Commons:Village pump
|
This page is used for discussions of the operations, technical issues, and policies of Wikimedia Commons. Recent sections with no replies for 7 days and sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=--~~~~}} may be archived; for old discussions, see the archives; the latest archive is Commons:Village pump/Archive/2023/10. Please note:
Purposes which do not meet the scope of this page:
Search archives: |
| Legend |
|---|
|
|
|
|
|
| Manual settings |
| When exceptions occur, please check the setting first. |
 Old manual pump in Fetonte Place Crespino, province of Rovigo [add] | |||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
 |
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 7 days. |
October 19[edit]
38º Encontro Internacional de Audiologia[edit]
The hierarchy of categories related to the 38º Encontro Internacional de Audiologia is a complete mess. Most of them are backward, plus there are a bunch of self-inclusions, etc. I've been doing a ton of other category cleanup and would appreciate if someone else would take on this relatively self-contained task. https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=%22Encontro+Internacional+de+Audiologia%22&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns14=1 gives a list of the relevant categories. Please indicate here if you are taking it on. Thanks. - Jmabel ! talk 20:07, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- Again, please, would some take this on? I'm doing a ton of other maintenance tasks, and this one looks pretty self-contained. - Jmabel ! talk 19:45, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
move L'Aquila to the province of L'Aquila[edit]
I moved one category: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category%3AJuly_2001_in_the_province_of_L%27Aquila&diff=813220841&oldid=757952419, but a new template has to be created. The upper category has to be moved (2001 in L'Aquila) --> 2001 in the province of L'Aquila. The same has to be done to 2002 in L'Aquila. I have no time left for this work, as tomorrow I have to leave early for a trip. Please help.Smiley.toerist (talk) 21:15, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- I have now done the province year catories voor the province of L'Aguila. I notice that the Italian regions are not subdivided in to provinces.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
October 20[edit]
Can someone explain me the copyrights about this?[edit]
I've found some category drawing anime logos in Category:Anime television series logos by year. This session is about it.
- I saw some page use {{PD-textlogo}}. I know sometimes there are no other things on the logo, but what should be the boundaries of simple geometric shapes or text? Do you think File:Hametsu_no_Ōkoku_Logo.png is should use PD-textlogo? For me, the shape in this file is not simple.
- Some file use PD or CC-BY-SA lisence, but the official site or even the summary says the file is copyrighted. e.g. File:Atelier_Ryza_logo.png. Can these files be uploaded here?
- Some logos were removed some element to using pd-textlogo. Is that ok? File:Gaikotsu Kishi-sama, Tadaima Isekai e Odekakechuu Logo.png removed the skeleton using in the kanji 骸. as you see that the upper left corner of this kanji is not a solid square. File:Is the Order a Rabbit? Logo.svg and Related files was removed the rabbit shape.(By the way, why the coffee cup shape can be kept but the rabbit?) Do these customized logos that have been modified and cannot be seen on any official platform still have the meaning of being saved as logos?
I mean, COM:TOO Japan says "Japanese courts have decided that to be copyrightable, a text logo needs to have artistic appearance that is worth artistic appreciation." I wonder if there is some misunderstanding. I hope someone can help me answer it so that I can understand it better. LaMagiaaa (talk) 12:34, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
- The subtleties here might better be discussed at Commons:Village pump/Copyright, but since you raised it here...
- I personally would not consider File:Hametsu_no_Ōkoku_Logo.png as a valid textlogo, especially because of the feathery thing at right.
- I see no basis for the CC license claimed for File:Atelier_Ryza_logo.png, but I read very little Japanese. If you read Japanese and don't see the basis for the claim, nominate it for deletion. The background certainly means it is not a textlogo.
- On the other hand: there is no contradiction between something being copyrighted and having a CC license. In fact, only the holder of a copyright can legitimately offer a CC license.
- I can't confidently parse your statement "Some logos were removed some element to using pd-textlogo," but I'm guessing you mean "Some logos had one or more elements removed in order to qualify as textlogos." Yes, that is fine, but the description should make it clear that this is a modified, simplified version of the logo in question.
