↓ Skip to table of contents ↓ ↓ Skip to discussions ↓ ↓ Skip to the last discussion ↓

Welcome to the Village pump

This page is used for discussions of the operations, technical issues, and policies of Wikimedia Commons. Recent sections with no replies for 7 days and sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=--~~~~}} may be archived; for old discussions, see the archives; the latest archive is Commons:Village pump/Archive/2021/08.

Please note:

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

Please do not make deletion requests here: use the relevant process for it instead.
For technical support and graphics talks (PNG, SVG, GIF, etc.), please post on the Graphics village pump.
To ask for image improvement, see:
- Graphic Lab/Photography workshop for photographs.
- Graphic Lab/Map workshop for maps.
- Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop for other illustrations.
To ask for video or audio improvement, see Commons:Graphic Lab/Video and sound workshop.
For translation requests, please post at Commons:Requests for translation.
For photograph requests, please post at Commons:Picture requests.

Search archives:

Start a new discussion

Cast iron pump with handle dated 1875 in the form of a fluted column with Corinthian capital on a profiled, square stone base [add]

Centralized discussion

See also: Village pump/Proposals • Archive
Copyright law change in the European Union: do we need a new PD-EU-ToO tag? (6 June 2021) Copyright law change in Mainland China (4 May 2020) Deprecating Template:PD-Switzerland-photo (18 April 2021) Revise the COM:FOP Sweden section (1 February 2021) Future of file metadata (2 November 2020) Indonesian laws on copyright (21 August 2020) Remove text from Commons:Rollback. (20 August 2020)
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.

July 30[edit]

Get notifications about a single discussion thread[edit]

Hello, all.

Soon (early August), the Beta Feature for "Discussion tools" here will be updated. You will be able to subscribe to individual sections on a talk page at more wikis. If you enable the Beta Feature, then you will get this. Otherwise, you won't see it.

You can test this now by adding ?dtenable=1 to the end of the talk page's URL. For example, if you click on https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump?dtenable=1 you will see new [subscribe] buttons. If you click to subscribe to this thread, then every time someone adds a new comment, you will get a notice via Special:Notifications. (It won't annoy you with separate notifications for typo fixes or additions to comments, just for new comments.)

I'll be subscribing to this thread, so please feel free to subscribe and reply here, if you want to test it out.

I have found this especially helpful for cross-wiki communications, so I have asked the Editing team to prioritize Wikidata and Commons for this feature. I am very interested in learning what you all think, and if there are changes that would help you. You can reply here, ping me to another page, or post your thoughts to mw:Talk:Talk pages project/Notifications (the central page for this feature).

Thanks, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:47, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

let's see what happens when the section heading is changed.--RZuo (talk) 21:23, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I have tested it and the button shows. This is just what I needed now in an individual Discussion where the the participants keep forgetting to ping me. Ta Zezen (talk) 10:28, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Changing the section heading should not cause any problems for the notifications. I note that you only changed the spaces in the markup, which is probably not a representative test, but even if the heading was really renamed, you should continue receiving notifications. The software relies mostly on timestamps and comment authors to identify the subscriptions, because unlike section headings, they usually do not change. Matma Rex (talk) 12:15, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

tested one more time. how about now? :) --RZuo (talk) 12:45, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

test edit after changing heading.--RZuo (talk) 12:46, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Passed for me. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 12:53, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

do u still get notifications if someone doesnt sign? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RZuo (talk • contribs) 12:28, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@RZuo Nope. An unsigned comment can't be reliably distinguished from some formatting corrections, and we don't want to notify about those. (I work on this software.) Matma Rex (talk) 12:12, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I can confirm and I am sending my thanks directly to Matma hereby : I have signed up for notifications for this very thread as a test and I have received 2 of these, not 3. (Which is more than fine by me.)

As a side note: I have also noticed that this tool is also working in at least one smallish project that seems to not have received the relevant Tech News thereof yet. Zezen (talk) 12:24, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

The ?dtenable=1 "secret code" should work on all the wikis, but you have to put that in for every page individually, which is inconvenient. The Beta Feature automates the code for 7 wikis so far (including Meta-Wiki). I hope that Commons will be the next to get this automated. Eventually, I think it will turn out to be very helpful for all those Wikipedia editors who drop a drive-by comment on Commons and then never come back to see your reply. (In fact, I think you're going to want occasional editors to be auto-subscribed to all discussions they participate in.)

In terms of how it works (tech stuff here), it's primarily keying off the timestamp of the first comment. This is more reliable (less likely to change, more likely to be unique) than the section heading. Also, through some sort of dev magic ✨, if someone decided to do a cut-and-paste move of this whole conversation (or at least the first post) to another page, all of ours subscriptions would transfer with it. This means that if someone posts on the wrong section of the Village pump, you can re-locate the discussion without people being upset that they lost track of it. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:36, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

amazing work! thx to all coders!--RZuo (talk) 16:52, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

By the way, if as you're trying out topic subscriptions, you notice new thoughts coming to mind (e.g. "Wouldn't it be nice if..." or "This is making this thing I'm used to do a lot easier") please do share them here, @Whatamidoing (WMF) and I are keen to hear how this new tool impacts you. PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 17:49, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@PPelberg (WMF), Whatamidoing (WMF): Thank you for coding this and being so open to suggestions. Wouldn't it be nice if the name of the page was visible in each notification (or summary, if grouped)? We get lots of "Delete" and "File:Example.jpg" named sections here. It would also be nice if https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_requests/Global?dtenable=1 had "subscribe" links. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 12:34, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T288749

Hi, @Jeff G. About the Meta-Wiki page, unfortunately it only works on ==Level 2== sections, which I suspect isn't what's really wanted for that page. Also, as the page isn't in a "talk" namespace, it'd need the __NEWSECTIONLINK__ code added (and I don't know if the Stewards want that).

