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/2023/06.

Please note:

  1. If you want to ask why unfree/non-commercial material is not allowed at Wikimedia Commons or if you want to suggest that allowing it would be a good thing, please do not comment here. It is probably pointless. One of Wikimedia Commons’ core principles is: "Only free content is allowed." This is a basic rule of the place, as inherent as the NPOV requirement on all Wikipedias.
  2. Have you read our FAQ?
  3. For changing the name of a file, see Commons:File renaming.
  4. Any answers you receive here are not legal advice and the responder cannot be held liable for them. If you have legal questions, we can try to help but our answers cannot replace those of a qualified professional (i.e. a lawyer).
  5. Your question will be answered here; please check back regularly. Please do not leave your email address or other contact information, as this page is widely visible across the internet and you are liable to receive spam.

Purposes which do not meet the scope of this page:

Search archives:

   
 

Start a new discussion

# 💭 Title 💬 👥 🙋 Last editor 🕒 (UTC)
1 Category:Media needing categories 20 4 RZuo 2023-06-27 22:09
2 Potential underaged user with to much personal information on their user page 4 4 Geo Swan 2023-06-26 05:25
3 Ability to block users only from uploading files 5 4 Yann 2023-06-21 20:32
4 Wrong image used for 10 years - just discovered it. 3 2 Adam Cuerden 2023-06-21 20:20
5 Template:ZentralGut 3 2 RZuo 2023-06-27 22:09
6 To which files should the Personality Rights tag be applied... 6 5 Yann 2023-06-24 09:11
7 "(illustrations)" in category names 10 7 Ghouston 2023-06-28 00:26
8 Metadata problem 7 3 MPF 2023-06-26 23:50
9 Scope of a PD (as per URAA) picture 5 2 Lugamo94 2023-06-26 01:58
10 Deleted files history - asking as nominator 6 5 Omphalographer 2023-06-27 00:41
11 Categorizing a category redirect 2 2 Jmabel 2023-06-26 14:45
12 Category:Books about the Flora of California 3 2 Photo Archives 2023-06-26 18:35
13 "Sporting goods" 1 1 Jmabel 2023-06-26 19:22
14 Wikimedia Commons dark mode 3 2 FatalFit 2023-06-27 03:31
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.
Village pump in Rzeszów, Poland [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.

June 15[edit]

Category:Media needing categories[edit]