- Also: pretty much all present-day logos should have {{Trademark}} as well as a relevant license or PD tag. - Jmabel ! talk 18:03, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
October 21[edit]
Missing images or failed uploads?[edit]
I have uploaded a set of images with Pywikibot. Now I see that some are missing. Examples are File:Clan of medusa with twins 00.svg and File:Clan of gudeba with twins 08.svg. When I click on where the image should be, I get something like File not found: /v1/AUTH_mw/wikipedia-commons-local-public.04/0/04/Clan_of_medusa_with_twins_00.svg. Does that indicate that the upload has worked, and the images have been temporarily mislaid? Or has the upload failed, and I should repeat it? Watchduck (quack) 08:28, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
- Hi, This is probably a bug, either in MediaWiki, or in the servers. I have seen this with JPEG, PNG, PDF, DjVu, but it is the first time I see it with SVG. Try reuploading the same files over, it sometimes fixes it. Yann (talk) 21:02, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
- This error doesn't mean that a file has been uploaded incorrectly, it is a thumbnail creation bug. Over a some time the error will be fixed automatically, see for example Commons:Deletion requests/File:Long Tailed Tit - Aegithalos caudatus (52754205465).jpg Юрий Д.К 10:55, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Yann: There was indeed nothing wrong with the first upload. When I tried to overwrite File:Clan of medusa with twins 00.svg, I was warned, that the new file is an exact duplicate of the old one. For File:Clan of gudeba with twins 08.svg I have just overwritten the file with something else, and then reverted. Now it works. (With File:Clan of farofe with twins 12.svg and others I will wait for a while.) --Watchduck (quack) 23:11, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
- This error doesn't mean that a file has been uploaded incorrectly, it is a thumbnail creation bug. Over a some time the error will be fixed automatically, see for example Commons:Deletion requests/File:Long Tailed Tit - Aegithalos caudatus (52754205465).jpg Юрий Д.К 10:55, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Scripts in SVG files[edit]
The image Animated clock.svg (see it in action) can be easily synchronized with the local time as explained in § Synchronizing the clock with the current time, but apparently script elements in SVG files are not allowed. Is there any way to ask an admin to insert a script inside an image? --Grufo (talk) 20:14, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
- No. Even if the security issues inherent to JavaScript content could somehow be mitigated (which seems unlikely), MediaWiki converts SVG images into PNGs when rendering thumbnails, and these thumbnails are only updated when the underlying image is changed. There's no way to force the wiki to render a new copy of the SVG every time a page containing it is viewed. Omphalographer (talk) 01:54, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Grufo: @Omphalographer: It might be possible to hack a solution using en:Template:CURRENTTIME24:
- Create 720 (24 × 60 ÷ 2) SVG files, each starting with a different minute.
- Upload them with names
hackyclock_HH:MM.svgwhere HH and MM are hours from 00 to 11 and minutes from 00 to 59. - Redirect equivalents from hours 12 to 23 to their corresponding morning version.
- Add a link e.g.
[{{filepath:hackyclock_{{CURRENTTIME24}}.svg}} SVG clock]
- Provided the reader clicks the thumbnail within a minute of its loading, the clock should be accurate to one minute. I wouldn't recommend trying, though! cmɢʟee ⋅τaʟκ 13:33, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- I won't try indeed, but you gave quite an ingenious answer. --Grufo (talk) 13:46, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Grufo, Omphalographer, and Cmglee: We also have digital clock gadgets in the "Interface: Other" section of Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets for those that prefer a digital clock. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:01, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- I won't try indeed, but you gave quite an ingenious answer. --Grufo (talk) 13:46, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
October 24[edit]
[edit]
I just tried to set up Template:Pitcairn Islands photographs taken on navbox and Template:Pitcairn Islands photographs taken on navbox/doc, basing them respectively on Template:New Zealand photographs taken on navbox and Template:Hungary photographs taken on navbox/doc because those seemed solid, but something seems to have gone wrong (as can be seen at Category:Pitcairn Islands photographs taken on 2006-02-10). Just to be clear, I created this template because there were several existing categories invoked this previously nonexistent template. I'm hoping someone else will see what I missed. - Jmabel ! talk 04:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Consistent illustrated vocabulary (via Dall-e3 and JS)[edit]
Hello everyone,
It's not official yet but I'm exploring a pet project to create open illustrated vocabulary cards, with a consistent image dataset.