I've filed a request for your idea about including the page name. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 15:48, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. An option to add level 3 sections would be helpful, especially on that page. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 14:04, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T275943

There's a task to investigate ===Level 3=== subscriptions, but the practice around them is so varied (by wiki and by page) that it would be likely result in people missing comments they really wanted to see. It might be easier (though not necessarily better; that depends on all the facts and circumstances) to re-format such pages to use =Level 1= section headings for the main sections. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 23:51, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Update: This is

Done! If you go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures and enable "Discussion tools", you will get a [subscribe] button on talk pages like this one. Please try it out, and ping me or leave a note at mw:Talk:Talk pages project/Notifications if you run into any problems. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:00, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

@Whatamidoing (WMF): Thanks! — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 00:59, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

August 07[edit]

Why reduced in size?[edit]

File:PsychologicaBelgica.jpg has a size of 150 × 221 pixels. It has been obtained by reducing in size from 1.161 × 1.710 to the 150 × 221 by a bot. The present file is used in w:en:Psychologica Belgica but there the picture is worthless because you can hardly see anything on it. Is there a special reason for it (fair use?). Wouter (talk) 15:13, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

If it's a copyvio, I don't think shrinking it changes that, and it should go back to en-wiki where it can be used on a fair-use basis.
If it's not a copyvio, then we should have the larger version.
User:Magog the Ogre, since your bot was involved, anything to say about this? - Jmabel ! talk 16:00, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Also, it is very hard to see any scenario, either for Commons or en-wiki, where that license by an en-wiki user would be valid. User:SteveMajerus, on what basis were you in a position to grant a license to use this image? - Jmabel ! talk 16:02, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Probably as editor-in-chief of the publication, assuming that his issuance of the license attributing personally to himself the entire contents shown in the image is conform to the facts, to the policies of the publication and to the legal contracts with the publishing company, which is something that VRT member Krd apparently accepted as all satisfactorily proven. According to the log, the reduction in size was made by the original uploader himself minutes after his original upload. Maybe he wanted to license only the small version and forgot to request the deletion of the larger version, or maybe he thought that uploading a small file was necessary to display a small image in the Wikipedia article. It would be useful if he clarified what he was doing, if it's not already specified in the VRT communication. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:57, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Why is there any reason to reduce it in the first place? It's the cover of a publication with extrenely simple design: titles as text, and graphic design way below COM:TOO. Just what is even protectable here? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:00, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

It looks like the type of mistake the inexperienced user might have made. Apparently, he was unfamiliar with the infobox syntax (and with the "Show preview" button). Comparing the timestamps in the article history and in the file log, it can be seen that, after several attempts, he managed to display the image in the infobox of the article. And, a few minutes later, he uploaded the reduced versions, possibly thinking that would adjust the size of the display in the infobox. Since he claims a copyright, his evaluation of the the copyrightability of works in Belgian law would apparently differ from your evaluation. -- Asclepias (talk) 01:21, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I'd missed the VRT ticket. Was this recently changed in appearance? I don't think the icon was the one I'm used to seeing for this purpose, but maybe I'm having a lapse of memory (or maybe multiple icons are attached to such templates and I didn't know this one). - Jmabel ! talk 02:38, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Aha! yes, it was changed about 3 months ago, and after many years of looking at the other, I hadn't yet noticed this as being an icon to look out for. - Jmabel ! talk 02:40, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

I reverted it to the higher resolution image. Wouter (talk) 12:41, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

August 08[edit]

Are there any attempts for FOP introduction in UAE?[edit]

As of my writing, there are hundreds of thousands of images from UAE that were deleted due to lack of suitable freedom of panorama there. And as of today this batch DR relating to images of Burj Khalifa has reached more than 20 threads (with hundreds of images within each). Just in case someone will refer me to an old discussion at COM:FOP talk page, I already read that and just only reaffirmed the lack of FOP status. To date the only provision there states that works are only allowed to be depicted through broadcasting media (which I think only encompasses television-related media). De minimis may be one thing, but it is not relevant to my questiom that follows.

My only question is, are there any attempts by Arab Wikipedians and Wikipedians based in that desert kingdom to have FOP introduced there, at the very least architecture-only FOP? (Similar to countries like U.S. and Russia.) So as to finally allow images of two famous icons of Dubai (Burj's Khalifa and al-Arab) here on Commons and restore thousands that were deleted from 2010 up to now. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:11, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I doubt that the UAE, ranked the 145th most democratic country by the Economist Intelligence Unit in 2020, would be responsive to a grassroots movement to change the nation's copyright law. Best of luck to those who push for this. Mysteryman blue 09:36, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

step1: befriend the emir. step2: convince him to change the law.--RZuo (talk) 17:44, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

@RZuo: I just only asked a question, since I am particularly concerned about more deletions and more nominations (some batch nominations like the one I provided may impact accessibility on daily listings). Of course it is up to the Arab World Wikimedians or Wikimedians based in that country to push for introduction of FOP there (or perhaps other countries like Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Kuwait). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:59, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

That's a question for the public policy team, or their Publicpolicy@ mailing list. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:37, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

August 09[edit]

UK Newspapers: 1 Million become free-to-view (registration required)[edit]

The British Library have today announced:^[1]

"Today's the day - one million 19thC newspaper pages free to view (and download) on the British Newspaper Archive. And this is just the start. https://blogs.bl.uk/thenewsroom/2021/08/free-to-view-online-newspapers.html"

and:^[2]

"...Essentially, you need to register to access the free content, but won't be charged anything"

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:31, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing Sounds useful! I haven't been able to log in; keep getting "Sorry, an error occurred while processing your request." Is it working okay for you? — Sam Wilson ( Talk • Contribs ) … 03:54, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

It looks like it was probably the fact that I was including non-alphanumeric characters in my password. Is working now. — Sam Wilson ( Talk • Contribs ) … 04:57, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Can we thus upload them here? This Poor Man's Guardian advertised there seems not to be in Commons yet. Zezen (talk) 17:32, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Update: It does not work for me. I used to have a Wikipedia (free account), I logged in after some years' break and now I see only

Get unlimited access to the British Newspaper Archive. There are hundreds of millions of incredible stories just waiting to be found. Get your subscription today to start exploring over 300 years of history.

after the first free page. Sigh. Zezen (talk) 17:39, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

It says the same for me, but searches come up with lots of hits, and I've not yet found any article that's not accessible. Maybe the message about subscriptions is out of date. — Sam Wilson ( Talk • Contribs ) … 04:57, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

It looks like the have 230 issues of The Poor Man's Guardian, from the first issue on 9 July 1831. It seems to be possible to download only one page at a time, unfortunately. — Sam Wilson ( Talk • Contribs ) … 04:58, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

References

(Revising my viewpoint) Some works are marked as public domain, regardless of the website terms, this should override any other legal claims.

Okay, it should be possible to "hack" the website as tiles can be queried directly using links like https://tiles-api.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/API/dz?Q=BL/0000097/18310716/0007&p=m1c8f9qbrpt45686s6lam9itplb26s2sgbnmsengsj0ppa2v1gvrllo19re4r7kov0g53ea9vg6m83ff5q61mne4pitkooou5qohu2o%3D&t=_files/11/2_2.jpg.

