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/2022/12.

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

# 💭 Title 💬 👥 🙋 Last editor 🕒 (UTC)
1 Objectification 17 10 Nosferattus 2022-12-31 18:32
2 File move requests refused 59 9 Tuvalkin 2023-01-01 11:31
3 2016 in rail transport in Germany 6 4 Rosenzweig 2022-12-31 12:48
4 Alt text for Commons images as structured data 18 6 Tgr 2022-12-29 22:53
5 Category:AI generated images 12 8 Platonides 2023-01-01 14:39
6 Wiki Loves Plants 2023 12 6 Mike Peel 2023-01-01 15:30
7 deletion of images from Lake Bonneville page 3 3 Rosenzweig 2022-12-27 15:41
8 Pinging etiquette 7 3 Jeff G. 2023-01-02 15:06
9 International relations templates 1 1 Ricky81682 2022-12-28 08:07
10 Seizure risks 16 8 Tuvalkin 2023-01-01 10:19
11 Speedy deletion of in-scope files 9 5 Ricky81682 2022-12-31 12:23
12 NSW infobox oddness 22 5 Chris.sherlock2 2023-01-01 23:03
13 Are non country related photographs by date categories allowed? 9 7 Ricky81682 2022-12-31 22:50
14 Online meeting about Wikimedia Commons 1 1 Ziko 2022-12-29 18:09
15 Doubts about an old map 2 2 Andy Dingley 2022-12-30 11:30
16 Template to mark media with official (non copyright restrictions).. 6 3 RZuo 2022-12-30 15:20
17 1st level subcats for country cats 7 4 RZuo 2023-01-01 07:22
18 A note of appreciation 1 1 Chris.sherlock2 2022-12-30 19:04
19 Lady Grizel Winifred Louisa Cochrane.jpg 6 4 Hogyncymru 2023-01-01 15:47
20 Commons Gazette 2023-01 1 1 RZuo 2023-01-01 07:04
21 Chubut province copyright 2 2 Multichill 2023-01-01 22:02
22 Upload form says I am already uploading 2 2 C.Suthorn 2023-01-02 19:55
23 File:Bridelia_micrantha_leaves_12_08_2010.JPG claims it is being used in Category:Bridelia mollis, but I cannot see where 3 2 Canyq 2023-01-03 00:12
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.
Old manual pump in Fetonte Place Crespino, province of Rovigo [add]
Centralized discussion
See also: Village pump/Proposals   ■ Archive
Template: View   ■ Discuss    ■ Edit   ■ Watch
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 7 days.

December 19[edit]

Objectification[edit]

A photo I took of a reasonably prominent writer about music, File:Evelyn McDonnell 02.jpg has had its categories modified over time by User:Chenspec, User:DerHexer (one small edit), User:Albedo, and most recently User:Joshbaumgartner, so that it now has categories such as Category:Female human hair, Category:Women's faces, Category:Women looking at viewer, and Category:Women with opened mouths. These seem to me to be terribly objectifying categories. We don't add comparable categories to photographs of men, or (with rare exceptions) older women, but photos of young women are often treated this way. I find this objectionable (especially in this case, where it is a photo from what was basically a feminist music conference).

Yes, these categories are technically accurate, but they are some combination of useless/inappropriate. For example, almost every portrait photograph is going to show someone's hair and face.

This is repeatedly done specifically for photos of young women and, no, I don't think the right solution is to equally objectify everyone else. Jmabel ! talk 16:30, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jmabel There is a discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/05/Category:Men with opened mouths but strangely not one for the women one. The parent categories deserve discussions as well. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:49, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment My involvement has merely been to apply the results of closed CfDs to effect certain name changes on these categories, and should not be taken as endorsement or otherwise as to the validity of their existence. Additionally, the CfD cited above should be expanded to cover both genders since ostensibly it would apply to both. Josh (talk) 19:07, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Joshbaumgartner: as I figured, but didn't want to leave you un-notified if you felt you had a stake in this. & I agree about the CfD. - Jmabel ! talk 23:51, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel: I appreciate that and no worries, I just wanted to clarify my role. It turns out there is a discussion for the women as well at Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/12/Category:Women with opened mouths, so I'm linking it here as well as cross-referencing the two discussions. Josh (talk) 00:05, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with Jmabel that sorting identifiable individuals by body details is highly questionable (and IMHO without much use anyway). But the fault may not be in the category itself but in the loose ways images are attached to it: If hair is the central topic of an image and the person has obviously confirmed to be used as a symbol for "hair" (e.g. as a model at a haidressers competition) I´d have no objections. Category:People with opened mouths is fine for images that are targeted at illustrating dentistry methods or singing techniques, but not for any snapshot where someone conincidentally hasn´t closed his mouth fully. And Category:Smiling women is fine for Mona Lisa, where the specific smile has even found scientific attention, but that´s a rare exception. I suggest not to delete the categories but to define their scope more clearly and to amend Commons:Categories with guidance that objectifying categorization should not be applied to identifiable individuals unless there is documented consent or specific justification. --Rudolph Buch (talk) 22:57, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel, Ricky81682, and Rudolph Buch: Similar issues were discussed at Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/06/Category:Upskirt in sports, which has been open for far too long. Brianjd (talk) 05:15, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We have plenty of files in Men looking at viewer and subcategories. ‘Looking at viewer’ is more about behaviour than the person’s inherent appearance; I don’t think it is objectifying. Brianjd (talk) 05:22, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The other categories are about appearance, but are accurate, are not derogatory and are not indecent, so I do not see the problem. The file used as an example here, Evelyn McDonnell 02.jpg is a picture of (not merely depicting) a woman’s face, or at least a woman’s head, so the category Women's faces is fine. It also prominently shows a significant amount of hair, so Female human hair is fine. Both of these categories may require diffusion or other pruning, but that is a separate issue. Other categories like Women with opened mouths should be discussed on a case-by-case basis (I will add a comment to that category’s discussion as well). Brianjd (talk) 06:38, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Eigentlich (Eigentlich) sind die Kategorien ja obsolet. Ersetzt durch SDC und depicts. Und depicts für dieses Bild wären "Frau", "offener Mund", "feministisches Event", "Gesicht", "Portrait", "Blick auf den Betrachter" und würden es erlauben mit der Such-Anfrage "Alexa/Siri": Zeige mir Portraits von Frauen auf feministischen Events, die auf den Betrachter schauen und gerade sprechen. Dieses Bild und alle anderen Bilder auf Commons zu finden, die der Anfrage entsprechen (unabhängig von der Sprache, denn SDC sind im Ggs zu Kategorien multilingual). Insofern ist der Streit um objektivierende Kategorien müßig. Im Gegenteil kann aus diesen Kategorien teilautomatisiert auf die einzutragenden SDC geschlossen werden und dann können diese seltamen multi-begriff-kategorien verschwinden. --C.Suthorn (talk) 20:10, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  1. @C.Suthorn: No, categories are not obselete. So far, they still function a lot better than structured data, at least for a human trying to find an image. If you are telling me that I should rely on a commercial company's AI to help me navigate Commons, then I'll refrain from answering that, because any response that seems appropriate to me would probably get me blocked for incivility.
  2. I stand on my original remarks about these categories and the way they are applied in practice constituting objectification. - Jmabel ! talk 01:08, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    +1 on both points. SDC is a long way away from even being a semi-functional replacement for categories, much less supplanting them altogether. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:16, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I have a gadget that moves categories to the top of the screen, and I routinely read them, and they make sense to ordinary humans. But structured data? Do I want to click on another tab every time I open a page, just to view some confusing screen that looks like it’s full of technical details for data scientists/librarians/something like that? (We are getting off-topic here, but I could not resist bringing a bit of common sense to the SDC discussion. Objectification concerns should apply equally to categories and SDC, so categories vs SDC is irrelevant.) Brianjd (talk) 04:58, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If you can use a gadget that changes how categories are displayed you could use a gadget that changes how SDC is displayed. Please don't conflate content with presentation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:42, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Pigsonthewing I agree that we must separate content from presentation, but I think presentation is a huge practical problem for SDC. The default display for categories is still much easier to read than SDC, while the only site-wide gadget I see for changing the presentation of SDC is one that removes it completely. Brianjd (talk) 07:44, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    (applause) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 05:11, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Jmabel: I agree with your points. This is obvious objectification, and it's absurd that we have categories like Category:Nude women, bare feet apparent, soles exposed as if Commons was a porn site for very specific fetishes. (FYI: Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/06/Category:Nude women, bare feet apparent, soles exposed.) What do you think we can do about this? Nosferattus (talk) 18:32, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

December 23[edit]

File move requests refused[edit]