-
Otter
-
Skeleton
-
Bone
I'm doing so by leveraging recent image generation progress, namely Dall-e 3 web UI (test it here).
-
Bing Image Generator with standardized prompt
-
Bing Image Results (4)
-
Human-selected illustration for "otter"
.jpg){kind=link}
| Prompt example | Object: one cute otter floating on its back in water with an orange in its pawn. Style: super deformed manga, flat design. Background: pure white background. View: wide shot, isometric. |
|---|
Q: I would like to inquire around if such project could gather occasional contributors-uploaders, and if I should therefore document my approach into a WikiProject to share it with potential contributors.
Github: there is also a beta code for semi-automation on github. Yug (talk) 12:29, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- Interesting idea! But first, are we sure that images created by Dall-e have no copyright issues? Cheers, cmɢʟee ⋅τaʟκ 01:28, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
- All images created by AI (and humans for that matter) can potentially have copyright issues. Such issues should be handled on a case-by-case basis for now. Nosferattus (talk) 04:32, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
- I think at least in the US images created by AI can't be copyrighted. Although I imagine someone could still get sued for using an AI generated image of a prior work that's copyrighted in a commercial product, but that doesn't seem to be relevant here. So things like this should be OK. Also, really cool idea! --Adamant1 (talk) 04:40, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
- All images created by AI (and humans for that matter) can potentially have copyright issues. Such issues should be handled on a case-by-case basis for now. Nosferattus (talk) 04:32, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Copyright status of Los Alamos photos[edit]
I came across on X/Twitter of some photos of scientists from Los Alamos from the Manhattan project era, such as Von Neumann and Feynman, and their copyright notice is {{PD-LosAlamos}}, which requires attribution. I was assuming that since the LANL was a governmental operation the license would be {{PD-USGov}}. Furthermore, the licensing template says something about "Los Alamos National Laboratory, a national laboratory privately operated under contract from the United States Department of Energy by Los Alamos National Security, LLC betweeen October 1, 2007 and October 31, 2018." which makes me believe that this copyright applies only to images produced in that timespan. In the case of the two images above, they were clearly taken much prior. So, shouldn't they be PD-USGov? --CristianCantoro (talk) 17:05, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Croptool and webp[edit]
Will Croptool be supporting webp files anytime soon? --RAN (talk) 17:53, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) webp. files are typically problematic: see cases like Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Milíkov1234 and Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Aacocao. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:14, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Free online color correction[edit]
What is a good free online color correction website. The two I used to use are no longer free. --RAN (talk) 17:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Found Photos[edit]
This collection of found photos no doubt has much that cannot be used, but I'm sure there are some diamonds in there, if anyone familiar with US law around anonymous works has patience to sift for them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:41, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- Some of the pictures have comments that help with identification. Quite an interesting collection indeed, but COM:HIRTLE doesn't look too promising for such mostly relatively recent photos. Most look like personal snapshots that were probably never published previously; in this case, if the first publication was on flickr (that is, in "2003 or later" as per the chart), they have a US protection term for "95 years from publication OR 120 years from creation, whichever expires first" if the author isn't known, otherwise 70 years after the death of author. I'm afraid that this looks like very few of these photos are in the public domain. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:31, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- USA case law has sided with the concept that images found in the wild have been made public once they leave the custody of the creator. They do not need to appear in a magazine or a newspaper to be "made public". That would be up to 1989. After 1989 images no longer need to have a copyright symbol, and the year, and register a copy with the United States Copyright Office to be eligible for a copyright. --RAN (talk) 23:29, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- I can't imagine how this differs from "I found it on the Internet". We have no way to know the possible prior publication history of any of these photos. - Jmabel ! talk 00:38, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