The "t" parameter is the tile with <zoom level>/x_y at the end and I presume "p" is the session reference that tracks users. You can actually plug the tile reference into Dezoomify and it'll create a PNG for the newspaper page, no programming talent needed. However, you can automate the browser session and download the PDFs, which could be an approach to download thousands of pages in PDF, but with an annoying and unnecessary "public domain" watermark. Another presumption is that the "3 free downloads" does not count public domain files, though if it does, then directly "reading" the (jpeg) tiles would not be counted as downloading anyway, it's part of the display function and if someone writes a dezoomer to recreate the full jpeg originals, these would be easy to upload to Commons and have no watermark.

Bizarrely, the "official" downloadable PDFs just look like they are generated on the fly from the jpegs and don't even have the OCR text, which exists in the system for their searches to work and the text is displayed in their zoom viewer. That just looks lazy. Someone could probably hack the searchable text, considering that there's a text highlighting function in the viewer. However there MIGHT be a potential claim of copyright over the derived text, even if the creation of it is the product of some off-the-shelf OCR tool. I have no idea why the only downloadable format they offer is PDF, especially considering the originals sitting in the image database are jpegs, again that's lazy.

I'm not volunteering to do any of this at this time. --Fæ (talk) 14:05, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

The above URL is now returning "405 Not Allowed". Given that, and the fact that the BL's blogpost includes the statement "The fact that we consider newspapers made before 1881 to be in the public domain does not mean that we can make all pre-1881 digitised titles available for free—the BNA is dependent on subscriptions to maintain the considerable effort required to sustain it, and the one million pages per year arrangement [[SIC: read "limit"] is intended to protect that model", I suspect that laziness is not the motivation here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:49, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

The "p" parameter will vary by user session, probably, which means it will timeout. This can still be mass uploaded with an automated browser session, or someone might work out how to get around it as the OpenResty instance looks pretty open to me, not that I'm intending to hack it myself. I don't agree that the Findmypast company needs us to pay them £8, or that the British Library's decision to hand over these public domain public records to a private company (DC Thompson Ltd) so their directors can get rich is a "good thing". --Fæ (talk) 18:59, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

If things cost money to produce they need to be paid for. If you're not the product, and there's no advertising... Secretlondon (talk) 19:04, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I didn't notice that going on the last time I was at the British Library.

DC Thompson Ltd is a commercial publisher, they exist to make a profit, not to provide public services. --Fæ (talk) 19:12, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

We should adopt the policy of not downloading newspaper archives wholesale, or even in major part I.E. whole daily issue. These collections cost an enormous sum to create, the software required to curate and search them is highly specialized and a lot more sophisticated than what we have to offer. Last but not least it takes a proprietorial organization with substantial funding and systematic patience to create these databases in the first place.

If we disrupt their funding / fiscal model by plundering them for free, they will not be incentivized to create or maintain them, or add to their collections. Past newspaper archives would be lost forever.

This is one of the reasons google stopped or limited access to their book project.

Commons should be aware that it cant do it all, plundering museum sites (funded by the public) and auction houses (who do not rely on exhibition of pictures for revenue), is one thing. Copying an entire catalogue of a newspaper collection is quite another and is destructive.

They already allow (sic) us to to publish individual photos from their collections, and we should be happy with that.

Considering the huge expense of these curations, they are remarkably cheap for the public to access.

This exception, to the policy on downloading PD images, needs to be written into our policy, urgently.

This is the proverbial sleeping dog that should never have been woken up. Broichmore (talk) 11:29, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

@User:Broichmore. I quite agree with you on this! It is important to keep in mind that (our) commons is in the first place a repository for things we use, or might use in the future, on our Wikimedia-projects. It is not a repository of everything that is (more or less) freely available in the world. We don't want to be a group of Robin Hoods, that roam around and plunder what we find on our way. There is still something like an equilibrium of Quality and Quantity. Thanks for your intervention.

Apart from that it is very interesting to hear that The British Library has opened the Newspaper Archive for the 19th century. Thank you for that hint, @User:Pigsonthewing. That is exactly what we want and what we need, and that is something we surely can use to enhance the quality of our projects. I'm going to take a look now immediately. --Dick Bos (talk) 07:32, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Or we can choose to believe that Public Domain is Public Domain and organizations that post-hoc rubber stamp "non-commercial use only" over Public Domain media are copyfraudsters and should be called out for it.

I'll just get on with populating Commons with useful educational material like today's Newspapers in Italian while you think of new funny names to call me like "Robin Hood" to make me feel and look like a criminal.

Thanks for your interest. --Fæ (talk) 10:17, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree with User:Dick Bos that we should be something less than a universal PD host and that we probably should not swallow up all of this material simply because it is legally possible. However, I disagree that our purpose is limited to serving other WMF projects. There are many legitimate educational/academic uses that we support that have nothing to do with WMF. For example, thoroughly documenting the floats in a parade or the speakers at a conference is presumably not going to be useful to any other WMF project, but it might be very useful to an academic researcher with a specific scope and focus. - Jmabel ! talk 15:46, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

"museum sites (funded by the public)" As are the British Library. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:19, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Definitions of "plunder" at Wiktionary include "To pillage, take or destroy all the goods of, by force (as in war)..." and "To take by force or wrongfully; to commit robbery or looting, to raid." Robin Hood famously "stole from the rich". The use of such terms in this context is an egregious failure to assume good faith. No-one is "plundering" or "stealing" PD content from the BNA. By definition, PD content cannot be stolen by downloading it, it already belongs to us all. debating what content is suitable for Commons is legitimate. Impugning the legitimate actions and motivations of others is not. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:16, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Pinging @Broichmore, Dick Bos re plundering. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 14:44, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for using the wrong words. Please don't take it to literally. Of course I don't want to suggest that certain things are not done or said in good faith. Perhaps my intention was clear? Don't put everything on commons, especially if it does not have enough metadata to make it useful. Quantity and quality. Better try to put less things on commons, but with good background data. I can give you many examples of having a lot of work to arrange all double or triple images etc. on commons, without good categories etc. I regularly find cases that someone puts a lot of things on commons, and leaves it to others to order it. I don't believe that's what we want. But perhaps I'm wrong. Apart from that I did not call anyone a Robin Hood, but I said that we don't want to be Robin Hoods. As far as I'm concerned, we can finish this conversation --Dick Bos (talk) 19:18, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I used the wrong word. What is the right word?

I think we all understood exactly what I meant.