Q: Should file-movers have to give an explanation when refusing and removing file movement requests? GPinkerton (talk) 15:26, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It would help to be somewhat more specific. Ellywa (talk) 15:40, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In general, I certainly try to do so. When there are a series of requests, sometimes I only explain on one. If you have concerns about the handling of File:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg, it looks like you got explanations on your first two requests, and IMO the third did not require further explanation. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:26, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mdaniels5757: I recently made one such request. It was refused on faulty grounds which are not based on policy. After I challenged this, I was invited to restore the request. I did so, but it was refused without explanation. The file remains unrenamed without satisfactory reason. GPinkerton (talk) 21:05, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You did not explain why you want the file renamed "Minimize ambiguity" in no proper explanation. If you do not provide an explanation why you want the file renamed you should not expect a long explanation why your request is declined. GPSLeo (talk) 21:25, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I, for one, don't see any reason that request should have been granted. We don't normally move a file just because the name isn't absolutely ideal: it pretty much requires that there be something actively wrong with the old name. In this case, it is not obvious to me that the new name is even an improvement. - Jmabel ! talk 22:08, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel: One reason the new name is preferable is because there are certain templates on several Wikipedias that autopopulate using the English-language formula "Flag of English-languagecountryname.svg", which in this instance causes the wrong flag variant to appear (a nautical one instead of the general-purpose one). If the file was moved as I have suggested, the resulting redirect could be pointed at whichever file is desired (i.e. the general-purpose default flag and not the naval one), rather than directly to a file which does not represent the normal flag. Mainly, however the move would be to minimize the ambiguity of having a filename which wrongly suggests the naval flag is the default British flag. Is that clearer? GPinkerton (talk) 23:56, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@GPinkerton: tremendously. - Jmabel ! talk 00:08, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel and GPSLeo: the thing is, the solution of moving the file was discussed on the talk page of the file involved, but this seems to have been ignored or misconstrued. GPinkerton (talk) 00:48, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@GPinkerton: was that talk page linked in the move request rationale? I ask because admins who are trying to do these by the dozens or by the hundreds necessarily blast through these and make snap judgments. Typically, they aren't going to go seeking stuff out on their own. - Jmabel ! talk 01:06, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel: yes I see that I could have been more expansive. Your answer that admins make snap judgments en masse to these requests suggests that my question's answer is no, file-movers do not have to give an explanation. How should I proceed? I am chary of submitting another move request. GPinkerton (talk) 01:44, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I’d recommend that you should refrain from making another move request, as you might find yourself blocked for edit warring/disruption. Bidgee (talk) 01:49, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Bidgee: How should I proceed? GPinkerton (talk) 02:22, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pinging @Aishik Rehman as the involved admin: GPinkerton's rationale here actually looks reasonable (see the comment above dated 23:56, 23 December 2022 (UTC)), though I can see how the way the request was made would not readily have directed you to that rationale. Would you have any problem with another admin making the move he originally requested? - Jmabel ! talk 02:45, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pinging @GPinkerton and perhaps "1-2 ratio" or "naval jack" would be better than just "1-2", because I for one would look at "1-2" and have no idea what it intended to signify. - Jmabel ! talk 02:52, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Others in the talkpage discussion should be given a chance to respond. Bidgee (talk) 02:59, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel: I suggest "File:Flag of the United Kingdom (1-2).svg" to harmonize with the other official versions "File:Flag of the United Kingdom (2-3).svg", "File:Flag of the United Kingdom (3-5).svg", "File:Flag of the United Kingdom (5-8).svg" and the relevant construction sheet "File:Flag of the United Kingdom (1-2) (construction sheet).svg". Of course, if there's a more obvious solution I welcome it, but so far this seems simplest and least language-dependent. GPinkerton (talk) 03:03, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@GPinkerton: That also makes sense. Again, in general when making requests, it behooves you to spell out the rationale like you now have. Then the admin is likely to come through, go "sure, that makes sense" and do what you asked for. - Jmabel ! talk 03:06, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel: yes that seems obvious now, but hitherto I had only submitted trivial renaming requests with minimal explanation and not run into any issues. Thanks for your guidance and the suggestion that someone else might submit a move request. GPinkerton (talk) 03:26, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I’d recommend to start a whole new move request discussion on the image talkpage, if everyone is in agreement the move would take place but I think leaving it for seven days (due to the Christmas holidays) would be fine. Bidgee (talk) 03:35, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Bidgee: A whole new one in addition to the discussion I began on the 21st of this month‽ GPinkerton (talk) 03:51, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again, I've pinged User:Aishik Rehman and now left a note on his user talk page as well. If we don't hear from him within a few days, I'll make the move myself, but I don't want to override his decision without giving him a chance to respond. Also, note that despite the characterization above, he is not an admin, just a filemover. - Jmabel ! talk 17:23, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel: The rename request was based under the assumption that the Union Jack should be shown in 3:5 ratio by default and as 1:2 merely as one of the several acceptable variants. The way I see it, this would come up on top wanting for an example of obviously wrong Vexillology — akin to «π=3» for Maths or «the Earth is a flat plane» for Geography. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 20:36, 25 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Tuvalkin: but this is comment expresses your erroneous POV only, unsubstantiated by anything and contradicted by the fact: i.e., the fact that the 3:5 ratio was laid down by the relevant authorities in 1938 and has not changed since.
We must remember that this project is not the pet of Tuvalkin, but an auxiliary to educational projects which rely on reliable sources. These unambiguously state that the 3:5 ratio is the default one, just as the same authorities determined the File:Flag of England.svg should be in ratio 3:5, and the File:Flag of Wales.svg, and so on. Tuvalkin makes grand and dismissive statements — in a word, Tuvalkin stonewalls — but Tuvalkin never supplies any rationale for their inept claims, still less a reliable source. I suggest Tuvalkin produces such a reliable source (which must be of a higher authority than the Earl Marshal, the Garter King of Arms, the Ministry of Defence (successor to the Admiralty and the War Office), the Parliament of the United Kingdom, and the Flag Institute, all of which concur on a 3:5 ratio as the gold standard) or else Tuvalkin ceases to pronounce crass and demonstrably misleading falsehoods akin to those expressed just above. GPinkerton (talk) 22:54, 25 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I dont’t have to justify the status quo. You’re the one asking for changes, so you’re the one needing to justify your claims. As a vexillologist myself (one who avoids contributing about flags in Commons) you’re not convincing me. But you should feel free to go on trying. It will be an interesting experiment, whichever the outcome. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 23:02, 25 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Tuvalkin: "justifying" (as you generously call your fact-free stonewalling) an erroneous status quo merely for the sake of it is disruptive editing. Either find a real reason for opposing the amply-justified file move, or stop opposing it. Put up or shut up, as they say. GPinkerton (talk) 23:14, 25 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Like I said, I have nothing to add, but my opinion that you’re wrong. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 23:26, 25 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Tuvalkin: I should also add that your self-declared status as "a vexillologist" is worth precisely nothing, especially when your "expert" opinion is flatly and wholly contradicted by the vexillological authorities of the country concerned. We do not follow the unfounded opinions of anonymous Wikimedians such as you. Instead, we follow what reliable sources say. GPinkerton (talk) 23:19, 25 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, I am well aware that Vexillology is a hobby for most of us, vexillologists, even though I take it seriously with the best of my abilities. The way I do it was good enough for my peers in the FotW-ws community (which included the current president of the FIAV, the SHOM vexillologist, several present and past Flag Institute officers, and the author of the latest B.R.20) to award me the title of Vexillologist of the Year back in 2005, for which I am grateful, following (i.a.) my role in codifying the current official version of the national flag of my country, so that’s what my «self-declared status» is worth.
I’m not at all an expert in all things Union Jack, although I know the basics about it — including the several official ratio variants. But I’m yet to see someone else defending your view that the default basic image of the British national flag to be used in tandem with other national flags in an encyclopedic setting should be the 3:5 Union Jack instead of the 1:2 version.
Am I wrong? Well, we’ll see. I have been wrong before, and I have been right before, and every time someone learned something.
-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 23:40, 25 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Tuvalkin: Yes, of course you are wrong! What possible worth does your entirely ungrounded and unsourced opinion have? Or your faded status on some internet forum? (Is that really supposed to impress‽) How can your opinion possibly be set again the official rules of vexillology as laid down by the Great Officers of State, as reported by reliable sources? How can you ignore the numerous comments (even in this very discussion on this very page) that support the file move I proposed and then boldly claim you haven't read any such comments? It should be now amply clear that your opposition to the file move I suggested is grounded neither in policy nor reality. GPinkerton (talk) 23:59, 25 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@GPinkerton: your most recent posts (their tone, not their substantive content) are greatly decreasing your chances of getting anyone to do what you want here, and greatly increasing your chances of being blocked. Be civil. - Jmabel ! talk 00:03, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel: [1], [2], [3], [4]. Presented without comment. GPinkerton (talk) 00:12, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@GPinkerton and Tuvalkin: So I'll comment: would you both try sticking to the substance of things rather than smacking each other with a 3-day-old fish? - Jmabel ! talk 01:41, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel: Indeed. As things stand, on one hand we have – (inter alia) – the repeated official statements from the legal authority responsible for British flags (the Earl Marshal and the heraldic authorities under him) which fix the flags' ratio at 3:5 (for purposes not at sea) since before the Second World War. On the other hand, we have status quo on Wikimedia Commons, with not a lot else in its favour. I don't see how the status quo is a better status than the one I propose, which would minimize ambiguity and harmonize with the filenames of other-sized Union flags. GPinkerton (talk) 02:32, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Got a reliable link that can prove this? Otherwise it is hearsay, and repeating it over and over will get you no where. Bidgee (talk) 02:56, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Bidgee: of course! Here (at the risk of repeating myself) are several of the most important: the College of Arms (headed by the Garter King of Arms under the authority of the Earl Marshal, one of Great Officers of State); the Oxford Guide to Heraldry written by two heralds of the College of Arms, one of whom went on to be Garter King of Arms; the Ministry of Defence's Army Dress Regulations (which deals with flags); and a quasi-official vexillological charity, the Flag Institute.

For the avoidance of doubt and the sake of convenience, Garter King of Arms, under the authority of the Earl Marshal, has approved two versions of the Union flag as being accurate representations suitable for use. These are of the proportions 5:3, commonly flown on land; and 2:1, commonly flown at sea.

— College of Arms, Union Flag: approved designs

All flags flown at sea come under the jurisdiction of the Admiralty, which has laid down that their sides should have a 2:1 ratio. The Earl Marshal is the controlling authority over flags flown on land, and although the heraldic banner, showing the arms with a fringe of the livery colours was traditionally square, when the Earl Marshal laid down by a Warrant dated 9 February 1938 that flags flown on churches in the provinces of Canterbury and York should show the Cross of St George with the arms of the diocese on a shield in the first quarter, the opportunity was taken by means of a letter to the Press from Sir Gerald Wollaston, Garter and principal heraldic officer under the Earl Marshal, to state that flags on land should be of the approximate relative dimensions of '5 x 3'. Such a shape flies better than a square flag, whilst reducing the visual distortion caused by a flag of dimensions '2 x 1'. The dimensions of '5 x 3' for flags flown on land were entered in the Chapter Book of the College of Arms for 16 June 1947 (C.B. 21,96) as the officially accepted dimensions of all flags flown on land within the jurisdiction of the Earl Marshal.

— Thomas Woodcock, Somerset Herald, & John Martin Robinson, Fitzalan Pursuivant Extraordinary, p. 111, in: Oxford Guide to Heraldry (1988)

The UK's flag shape of 3:5 works well with nearly all other nations' flags and it is recommended to use these proportions if a standard size is required for all the flags in a display

— Ministry of Defence Army Dress Regulations, Part 11, section 2, page 1158ff, Section 11.008

The normal proportions for the national flags of the United Kingdom are 3:5 on land, but ensigns are customarily made in proportion 1:2.