I discovered this category and started working on it. I have found, maybe, up to 1000 images uncategorized by the same photographer. I created a sub -cat in Cat Photographers from Switzerland. Is there a Wiki App that I can use to bulk categorize all of his images or bulk move them into the new sub-Cat Images by Thomas Woodtli Zurich Switzerland? Doing it one image at a time is slow, but interesting. ̃— Preceding unsigned comment added by Photo Archives (talk • contribs) 15:06, 15 June 2023‎ (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Photo Archives: I use VFC for this sort of thing. I gather some people do it with Cat-a-Lot, which I don't use. - Jmabel ! talk 15:20, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, neither seemed to work moving files so will continue individualỹ Photo Archives (talk) 15:38, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Photo Archives: by "moving files", are you saying you need to change the file name? I thought this was about categorization. I'm pretty sure either of those tools will do it, and I'm willing to help, but I'd need to be clear on exactly what you are trying to do (e.g. "for all files with [string] in {{Information}} add [this category]). - Jmabel ! talk 17:13, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, not the file name. Moving the (improperly labelled) files from the Category:Media needing categories 2021 to the already existing Category:Photographs by Thomas Woodtli This is a typical file name there = File:-i---i- (24295389888).jpg I had not searched enough and was trying to move them to Cat Images by Thomas Woodtli Zurich Switzerland Photo Archives (talk) 17:23, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your problem should be the perfect use-case for Cat-A-Lot actually. Did you try Help:Gadget-Cat-a-lot ? -- Herbert Ortner (talk) 17:56, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes i did and I put the new category name in the space at the top, chose the files and when i hit the add button it said original files not found??? Photo Archives (talk) 18:09, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Photo Archives if you want to move files from Category:All media needing categories as of 2021 to another category, after you select the files and enter the new cat name, you need to click the "+ sign", not the "right arrow".
this is a tricky thing about using cat-a-lot on files using {{Uncategorized}}. for other normal categories, if you want to "move files between cats", you hit "right arrow"; if you want to "copy files from one to another", you hit "+ sign".
(the reason behind this is, Category:All media needing categories as of 2021 is set by the template instead of wikitext, so cat-a-lot cannot find the code " [[:Category:All media needing categories as of 2021]] " on the page.) RZuo (talk) 18:46, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That solved the problem - Thanks ̃ Photo Archives (talk) 19:38, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Photo Archives what are you doing right now? why are you moving them to Category:Media needing categories? RZuo (talk) 19:45, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Whatǃ No. I put the Cat Category:Photographs by Thomas Woodtli at the top where it asked for it and clicked the ̟ symbol? What should I had ̟ clicked. Apologies. Tell me and I will redo it all. Photo Archives (talk) 19:50, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Photo Archives now you should move them from Category:Media needing categories to your destination by clicking right arrow. do it slow to familiarise yourself with the tool. RZuo (talk) 19:57, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK I highlighted 7 images, placed the Cat name and under, or next to Media needing categories there is only a - symbol, no arrow or ̟ symbol?? Photo Archives (talk) 20:01, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. select files by clicking them. they become highlighted.
  2. input the destination in the catalot popup. it will suggest to you categories that match. choose the correct one and press ↵ Enter.
  3. the yellow popup will show you new info. now press the right arrow appearing next to your destination.
if you cannot get it right, keep reading Help:Gadget-Cat-a-lot carefully. RZuo (talk) 20:09, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Photo Archives clean up your mess at Category:Media needing categories. move them to the intended categories. also categorise them by topic. RZuo (talk) 17:47, 17 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I tried to move them individually but each file came up with no Cat listed? There is a listing at the bottom for Hidden Categories. I will try again. Thanks for the reminder. It's frustrating when I add the photographers Cat but because it is also listed as a hidden Cat, nothing shows up. I will keep trying Photo Archives (talk) 17:53, 17 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK I finally figured it out. I created a Photographs by Thomas Woodtli page 2 in Photographers from Switzerland and deleted the Cat needing Cat from each file. The page should be empty now. Photo Archives (talk) 18:09, 17 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK all done and hopefully correct. Photo Archives (talk) 18:32, 17 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Photo Archives what were you doing? did you not listen to the advice that you should do it slow to familiarise yourself with the tool?
is there a reason why those images are not added to Category:Photographs by Thomas Woodtli?
this is close to a en:Wikipedia:Competence is required behavioural problem. RZuo (talk) 20:34, 17 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry I thought i was doing that. They were not showing up in the main Cat as a note said there was a Hidden Category. I thought the only way to remove them from the needing category as of 2021 was to make a second page. Someone let me know my mistake and did a redirect to his main Cat. I am taking it slower and apologies again Photo Archives (talk) 14:52, 21 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Photo Archives: stop creating duplicate cats like Category:Office of the President of Taiwan photographs! try to add topical categories!
read Help:Gadget-Cat-a-lot and learn to use "Move (Modify)(→), which does both, removing the current category from the objects and adding the specified category to them (if not already present)..."!--RZuo (talk) 22:09, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

June 19[edit]

Potential underaged user with to much personal information on their user page[edit]