- Interesting collection. My guess is that the person probably bought them on eBay, but "bought on eBay photos" just doesn't have the same ring to it as "found photos" does. Regardless, I have to agree with Jmabel about how it's no different then "I found it on the Internet." Although one could argue maybe RAN has a point about actually found photos. Who knows if that extends to images that were likely purchased on eBay though. Plus it's always possible there's a copyright on the back of the photograph that we just don't have a way of knowing about or accounting for. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:35, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
- Up until 1989 you still had to register for a copyright (you has 5 years, up until 1994 to register for a 1989 copyright), as well as put the copyright symbol on the image. If you look through the copyright registration database, there are very, very few images. Almost all the registrations are for newspapers, magazines, and books. No one taking personal pictures would hire a lawyer to register their copyright, unless they were going to publish them in a magazine or book. --RAN (talk) 17:07, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
- It's more complicated than that. The owner of the Flickr account presumably does not own copyright on these, and probably has no real right to publish them. Presuming the Flickr posting is the first time they've been published, and regardless of whether this unauthorized publication on Flickr counts or not, I don't see why any of these would be PD. If it does count, then they are copyrighted until 95 years from publication OR 120 years from creation, whichever expires first. If it doesn't count, then they are still "unpublished" and would be copyrighted until 120 years from creation. So unless something here is from before 1903, I believe it would not be public domain. - 21:56, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
- & "found in the wild" presumably would not cover one print, made by (and kept by) the photogrpapher, that recently changed hands once on eBay, a yard sale, etc. - Jmabel ! talk 21:58, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
- I uploaded a few which should be OK, either old enough, or published without a notice: File:Two women with a car, 11-1936.jpg, File:Royal Blue Travel, St Helier, Jersey.jpg, File:Locomotive in Idaho Springs.jpg. Yann (talk) 17:26, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
October 25[edit]
Chronicling America[edit]
If the statement here - that all content on Chronicling America can be considered PD - is valid, then should we perhaps have a "PD-ChroniclingAmerica" template?
(I'm loath to try to make such a template myself, but if it's valid, I'd use it a lot.) DS (talk) 01:56, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
- @DragonflySixtyseven: You can make a new template by copying and modifying one of the Library of Congress templates we already have, or just use {{PD-US-not renewed}}. Someone might want to count how many news articles we get from Chronicling America, so a template would be good, and a category, if we do not have one already. I like newspapers.com better than Chronicling_America, in newspapers you get individual articles and the text in ASCII. In Chronicling_America, you get a whole page. Newspapers.com is free through the Wikimedia Library. --RAN (talk) 21:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Acronyms and jargon[edit]
Do we have a glossary anywhere of Commons acronyms and jargon, so that less-experienced users have a chance of following a discussion? I'm thinking of things like "CfD", "LTA", or "copyvio" but also our somewhat specialized use of terms such as "fair use" (which we use more narrowly than its meaning in law which includes, for example, de minimis use) or "free license" (which we use specifically for licenses that meet our criteria of what is "free enough": for example, the license can't prohibit derivatives or commercial use, but it can require attribution, and use may still be limited by personality rights, trademarks, etc.). - Jmabel ! talk 05:40, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
- Commons:Glossary. RZuo (talk) 07:34, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
I'm thrilled to say that Special:UncategorizedCategories is now under 3,000 categories, less than half of what there were a month ago (and probably 100 or more of them are not really uncategorized, they are just glitches in the batch job that fills this page every 3 days). We still need help, though, especially from someone who is familiar with either Hungary or Estonia and/or can read the relevant languages. For each of those languages, there are probably over 100 categories (maybe well over) that are hard for anyone to fix without that.