— Flag Institute

As you can see, the official sources all concur on this matter. I do not see how they can be gainsayed ... GPinkerton (talk) 03:47, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jmabel: I have read the detailed discussion above. You can move the file if you want; I have no complaints. However, I would request User:GPinkerton to mention the details if he requests any move in this criteria in future. I think any file mover would have declined the request without detailing why the 1-2 should be added to the file name. Anyway, now it's crystal clear! Aishik Rehman (talk) 22:41, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This turned out to be quite the epic, but GPinkerton's arguments have more than convinced me. Tuválkin, you do a lot of good work, but I think in this case you are wrong. Aishik Rehman, thanks for getting back to us, I realize this is probably not the best time of year to try to get hold of people. GPinkerton, at the risk of beating a dead horse: you could have saved everyone, yourself included, a lot of grief by stating your arguments up front in this rather complicated situation. I will now move the image as originally requested. - Jmabel ! talk 23:06, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Excellent work, thanks very much and my apologies that this has been so drawn-out on my account. GPinkerton (talk) 00:07, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel: Do you mean that File:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg will be pointing to File:Flag of the United Kingdom (3-5).svg instead of to File:Flag of the United Kingdom (1-2).svg as you did in this recent edit? That will cause some ripples in the thousands of Wikipedia pages using this image in things like infoboxes and tables on sports or military topics, where the image is not transcluded directly but rather via templates: I predict much wailing and theeth gnashing — hopefully I’m wrong about that.
(Incidentally, why a "-" instead of a "x" to indicate rectangle ratios in filenames, where the usual ":" is not available? One more example of how this matter was not though up properly?)
-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 02:30, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, the matter is being addressed below. (Popcorn time!) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 02:35, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Re: "Do you mean that…": I mean that a consensus has to be reached. I have no more to contribute to that than being a person of reasonable judgment if arguments are presented. I have no particular expertise. Yes, it could ramify via a lot of templates if that is changed. I'm sure we've seen bigger. - Jmabel ! talk 02:55, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel: if I understand correctly the global replace function will try to alter Wikipedias to insert "(2-1)" to every instance of "Flag of the United Kingdom.svg"? If that's the case I'd urgently ask it to be cancelled if it's not too late. It was not my intention to request that, and I think it should be avoided. Moreover, it may not work as intended, as in various Wikipedias the relevant templates are often fully protected against editing. In most cases adding the extra characters will even be counter-productive; in most instances of "Flag of the United Kingdom.svg" the added "(1-2)" is unnecessary and unhelpful, since it is in most of these places that the 3:5 version should be the one that appears (if and when the "Flag of the United Kingdom.svg" on Commons redirects to the 3:5 version). GPinkerton (talk) 03:31, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@GPinkerton: Way too late, I did this over 4 hours ago. - Jmabel ! talk 03:37, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel: I do not believe the change has yet been put into effect and it is my understanding that you can simply revert your own edit on the command page. I really think using the global replace function is a bad idea! GPinkerton (talk) 05:26, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @GPinkerton: Thanks. Looks like I've now headed that off. For once, we can be happy about a slow bot! There will not be a universal replace, and there is plenty of time to work out what best to do with the redirect. - Jmabel ! talk 05:58, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel: I’m sure we’ve never seen anything remotely as big as this, concerning flag images in Commons and their transclusions in Wikipedia. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 03:58, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirect and parent categories[edit]

Now, could someone knowledgeable decide what to do with the redirect File:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg and either explain or remove what seem to me to be very odd parent categories Category:Australia at the 1896 Summer Olympics and Category:Great Britain at the 1896 Summer Olympics? - Jmabel ! talk 23:11, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jmabel: I don't know anything about categories but the Australian category is presumably there because Australia's team competed under the British flag at the revived Olympics until the Australian flag was adopted around the time of the states' federalization in 1901.
As for the redirect, I suggest that it remain as is for now, until each of Wikipedias' pages on this flag have been rectified to avoid any errors or incongruities occurring when the redirect is eventually flipped to the 3:5 variant. GPinkerton (talk) 00:05, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@GPinkerton: the fact that the Australian team used the Union Jack at the 1896 Olympics is certainly not a reason for a particular SVG image to be so classified. If that's the reason, then it doesn't even belong on some category up the line. This is probably a case of someone going, "Oh, this image is used in this article, I'll make that topic a category for the image," which is pretty much backwards. - Jmabel ! talk 00:30, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is the crux of the issue — nobody thought of it till now? Well, I have been thinking of nothing else. You see, unlike the case of the Swiss national flag, whose unusual square shape has been a stettled matter for many decades and all but the most crude “flag displays” and “flag charts” have been showing it (there is a 2:3 version, which is a sort of Swiss ensign — the parallel is fetching indeed), the Union Jack has been represented in varying ratios in unsophisticated “all flags” collections for most of the 20th century. Detailed vexilollogical works such as foreign naval flagbooks (namely Ottfried Neubecker’s seminal work, the SHOM Album, and all their clones) correctly indicated the 1:2 version of the Union Jack as the British naval ensign but seldom gave any firm info on its equivalent for use on land — because, unlike the Swiss case, the matter was far from settled among British heraldic authorities themselves.
As said I’m not an UJ expert, but I do remember reading discussions in the late 1990s and early 2000s concerning the matter of finally having a clearcut position and enshrining the 3:5 UJ as the national flag, matching other British flags (namely banners-of-arms, and also the Scottish and Welsh country flags and many others which were being codified by then or even created anew) as matters of ratio specification become more and more pressing: The general public got used to better quality flag images in things like books about flags for the bright-eyed wunderkinde of the late 20th century, more demanding than the target audience of cigar wrapper collectible figurines with sketchy vexillography of previous decades. Add to the mix a sudden change in flag manufacture, increasingly using printing instead of sewing for cheap mass-produced items, and growingly making use of the same computer templates used for illustration on paper. IIRC, it was Graham Bertam who, before his MoD stint (see quote above), spearheaded this approach, and while his rationale was cherished counter arguments were raised:
If the 3:5 version is preferred for the British national flag to be displayed among other countries’, then what to do with the obviosly derivative and yet unavoidingly 1:2 flags of Australia and New Zealand?, to mention but two… (And of course not a few were quick to note that 3:5 is the ratio of the national flag of Germany and thus even this niche geometrical matter got dragged to the whole deplorable Brexit mudfight arena…)
How will this change be percieved diachronically in things like historical charts? If we have, for instance, Russia in 1991-1993 represented by its official 1:2 flag and by its 2:3 official replacement afterwards, or Iran with its simple tricolor flag extremely oblong at 1:3 in 1925-1964 but shortened to 4:7 in 1964-1979, or Japan changing from 7:10 to 2:3 in 1999 (and many other, more or less subtle, ratio changes throughout history affecting many national flags) what can be said about the “change” of the British national flag from 1:2 to 3:5…? Was it a change at all? No, it was meant as a clarification of past practice often ignored; it was meant as a legal description, not a prescription, and contrasting a 1:2 UJ to represent Britain before 2008 (or whichever breakpoint date) with a 3:5 UJ for after that may be seen as misleading. (In this regard, please compare the 1:2 UJ on the cover of this book with the 3:5 specs preconized by the same entity.)
The way I see it, the matter is unsettled and offers no simple solution. By maintaing a cautious stance and keeping the status quo of representing Britain by means of its naval ensign among other countries, Wimimedia can say it doesn’t “take sides” and will go with the organic consensus. By going ahead and changing to the 3:5 version it will be seen, at best, as a bold trailblazer. Will other purveyors of flag images latch on and increasingly offer the 3:5 version as default just because Wikipedia does it? Maybe, but that’s not usually how Wikipedia/Wikimedia wants to see itself (cp. the whole debate on the name of Czechia in English…). Then of course there’s the matter of geometry: While you can stretch or squeeze a tricolor’s ratio without uncanny outcomes and indeed the same for something like the flag of Japan (provided the hino maru stays undisturbedly circular), the 3:5 UJ shows the ascending diagonal of the Saint Patrick’s cross as two irregular pentagons, while the more oblong 1:2 gives room for it to consist of two simpler parallelograms. This detail is of major importance for some, given the history of this flag and its original design in 1777 — the matter is not only purely vexillographic, as the three conjoined crosses (for England, Scotland, and Ireland) are set in a delicate balance to avoid primacy. Certainly this matter should be quelled by dully pointing to the official sanction the 3:5 version have been given, but expect much doubt and opposition if this “mangled” design suddenly starts popping up in each and every Wikipedia page about the Olympics, the Eurovision Contest, and whatnot.
And that’s the best case scenario: Hordes of disgruntled Wikipedia editors (English-language and others) might descend upon Commons in great wrath, demanding reparations over their affected templates, tables, charts, maps, and diagrams. The nitpicking and the hairsplitting will be epic and the discussion above and elsewhere will be repeated a thousand times in all affected talk pages.
That’s why I said before that this file renaming was a bad idea — a crass error to effect this change, at least for now: Anybody can dig up official documents, old and new; it’s what you do with them that counts. And now I’m now out for some popcorn. Toodeloo. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 03:56, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is a very long comment with many digressions but I will try to answer its substance.
The actual flag drawn by Isaac Heard and signed by George III. It's not 2:1, and the red diagonals are not quadrilateral.
  1. In 1800, the British and Irish parliaments gave George III the authority to decide new official flags in the first article of the Act of Union.
  2. Isaac Heard, Garter King of Arms, designed the new Union flag in 1800.
  3. George III approved the design prepared by Heard by an order-in-council on 5 November 1800. This ordered that the flag become the official national flag on 1 January 1801, a fact announced by royal proclamation and printed in the Gazette. The design accompanying this printed proclamation is badly bungled, upside down, and is not much like the order-in-council.
  4. The design made by Heard and approved by King George was neither 2:1 nor anything close to it. (It's about 5:6.)
  5. The red diagonals are not intended all to be quadrilaterals. This is certainly not something either authority thought important in 1800 or subsequently. A British national badge depicted in the same order-in-council is a crowned Union shield of the national arms; the red diagonals are not quadrilateral.
  6. Gerald Wollaston, Garter King of Arms, recognized in 1938 that the 2:1 variant in use by the Royal Navy distorted the intention of his predecessor and the Earl Marshal officially fixed the ratio of the national flag (on land) at 3:5. This ratio lies between the British Army's colours (fixed at 5:4 from the early 18th century) and the Royal Navy's jacks (fixed 1:2 from the latter 19th century).
  7. In the subsequent 80 years, the College of Arms (the constititonal authority on flags) continues to state that 3:5 is the flag's approved ratio.
  8. Since the Second World War, the ratio of the flag has basically been an officially settled matter.
  9. Since WWII, debate on the standard ratio of Union flags must largely have arisen from ignorance of some or all of the forthgoing 8.
Commons is quite happy to accept the 1938 royal warrant endorsing the 3:5 ratio for the flags of England and even for the pre-1801 flag: we allow the generic filenames to have this ratio. There is no reason the second Union flag should not follow the same logic as the first. Any derivative flags are irrelevant and follow their own rules, although of course all land flags in the Earl Marshal's purview ought to be 3:5 by default if not by necessity. Here, we must follow the reliable authorities. The constititonal responsibility for the flag ratio, derived from parliament via the king and the Earl Marshal, rests with the Garter herald. From 1938 until today, heralds Garter have fixed the ratio at 3:5. In what other country's case do we hand over "Flag of Countryname.svg" to anything but the officially accepted land flag? As for commercial flags, the flag-maker with the royal warrant does offer 3:5 ratio by default, but this a worthless metric and should be discounted. Changing the redirect to the 3:5 version will not meet particular opposition on aesthetic grounds, on the contrary. GPinkerton (talk) 04:04, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am in full agreement with @GPinkerton on this one. 1:2 is the ratio for naval flags, until 1938 there was no official ratio for land flags: 2:3, 3:5 and 5:8 ratios were all used, but notably 1:2 was never the standard ratio used on land. The flags of Australia, New Zealand etc. are a separate issue, those flags began life as ensigns for use at sea, hence when subsequently used on land as national flags retained the 1:2 ratio. In 1928 South Africa chose to standardize on 2:3 for the Union flag in 1928 so the national and imperial flags would have the same ratio when flown together. CorwenAv (talk) 15:42, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You say that «until 1938 there was no official ratio for land flags» and in the same sentence you stress that «1:2 was never the standard ratio used on land.» Well, that’s a tautology. And that’s not what’s being discussed. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 11:31, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for your reply at 04:04.
  • Points 1-4 add nothing to this discussion about the UJ ratio (although they send me down the rabbithole searching for whatever UJ history tidbit had imprinted 1777 in my mind, thanks for that).
  • Concerning point 5 — you are right that the exact shape of the two visible parts of the ascending diagonal of the St. Patrick cross is irrelevant: It’s but an emmergent outcome of its design (a saltire couped per gyronny on the St Andrew cross and with the white-edged St. George cross superimposed on it, the orthogonal witdth of the white-red-white compound saltire being overall 1+2+3), and depends on the ratio of the whole flag: The astute vexillologist will make use of it to ascertain the ratio of a particular UJ based on a glimpse or a partial, and nothing else: Trapezoidal means 1:2 (=0.5) or more oblong, pentagonal means 3:5 (=0.6) or less oblong (the exact turning point between 0.5 and 0.6 is a vexillological / trigonometrical rabbithole irrelevant to the matter at hand — and, yes, the elusive square UJ at ratio 1:1 (=1.0) has them as quadrangles again). Will this be however be seen as significant should the sought image replacement be enacted, adding more heat than light to the discussion? Well, I fear so, and that’s why I mentioned it.
  • In point 6 you go back to use loaded language to disparage the 1:2 UJ («recognized »« that the 2:1 variant «» distorted the intention»). This is not about what looks good or what follow someone’s original intent:* I never said that a 3:5 UJ is uglier or prettier, nor more or less authentic, only that 1:2 has been in overwhelming use, especially in the kind of use the image in Commons is meant for. Cursory review of relevant media and the fact that a preference for 3:5 has been officially set in 1938 and yet as late as 2008 the 3:5 was still not fully enshrined as the British national flag (unlike the comparable cases of Belgium and Switzerland, for instance) suggest how this is not a settled matter (contra your subsequent points) and how Commons should be wary of any bold trailblazing.
-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 11:21, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(*) Tangent off the asterisk above: And here I would contend that the exact ratio is immaterial to the original intent, which was equal standing for all three crosses, at least in terms of implied primacy in a heraldic setting. The fact that said intent is retained across all possible ratios, from 1:1 to 1:2 and beyond, is a testament to the genious of Isaac Heard. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 11:25, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As discussed above, the file itself has been moved, the old name is now a redirect, there has been no universal replace, and there is plenty of time to work out whether the redirect should be changed to point elsewhere or not. - Jmabel ! talk 06:01, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And if the generic filename File:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg is not changed from pointing at File:Flag of the United Kingdom (1-2).svg to pointing at File:Flag of the United Kingdom (3-5).svg instead, then this whole lengthy discussion was much ado about nothing.
If it ever is, though, you already have my warning that this change will likely be noticed with displeasure by Commons’ primary user community (Wikipedia editors) — but you also have GPinkerton’s hopefully correct assurance that «will not meet particular opposition on aesthetic grounds, on the contrary».
-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 10:37, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

