk 17:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel: "Record" meaning vinyl record. "Digitized version" meaning a sound recording of said vinyl record in a digital format. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 17:57, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ilovemydoodle: If the original recording was, indeed, public domain (determining that can be a very tricky problem for sound recordings) and there was no significant creativity involved in the digitizing, then the digitized version should still be public domain. - Jmabel ! talk 18:09, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright question 2[edit]

@Jmabel: What is the copyright status of something recorded in 1926? – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 19:25, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maquettes[edit]

Jack Dempsey and Alonzo Victor Lewis, Seattle, ca 1923 (MOHAI 3174).jpg

We don't seem to have a Category:Maquettes. Do we have an equivalent under another name? I'd want to put it on the image shown here. Maybe Category:Models of sculptures? But I want something specific to a small preparatory sculpture, the equivalent of a sketch. - Jmabel ! talk 20:39, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So create the category yourself. DS (talk) 00:38, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DragonflySixtyseven: in my experience, often there is an oddly-named category that I turn out not to have known about. This is one where I could imagine a lot of possible names. I don't want to create an effective duplicate. Of course, if no one comes up with something, that is exactly what I'll do. - Jmabel ! talk 02:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel: Category:Models of sculptures should do. Alternatively, Category:Maquettes could be between (Category:Sculptures and Category:Models by subject) and Category:The Kelpies maquettes‎   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 03:05, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maquettes are not, strictly speaking, models of sculptures; they are proposals for sculptures which may or may not be made. A distinct category would be sensible. (Be aware that "maquette" is also the French word for scale model, and we have many files which use the word in that context.) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maquettes is also the Dutch word for Category:Architectural models or Category:Scale models. See e.g. this file. --- Vysotsky (talk) 21:52, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It can mean that in English, too (and we all borrowed it from the French). @Vysotsky: in Dutch, does it (as in English) have the connotation of being a model of something you propose to build/make rather than a model of something that already exists? - Jmabel ! talk 00:26, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it does - as in this file (1981) - the Stopera (1986) wasn't built yet. Vysotsky (talk) 07:56, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so sure about maquette being exclusively used for building proposals. I would also use it for architectural scale models of buildings that already exist. Our national dictionary maintains a fairly generic definition: scale model of a building, neighbourhood etc. --HyperGaruda (talk) 06:40, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel: According to the Tate (the most prominent British gallery group), and every dictionary I tried, "maquette" is proper English. This is not unusual. English is not Anglo Saxon. It is a mixture of Anglo Saxon, French, Celtic, Gaelic, Italian and Latin, some German and Spanish, and a basket load of words from every culture that was once connected to or closely allied with the British Empire. Hindu. Hebrew. I suppose whatever the Norse spoke would have to be a main part of it too. (Norse Code maybe?) The closest words in English might be "figurine" and "statuette", but those are simply scale models. Multiple searches returned no synonyms for "maquette", but many uses and definition in English. Ignore the spell checker in a circumstance like this. Create the category. Make it clear why not to confuse the word with figurines or statuettes. ~ R.T.G 10:40, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it is proper English. Did I ever suggest it wasn't? - Jmabel ! talk 15:47, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah okay, well I meant the proper English term as well as simply acceptable. And if you are going to include both sculptures and architecture, it would be a good idea to separate them. ~ R.T.G 21:18, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to start you off by adding Category:Art and design, but I am shocked that category does not exist yet either! ~ R.T.G 21:20, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 24[edit]

Commons Archive[edit]

Hi, Does anyone know why I can't upload CR2 files to Commons Archive? It used to be possible, but now I get the message IMG_9732.CR2 [9529eda1381cd250ac6b2183] Exception caught: No specifications provided to ArchivedFile constructor. Thanks, Yann (talk) 13:12, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann: You might want to ask at the community portal there or file a phabricator task.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:11, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That project seems to be stalled, but good suggestion: phab:T280807. Yann (talk) 15:51, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spectrum[edit]

Moved from commons talk:welcome#The little Engine that could Cos The Engine Couldn't

Being new to the commenting on Wikipedia pages, have noticed incorrect dates for example the Zx Spectrum computer, I while not long out of high-school sold one at Morphetville and know often the dates fort information such as these are way off. Possibly reversed order and even incorrect crediting. 203.213.31.89 18:44, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know of a resource for the production history that could be linked from the root cat for the computer model line? Arlo James Barnes 15:06, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is a vast range of resources for Sinclair Research and Amstrad history. Which dates are incorrect? ~ R.T.G 10:30, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 25[edit]

Questionable & useless[edit]

What do we do with photos that have a questionable legal status AND have become useless because the article they were meant for has been speedy deleted as promotional spam?