Above all, the categories here need parent categories (or to be turned into redirects, or deleted or CfD'd as appropriate, but that's a minority). Also, a lot of them need to be connected to an appropriate Wikidata item; I've found so far that for upwards of a third of the categories that have any cntent, such a Wikidata item already exists. - Jmabel ! talk 19:40, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Painting c1870 is it public domain?[edit]
Hello, is this artwork public domain? The file details says author: (c) Print Collector. It's not on their website though. The website Meisterdrucke has a similar artwork which was made in c1870, after a work by Kawanabe Kyosai. - Artanisen (talk) 23:46, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
- There is no way an 1870s Japanese artwork can be anything other than public domain. If you have nothing more specific, you can use {{PD-old-assumed}}. - Jmabel ! talk 03:07, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
- So long as we're sure that it's actually from the 1870s and not a more modern piece produced in that style. Knowing who the artist was would be a great help in that regard, and would improve the educational value of the image. Omphalographer (talk) 20:17, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
- The polityka.pl and Meisterdrucke images are different photos/scans of the same artwork; the former seems to have had some digital processing applied. More information here, though the wording is unclear. It sounds like the original Kawanabe Kyosai artwork was captured on film in 1925 for The Connoisseur magazine, and that that film is the direct source of the images circulating online. Dogfennydd (talk) 09:05, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks, yes it's the same artwork. The one on polityka.pl is higher quality. I'll search for a higher resolution version. According to the description, it was made in circa 1870 "after a work" means it's a copy of an artwork by Kawanabe Kyosai and captured on film for the Connoisseur magazine in 1925. -Artanisen (talk) 20:15, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
- The polityka.pl and Meisterdrucke images are different photos/scans of the same artwork; the former seems to have had some digital processing applied. More information here, though the wording is unclear. It sounds like the original Kawanabe Kyosai artwork was captured on film in 1925 for The Connoisseur magazine, and that that film is the direct source of the images circulating online. Dogfennydd (talk) 09:05, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
October 26[edit]
Vladimir Putin photos[edit]
Good evening! I have a question for you, what does the official portrait of Vladimir Putin look like - File:Vladimir Putin - 2012.jpg and File:Vladimir_Putin_official_photo_08.jpg. In this case, the clothes and tie are the same, but the image I uploaded has metadata that allows me to indicate the time of shooting. --MasterRus21thCentury (talk) 20:41, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
- In File:Vladimir Putin - 2012.jpg, the background has been manipulated and the edges around shoulders have been softened. --RAN (talk) 22:02, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) In this case, is it worth leaving two options for the photograph, if this portrait is most actively used (I have that very portrait of Putin hanging at home)? MasterRus21thCentury (talk) 09:51, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
- His skin tone and hair has also been lightened in File:Vladimir Putin - 2012.jpg to make him look whiter (if that's the correct term) and more blond then he actually is in the original photograph (as all as likely IRL). Much bluer eyes to BTW. All of which is just miss-leading. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:17, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Adamant1 So is it fair to consider them almost duplicates? MasterRus21thCentury (talk) 15:47, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
- What exactly is the benefit of considering them duplicates? Am I correct to assume it's because you want to replace all the usage of the current redder image with your lighter skinned version? --Adamant1 (talk) 15:55, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
- Just connect them with {{Other version}}. This is a bit unusual for more-or-less contemporary photos, but happens all the time for older materials. - Jmabel ! talk 17:29, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
- What exactly is the benefit of considering them duplicates? Am I correct to assume it's because you want to replace all the usage of the current redder image with your lighter skinned version? --Adamant1 (talk) 15:55, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Adamant1 So is it fair to consider them almost duplicates? MasterRus21thCentury (talk) 15:47, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
- His skin tone and hair has also been lightened in File:Vladimir Putin - 2012.jpg to make him look whiter (if that's the correct term) and more blond then he actually is in the original photograph (as all as likely IRL). Much bluer eyes to BTW. All of which is just miss-leading. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:17, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
October 27[edit]
help[edit]
can someone please delete the extra " from my edit summary in https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Greater_Germanic_Reich.png and also make sure there is no unnecessary empty space after the removed " Gooduserdude (talk) 18:07, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
- Edit summaries cannot be edited. Ruslik (talk) 20:00, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
- an admin can Gooduserdude (talk) 20:30, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
- No, actually, we (admins) can't. We can hide the edit summary entirely, but we can't edit it. - Jmabel ! talk 21:00, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
- just to be sure, what about Bureaucrats? or some other evern higher user group? someone must have that right Gooduserdude (talk) 21:35, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
- I know there's someone with the technical ability to do this (maybe oversighters? Not sure) but there is no way they will do it just because someone didn't get an edit summary quite right. Must happen a hundred times a day. If you really want to correct it, make some trivial edit to the file and add a summary saying "the previous edit should have said… etc." - Jmabel ! talk 21:53, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
- just to be sure, what about Bureaucrats? or some other evern higher user group? someone must have that right Gooduserdude (talk) 21:35, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
- No, actually, we (admins) can't. We can hide the edit summary entirely, but we can't edit it. - Jmabel ! talk 21:00, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
- an admin can Gooduserdude (talk) 20:30, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
October 28[edit]
File overwriting is now limited to users with autopatrol rights[edit]
In September we decided to limit the overwriting of files to users with autopatrol rights. The reason was the huge amount of violations of the Commons:Overwriting existing files guideline.