December 25[edit]

2016 in rail transport in Germany[edit]

In Category:2016 in rail transport in Germany I have moved a lot of files to lander categories. However a lot of files are inside pictures of the Hamburg-Köln-Express wich crosses four Lander. (NRW, Bremen, Lower-Saxony and Hamburg) Three pictures are taken in a (may be recognisable) station:

  • 2016-05-26 HKX Zug by Olaf Kosinsky-100.jpg
  • 2016-05-26 HKX Zug by Olaf Kosinsky-94.jpg
  • 2016-05-26 HKX Zug by Olaf Kosinsky-95.jpg

Can the station(s) be indentified? Smiley.toerist (talk) 18:46, 25 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Smiley.toerist Have you included those in Category:Unidentified train stations in Germany? I'd say Category:Unidentified locations in Germany in the 2010s is also relevant. You may get more results with someone who is already watching the subject matter than here. Ricky81682 (talk) 01:08, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What little we see of the station is very generic, it's hard to identify a station based on that. The photos were taken very early in the morning, there's hardly any people in them, and the train looks like it is at the beginning of its route. Which means the photos were most likely taken in the station where the train started. Per the reflections in some of the train windows, the train's destination is Hamburg-Altona, so the photos were taken at the other end of the route. In May 2016, per de:Hamburg-Köln-Express, that would have been Frankfurt am Main central station, also seen in the itinerary in File:2016-05-26 HKX Zug by Olaf Kosinsky-66.jpg. So my guess is Frankfurt (Main) Hbf. --Rosenzweig τ 16:31, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On the other hand, I noticed that these photos were taken 40 minutes later than the first photo, and the train seems to be in motion in some of the images before. So probably not the first station. If not Frankfurt, then perhaps Bingen or Koblenz. --Rosenzweig τ 17:37, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Smiley.toerist and Rosenzweig: I'd place my bets on Koblenz. The reflection in the third window from the left of File:2016-05-26 HKX Zug by Olaf Kosinsky-94.jpg shows HKX 1802's departure time: 09:59. According to the 2016 schedule, this corresponds exactly with Koblenz. Considering the markings on the platform and the background in File:2016-05-26 HKX Zug by Olaf Kosinsky-100.jpg, this train was probably waiting at platform 3. --HyperGaruda (talk) 12:41, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Very convincing, everything points to Koblenz indeed :-) --Rosenzweig τ 12:48, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alt text for Commons images as structured data[edit]

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T166094

Hi all! Following two discussions here on Commons (Commons:Village pump/Archive/2022/05#Making ALT text part of Commons, Commons:Village pump/Proposals/Archive/2022/05#Adding alt texts through structured data), discussion on Phabricator (T166094) and an extremely protracted property dicussion on Wikidata (Wikidata:Property proposal/alt text), the propery alt text (P11265) has been created recently. The first discussion linked above was closed with "The Commons community asks the SDC development team to add a structured data text field (like the caption field) for multilingual alt texts." -- while the ex-SDC team (now the Structured Data team, focused on a less Commons-specific project, Structured Data Across Wikimedia) wasn't involved (Wikidata is flexible enough that new fields can be added without any developer involvement), I think this is essentially the same thing, and so there is consensus to use the new property. Please let me know if you disagree!

I made an example of how the property would be used: File:Hungary-0057_-_Shoes_on_the_Danube_(7263603836).jpg#P11265 - again please let me know if you think there is anything wrong with it. Otherwise, I plan to write a documentation page soon.

Note that technically there is not one multilingual field but multiple monolingual fields in different languages; this is a long-standing Wikidata limitation (T86517). If Wikidata ever gets first-class multilingual field support, it should be a simple matter to migrate the data.

Note also that adding P11265 values to an image doesn't automatically do anything extra (e.g. adding the alt text to the image in a way browsers would understand), although I hope we'll get there soon. --Tgr (talk) 22:41, 25 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pinging the people who have been heavily involved in the previous discussions: @Jmabel, DrMel, Peaceray, Glrx, Andy Mabbett, El Grafo, and GPSLeo: . Also @CBogen (WMF): from the SD team, just as an FYI since the team was mentioned in the closing summary of a previous discussion. --Tgr (talk) 23:49, 25 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks fine. Now we would need to create at least a short page explaining how alt texts should be written. We have Help:Alternative text, but I think Commons namespace would be better if me make this a guideline later. And at the start we maybe should have an abuse filter marking the edits that we can see if there is a vandalism other problem with this. And of course when everything works fine we should think about adding this to the UploadWizard as well. GPSLeo (talk) 09:59, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The suggested default alt text: "Black and white photograph of a man with a tripod camera and pine trees in the background."
  • I do not like any of it. It violates some clear ideas.
    1. There is no doubt that one can use a database to store multilingual strings, but that does not seem to be the design approach of Wikidata or the advantageous part of structured data. Multilingual strings are atomic; they do not have structure. Wikidata items usually have properties that resolve to other items or quantities such as dates. Look at Franklin Delano Roosevelt (Q8007). It does not have properties whose values are multilingual strings. The translations are for items and properties: Франклин Делано Рузвельт (Q8007) and 富兰克林·德拉诺·罗斯福（Q8007）. Using them for alt text is using them outside their design intent.
    2. Alt text strings should to be tailored to the topic.
      https://accessibility.huit.harvard.edu/describe-content-images
      https://www.med.unc.edu/webguide/accessibility/alt-text/
    3. The notion of default strings being reasonable is dubious. An image may have many details, but only a subset will be important for a topic. The alt text (P11265) property proposal shows a portrait of Ansel Adams with alt text that does not mention his name. The tripod will be irrelevant in most contexts. The B&W aspect is important when considering AA's approach to his art. The Shoes on the Danube description, "Dozens of metal shoes clustered at the edge of a wharf," is a literal absurdity. It mentions nothing about the symbolism of those shoes being a memorial to murder victims. People were told to remove their shoes before they were shot and fell into the Danube.
    4. I disagree with the notion that generic alt text is better than no alt text.
    5. I fear that users uploading a picture to Commons will be pestered to supply dubious alt text.
    6. A far better approach, and an approach that fits usage, is to require alt text when an image is used in an article. That article will be monolingual, and it have a focused topic (where mentioning Ansel Adams or tripods will be obvious). If an image does not have explicit alt text, then the article should go into an automatic maintenance category. If the image should not be described, then set its alt text to "".
    Glrx (talk) 19:46, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • @Glrx: remember that pictures in articles nearly always have captions. The purpose of ALT text is distinct from that: to let blind or sight-limited people (or -- rare these days -- any person using a text-only browser) know what a sighted person sees when they look at the image. This feature was specifically requested by an organization working with blind people, with the specific intent of getting such texts translated into as many languages as possible. Contact User:DrMel if you want details: there are apparently a large number of people (mostly not current Wikimedians) wanting to work on this. - Jmabel ! talk 19:57, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would like to answer to some things you wrote. 1 and 2: I also do not think that this is a perfect solution but this is way better than using Wikitext templates. For 3 we need a guideline on how to write a good alt text description. 4: Of course good Wikipedia articles should have their own alt text but we also have many long or even auto generated lists. I think the new Wikifunctions also wants to have photos. 5: Yes we have a vandalism and spam problem, but also within the very old Wikitext descriptions. GPSLeo (talk) 20:47, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Glrx: contextuality was discussed several times in the linked pages. It's clear the majority thinks generic alt text is better than nothing. As to your other points:

  • See d:Special:ListProperties/monolingualtext for a list of properties with a text value. It is not in any way unusual. Sometimes it makes sense for the value itself to be a Wikidata item, and sometimes it doesn't.
  • The purpose of alt text is to provide the information that a reader can get directly from the image, and that readers with visual limitations would miss. So I think both examples you criticize are reasonable uses of alt text. The reader will no doubt learn from the article or the image caption who is shown on the image or what the shoes represent.
  • Fair point that forcing users to provide alt text might result in low-quality alt text (or, I guess, less uploads). There is little reason to do so, though. There are some types of metadata the uploader is uniquely well situated to provide - e.g. if they don't indicate the source, it can be very hard for others to figure it out. For alt text, though, it is just as easy for anyone else to provide it.
  • You (or anyone) should feel free to propose inline alt text to be required on the various Wikipedias; personally I don't think there is not much chance of such a proposal being accepted. A tracking category is doable but (with the possible exception of enwiki) there would be way too many articles in it to be of any practical use IMO. In any case, you'd probably still want alt text for various situations where an image is used outside of an article (not least the file description page itself).