Robin Hood was not a thief or even criminal, he returned to the pheasants what was wrongfully taken from them, by a corrupt regime acting falsely in the name of and against the wishes of its legal king. A regime so heinous it led to Magna Carta. Calling someone a Robin Hood is in fact a compliment.

Regarding some of the points mentioned here. The British Library brought D.C. Thompson into the project, because the biggest "useful" library in the world did not have the funding, resources, or expertise for this massive project. Had they not done it, or had there been no fiscal interest in creating such archives, they would not exist. The entire past newspaper history of the world would either be in landfill, or on a dusty shelf awaiting the same fate as the en:Library of Alexandria.

The BL decided that they were going to create a fully accessible, properly curated archive of PD or soon to be PD materiel. They succeeded. It took a fiscal model to do it.

The commons model could not have done it, it would tiny, never complete in any part, missing huge chunks, quality would be uneven, and difficult to search. Not even as good as some of the immense government collections, publicly funded at great expense, which are so big, with so few librarians, that they are impossible to index. commons helps there. Broichmore (talk) 13:31, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Speaking of the wrong word, "pheasants" => "peasants" ("faisans" vs. "paysans"). - Jmabel ! talk 15:46, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

The newspaper upload launched after this thread was started is now at over 14,000 public domain by age newspapers, that's how I invest my time while joining Wikimania sessions on the side. BTW, Robin Hood was a murderer and a thief (reference), don't gaslight our volunteers in this entirely unnecessary way and then tell them off for not thanking you for the "compliment".

Are you still arguing that I should stop this volunteer effort to create Commons educational content, and deserve to be criticized for spending my unpaid volunteer time doing it, or not? --Fæ (talk) 16:02, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I never put forward any argument against your downloading a mirror copy of a part of the Internet archive website.

From looking at a small part of it I can see that, google has no entry to it as it has not benefited from any OCR work. The Internet Archive probably got the files from tessmannDigital where there has been some OCR work done. Just looking at these websites is enough to be profoundly impressed with the British Library initiative. The Germans and Italians are catching up, but as you'd expect there is no easy access there for English only speakers and researchers.

Regarding Robin Hood. I never called you that in the first place. Your definitely nothing like Robin Hood. Thanks for letting me know what criminal biographers of the 18th century thought of him.

Am I still arguing that you should stop this volunteer effort to create Commons educational content, and deserve to be criticized for spending your unpaid volunteer time doing it, or not? No, I didn't propose that you should stop. As a matter of fact had it not been for your efforts there would be be virtually nothing here, but non educational crap. Did I criticize you; no I didn't.

Don't put words in my mouth, and while here, I never told anyone off for not thanking me for any "compliment", and I'm not looking for any now either

Giving out some advice or a contrary position to your views is not gaslighting. I have a valid view, and some agree with me.

When the newspaper archives who give Wikimedia free access to their websites withdraw it, because we are disturbing their fiscal model we can point to the internet archive being there first. Actually we're not disturbing their model at all. Their model is selling retrievable indexed access, our model is providing access to material that has to be used the old fashioned way 18th century way; by reading it. Broichmore (talk) 12:54, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

There's also an OCR dataset, according to [1]. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:45, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

August 11[edit]

I made {{Currency-category warning}}.[edit]

Attention: Upload only photographs of currencies whose design first issued before 1951.
Photographs of currencies used in Example Country can only be uploaded to Commons if the copyright on design of currency has expired, because terms of use of Example Country forbids the use of photographs of copyrighted currencies. The copyright term in Example Country for currencies is the first issue year + 70 years + the end of the calendar year. See COM:CRT/Example Country#Currency for more information. Photographs of other currencies will be deleted if unfree.

This template was made with reference to {{FOP-buildings-category warning}}.

This template is used for the currency category of countries marked Not OK in COM:CUR.

(For example, Category:Banknotes of Canada, Category:Coins of Canada, Category:Banknotes of North Korea, Category:Coins of North Korea, etc.)

I made an English version only. I would appreciate it if we could add another language version.

You can also modify the template if possible. (In the case of currency, uploading is allowed only for a certain period, and it is not allowed after that.)

Ox1997cow (talk) 15:15, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

@Ox1997cow: That seems very misleading in that it is (at best) accurate only for particular countries. See Commons:Currency. Just to name a few large countries where this is not the law: Brazil, United States, Russia.
Also, I have no idea what you mean by "In the case of currency, uploading is allowed only for a certain period, and it is not allowed after that." - Jmabel ! talk 19:49, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

@Jmabel: I will change the word "law" to the word "terms of use". "Allowed only for a certain period", there are countries such as Iran, which accepts only currencies older than 30 years, and Australia, which only accepts currencies that are older than 1969. Ox1997cow (talk) 22:43, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

@Ox1997cow: which would mean that it is demonetized, not that you can no longer upload the image, no? - Jmabel ! talk 00:24, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

@Jmabel: This means that currencies issued after the allowed period cannot be uploaded. For example, it is not allowed to upload currencies issued after 1970 in Australia and 30 years in Iran. Ox1997cow (talk) 00:51, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Ox1997cow: I see. Still, this does not align with your template, does it? (I also now see that it is parameterized for country and period, which is not obvious by looking at this page, only becomes clear when you look at the wikitext here or go to the template page.) - Jmabel ! talk 05:24, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

@Jmabel: If there are any mistakes in this template, you can make corrections or submit a deletion request. Make your edits here. Ox1997cow (talk) 08:11, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- Here's what I did. - Jmabel ! talk 15:40, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Regularly-used links now hidden[edit]

It seems we have another MediaWiki release, and the links to my watchlist, contributions, etc. are now hidden behind a "person" menu icon, requiring two clicks instead of one.

To reduce RSI, is there an option to restore the links to their previous configuration? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:42, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: What device, what browser, what skin? I'm not experiencing that. - Jmabel ! talk 19:51, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- Vector, on a Windows laptop. I'm seeing the same on en.Wikipedia, bn.Wikipedia, Wikisource, Wiktionary and Wikispecies; but not Wikivoyage nor ar.Wikipedia (other projects not tested). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:11, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
  - @Pigsonthewing: Go to Preferences -> Appearance and tick the box saying Use Legacy Vector. Nthep (talk) 10:40, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
    - Thank you. But that's an "all or nothing" option, which removes other improvements to Vector. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:17, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Depictions of minors in "physique magazines"[edit]

Just to be safe, I wanted to double-check to verify that certain content would not go against our policy on sexualization of minors, namely "physique magazines" of the 1950s/1960s. Wikipedia's w:Physique magazine article gives some background on the genre. Basically, they were presented under the pretense of being about bodybuilding, but their real target audience was gay men. Models for these magazines often included adolescents. There are some examples (mostly covers) under Category:Beefcake magazines. This issue of Physique Pictorial is pretty representative of the genre. The ages given for models range from 16 (including the cover model), to 28. The magazines did not include exposed genitalia or sexual contact between models (or even any references to sexuality), but the sixth criterion at w:Dost test gives me some pause: Whether the visual depiction is intended or designed to elicit a sexual response in the viewer.