The abuse filters to prevent users from overwriting files they did not originally uploaded are now active. Users who want to overwrite files uploaded by other users now need to request ether autopatrol rights or they can request an exception for a particular file. For this there is the page Commons:Overwriting existing files/requests. These file pages get the template {{Allow Overwriting}} that can only be placed by users with patrol rights.
Please report here or on the Commons:Administrators' noticeboard if you notice any problems with the new filters. GPSLeo (talk) 08:56, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
- @GPSLeo that's a welcoming development! This should prevent incidents like the infamous overwritings of political maps of Philippine provinces like File:Ph fil laguna.png. I am certain there are many more Philippine province maps that are still not yet reverted to their most recent decent versions. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:07, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
- Awesome. Since I've been reverting vandalism and doing minor tweaks and such to SVG files for the past two years, and now I can't do that, do I just need to apply for autopatrol and hope to get accepted for it? Donald Trung put in a really fantastic post detailing his issues with it, and then nobody interacted with it, which honestly has bothered me even more than the now apparent requirement to get autopatrol rights.
- I did a quick check of all the users that supported the resolution. Out of the past 500 file uploads of all of them (excluding reverts obv), only two (Tuvalkin and Glrx) do any SVG uploading, and both don't upload very complex files like flags or emblems (cf Trung discussing how SVGs like flags and emblems are going to be an issue now); so the users that supported this aren't the kind of people who will be affected by the type of decisions like updating the colors on a flag or updating it to match the actual constructed design. Right now, I'm currently trying to figure out what the proper colors of the South Sudanese flag are; if an update comes out, am I just now supposed to request to be able to update the file that I've been working on for the past month or to hope that I get accepted for autopatrol?
- I'm going to share two of Trung's points that never got countered or acknowledged because I feel like they're really important to the now-existing issue:
At the Graphics Lab there are a fairly number of WikiGraphists with no user rights that upload high quality SVG files, many of these users barely have any uploads and edits in general but the few edits they have consists of taking on requests and / or cleaning up SVG source codes (something which can only be done by overwriting files). Another issue is that if non-autopatrolled users can't overwrite their own files they might upload a similar file and then request deletion for the original, minor cropping or censoring faces, license plates, Etc. for privacy reasons are common examples here. Further regarding SVG files we could see situations where users will upload nearly identical SVG or even identically looking SVG files and then nominating the original for deletion over errors in the code ("Bad code") or over minor colouring issues that could've easily been fixed by overwriting.
The issue with the latter is that SVG files are the files that are most likely to be overwritten, edit warred over, and vandalised, so excluding them wouldn't make much sense either. If technically feasible we should limit new users overwriting files uploaded by others (namely users who aren't currently a part of a file's upload history), but we should also find a way to allow users without Autopatrol right to help with improving them. Sometimes non-Autopatrolled WikiGraphists overwrite a current coat of arms with a better version because the current one has a minor factual error. A look at "File:Flag of the Vatican City.svg" shows how many trusted Wikipedians without Autopatrol rights helped improve this image. Personally, I'd say that the best solution that would take the least time and introduce the least unnecessary workload would simply having a daily list of overwritten files by non-autopatrolled users showing the previous iteration of the file and the new iteration. I'm fine with a template to allow overwriting, but it would also be a lot of work to manually add them to uploads where they should be allowed. As this has already passed I'm only adding suggestions as this will affect flags and coats of arms which are commonly overwritten by Wikipedians with barely any Commonswiki edits.