--Tgr (talk) 03:38, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I created a sketch of how alt text could be used on Commons and on other Wikimedia wikis: T325955 Feedback welcome, here or on Phabricator.

(To be clear, this would probably have to happen on a volunteer basis, which means not soon, possibly not ever. I think it helps to have a map of possibilities regardless.) --Tgr (talk) 04:40, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I opposed the creation of a property for holding generic alt text every time it was propose, for the reasons enumerated above. I also requested that advice be sought from accessibility professionals; this was not done.
    The example given above of "Black and white photograph of a man with a tripod camera and pine trees in the background." is indeed a good example... of why generic alt text is not a good idea. If the photograph is used on a Wikipedia article on Ansel Adams (which seems to be its most common usage), then the fact that he has a hat and beard is pertinent. If it is used on the article on bellows cameras, then the fact that the camera in the picture is "probably a Zeiss Ikon Universal Juwel" is more relevant. But in both cases, what goes in the alt attribute will depend on what the editor puts in the caption. The use of this property is destined to harm, not aid, accessibility. It was ill-conceived, forced through despite failing to achieve consensus multiple times,and does not have the support of people who are, or who work with, users of alt text. It is no more than tokenism. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:54, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • @Pigsonthewing: again, this is mainly an accessibility issue. ALT text is not in lieu of a caption, and text browsers and accessibility tools for the blind will both read out captions just fine. What they won't do is describe what a sighted person will see in the picture. DrMel who first kicked this off is an accessibility expert (and I'm a little surprised not to have had her weigh in again on the current thread. - Jmabel ! talk 19:03, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Where do I say alt text is not an accessibility issue? Where do I say alt text is in lieu of a caption? Where do I say text browsers and accessibility tools for the blind will not read out captions correctly? Your comments bear no relation to mine. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:07, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • My point being that ALT text is supplementary to a caption. The things you are mentioning as relevant on a per-article basis will presumably be in the caption. Remember that generic advice about ALT text is based on the situation generally found on the web (but not on Wikipedia etc.) where there normally aren't any captions such. - Jmabel ! talk 16:33, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • Where do I say anything that suggests ALT text is not supplementary to a caption? My post says "If it is used on [an] article [...] what goes in the alt attribute will depend on what the editor puts in the caption.". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:48, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Pigsonthewing the point you would actually need to argue (but you didn't even try, which is probably why the consensus went against your liking in each of the past discussions) is that an alt text like "Black and white photograph of a man with a tripod camera and pine trees in the background" on an image used about bellows cameras is worse than not having alt text at all, leaving the visually impaired reader with a mystery image they have no clue about. Harping on about how alt text hand-tailored to the image + containing article can be better than alt text tailored to the image only misses the point; that option continues to be available.
    Also your counterexamples tend to be worse than the originals. E.g. "probably a Zeiss Ikon Universal Juwel" is something that should be in the caption if it is important, because the average sighted reader will sure as hell not know it just from looking at the image; and as pretty much every guidance about alt text warns, it should not repeat what is already in the caption. Tgr (talk) 00:44, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Consensus did not go against my liking in each of the past discussions; the proposal was rejected every time except the last one when it was bludgeoned trough. The point you say I should have argued was indeed argued; as I pointed out in the last round, it is unreasonable to keep bludgeoning in such fashion, requiring proponents with valid positions to repeatedly re-state them. And, once again, my post above says "If it is used on [an] article [...] what goes in the alt attribute will depend on what the editor puts in the caption.". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:40, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Earlier Wikidata proposals were rejected for different reasons(" It might be relevant to propose it again once structured data is available on Commons."; "discussion has stalled with no consensus for creation" after only three people commenting). For the more recent discussion, the people who opposed previous proposals specifically for context-dependence showed up and opposed again, the people who previously opposed for different reasons didn't oppose it as those reasons didn't apply anymore, and way more people showed up in support. "Bludgeoned through" is a funny thing to say about a discussion that was kept open for almost two years and had >75% support rate with detailed arguments. You said not fully contextualized alt text is worse than nothing, refused to argue for that position (you did not in fact do that in any of the earlier discussions either), most people weren't convinced. Horse, stick, etc. Or feel free to actually explain why you think a reader with visual disabilities is better served by no alt text at all than by alt text that's not contextualized to the article, instead of just repeating many times that that's what you think. Tgr (talk) 22:53, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

December 26[edit]

Category:AI generated images[edit]

Am i the only one worried these AI images are going to drown Wikimedia Commons at some point? There doesnt seem to be much consensus as to when AI generated art have educational value Trade (talk) 02:57, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Trade: any sense of how many there are now? I almost never see one, so I presume we are far from drowning at present. - Jmabel ! talk 03:11, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm worried too... Often such images are not even categorised as AI-generated. This user alone has uploaded eight hundred-odd artworks of questionable educational value. --HyperGaruda (talk) 05:29, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think we should have a specific policy requiring AI art to be categorized as such. Deliberately masquerading AI art as 'real' art is far more likely to cause problems in the future than merely using the wrong category on an image Trade (talk) 15:23, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed. Regarding David S. Soriano's uploads, see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by David S. Soriano. I think many of these are out of scope, and could be deleted. Yann (talk) 15:44, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Soriano uploads several pictures a day. By the time your deletion request is finished there will be 50 news ones that needs to be judged and dealt with. DR's alone are not a sustainable solution Trade (talk) 21:45, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Soriano's work is spam to me. No one is ever, ever going to use File:19th Century Riveboat.jpg on any article about 19th-century riverboats. There is no difference between those uploads and some random unknown artist uploading their work here as a personal webhost but call it AI work and people defend it for the principle I guess. If he had painted that, would people want it kept? I doubt it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 12:01, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll estimate roughly 900 images excluding the almost 1000 images uploaded by David S. Soriano
Regardless, would you not prefer we adress the influx of AI art before it becomes a problem rather than waiting until it's too late? Trade (talk) 03:30, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Trade, Jmabel, HyperGaruda, Yann, and Ricky81682: Alright, get cracking: Commons:AI generated media. (Feel free to edit boldly!) Nosferattus (talk) 02:54, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speaking about newly created AI works, considering that they can be created on demand pretty much, it might make sense to require them to be in use. There should be no rush in uploading files that can be created when needed. Also, like (non-AI) amateur art, it sometimes can be difficult for someone who is not the creator to find a use case, especially when the file page has no documentation with that in mind. This could be different with high-profile AI works (that are typically not created by Commons users) with stories to tell based on reputable sources. whym (talk) 10:18, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, I tried to generate with DALL-E images of people when we don't have one available with a free license (e.g. en:Michel Audiard), but so far I didn't get any satisfying result. I suppose that these people don't have sufficient number of images available of the Internet for AI to be able to create a realistic portrait. DALL-E often got confused with people of similar names. Yann (talk) 12:28, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How could an AI generate a free image of someone when there are no free images of that person? An AI will train with existing copyrighted images of that individual, producing a derivative work of an unknown number of unsourced, copyrighted images. Platonides (talk) 14:39, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wiki Loves Plants 2023[edit]

Wikimedia South Africa is planning to launch Wiki Loves Plants 2023 in January. The event will run from mid-January to the end of February 2023. The event will take place on iNatralist so as to get the correct taxonomy of the plants submitted. A requirement of the competition is that all images will be submitted under a copyright licence compatible with Commons. This will allow us to upload qualifying submissions to commons, from iNatralist, so that they can be used to illustrate articles on Wikipedia. I have put in a submission for a banner ad to run from mid-January to mid-February. I apologise for only posting this here now but, I am ashamed to admit, it only occurred to me to post about it on the Commons Village Pump now. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments about this event.--Discott (talk) 13:37, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think the banner needs more discussion. As far as I know we never had a competition promoted in a banner campaign running outside of the Wikimedia projects and where a separate account is needed. GPSLeo (talk) 14:56, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
GPSLeo, that is a good point. I will ask the admins at central notice to hold off for a bit until a decision has been made on the banner ad campaign. We did at first plan to run this event in Commons like we did with the Wiki Loves Fynbos event last year (a sub-event of Wiki Loves Science 2021 in South Africa) which was a test event for this one. However we really struggled with getting the correct taxonomy of submitted photographs. iNatralist was a suggested by multiple botanists we approached for that event as it solves the problem of getting lots of pictures correctly identified whilst also opening the event (and participating in the Wiki movement) up to a broader community of people interested in the natural world. It was at the suggestion of some senior community members at iNatralist that it was decided to move the focal point of the competition from Commons to iNatralist as it a) streamlined the process of identifying submissions, b) made it easier for that community to learn about and participate in the event, and c) increase awareness amongst this community of why using a Commons compatible CC licence is a good thing. --Discott (talk) 16:47, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Discott: CentralNotice banners require a landing page in a domain owned by WMF or recognized affiliate (see FAQ). Ciell (talk) 13:06, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Isn't that more an 'iNaturalist loves' kind of thing, then? Since it's not on-wiki? I also wonder, if iNaturalist is better than us at identifying plants (automatically?), there might be a way to run uncategorised photos of plants here through their approach to help sort out that backlog? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 12:51, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Mike Peel, in answer to your questions, yes (I guess) and yes (for sure). Yes I guess in a way it is kinda like an 'iNaturalist loves' kind of thing even though the primary purpose of the event is "photographs for use on Wikipedia". However I don't think we can use the iNatralist name in that way without having a big iNatralist community discussion. Having said that I think that would be a good thing to do for the next iteration of this event and it is a nice bridge building exercise between the Wiki and iNatralist communities. As for running uncategorised photos on commons through iNatralist to get the correct taxonomy, I can see that working well. The iNatralist community and site is almost entirely geared for that purpose and they would be delighted to have the extra pictures. On a different issue, one of our chapter members who is very active on iNatralist has suggested that we (WMF + community) should ask iNatralist to build in a button that would allow for automated uploads of submitted photos from iNatralist to Commons if the author of the picture so chooses. I really like that idea but I can see it taking some time to get done.--Discott (talk) 14:20, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Such button exists. Just check any category page of a species. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:09, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Discott: I think there's a tool called iNaturalist2Commons for that. Nosferattus (talk) 12:57, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've used this one a few times in the past, and my experience with it was quite positive! There is also a (semi-automated?) License review procedure for the imported iNaturalist images. Ciell (talk) 13:09, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oops, yes, you’re right: I see it in every category page of a species because I have installed iNaturalist2Commons in my preferences. To be able to use it, Discott should do the same. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 10:13, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was meaning the other way around: take images from, say, Category:Unidentified plants and pass them to iNaturalist to see if they could help ID them. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:30, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As for the banner, I love the idea. Don’t care if it’s not really an WMF idea. It will be a great addition for the project and should be supported and widely announced (unlike several less-than-great WMF ideas whose banners spam us so often). -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:11, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

deletion of images from Lake Bonneville page[edit]