I would tend to think this would not be legally classified as child pornography given that these magazines are available at lots of research libraries (e.g. worldcat lists lots of university libraries with collections of Physique Pictorial) and images from them (including images of under-18 models) have been reprinted in books put out by reputable publishers (e.g. w:David K. Johnson's Buying Gay, published by Columbia University Press). Still I wanted to check here since I'm not familiar with how the community has drawn the line on this kind of material in the past. (There was a recent discussion about this material, but it focused only on the copyright aspects.) Colin M (talk) 20:59, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Some statements of fact.

Commons is not censored.

Commons does not host child pornography.

The Dost test (United States v. Dost 1986) has only ever been used in one US court case as part of establishing criteria for assessing photographs of girls aged 10 to 14. It appears to have not been quoted in any court case in over a decade. It makes no sense to try to use it as a way to control what international volunteers are uploading to Commons.

Physique Pictorial is not child pornography.

Scantily clad or nude photographs are not turned into pornography just because a gay man might look at it, rather than some other observer. C.f. Florida v. Brabson, 2008.

--Fæ (talk) 10:06, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. I brought up the Dost test only because it's specifically mentioned at Help:Sexual content#Prohibited content. Colin M (talk) 14:52, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

This reference has been removed, see Help_talk:Sexual_content#Dost_test. That help page is effectively a user essay and the original text was rejected as policy. --Fæ (talk) 16:02, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm just going to register here that I'm uncomfortable with that edit. I'm not a lawyer and it's not an area I have experience with, but even I've heard of the Dost test (perhaps not by that name, but that set of criteria). Moreover, you didn't just remove mention of the Dost test, but also the warning that "Images of minors – even if clothed – can be found to be in violation of child pornography laws". That seems like the sort of thing we should retain... If it were a policy page I'd certainly err on the side of reverting here, but will defer to others with more knowledge of precedent, I guess. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 04:05, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

August 13[edit]

Userscript testing[edit]

I am working on a userscript, to improve Categories with features such as dynamic pagination.

Since it has a number of features, I am inviting folks to try it. Initial documentation is written here:

https://github.com/avindra/mikiwedia#readme

Testing: I suggest testing categories "near-the-root" like Category:Selfies and Category:Paintings to make sense of pagination features.

As of now, I am working under the assumptions of default mw:Skin:Vector and English.

Please try it, and I welcome any users and other contributors to raise any questions or ideas.

Note: more recently, it has some support for loading Special:Contributions dynamically, which makes it useful on other Mediawiki wikis including Wikidata.

Aavindraa (talk) 05:30, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

As this is a javascript (and can be put in user name space and when complete as a gadget on commmons), why is it hosted on an external website? --C.Suthorn (talk) 06:50, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

I am hosting on Git for two reasons: a) because it's easier for me (and presumably other developers) to use Git to manage multiple folders/files and b) there is limited or no support today in Mediawiki projects for ES modules (re: phab:T75714), which is why I am doing things in an unconventional way. That being said, its possible to transpile the code to ES5 and load it using traditional methods, but I see little benefit in doing it at this stage. Aavindraa (talk) 14:36, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

I did not know, that the dra.vin domain is owned by github. --C.Suthorn (talk) 15:49, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

I (avindra) am the owner of dra.vin, which is an anagram of my first name. I am pointing the A record towards https://avindra.github.io/ , which is an instance of en:GitHub Pages. Aavindraa (talk) 16:11, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

I cannot make out from the above what this does, and even the one phrase of description, "dynamic pagination" is very ambiguous. - Jmabel ! talk 15:49, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I should probably make a video. I have to set up some gear so I will do that soon. I did put some screenshots and indicators on the releases https://github.com/avindra/mikiwedia/releases which may be helpful re: feature list. Aavindraa (talk) 16:11, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, that's much clearer. Given you examples, I wasn't sure if this was about subcats or what. - Jmabel ! talk 19:18, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Subcategories are planned. I will add them as soon as I'm able. Aavindraa (talk) 19:46, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Alex Proimos images - Pixsy trolling[edit]

Moved from Commons:Help desk

I run a group that helps warn people about Pixsy trolls. For anyone who doesn't know what this is, it's basically when people put large numbers of Creative Commons images online and then hit unsuspecting users with license fee demands for hundreds of dollars through Pixsy (a copyright enforcement company) every time they make some minor error in an image attribution. Wikimedia Commons previously banned images by Marco Verch, who has been accused of doing this on an industrial scale. However, we get reports at our group of many other people doing this now on a smaller scale and I think it is important to notify Wikimedia Commons when we get a lot of reports about particular photographers who have a lot of images listed on here so you can take action.

I would like to suggest that Alex Proimos should be looked at on this basis. He has been mentioned to us on multiple occasions including some examples of him issuing Pixsy demands precisely because someone has linked to his image on Wikimedia Commons rather than his own Flickr account. The fact that hundreds of his images are listed on this site is a safety risk for ordinary users who might unsuspectingly use them and get Pixsy on their case as a result. If he complains about this, I would suggest giving him the chance to reupload them using a CC BY 4.0 license, which makes Pixsy trolling largely impossible as the updated terms specify that users have 30 days to correct image attribution errors before they can be hit with legal action. If he is an honest user and not, as our reports would suggest, a Pixsy troll then he would have no objection to this. However, allowing hundreds of his images to appear here under a CC BY 2.0 license is deeply problematic. Thomjobson (talk) 01:57, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

For the record, Alex Proimos is a Flickr user. De728631 (talk) 12:33, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

If this is provably genuine (the link suports that) then delete and salt with a clear warning, as for Marco Verch. We should stamp on this before it gets started. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:40, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- I'm with you there but I'm failing to see evidence about Proimos' activities in the link above. It's just an extensive story about Marco Verch. De728631 (talk) 12:47, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Proimos' own Flickr page indicates that he's using Pixsy, but I'd want to see clearer evidence that he has used this to troll before we excommunicated them here. @Thomjobson:, BTW Andy Dingley (talk) 12:59, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Right, there is a disclaimer in the Info section of Proimos' Flickr page, but I was thinking of the article linked by Thomjobson. Anyhow, I would also prefer to see hard evidence of copyright trolling before we take any action over here. De728631 (talk) 13:04, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