- I feel like this is an incredibly nonsensical idea, and the lack of any actual acknowledgment or consideration of the issues from those who frequently work with detailed SVGs leaves me feeling genuinely very irritated about this change. NorthTension (talk) 21:19, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
- I had a look at the file overwrites and most of them violated the guideline. What would you propose to make people comply with the guideline that is not limiting that right to a certain group of users? You mentioned changes on flags and coats of arms. This was one of the main field of disputes and edit wars as people want to have their color version as the used version. GPSLeo (talk) 06:14, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
- Either Trung's idea or raising the number of days or edits for autoconfirms; that seems pretty simple.
- If anything ask him about it since I'm just voicing my great displeasure at a guy I seriously respect being completely ignored. NorthTension (talk) 14:09, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
- I had a look at the file overwrites and most of them violated the guideline. What would you propose to make people comply with the guideline that is not limiting that right to a certain group of users? You mentioned changes on flags and coats of arms. This was one of the main field of disputes and edit wars as people want to have their color version as the used version. GPSLeo (talk) 06:14, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks GPSLeo! This is a very welcome change! Maybe now we won't have to deal with daily edit wars on SVG maps. Nosferattus (talk) 00:36, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry -- am I reading this right? Is it now completely impossible for somebody to overwrite a file without having the autopatrol right on Commons specifically? Does this include things like Commons:CropTool? JPxG (talk) 04:40, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
- The crop tool was one of the main sources for bad file overwrites. Exceptions for single files are possible there is a page for requests. Commons:Overwriting existing files/requests GPSLeo (talk) 06:14, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
- this is horrrrrrrible. overwriting files is such a frequent thing here. and you're restricting it to, what, a quarter of people here? ltbdl (talk) 04:46, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
- We did as a we did not see an other solution the get rid of the huge amount of guideline violations. GPSLeo (talk) 06:14, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Ltbdl better than letting vandalism go on the loose. Vandals like Yuiyui2001 (talk · contribs)'s vandalism of political maps of provinces of the Philippines (either thru their main account or their sockpuppets). Look how File:Ph fil bulacan.png's file history is mainly focused on vandalism and counter-vandalism. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:16, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
- can't you just protect that file? ltbdl (talk) 07:26, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
- We would have to protect a huge amount of files and then also would need to unprotect them on request. Therefore it is easier to just have all files protected and still having the possibility unprotect files. GPSLeo (talk) 07:58, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
- ah, so... protect every file instead of the small percentage of files that need protecting. lovely. ltbdl (talk) 09:02, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
- The problem of bad overwriting is not limited to maps and svg files. There are much more files affected by bad overwrites. Of course the current solution is not optimal but as long as we do not have other technical solutions like merge requests and also not enough people for patrolling this is the only solution to protect our project and the Wikis were the files are used. GPSLeo (talk) 09:34, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
- and also not enough people for patrolling
- really? ltbdl (talk) 10:05, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
- The problem of bad overwriting is not limited to maps and svg files. There are much more files affected by bad overwrites. Of course the current solution is not optimal but as long as we do not have other technical solutions like merge requests and also not enough people for patrolling this is the only solution to protect our project and the Wikis were the files are used. GPSLeo (talk) 09:34, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
- ah, so... protect every file instead of the small percentage of files that need protecting. lovely. ltbdl (talk) 09:02, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
- We would have to protect a huge amount of files and then also would need to unprotect them on request. Therefore it is easier to just have all files protected and still having the possibility unprotect files. GPSLeo (talk) 07:58, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
- Why not just ban the vandals? NorthTension (talk) 13:31, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
- can't you just protect that file? ltbdl (talk) 07:26, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
- hmm. Unless you want admins to spend a lot of time granting auto-patrolled to people we will probably need to find a way to extend it to people with autopatrolled on any project.Geni (talk) 05:33, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Shouldn't files with the {{Current}} template be exceptions to this hard-rule? -- Veggies (talk) 07:04, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
- This would be possible but as {{Current}} can be added by everyone I would not suggest to do this. Instead the {{Allow Overwriting}} should be added additionally to {{Current}}. GPSLeo (talk) 08:01, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
- We could change it so that {{Current}} can only be added by those who can add {{Allow Overwriting}} (i.e. the uploader of the file and patrollers). Elli (talk) 20:55, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
I fully understand the reasons for this restriction, but I would like to apply to be grantet an exception to, from time to time, overwrite files I have uploaded. My contributions to Commons are (1) photos I have taken myself, and (immediately after uploading) used in articles on NL, (2) a number of graphs on economics, which are used in articles on NL, and which I would like to update from time to time. Please have a look at my contributions page (Special:Contributions/MartinD) for some recent examples. Please let me know how I should proceed. Kind regards, MartinD (talk) 11:36, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
- Hi @MartinD, looking at your user rights, your edits and uploads are already autopatrolled and therefore you will not be hindered by this change. @GPSLeo, am I correctly understanding the change? Ciell (talk) 11:45, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Considering how significant of a change this is, it would have been great if people were actually notified outside of VP which is obviously only watched by v. active users, and I see a few problems with this:
- Admins are going to be inundated with autopatrol requests
- New users are going to be confused
- People will just upload new files now rather than overwriting.