I have come across User:ProGamerYT1902Pup, a seemingly underaged user with potentially to much personal information and images on and of himself on their page. What is the commons policy on this and how does Commons protect such young users, if the information is indeed correct? Calistemon (talk) 05:58, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I do not see more information than on a standard social media page. The problem is that the page and the photos are personal and promotional content by a non contributor and violate our guidelines from that side. GPSLeo (talk) 06:16, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Shouldn\t we have a policy on this rather than relying on admin discretion? Trade (talk) 22:25, 23 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think people should be blocked from contributing because other people perceive circumstantial evidence they are a minor. I question whether their images should be deleted, due to perceived circumstantial evidence they are a minor.
Some years ago there was a contributor to en.wiki, who was a very fine photographer. He was also very disruptive. He had requested deletion of a properly licensed image he had uploaded to en.wiki, from the commons. His deletion justification was, frankly, petty and childish. When he was told it couldn't be deleted from the commons because his very fine image was in use on a bunch of non-English wikis, he thought that if he went to those non-English wikis, and removed every instance where his image was being used, he could make another request for its removal from the commons, and see it removed.
Why did he want the image deleted from the commons? He was sure his image would be chosen as that month's "finest image uploaded to en.wiki this month", and it would only qualify if it was on en.wiki, not the commons.
No, I am not making this up.
A lot of people were disturbed by this. So, he escalated. He went to en:User talk:Jimbo Wales, and complained he was being bullied. His new argument was that all his images had to be deleted, because he was only fourteen years old. He asserted that, since he was really only 14 years old, he hadn't been legally competent to agree to release the IP rights our licensing requires.
No, I am not making this up.
I was surprised how many people, including Jimbo Wales, accepted his claim to be 14, at face value. IIRC, his images were deleted.
Sympathetic people volunteered to mentor him. IIRC, years later, when he would have been an official grown-up, he was still very immature.
I suspect he had been an adult all along - an immature adult.
We have lots of contributors, on WMF projects, who are capable of behaving childishly, even though they are unquestionably legal adults. As to whether there are contributors who are technically minors... I strongly suspect many contributors who are minors never trigger suspicion as to their age, because they act mature beyond their years. I would like to leave those individuals alone. I would like to see all individuals who behaves maturely, left alone, even when there was circumstantial evidence they are minors. Geo Swan (talk) 05:25, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ability to block users only from uploading files[edit]

Hi, I created a feature request on phab:T339878 for this. We have had several users were this would have been useful, and I wanted to request this for a long time. Yann (talk) 19:22, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cannot a en:Wikipedia:Partial block be used? Ruslik (talk) 19:32, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I this only allows the entire namespace to be blocked. Currently we could use abuse filters to block a user from uploading files. I think we should have this feature but we need to change the blocking policy for this. GPSLeo (talk) 09:29, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To quote "COM:BLOCK": "In a general sense, blocks are a last resort for behaviour that has the potential to damage Commons or disrupt its collegial atmosphere. In this way, blocking is designed to be a preventative measure and not a punitive one". The only reason sitewide blocks have been the default for decades is due to the technical limitations that don't allow for blocks to be precise, a user who only makes disruptive Deltion Requests (DR's) but is generally helpful in uploading and categorisation should probably not be blocked sitewide, but due to partial blocks being relatively new and most admins having become admins before they were a thing partial blocks are still currently a rarity on any Wikimedia website (I rarely see partial blocks, even if they make a lot more sense than sitewide blocks). As blocking should be a last resort to prevent abuse it would make sense to isolate otherwise helpful users from the areas where their contributions are less than helpful. This isn't something that for which "we need to change the blocking policy for", this is already the blocking policy. Unfortunately, the sledgehammer (full sitewide blocks) often seems to be the first (1st) and only option admins take. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 21:19, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Developers need a community decision before implementing this. So I started a vote here: Commons:Village pump/Proposals#Ability to block users only from uploading files. Yann (talk) 20:32, 21 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

June 20[edit]

Wrong image used for 10 years - just discovered it.[edit]

File:Main Street, Gorbals, Looking South (-36) LACMA M.2008.40.98.35.jpg was, for the last ten years, in fact Gorbals Looking North by the same photographer, which I discovered when trying to upload the full-size image. This image is very heavily used. What do I do? I currently have it as the image described, which should make the captions work, but if people chose it because they liked the image looking North.... Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:25, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • People will have picked it because they liked the image, not because they specifically needed an image looking south. Get back to the original image, fix the title, edit the four places where it is used to fix the captions if they are specific enough to need fixing. - Jmabel ! talk 00:44, 21 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Since some of them were explicitly describing location, I swapped filenames instead. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:20, 21 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

June 21[edit]

Template:ZentralGut[edit]

Sorry, i need some advice with the Template:ZentralGut. The template was thought to make use of two parameters, {{ZentralGut|ARK=ark:/63274/zhb1h01r|MMSID=997211700105505}} i made the second parameter MMSID optional by using an if-clause in the template code - unfortunately the second parameter doesn't show up in the rendering. Could this have something to do with i18n of the template? what mistake i have done in building this template? Thanks in advance --Mfchris84 (talk) 13:18, 21 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mfchris84: User:Jon Harald Søby fixed it for you. please remember to provide linked examples and come back to close your section after it's resolved in future.--RZuo (talk) 22:09, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --RZuo (talk) 22:09, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

June 22[edit]

To which files should the Personality Rights tag be applied...[edit]

To which files should the {{Personality Rights}} tag be applied?