We should have a "{{Copyright troll}}" template, these are free educational images, while their licenses are free the re-users often make a small mistake and it's the author(s) that act in bad faith. The files remain free and if followed exactly won't result in a lawsuit. This is essentially "a non-copyright © restriction" and the files remain in scope. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 13:15, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Do I understand this correctly?? There is a photographer, who uploads them photos at flickr with a cc-license. These photos have been imported to commons by Magnus-Manske's bot and other commons users and the flickr-license has been translated by these commons users to cc-2.5. The photographer does not have a MW account, them might not know of the existence of commons, maybe them is not even aware of a website by the name of wikipedia, but them now gets called out for trolling at commons?? If them has actually done something wrong, that would be needed addressed at flickr? --C.Suthorn (talk) 16:01, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

@C.Suthorn: As I read it, the trolling does not appear directly at Commons but offline in the form of compensation claims when re-users of photographs by this person fail to follow all their complicated attribution details to the letter. On another note, CC 2.5 seems like nonsense to me because that is not an original option at Flickr. De728631 (talk) 17:20, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Not sure if this is an overkill, but perhaps the CC-BY-2.0 template should be amended with a warning that the attribution rules need to be followed carefully? BeŻet (talk) 16:12, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

+1 - Jmabel ! talk 17:25, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

FYI copyright trolling is being discussed in a Wikimania session tomorrow @19:45 UTC see here. --Fæ (talk) 17:22, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

I checked one of his images, at random. It's CC by here, but (now) CC by-nc at Flickr ([2]). It's not the only such example. Is that part of the problem? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:28, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

As I thought: user:Alex Pro... user:AlexPro... does not exist. If action has to be taken, it would need to be at Flickr side, or Commons needs to outrule Flickr (because Flickr allows "changing" of license, which enables "copyright trolling") imports, or cc-2.0 needs to be outruled on commons, or the cc-2.0 template needs to be amended, to describe the difficulty. But without a user Alex Proimos at commons it does not make sense to declare them a troll at commons. Them does not interact with commons. Them photos have been imported to commons by others. --C.Suthorn (talk) 05:40, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

I posted the original comment about this and just to clarify, I should mention I'm not particularly familiar with how Wikimedia Commons works. I reported this here because on two occasions people had said they'd been hit with a demand for over $600 by this photographer because they had linked to an image on Wikimedia Commons instead of his Flickr account. I don't expect Wikimedia Commons to be able to solve this problem entirely - that is indeed something Flickr should do (and they won't because they have a partnership with Pixsy and frankly don't seem to care about people abusing CC licenses, as evidenced by the fact they still allow Marco Verch to use their site). But given these cases were directly linked to the images appearing here on Wikimedia Commons and given that the vast majority of users of this site will be unaware of the potential risk there is in using these images, it is surely at a minimum worth notifying you about this. What you do with it is up to you - like I say, I don't have much understanding of this site or how your policies work, but when your users are at risk of being ripped off over a minor mistake (if it's even a mistake to give an attribution to Wikimedia Commons instead of Flickr) it seems like an obvious problem. Incidentally, we encourage people in our group to avoid CC BY 2.0 images completely for this reason. I personally run a website that runs thousands of articles each year and the idea of getting a $600 fine every time we make a typo is frightening. There are a long list of photographers who do this now but I specifically mentioned Proimos because of the link to Wikimedia Commons. Thomjobson (talk) 02:58, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

One possible solution is to edit the images in question to include a "forced attribution." See Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 74#User:Nightshooter - block & deletion request for a similar case. Ixfd64 (talk) 23:17, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

August 14[edit]

Help needed to correct pronunciation file[edit]

File:En-us-especial.ogg has incorrect pronunciation. The pronunciation in the file is something like "ess-peh-shee-AL", but the actual US English pronunciation is more like "es-PEH-shul". I don't know how to replace a pronunciation file; can someone help? Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:55, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Could that be a regional difference? The author Neskaya claims to come from Southern California so maybe it is pronounced like that where she comes from? De728631 (talk) 17:45, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

@De728631: This person is giving a slightly anglicized version of the Spanish word, rather than an English-language pronunciation of the English word. This probably should be renamed as "es-us..." and a new en-us one recorded. - Jmabel ! talk 19:41, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

@Jmabel: I was thinking that too. It does have a heavy Spanish accent. De728631 (talk) 19:44, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

This system is broken; we should not have magic names at Commons like this. As for the word, the actual US English pronunciation is as likely to be as a Spanish loan word instead of pronounced as a historically English word. And again, this is not and should not be a Commons issue; Wiktionary and Commons should be disentangled here.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:47, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Quality/ Featured media and 'Wiki Loves' competitions[edit]

This came up in a side discussion at Wikimania today. So far as I am aware, we have no process for automatically nominating/ awarding the winning images from Wiki Loves... related competitons, as quality or featured images. Should we? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:42, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Judges for most of the photo competitions aren't looking for the same things QIC/FPC are, necessarily. There are often some good candidates, but only a few ever succeed when nominated right away. Often they require some postprocessing adjustments in order to satisfy the technical expectations of the regulars in those spots. Like I was just looking through some of the winners of Wiki Loves Africa. this one is a contender, but people will inevitably say "too noisy" and "right crop". The former can be fixed, and that may be enough to make it succeed, but if it were automatically nominated, it would almost certainly fail on those grounds, for better or worse. Similarly File:Pupil.jpg has some heavy chromatic aberration. It's fixable, but requires someone to actually fix it.

The best thing is probably to post the news of the results and maybe a few stand-out examples to Commons talk:Featured picture candidates. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 04:00, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

What's this called? (desktop edition)[edit]

The thingie at left here. What's that called? I even own one but have no idea.