It would have made much, much more sense to have autopatrol protection, where certain high-profile files could be protected with autopatrolled. Even better, we could have something like extended confirmed which would mean no need for admins to grant the right. I support the idea in principle, but it doesn't seem very fleshed out and will probably just backfire. Isochrone (talk) 07:25, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
- The SVG arguments are also a bit selective and are unfairly extrapolating to every file. Yes, we have some files that are targets for vandals, but as someone who mainly uploads complex SVG maps I find that the contributions of others (who rarely have autopatrolled) makes them much better for everyone.
- N.b. I was informed of this change offwiki but I am voting here on my own accord. Isochrone (talk) 07:35, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
October 29[edit]
Parco della Villa Reale (Monza) or Monza Park[edit]
Good evening, I propose to rename the Parco della Villa Reale (Monza) page on Wikipedia Commons to Monza Park, so that any Wikipedia user can recognize it and understand the name, also due to the fact that many similar pages (Royal Park of the Palace of Caserta or Park of Versailles) are titled in English. Fefecece (talk) 17:46, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Using the most common term when naming categories[edit]
Although I can't find the exact phrasing right now, Commons:Categories and general, established practice seems to lean towards using the most commonly used name for a particular subject as the name of it's corresponding category. Which is mostly fine. There seems to be an issues when an entity changes it's name where categories named after the original are quickly redirected and files are moved regardless of if they still use the older name. Again, this is mostly fine depending on the circumstances. Although it does seem to cause problems IMO when the subject of the files is still more commonly known using the older name and can be considered historically important in it's own right under that name. An example being Category:Fort Gordon, which was renamed a few months ago to Category:Fort Eisenhower. Leading to the previous category being redirected and a bunch of files referring to Fort Gordon being moved to Category:Fort Eisenhower.
Now I don't necessarily think that's the wrong move in other cases, but in this one "Fort Gordon" is clearly a historical important name in military history and there's plenty of instances where people will be searching for "Fort Gordon" to find files related to the historical base or wanting to organize files contain the name "Fort Gordon" instead of "Fort Eisenhower." So I think it's worth having categories for both. Since that option would be the less likely to cause potential issues. Plus, it just makes more sense to organize images related to Fort Gordon in a category for Fort Gordon. The original user who redirect the category to begin with @Koavf: seems to disagree though and instead thinks everything should be put in Category:Fort Eisenhower regardless. Since at least according to them having a separate category for Category:Fort Gordon would be creating two categories for the same subject.
Although I'm of the opinion that there is enough of a difference at least on Commons' end between the original historical Fort Gordon and what is now called "Fort Eisenhower" to justify two separate categories. I think @Koavf: 's main issue is that having two categories would conflict with the single Wikidata entry though. Which I can understand, but my issue is that a single category makes it harder for people to organize and find files related to "Fort Gordon." Especially since the name was so recently changed, most people probably don't know it happened yet, and everything is mostly still being referred to as Fort Gordon anyway. Plus, I just don't think how things are named on Commons should be dictated by Wikidata. I'd like to hear other opinions on the subject since we weren't able to agree about it and the guidelines aren't super clear either way about how to handle these types of situations. Adamant1 (talk) 20:01, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
- Certainly in either case there ought to be a category description that also gives the other name, much as we do for the much less loaded case of Category:Safeco Plaza (Seattle, Washington). - Jmabel ! talk 23:32, 29 October 2023 (UTC)