I keep encountering contributors with the good faith belief that the {{Personality Rights}} tag should be applied to every image that includes living people.

Most recently User:Josve05a made this claim, in File talk:Rebecca Wang BAFTA 2013 (8463766343) (cropped).jpg#call for discussion, stating"

" {{Personality Rights}} should be applied to all images where a person is identifiable in order to warn re-users of non-copyright restrictions related to the image..."

However, the last paragraph of Commons:Non-copyright restrictions, #Non-copyright restrictions, says

"Although we do not consider these restrictions relevant to our policies we do OCCASIONALLY add disclaimers such as {{Trademarked}} and {{Personality rights}} as a general public service."

I think the guideline is pretty clear. The tag should be used OCCASIONALLY -- not on every image with living people. Geo Swan (talk) 07:26, 22 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I tend to apply {{Personality rights}} where I think there is likely to be an issue: naked people, children, people doing something that might look really weird when taken out of context, people I know have had issues with detractors in public fora. I think that about covers it. {{Trademarked}} I use consistently on public-domain logos, because PD is otherwise so wide open for use and people need a reminder. - Jmabel ! talk 14:33, 22 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:TheAafi called applying the tag very broadly a "general practice". User:Red-tailed hawk called it a "common practice".
First, Josve05a's assertion was that it should be applied to every identifiable image of a living person. That is millions of images. If I am not mistaken, the tag has been applied to a mere fraction of one percent of those images, so I question whether it should be described as a "general practice" or a "common practice".
Second, as I noted above, Commons:Non-copyright restrictions#Non-copyright restrictions authorizes the tag to be used "OCCASIONALLY" - not used routinely.
I accept that the individuals who routinely apply the tag as a "general practice" or a "common practice" honestly believe policies and guidelines authorize them to do so. But, unless I am missing something, that is not actually true, and the most relevant guideline only authorizes its "occasional" use.
I think User:Jmabel's interpretation is the one we should go with.
Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 02:12, 23 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not mandatory to slap it with that label, sure, but I don't read the guideline the same way that you do. The "occasionally" refers to our frequency of disclaiming non-copyright restrictions broadly construed; it is not used to set a prescriptive norm that {{Trademarked}} or {{Personality rights}} ought be used merely occasionally when they would apply. The ultimate point of including them is to provide additional warning to re-users about the restrictions on the file that might apply to them. I do think that throwing the {{Trademark}} disclaimer on PD (text)logos is generally wise (the average Joe would be a bit shocked to think that there are restrictions on the use of "public domain" works) and I see {{Personality rights}} commonly put onto pictures of people by more experienced uploaders. Both of these are, of course, optional for uploaders to place, but I do see this commonly, so it does look a lot to me like a common practice (to use the term in a descriptive sense). — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:19, 23 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Geo Swan, I feel RTH has pretty much summarised the thing. It depends how one reads the text and what they mean by the terms "common" or "general". I agree with what has been said above. It is optional but since its usage as RTH has mentioned, I called it a general practice. ─ The Aafī (talk) 04:17, 23 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This template is usually added to featured images, as they will be shown on Commons (and other projects) Main Page. Yann (talk) 09:11, 24 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

June 23[edit]

"(illustrations)" in category names[edit]

User:MPF and I clearly disagree on how "(illustrations)" categories should be used (if anyone wants to see the impasse, there's a discussion on my talk page), and we are clearly not going to come to a consensus ourselves, so I am seeking other opinions. Should a category such as Category:Odobenus rosmarus (illustrations) or Category:Anser albifrons (illustrations):

A) be confined to drawings, paintings, etc.
OR
B) include photographs if they were used as illustrations in old books, magazines, etc.