Explain why two images were deleted from page. We assume they were deleted by user Wouterhagens. Please help us understand! Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Staplini (talk • contribs) 18:48, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Convenience links: File:Wasatch Fault and Lake Bonneville.jpg and File:Image of Lake Bonneville shorelines.png. Wouter (talk) 22:29, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Staplini: apparently the two images were grabbed from the Internet, from unfree websites. "Google" is the cited reason. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:54, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They were obvious Google Earth screenshots with the actual "Google Earth" name and in one case even a copyright notice ("Map data © 2019 Google") clearly visible. Please read Commons:Licensing for an explanation why that is not allowed. --Rosenzweig τ 15:41, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

December 27[edit]

Pinging etiquette[edit]

Do we have a etiquette guide for pinging other users? For example, notice how I keep pinging relevant users in Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Benlisquare (and wondering why they don’t ping each other), and no one is pinging me. I have that page on my watchlist, but perhaps other users would prefer to be notified via pings. Or perhaps they have that page on their watchlist too, and find the pings a nuisance. But, in general, I would expect a discussion tool to notify a user when someone replies to their comments. So I am really confused. Brianjd (talk) 13:58, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Brianjd: I ping as a matter of common courtesy when writing about or replying to a user in good standing. I can count on one hand the number of users I have pinged who actively resist pinging. OTOH, the vast majority of users I ping don't ping me back when replying, despite "please ping or talk to me" in my signature. Some people are incomplete in their attempts at pinging - per mw:Extension:Echo#Usage, one must link to another user's page and sign in the same edit (or mention in an Edit Summary) in order to effectively mention, notify, or ping them, and even then only if they have "Notify me when someone links to my user page" set (which is the default here).   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:34, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Brianjd: Well, not that I am aware of any netiquette, but it goes without saying pinging completely random unrelated users is discouraged. In my opinion a MediaWiki isn’t the best tool to hold (extensive) discussions anyways. The Echo extension is really just that: an extension to make MW more usable for such purposes nevertheless. ‑‑ Kays (T | C) 01:47, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Kai Burghardt I agree that pinging completely random unrelated users is discouraged, but the user you are replying to is about as far way from a completely random unrelated user[] as you can get. Brianjd (talk) 03:16, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You did ping me, though. That’s good. But the users in that DR were not pinging each other, and that was a similar situation. Brianjd (talk) 03:18, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jeff G. and Kai Burghardt: Special:Diff/721965825 contains a long complaint about pings that might be worth reading. Brianjd (talk) 00:40, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Brianjd: Thanks, it takes all kinds.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:06, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

December 28[edit]

International relations templates[edit]

Looking over the various Category:International relations by year subcategories, I have seen a number of templates like Template:Relations of New Zealand and Poland by year for individual relationships but they only have one continent. For example, Category:Relations of New Zealand and Poland in 2008 shows Relations of Poland in 2008 but only pulls the Countries of Oceania template so New Zealand and Australia shows up but none of the others at Category:2008 in international relations of Poland. It would seem like we need to have many continent template calls ('Poland and' and 'and Poland') if we wanted the page to show all the relations of Poland in 2008. Should we rename it to 'Relations of Poland and Oceania countries in 2008' or does a template inside the template that calls each continent and both directions be added to the NZ/Poland template or should the whole section be junked? Ricky81682 (talk) 08:07, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seizure risks[edit]

Let’s continue the discussion at Commons:Village pump/Archive/2022/12#Seizure risks, now that Commons:Deletion requests/File:Color Flash.gif has been closed. There was a lot of discussion about seizure risks in that DR, but also suggestions that seizure risks were off-topic there. So let’s discuss those risks properly here.

Pinging @Dronebogus, Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), Tuvalkin, Capmo, Enhancing999, Glrx, Kai Burghardt, Red-tailed hawk, P199 as users involved in those discussions. Brianjd (talk) 13:46, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We should do something, rather than letting those vulnerable to seizures stumble upon File:Color Flash.gif and any similar files.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:05, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have to admit I'm rather perplexed as why that image was even kept .... Is the file being used ? No .... Did anyone in the DR actually elaborate on why it should be kept and what purpose this image would serve ? .... No ..... So why's it still here ?,
Anyway there should be some sort of overlay-warning on the video before the video plays (similar to TikTok[5]), I don't have epilepsy but I find it highly annoying nonetheless and putting warnings in the desc area such as here is pointless as the video immediately plays before the reader gets to even do anything .... so if putting a warning overlay over the video before it plays is doable then I'd support that or failing that the image should be deleted. –Davey2010Talk 16:46, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pinging @P199 as keeping Admin.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:52, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have stated the closing decision in the DR (the majority felt it was in scope). No comments on the "seizure risk" - i'm rather skeptical about that. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 18:46, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I feel like any seizure template would just be mindlessly spammed on almost every gif that changes colors Trade (talk) 02:44, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@P199 Skeptical about what? Seizure risks from flashing seem to be well-established. Brianjd (talk) 07:46, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On second thoughts I've changed my mind, Lets not discuss seizure risks because there are no seizure risks here (if there were this would've been deleted", I see nothing wrong with this image nor do I see any need to further waste the communities time with this rubbish. –Davey2010Talk 20:16, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Davey2010 Several comments address the purpose of this file, particularly this one:
Comment. According to https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/best-software-solutions-to-fix-a-stuck-pixel-on-your-lcd-monitor/ , flashing colors may fix stuck pixels. Glrx (talk) 16:48, 13 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Brianjd (talk) 07:49, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Brianjd Except we're not a guide on "how to fix your computer" and if people needed to find flashy images then they would search "flashy images" on Google .... No one would ever come here for pc issues.... –Davey2010Talk 20:13, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment.
The seizure risk is real. About 2.7 million in the US population have epilepsy, and 3 to 5 percent of those are photosensitive. Figure about 100,000 individuals in a population of 350 million: 0.000286 → about 300 per million.
GIF is an old format. Static bitmaps are probably better done as JPEG or PNG. Their valuable feature is the ability to do animations.
I want WMF to directly serve some SVG files. Some SVG files may be more compact than their PNG stils. SVG also offers user interaction. Interaction can be a security risk (e.g., taking a user to a malicious site). Placing SVG into an HTML img element disables those interactions and improves security. SVG can also do animations (which are not blocked by img elements). One of the points against directly serving SVG was the PSE risk with animations. WMF was allowing animated GIFs to play at load, but it was reluctant to let any other file format play on load.
During the above DR discussion, it came up that those with PSE can prevent their browser from playing animated GIFs by using a browser extension. There was comment about such extensions being poorly supported and having scary installation steps. Nevertheless, it seems prudent that someone with PSE would install such an extension. I took the availability of such extensions as the reason why WMF would allow animated GIFs to autoplay but disallow other formats. IF PSE users disable animated GIFs, then the problem is moot and WMF need not worry.
WMF allows GIFs to autoplay, so embedding warnings in filenames or in file descriptions is too late. The GIF will flash before the user would see any warning. What options would be effective? While some GIFs are out of scope or even malicious, there probably are in-scope PSE-triggering files.
The appropriate place for the PSE circuit breaker is under the user's control in the browser, but the support for such circuit breakers has diminished rather than increased. It makes more sense to implement the protection in a few browsers rather than every website.
Commons could say that PSE-triggering files should not exist in GIF format. That would prevent them from playing on load. If a PSE GIF is found, then convert it to some other format such as a video or SVG. (During the DR, it was pointed out that the flash rate of the GIF was above common video rates; it may not be possible to convert all files to another supported format.)
Glrx (talk) 20:21, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Glrx: FYI, maybe this issue warrants a proposal to the upcoming meta: Community Wishlist Survey 2023? I still think browser vendors are in charge of addressing usability, though, including disabilities and such. But if it’s our responsibility, there needs to be a technically-aided solution detecting problematic media and preventing them from automatic playback, in thumbnails, on the file description page, everywhere. ‑‑ Kays (T | C) 02:48, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Glrx and Kai Burghardt: Like I said at the DR, MDN Web Docs says that the website operator is responsible. Any developers here who can comment on what the developer community thinks? Brianjd (talk) 03:14, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Any website should be responsible for the content it hosts.
That does not mean browsers should ignore the problem / not offer to disable animations.
Until the w:Halting problem is solved, a browser will not be able to stop all threats.
There are limits. Some people have severe peanut allergies, but that does not mean peanuts should be banned or eradicated. What steps are appropriate?
Glrx (talk) 19:07, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Glrx: No JPEG image can ever be a suitable replacement for a GIF image — unless the GIF format was incorrectly chosen (for, say, a photograph original), but in that case resaving the GIF’s pixels in JPEG format would just compund the error: one would need to access the original image (in whatever non-lossy format) for that.
If you want to say that any non-animated GIF file can be losslessly resaved as PNG, then you are fully correct (PNG format can even retain detailed palette information, which is critical for some GIFs); no need to name-drop JPEG.
Why is this matter even relevant for the discussion of an animated GIF file, though?
-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 10:19, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

December 29[edit]

Speedy deletion of in-scope files[edit]

This discussion arose out of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Anas Khan Hindi.jpg.

It seems clear to me that when a file is clearly in scope (for example, because it is legitimately in use), then it is not eligible for speedy deletion under criteria like G3, G10 and F10. In short, if a file is useful, the uploader’s intentions don’t matter.

But Uhai says that this is incorrect: scope is irrelevant unless mentioned in the speedy deletion criteria. For example, COM:CSD#F10 says:

Personal photos by non-contributors
Low-to-medium quality selfies and other personal images of or by users who have no constructive global contributions.

Since personal photos is not actually defined anywhere, it could include files that are in scope. And nothing else refers to scope.