It's about the photos by this user. Some of them have already been nominated for deletion because it seems those were pretty clear cases of copyvio: derivative work from newspaper clippings. Many of the others show not only the person the article was meant for but also other people, so personality rights might be involved. Mostly well-known people, so photos might be o.k. for some of them, but I assume we'd have to check each individual one.

The permission status of these images is also doubtful imho. The uploader has been adressed on her German WP page if she actually took all those pictures herself but hasn't replied. Especially this one looks like a professional promo photo to me, taken by a professional photographer, not a snapshot a colleague might happen to take.

So, what do we do with that? Just leave it all as is and let the images sink into oblivion? Or go through the hassle of checking each individual photo for its legal status? Or just batch delete all of them, since they no longer serve any useful purpose anyway? --217.239.5.220 10:13, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Kkuschel. Yann (talk) 13:33, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 26[edit]

Is re-licensing own work possible?[edit]

Is such a change allowed? Veverve (talk) 02:56, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, also as the user changed the license to less restrictive (cc-by-sa-4.0 -> cc0) there should be no problem with it in any case. --Zache (talk) 03:00, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Once an item is deliberately released as PD, if it is still within copyright and the author changes their mind, most jurisdictions will uphold attribution, and sometimes protect the author if the work is being used as an attack on them. How would you explain it... if I release my work to the public domain, and you claim it is your work, I can prevent that by demanding attribution. But I cannot prevent its use or demand a fee on sales, because I released it with a contract of free use to the general public. So the reality is, unrestricted commercial attribution and public domain are basically the same thing. Attribution in the license is as much a warning to the end user as a gift to the author. Correct me of course if I'm wrong. And I've read somewhere that some jurisdictions will prevent a work being used to humiliate the author, but I am fuzzy on the details of that. ~ R.T.G 10:27, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Annotation bug ?[edit]

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T311398

Would anybody have an idea why I can't add an annotation on this image? Thanks, — Racconish 💬 10:10, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • There has been an ongoing bug like that on a lot of images. I've encountered it repeatedly. - Jmabel ! talk 15:49, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • On my iPad I have the option to add an annotation, but there I cannot do it. When using the desktop computer I don't get the option. Wouter (talk) 19:48, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 27[edit]

Move category with silly name[edit]

We currently have a category Category:Fatty tower in Adlershof. This looks ridiculous. I suggest this be moved to Category:Trudelturm in Adlershof, Berlin or just Category:Trudelturm. The Anome (talk) 08:20, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the name is Trudelturm and it is the only one with such name (I don't speak German, so I cannot help with that) it makes sense a move to Category:Trudelturm. If there are more Trudelturme, or there are more than one, then it should be specified: Category:Trudelturm in Aldlershof.
It is not the first time that a category for something is created by describing the something. Not a great system, but sometimes somebody needs to put pictures in a place to make a distinction. B25es (talk) 11:00, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Name mountain river in the Tatra mountains[edit]

River in the Tatra mountains 1994 1.jpg

This river starts high in the mountains and passes the village Stará Lesná on the way to join the Podrad river. I walked downriver until I could take the train back at Tatranská Lesná station. There are other images numbered from 2 to 6.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:57, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Second question: I noticed in 2014 a lot of dead trees in the area (File:Tatra forest dying trees 2014 1.jpg). What happened?Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:03, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Smiley.toerist: Sorry, Google Maps doesn't know.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:58, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If I read the OSM correctly, this is the Studený potok.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:31, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Smiley.toerist: toen ik langskwam zag ik je opmerking en breidde de beschrijving bij de afbeelding uit. Mocht ik fout zitten, dan hoor ik het graag. :-) Lotje (talk) 15:49, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File update still displays old image[edit]

Nardshir (historical) - opening layout.png

I just uploaded a new (corrected) version of "File:Nardshir (historical) - opening layout.png", but the main image, the updated thumbnail and the linked Wiki article all display a copy of the original. Yet if you click on the main or the update you get the correct image. And the copy here (see right) is correct too. So what's going on? Bermicourt (talk) 17:59, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your browser saves an image and will not update it if the name of the image hasn't changed. It will eventually check and update it. Try going to the article, press edit (and use the text based editor), then save the page without actually editing anything. That is called a "Null edit" and it is one of the best ways to get it to update. Otherwise you might be waiting two or three days. Sometimes it is just a few hours. There are a few other tricks as well but if none of those work... open the text based editor again and press the "preview" button. That should show you the new image. ~ R.T.G 18:43, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bermicourt and RTG: See also COM:CACHE.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 19:07, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump&oldid=669083006"