Do we have a category for the vertical desktop device that holds files, on the left side of File:Bill Rheubottom, Training Coordinator for Seattle City Light, 1974 (51325354425).jpg? - Jmabel ! talk 19:44, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

@Jmabel: That is a letter tray, but we don't seem to have a specific category for it. So, Category:Office equipment should be alright. De728631 (talk) 19:49, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

RZuo has just created Letter trays. I think I’ve also called them paper trays, stacking trays, and sorting trays at one time or another.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 23:34, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

I've used them a lot, but very seldom for letters. Usually they are made so that they can be stacked, but not always (some are made to be hanged from a vertical pole so that they can be rotated, somebody found that very clever back in the 70s, I didn't like that). They are for sorting, and mostly used with papers (but not always). I'm surprised we just have one example in Commons. I'll try to improve that. B25es (talk) 07:49, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

@Jmabel, De728631, RZuo, Odysseus1479, B25es: Staples still sells two of these monolithic beasts, but only painted black (the picture is probably of one with light-colored paint, ivory or white). They call each a "Side Loading Letter Tray, Black Steel" on-page or "Metal 5-Tier Letter Size Horizontal Organizer" in-URL and ""5-Compartment Steel File Organizer, Black" on-page or "5-compartment steel file organizer black" in-URL. I have had to deal with some (and their equivalents at the ends of collating copiers & printers), and they are very efficient at collecting dust. Staples also sell versions with more compartments. Modern versions are more modular, and the better ones can be stacked to save space in storage. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 12:59, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Are the ones where the separators are vertical instead of horizontal still "letter trays" or is there a different term? - Jmabel ! talk 19:21, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Do you have an example of vertical separators? De728631 (talk) 20:05, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

E.g. this would not be a tray. Staples calls it a "sorter" and I would agree that a tray is something on a horizontal level. De728631 (talk) 20:10, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

I have one about 2-1/2 feet from me as I write that is sort of like the one in the picture I started this with, but turned on its side. A bit heavier-duty than De728631'a example. No time right now to take a picture, but I guess I should at some point since it looks like we could use one! Bottom of it is kind of tray-like, but I wouldn't think of it as a tray. "Sorter" seems reasonable. - Jmabel ! talk 05:08, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

August 15[edit]

Gallery pages about species, and the categories they are in[edit]

I have noticed that for many plant species, the gallery page is not in the category of the species, but of the genus.

Example: The page Renanthera monachica is in Category:Renanthera, but not in Category:Renanthera monachica.

Is this on purpose?

By the logic on described on Commons:Galleries, gallery pages should be in their corresponding category, which in the case of plant species would be the category of the plant species, correct?

The one species gallery given as an example on Commons:Galleries (Lama glama) is in the corresponding species category (Category:Lama glama). I'm not sure if that's because it's an animal rather than a plant.

I'm now wondering if there's a logic to this, or if many plant species categories should be moved.

Cheers–Jérôme (talk) 14:01, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Edit: As additional info, let me add how I came across this: I'm searching for the name of plant species on Commons a lot, which leads to the gallery page. Then, if I'd like to see more images of the species, I'm looking for a link to the species gallery, but there is no such link, although in the cases I've tested a category always existed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jérôme (talk • contribs) 14:03, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Species galleries are often considered sister pages to the species categories. Ruslik (talk) 20:51, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

August 16[edit]

free?[edit]

This file has CtC but is it really free? Because I faced a bad experience uploading a mislabeled file(archived). - Coagulans (talk) 17:10, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

@Coagulans: You should probably alert User:Miehs (as I've presumably done now by linking) if you are going to discuss their image. I see no reason to doubt their claim of ro:Special:Permalink/11859247 being their own work, do you? It looks like a typical good upload by a competent user. - Jmabel ! talk 00:49, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

File:Operações Aéreas, Maranhão (48382005646).jpg[edit]

This image depicts several vejicles, organizations and two helicopters, Category:PR-HEB (aircraft) and Category:PR-HCT (aircraft), and so those categories were added two years ago.

Today, User:Davey2010 deleted said categories claiming that "the vehicles aren't the main subject here". Given that these vehicles are subject of this image, i readded this categories, but the same user kept deleting them, and wrote in my talkpage that i should "not contribute nonsense-edits" with a template about vandalism (????) and not happy he is now threatning to block me.

Could someone explain to this ~~administrator that just because he was the powers of an administrator~~, that he cannot accuse others of vandalism when is clearly not and and he cannot threat other users with blocks just to shove his own opinion on what categories are appropriate in a image. Tm (talk) 19:02, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Comment Addendum. I scratched the parts about Davey2010 being an administrator has he is not one and never was. No the less the part "administrator" should read "user". Tm (talk) 19:09, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

The title does translate as "Air Operations, Maranhão" however imho the pick up and aircrafts don't need categorising as they're not the main subject. I'll stop reverting pending this discussion and if others disagree then I'll get consensus somewhere. –Davey2010^Talk 19:25, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

These seem to me to be entirely reasonable categories to add. And FWIW, I am and administrator.

Categories do not describe only the main subject of a photo. For an obvious example, for any individual person we have a category for, we tend to put that on any photo in which they are present, however incidentally. - Jmabel ! talk 00:55, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

+1 perfectly reasonable to me. When there is a need to distinguish, we split it into separate categories, e.g. Category:Hoover Tower into Category:Hoover Tower - Exterior and Category:Remote views of Hoover Tower. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:37, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Jmabel & User:King of Hearts, I politely don't agree that these should be categorised however consensus is consensus and it's the way of life here :), Anyway thanks again your help is very much appreciated, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 10:39, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Taliban victory[edit]

I don't like starting this discussion, but it has to be held. The Islamic Republic of Afghanistan has fallen to the Taliban and on Wikimedia Commons we have multiple pages like "Template:Afghanistan by year" that use the flag of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. As it is now a "historical country" and after two (2) decades the Taliban are back in power at what point will we replace the flags of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan with the flag of the Taliban? Perhaps it's when the IR Afghan flag emoji gets replaced with the Taliban flag, perhaps we should use international recognition as a standard but the old Islamic Republic of Afghanistan wasn't recognised either.

As to many Afghan people the Taliban flag will be received as "the Nazi flag of Afghanistan" especially by non-Pashtun Afghans, but the government has changed, so when should we change the flags to reflect this in a neutral way? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 22:07, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I suggest we wait until they form a government. And then wait until that government is the de facto recognised government of Afghanistan. Until then, I propose no changes be made. Is there a {{Disputed}} that covers this? Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:26, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Support Rodhullandemu's suggestion. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 23:57, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Assuming the regime change ‘sticks’, the state’s official name might be changed, or OTOH the Taliban may keep the existing national insignia to signal their feig^H^H^H^Hnew-found civic principles &c., so moving things around would seem very premature at this point.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 03:43, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Request for comment notification[edit]

Here is a link to a RFC on Meta concerning all Wikimedia projects. Lionel Scheepmans ^{✉ Contact} 22:51, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

August 17[edit]

Notification of DMCA takedown demand - Queen Elizabeth II Bridge[edit]

In compliance with the provisions of the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), and at the instruction of the Wikimedia Foundation's legal counsel, one or more files have been deleted from Commons. Please note that this is an official action of the WMF office which should not be undone. If you have valid grounds for a counter-claim under the DMCA, please contact me. The takedown can be read here.