As I wrote this, I realised that this analysis was incorrect: a user who uploaded an in-scope file has a constructive global contribution, so F10 does not apply. But the broader question remains about whether in-scope files should be excluded from these sorts of speedy deletion criteria. Brianjd (talk) 09:26, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • How is the file in scope? It even isn't in use. It sounded like the only "use" was the user spamming the image and spamming the image isn't in scope. What is the constructive global contribution for the user? Uploading another image and asking for it to be deleted are not constructive contributions. Else, en:User talk:Bazmelahooti shows that everything else was deleted. What are you asking for? If a user uploads an image and creates spam articles for their image, the image is thus automatically in-scope, in-use, and the user has created a constructive global contribution? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:35, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Ricky81682 This discussion isn’t about Anas Khan Hindi.jpg. That file is being discussed at the DR, where it is headed for deletion, which I do not oppose.
    This discussion is about the general question of whether in-scope files are eligible for speedy deletion. Uhai’s comments seem to imply that certain files should be speedily deleted even if they are (or could be) in scope, and that taking them to a DR discussion is a waste of time. Brianjd (talk) 11:54, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You are correct that these illegitimate uses do not automatically make a file be in scope. But there is nothing wrong with having a discussion about whether the uses really are illegitimate or whether the file is in scope for some other reason. The answers to those questions might be obvious to you, but they won’t be obvious to everyone, which is why we have these discussions. Brianjd (talk) 11:57, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Brianjd What is your concern? Are you arguing we need to define "personal photos" because of what scenario? I can only go with the specific example at hand which follows almost every part of F10. Is it possible that someone uploads a useful, personal photo and doesn't contribute elsewhere that I guess is used in an article, be listed for F10 and could have an admin decide to delete the image anyways? It has maybe happened before but I highly doubt that. People aren't hunting around to delete good, useful images out of spite. Ricky81682 (talk) 12:09, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for creating this, Brianjd.
Really, F10 is incredibly vague and I've seen administrators enforce it very differently. To be clear, my interpretation of F10 is that personal files, meaning files that are of oneself (e.g. portraits/selfies) or otherwise pertain to oneself (e.g. scans of one's signature), are eligible for deletion if the user has no constructive global contributions, plural. What I look for when nominating is at least 2-3 non-reverted and non-trivial (not minor punctuation, whitespace, or spelling changes) mainspace edits on another wiki. I also look for the file author field to say own work, the user's own username, or an obvious alternate/sockpuppet account of the uploader. If the file is in apparently legitimate use in a wiki's mainspace, I won't nominate it. If it's in use in a user space, it's fair game if it fails the other criteria I look for. If it's in use in the draft space on the English Wikipedia, I also consider it fair game as it will generally be an autobiography. While autobiographies are explicitly not disallowed on said wiki, they are usually deleted by most admins under that wiki's CSD G11 criterion de facto for self-promotion because they usually contain other problems and have wikipedia:WP:SNOW chance of making it into the mainspace. My understanding of F10 is a common sense interpretation (to me, at least) and is derived from F10's proposal and subsequent discussion.
It's clear from my contributions on Commons that most of what I do is nominate files for F10 deletion. I typically end up on Commons after encountering problematic material on the English Wikipedia. I also do some data mining on meta:Quarry to identify files that have been re-uploaded after having been previously deleted for F10 to combat reuploads of problematic files. I don't have a vendetta against selfies themselves or against unequivocally constructive editors uploading personal files to, say, have on their user page to express themselves. I do have a problem with single-purpose users who have contributed nothing or next to nothing who try to use Wikimedia projects as social media or for self-promotion. Selfies uploaded by the latter form of users are clearly out of Commons' scope regardless of if they are used on a user or draft page somewhere. Once those users have some constructive contributions? Absolutely, feel free to reupload.
Regarding inconsistencies in enforcement, I've had admins decline my F10 nominations when the uploading users' only two global contributions are to upload the image on Commons and put the image on their user page on some wiki. This, in my opinion, is an inappropriate rationale for declining F10. On the other hand, I've also had admins seemingly share my understanding of F10 and delete files that have been in use in user spaces.
Ultimately, I think we need to clarify what F10 is for. Should a personal image by a non-contributor being in use anywhere automatically disqualify it from F10? What exactly defines a personal image? What defines a non-contributor? Can such a file still be nominated for regular deletion? If so, can't we just save time by applying common sense to speedily delete files from people clearly trying to use Wikimedia projects for social media or advancement of their own self-interest? These files have no educational value, after all, when the purpose of Commons is, of course, to host educational content. Uhai (talk) 13:37, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
File:Anas Khan Hindi.jpg is clearly not in scope. This user is blocked on the English Wikipedia, and has 3 remaining edits on Commons after cleaning. So not an active Wikimedia contributors. On another discussion, there was a consensus that around 300 useful contributions on Wikimedia is needed to be allowed for one's own pictures. Yann (talk) 12:14, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
COM:INUSE briefly mentions an exception to the if-it-is-in-use-it-is-in-scope rule: It should be stressed that Commons does not overrule other projects about what is in scope. If an image is in use on another project (aside from use on talk pages or user pages), that is enough for it to be within scope. Note the clause "aside from use on talk pages or user pages". --HyperGaruda (talk) 12:10, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To be hypertechnical, and staying on the example that started this discussion, looking at the user's talk page, the user created the same page in draftspace there. I don't think we need to revise INUSE for drafts as drafts are a good use of Commons materials. Ricky81682 (talk) 12:23, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NSW infobox oddness[edit]

The wikidata infobox for NSW is still saying that Gladys Berejiklian is the Premier, but I have updated Wikidata to say that Dominic Perrottet is the Premier. It doesn't seem to be updating in Category:New South Wales. Anyone know why? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 12:34, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Chris.sherlock2 It was only just changed? The leadership changed hands changed more than a year ago.
Anyway, the category infobox does say Perrottet for me. Brianjd (talk) 13:45, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, it says Dominic Perrottet (2021–). While the name is correct, I don’t understand the (2021–) bit. It implies that an end date should (eventually) be listed, but that will never happen. Brianjd (talk) 13:48, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why is that? He'll eventually no longer be the Premier. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 14:11, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Chris.sherlock2 Yes, then the new leader will be listed instead of him, just as he is now listed instead of Berejiklian. Brianjd (talk) 14:37, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Chris.sherlock2: Hi, and welcome. You left the rank of Gladys Berejiklian as Preferred. I demoted her to Normal and promoted Dominic Perrottet to Preferred in these edits, and then I refreshed the cat, producing the desired result.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:53, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah! Thank you so much! - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 14:11, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Chris.sherlock2: You're welcome!   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:39, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jeff G. Why are humans still doing this sort of thing manually? Why is the rank required at all? Why can’t the infobox just look up the most recent entry? Brianjd (talk) 14:39, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I assumed that the infobox did look up the most recent entry (as did the other user, apparently) until you explained otherwise. Brianjd (talk) 14:40, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Brianjd and Chris.sherlock2: I undid my promotion of Dominic Perrottet to Preferred, and now they all show, is that what you want? It appears the logic is not smart enough to figure out from the dates which is current.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:51, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jeff G. I wasn’t complaining about you promoting Perrottet to Preferred; I was just saying that users shouldn’t have to do that manually, or at all, because the infobox should work without that promotion.
Do we want to show all of them or just the latest one? I think convention is to show just the latest one, although showing all of them clears up my concerns about the dates above. Either way should be OK as long as there are not too many items. Does anyone else want to offer an opinion here? Brianjd (talk) 03:10, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Brianjd: I agree that showing all 46 Premiers of NSW (or all 46 Presidents of the US) would be too much, but we only have 5 Premiers of NSW in Wikidata. I also agree that it would be nice if the stuff behind the scenes would interpret the dates to make the showing of only the sitting head of government happen in the future. However, until then, I now understand that the many hands which adjust the names or dates for heads of government after every election for every government in Wikidata are supposed to adjust the ranks as appropriate in the same edit session. I would like input from @Chris.sherlock2 about promotion of Perrottet.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 06:05, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is there a way of manually excluding what fields get imported from Wikidata? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 06:09, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It has occurred to me that we need to add the Premiers to the executive body, this is the area it encompasses. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 19:00, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mike Peel: .--RZuo (talk) 15:20, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is possible to exclude fields, but that's generally discouraged - it's better to sort things out properly on Wikidata instead. Same with ranking values if needed - that's something that could probably be done by a bot on Wikidata, if there's consensus to do it that way (you could request this at d:Wikidata:Bot_requests). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:35, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How would one include all the 46 or so Premiers and only include the last 5 though? The data is still relevant. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 10:50, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The infobox cuts off after a maximum number, but the ordering is entirely arbitrary - it doesn't use the date qualifiers. That could potentially be added - the place to request that is Template talk:Wikidata Infobox. Listing only the current one makes most sense to me, though. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:09, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It doesn’t use anything now… is this intended? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 19:53, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Chris.sherlock2: My experience today is contrary to yours yesterday, and the Wikidata item hasn't changed in the meantime.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:00, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It looks good now! Thanks to whoever resolved this :-) - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 23:03, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are non country related photographs by date categories allowed?[edit]

I created Category:Bird photographs by date because I thought it was useful. User:A.Savin has asked me to seek consensus on this before I create more categories. One of the reasons why I created it was because of the existing Category:Railway photographs by date which was created in 2018 (by User:Slambo) and currently has over 6,000 subcategories. Sahaib (talk) 14:51, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Sahaib: Railways can evolve (and devolve) rather frequently. Bird species, on the other hand, can take a much longer period of time to evolve (and devolve). OTOH, A.Savin can explain more than in User talk:Sahaib#Categories.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:58, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is also Category:Aviation photographs by date which was created in 2020 (by User:Kolforn). Sahaib (talk) 15:20, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was prompted by @L. Beck: on these categories. --A.Savin 15:38, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as huge waste of time and potential watchlist hyperspamming. Country photographs by date are making sense due to current events that change each day. Railway photographs by date do not make sense to me, yet there seems to be some consensus for them, and railways are changing in time, being built or defunct. Birds may change their appearance seasonally, but not over years. Not everything that "costs nothing" automatically makes sense for usability on Commons. We should not encourage to create categories such as "Human penis photographs taken on...". Where is the borderline between desired and not? Better invest human resources in improving database tools which allow to find photographs on any given subject at any given date to anyone who wishes. Regards --A.Savin 15:38, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    +1 Lukas Beck (talk) 15:49, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Is "by date" relevant to the other categories it's being used with? For most human endeavours, it is. For most natural subjects it isn't, except in the cases where human intervention is changing that (broadly considered, as climate change and environmental damage is certainly date-sensitive). Or cases such as volcanic explosions, where the natural world produces a datable event. So I would be against "birds by date", but would support narrower groups such as "red kites in Wales by year" as a famous species re-introduction from near-extinction.
I also don't see the point in qualifying almost any categories as "photographs". Photographs are just our stock in trade here, it's what we do. We might distinguish drawings of birds where useful, but those are the more specific case, photographs the default. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:00, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Having a maintenance category (hidden, after all) classifying files by-day-the-photograph-was-taken-is-useful. Apparently we have Category:Photographs by date by country. It could have been simply "Photographs by date", without the "country" part. But it wasn't. Beyond that, creating parallel "branches" of hidden by-day-photograph-categories (of aviation, of birds, of politicians, of trains,...) is a tremendous waste of resources IMO. "By date" is not only 'by day', it may also include 'by year', 'by decade', 'by century', etc, that may be a more appropiate categorisation level to start with (i. e. railway, aviation). Strakhov (talk) 16:17, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. I agree with L. Beck on all points. I think it's satisfactory to have an image categorized by the bird species, a month category for the location (city/state/country, depending on the area) and the individual date of photograph. If someone is looking at individual photographs by date, I doubt they care for the particularity of the animals within that date (I assume we may need a plants/mammals by date eventually under this scheme). Are there bird species categories large enough to even justify Category:Birds by year? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:50, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Online meeting about Wikimedia Commons[edit]

Wikimedia Commons: rescue is close! Or, is it?

Hello, German Wikipedia invites for January, 5th, 2023! We will talk about the history and future of Wikimedia Commons. With us we will have guests from the Wikimedia Foundation, to report what is going on right now.

The first hour of the evening (starting at 19.00h CET = UTC+1) will be in German and the second hour (20.00h, with our guests) in English.

More information (in German) and the link to the Senfcall meeting you will find on this page. Everyone is invited! Ziko van Dijk (talk) 18:09, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Doubts about an old map[edit]

Appreciated community, I have a doubt:

I'm considering upload to Commons this 1972 map, called "The floor of the oceans, but I'm kinda confused in relation with the "admissibility" of that map in regards of the license.

My question is: can I upload this map to Commons in the near future? I need an answer as soon as possible.

Thanks in advance, greetings from Colombia and God bless you. Universalis (talk) 19:31, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Unlikely to be acceptable for Commons.
Material on Commons needs to be "freely licensed", either not under copyright, or under copyright but with a licence granted by its rights holder to allow some (fairly generous) use of it despite. See COM:LICENSING. This is an absolute requirement.
Some material can be used on Wikipedias under "fair use". The material is considered so important and so unavailable elsewhere that we 'stretch' our assumed right to use it. That is not permissible here on Commons though.
This is a 1972 work by a cartographer who lived until 2015.[6] Under most international rules, that's going to remain their copyright for decades yet.
Some altruistic library might have been gifted the rights to this, and have then chosen to license them to projects like Commons (we have many photo archives like that, see Commons:Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed for one). But that is not a common thing and not something we can ever assume, unless negotiated for and specificallly informed. Sadly the AGS map library[7] is also doing a poor job by failing to publish any copyright information for their content, so we can only assume the most restrictive case. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:30, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

December 30[edit]

Template to mark media with official (non copyright restrictions)..[edit]

Prompted by File:Australian Government Digital COVID-19 Vaccination Certificate Sample 20210604.png.

On wikipedia, a document like this would be tagged with w:Template:Ir-Official, to indicate that it may be subject to non-copyright restrictions as it has status as an official document.

That template does not currently exist on Commons. Is someone able to import and translate that template, or is there an equivalent on Commons already? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:11, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ShakespeareFan00: Category:Non-copyright restriction templates is a good starting point. --HyperGaruda (talk) 11:25, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
{{Governmental work}} has the same intent, but sounds less official. --HyperGaruda (talk) 11:37, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That template seems to me seems to address a different issue. Here the issue was specifically to do with it being subject to provisions against counterfeiting, fraud etc. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:13, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't have import rights on Commons, or i would have already copied the relevant template over. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:14, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
stop slapping files with these redundant warning templates already. does commons need to write down on File:US one dollar bill, obverse, series 2009.jpg that users should not print it out and try buying stuff with it, deface it (18 U.S. Code § 333), etc...?--RZuo (talk) 15:20, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1st level subcats for country cats[edit]

what topics should be directly contained by for example Category:Thailand? alternatively, this question would be which topics should be directly contained by Category:Topics? has there been discussion about this? (enwp does it like this en:Category:Main topic classifications.)

for example, in art, geography, history, people... are most commonly found in a country cat, but "politicians" would not be, because "politicians" go under "people" and "politics".--RZuo (talk) 15:20, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • @RAuo: Your example is certainly correct, but it's still hard to make a full set of rules on this. My best advice is "model it on practice for other countries." A lot of things on Commons are accomplished by loose consensus, and this is one of them. We do not have a hard-and-fast schema,=. - Jmabel ! talk 16:43, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
something new
i'll go straight to the actual problem.
look at Category:Peru or Category:Germany. someone is implementing something new, such that many rather "top-level" subcats are now hidden under just a handful of most generic subcats, or Category:Peru by topic Category:Germany by topic.
then Category:Germany by topic becomes so bloated. Internet, Military equipment, Projectile weapons... certainly shouldnt be on the same level as geography, politics... RZuo (talk) 18:05, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@RZuo: Agreed, that sounds very poorly done. - Jmabel ! talk 00:29, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Let's not forget about the already existing Category:Categories of Germany by topic and the like. --HyperGaruda (talk) 12:14, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I don't think we'll ever settle this from a top-down approach. We have to basically attack each category one level below and decide if something like Category:Hackerspaces in Germany is a top-level topic (I doubt it) or should remain under Culture and Technology as it current is. It also violates that categorization rule but I have fought people who think an image of a building in Germany from the 1940s belongs at the main category because it's a pretty picture that everyone should see from the front of the category. This will have to be RFC-by-RFC'd to death. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 12:30, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
i dont suggest we make a list to be strictly followed, but i think we can come up with a "recommended list of 1st level subcats". the list is not only applicable to countries but also anything larger than cities. some consistency allows easier navigation, because users expect to find the same things in the same positions. the list would not be a hindrance to include anything else in the main cat.--RZuo (talk) 07:22, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A note of appreciation[edit]

Can I say, Commons is way more civil than another project I’ve experienced. Thank you for this, it makes it easier to correct mistakes after I make them! I thought you all should know. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 19:04, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

January 01[edit]

Lady Grizel Winifred Louisa Cochrane.jpg[edit]

Could somebody check out the copyright for the above image. It’s been uploaded by User:Hogyncymru as their own work, with an acknowledgement to Alexander Bassano. It’s clearly Bassano’s original photo, although it’s been re-touched/coloured. This would suggest that the copyright for the original image sits with the National Portrait Gallery, [8]. Many thanks. KJP1 (talk) 00:36, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The copy owned by Gwrych predates the purchase by National gallery in the 70's, you targeted my content because you got disgruntled with me on Mari Lwyd's talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mari_Lwyd), you mocked my contribution (and even mentioned in the comment that it may offend me), you really shouldn't be targeting other editors like this. Hogyncymru (talk) 01:48, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Link to File:Lady Grizel Winifred Louisa Cochrane.jpg. Hogyncymru, that is a confusing description in the licensing. It looks like this is the original 1909 photograph which would be public domain because en:Alexander Bassano died in 1913. Did you restore and modify it yourself? If so, why did you write under permission "Gwrych Castle Preservation Trust"? Did the trust restore it or did you do it as a work-for-hire that requires that trust's approval? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:29, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Gwrych Castle preservation trust owns an old copy to which I scanned in and edited, the edited version (the one you see uploaded) was done so by myself. I volunteer for Gwrych and the content I created is made for them, they have given me the permission to upload the final piece to wikimedia. the person in the image was the daughter of the countess who lived at the castle, to which; Gwrych has an extensive archive which holds old items related to that family.
    (Feel free to contact the trust directly to ask; if I volunteer, if they own a copy, did I colour the copy for them, was I authorised to publish it to wikimedia) Hogyncymru (talk) 14:38, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    there're three ways that help verify the permission, which you could have done:
    1. com:vrt
    2. Gwrych Castle preservation trust publishes a statement on their website https://www.gwrychcastle.co.uk/ or social media accounts to explain that this wiki account is authorised by them.
    3. Gwrych Castle preservation trust publishes the files on flickr and then you import the files using Special:UploadWizard or com:F2C.
    as for the photo, its photographer seems to be anonymous according to https://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portrait/mw213580/Lady-Grizel-Winifred-Louisa-Hamilton-ne-Cochrane . then, either "If the work is a photograph with an unknown author taken before 1 June 1957 then copyright expires 70 years after creation or, if during that period the work is made available to the public, 70 years after that.", or "For commissioned works made prior to 1 July 1912, the 1862 Fine Arts Copyright Act governs, stating that copyright of a painting, drawing, or photograph done for or on behalf of another person "for good and valuable consideration" belongs to the commissioner.". the commissioner Alexander Bassano died in 1913 and so copyright expired.--RZuo (talk) 14:54, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thanks RZuo, will send an email through via the trust to validate. regards. Hogyncymru (talk) 15:47, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commons Gazette 2023-01[edit]

Happy New Year! Happy Public Domain Day!

Staff changes[edit]

In December 2022, 2 sysops were removed. Currently, there are 189 sysops.

(The global ban was applied to 16 users. Some statements about the global ban by WMFOffice: 1 2 3.)

Other news[edit]

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T36928

After more than 10 years and campaign efforts by many Commons users, user right sboverride was finally created in July 2022. This user right would allow users edit while overriding m:Spam blacklist.

Edited by RZuo (talk).

Commons Gazette is a monthly newsletter of the latest important news about Wikimedia Commons, edited by volunteers. You can also help with editing!

--RZuo (talk) 07:04, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chubut province copyright[edit]

According to Copyright rules in Argentina, contents from the Government of Chubut website are licensed under a CC-4.0 license. But the site (https://www.chubut.gov.ar/) has a copyright notice at bottom (with no mention of a CC license).

As a result, {{CC-AR-GobChubut}} would not be a valid template anymore. How could this be solved? Does this template need a redirect (as it was done with PD-AR-Gov tag on this previous discussion? Your feedback and advices will be very useful. Fma12 (talk) 20:34, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's only used 9 times. Replace with {{Cc-by-4.0}} and {{LicenseReview}}. For the files that the web archive has a copy, we can do the review and keep them. The other files and {{CC-AR-GobChubut}} should probably be deleted. Multichill (talk) 22:02, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

January 02[edit]

Upload form says I am already uploading[edit]

The upload wizard form, on a cell phone, always says "There was an error in your submission You are already uploading the file "....jpg". Maybe I am on a too fast connection today. Anyway it's just a minor bother, because I can still upload the file. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jidanni (talk • contribs) 08:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jidanni: Hi, and welcome. That looks like a bug, please see mw:How to report a bug and COM:SIGN.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:20, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If its the UploadWizard, then it is a bug, that I reported a number of times to phab over the years. You can upload up to 150 (500) files with the UW in one go. After that the UW asks, if you want to upload more files. If you say yes, you can select another bunch of files and after the first upload starts, it will complain "you are already uploading this file". You can (must) click away this message and the upload will go on. The chances that this gets fixed after another bug report are rather low - it works in a way. C.Suthorn (talk) 19:55, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Bridelia_micrantha_leaves_12_08_2010.JPG claims it is being used in Category:Bridelia mollis, but I cannot see where[edit]

File File:Bridelia_micrantha_leaves_12_08_2010.JPG was being linked wrongly to Bridelia_mollis, therefore I made some edits to sort out this misleading information so that the picture points to B. micrantha and no other species. However, file URL keeps reporting under section "File usage on Commons" that file is used in Category:Bridelia mollis. I've purged both category and file pages but "Category:Bridelia mollis" still appears under "File usage on Commons". Is this a bug or file is actually being used somewhere in "Category:Bridelia mollis"? If the latter is true, just out of curiosity, where exactly is the file used?. Thank you in advance. --Canyq (talk) 23:54, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Canyq: I did a null edit to Category:Bridelia mollis, and that appears to have removed the stale reference at File:Bridelia_micrantha_leaves_12_08_2010.JPG. —RP88 (talk) 00:03, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@RP88: Then, I guess it was some kind of bug... Thank you very much for your action to fix it. --Canyq (talk) 00:12, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

January 03[edit]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump&oldid=722335544"