Affected file(s):

File:Queen_Elizabeth_II_Bridge.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

To discuss this DMCA takedown, please go to COM:DMCA#Queen Elizabeth II Bridge. Thank you! Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 22:13, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

replacements for deleted PotDs?[edit]

Some of the early PotDs (mostly from 2007 and earlier) were deleted due to copyright concerns. I know Commons is much better at detecting copyright violations nowadays, but having missing pictures of the day makes us look bad.

Would it be a crazy idea to retroactively nominate new PotDs to replace the deleted ones? Ixfd64 (talk) 22:29, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

@Ixfd64: Yes, it would be. Recently I had an argument on Wikipedia about whether it’s a good idea to hide revisions with serious vandalism but nothing legally unacceptable (no copyvio, no personal data etc.). I argued it’s not a good idea: vandalism belongs to Wikipedia’s history, don’t try to do as if it wasn’t vandalized regularly. Similarly, copyvio images belong to Commons’ history, don’t try to do as if no copyvios were selected as POTDs ever. —Tacsipacsi (talk) 01:15, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I was afraid there would be no consensus to replace deleted PotDs. It looks like we'll either have to ask for permission and hope for the best or be really patient and wait for the copyrights to expire. But some good news: there are least two images to my knowledge that may be eligible to be restored. I'll file a request at Commons:Undeletion requests and see what happens. Ixfd64 (talk) 01:25, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Universal Code of Conduct - Enforcement draft guidelines review[edit]

The Universal Code of Conduct Phase 2 drafting committee would like comments about the enforcement draft guidelines for the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC). This review period is planned for 17 August 2021 through 17 October 2021.

These guidelines are not final but you can help move the progress forward. The committee will revise the guidelines based upon community input.

Comments can be shared in any language on the draft review talk page and multiple other venues. Community members are encouraged to organize conversations in their communities.

There are planned live discussions about the UCoC enforcement draft guidelines:

Wikimania 2021 session (recorded 16 August)

Conversation hours - 24 August, 31 August, 7 September @ 03:00 UTC & 14:00 UTC

Roundtable calls - 18 September @ 03:00 UTC & 15:00 UTC

Summaries of discussions will be posted every two weeks here.

Please let me know if you have any questions. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 23:44, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

August 18[edit]

2021 Voting Opens[edit]

Voting for the 2021 Board of Trustees election is now open. Candidates from the community were asked to submit their candidacy. After a three week long Call for Candidates, there are 19 candidates for the 2021 election.

The Wikimedia movement has the opportunity to vote for the selection of community-and-affiliate trustees. By voting, you will help to identify those people who have the qualities to best serve the needs of the movement for the next several years. The Board is expected to select the four most voted candidates to serve as trustees. Voting closes 31 August 2021.

The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees oversees the Wikimedia Foundation's operations. The Board wants to improve their competences and diversity as a team. They have shared the areas of expertise that they are currently missing and hope to cover with new trustees.

Learn more about candidates. Learn about the Board of Trustees. Vote.

Read the full announcement.

Best, Zuz (WMF) (talk) 08:22, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Africa 2021 Winners announced[edit]

At Wikimania, on Saturday, the Commons:Wiki Loves Africa 2021/Winners were announced. We are very impressed by the range of experiences that were captured to visually represent this year's theme Health+Wellness. Almost every one of the 8,319 images and 56 video files that were contributed by 1,149 photographers share the full range of precious moments that together add to the incredible complexity and universal experience of living - from heart breaking pain to unfettered joy, from stoic determination to unrelenting hope, and from the necessity of sterile clinical procedures to the wonder of a newborn’s very first breath. As a collection it is an exhaustive expression of what it is to be human all against a myriad African backdrops. We would like to thank the International Jury of professional photographers and Wikimedia Commonists for their tireless work and User:Ciell and User:Slaporte for their assistance on Montage. Enjoy!! Islahaddow (talk) 11:04, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

August 19[edit]

Notification of DMCA takedown demand - Braniff International posters[edit]

Affected file(s):

File:DonThomasPosters10_(19290382478).jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
File:Braniff_Airways_Rio_Poster_(19477938565).jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
File:Braniff_New_York_Poster_(19482267111).jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
File:Braniff_Panama_Poster_(19290403210).jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
File:Braniff_South_America_Poster_(18857330933).jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

To discuss this DMCA takedown, please go to COM:DMCA#Braniff International posters. Thank you! Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 01:02, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Do Commons's administrators even care?[edit]

Hello,

My message is about this request : Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections/Archive 30#Bull-Doser. The first time it was posted, it was archived without an answer from an administrator. I restored it two times and no one even bother to take care of it. The problem is that the user who is the center of this request has a problematic behavior since at least 2015 (7 years). In all that time, the user only received warnings and nothing was done to prevent his bad behavior after multiple requests on the Administrator's noticeboards.

Is it common for the admins to ignore requests? Is it because they can't take care of cases more complex than simple vandalisms?

--Myloufa (talk) 01:04, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

That noticeboard is for simple blocks for obvious abuse only. Complex cases should be discussed at COM:AN/U. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:27, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Movement charter drafting committee[edit]

Apologies if this has already been posted:

You can run to be on the Movement Charter drafting committee. If the language about the movement charter, movement strategy, and all of the other processes going on right now don't make your head hurt, you're probably a good person to consider participating! :) — Rhododendrites ^talk | 04:08, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

An ongoing problem with webp files[edit]

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T289240

Sometime ago I posted here about a problem with a webp file. However, there was no response. Now I have the same problem with another webp file. This file does not display correctly on my desktop (macOS 10.14.6 with a Chrome browser). Is this just a problem with my desktop, and something that, in future, I should just ignore? – Epipelagic (talk) 09:25, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I have the same problem with Firefox on Windows. The actual thumbnail image is correct, but Commons thinks that the file has an image ratio of about 10:1 and therefore squeezes it when showing it on a page. -- Discostu (talk) 09:47, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

@Epipelagic, Discostu: I experience that same problem. When viewing the full, original resolution, the image looks fine, but when viewing the actual file description page, the image is "squeezed". The embedded image on this section looks squeezed too. BTW I use w:Samsung Galaxy A20 browser. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:55, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I have created a Phabricator task -- Discostu (talk) 09:59, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Commons:Village pump