MPF, I've tried to state this as neutrally as possible; let me know if you have any issue with my characterization of either view. Jmabel ! talk 18:36, 23 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jmabel: Thanks! Yes, that is a good characterisation. This concerns files like File:Bulletin of the British Ornithologists' Club (1947-48) (20258673229).jpg. For me, I have several reasons to justify categorising them in '(illustrations)' subcategories:
  • Archive.org (from where many/most of these files originate) considers them illustrations. Note the line (bold here is my emphasis) "Click here to view book online to see this illustration in context in a browseable online version of this book." This defines "illustration" as any image (whatever its means of creation) used to illustrate a text. What is good enough for Archive.org to classify as an illustration, is good enough for me too.
Halftone, magnified. Both photos and artwork scanned from published books share this composition.
  • They share a halftone composition with artwork illustrations; when viewed at high resolution, both are made up of coarse-scaled dots, not continuous tone like normal photos. This affects both their appearance and their reproduction quality.
  • The imbalance in numbers of files; there might typically be 100-200 modern photos of a topic, but only 10-20 each of both painted illustrations, and photographic illustrations. Leaving the latter in the main category of modern photos, they look very out-of-place among the modern photos. And as the number of files in a main category approaches 200, removing them to a subcategory 'frees up space' in the main category, yet there are usually not enough for it to be worth making a separate [Category:Historical photos of xxxx] (or other similar name) for them. Putting them in the illustrations subcategory, they look very much 'at home'.
Hope this helps with the discussion! - MPF (talk) 22:50, 23 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I could certainly agree to adding categories for halftoned images, as we do for black-and-white images. And I could agree to adding subcats to pretty much anything for images before a certain date, as long as that date no later than 1970 (I'd go for something earlier, but I'm old). Otherwise, I don't agree with this. Half-toning is a technique for printing photographs. They are still photographs, not "illustrations" in the sense we used that in our categorization. - Jmabel ! talk 03:17, 24 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is no one going to weigh in here? So far all we've accomplished is to make our disagreement public. The issue here presumably affects hundreds, probably thousands, of categories. - Jmabel ! talk 00:08, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I noticed the deafening silence, too! - MPF (talk) 00:11, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pictogram voting comment (orange).svg Comment I would not mind having the time to address this properly in a COM:CFD. Unfortunately VP threads have a short shelf life, and it is easy for folks who would have something to contribute to just miss it. Josh (talk) 09:24, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To me, the example image is merely a "photograph of a photograph" rather than a "photograph of an illustrated work", and thus wouldn't belong in the illustrations category. It shouldn't matter that it was published as an illustration in a book, just that the original work is a photograph (or plate, I suppose) of the actual subject matter, and not an artistic interpretation of the subject matter. Perhaps I'm missing a nuance of the intent here, but how is it any different than, say, File:Promise barge under tow.jpg, which is also clearly a scan of a printed photo? I wouldn't expect to see that image in an (illustrations) category. — Huntster (t @ c) 17:13, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
illustration refers to those hand-drawn pictures before photography became popular. that example is a photo, so not an illustration.
File:Lime - whole and halved.jpg is used as illustration in en:Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2023-06-19, do you therefore put that file into maybe Category:Citrus × aurantiifolia - botanical illustrations?--RZuo (talk) 22:09, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think a category like Category:Odobenus rosmarus (illustrations) is only going to be useful if it excludes photos. Otherwise, any photo used to illustrate a web page, even a Wikipedia article, could be added. The question to me is whether (illustrations) is the best qualifier for the category. There's another convention in Commons, appending "in art", as in Category:Tower Bridge in art. Neither seems completely unambiguous, since photos are a form of art, while definitions of "illustration" vary. But I can't think of any other word that means "non-photographic depictions", besides the obvious but inelegant "Category:Odobenus rosmarus, non-photographic depictions" (it's not a disambiguation, so it shouldn't be in parentheses, I think). --ghouston (talk) 00:26, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In my experience, "(illustrations)" categories are usually a bit more specific than "in art" categories. They are used for the sort of work that used to be the only means of book or newspaper illustration before photography, photogravure, etc. and which are still moderately common. Non-photographic botanical illustrations, in particular, continue to be very common in works on botany, plant identification, etc. and this is almost as much so in other fields of biology. In particular, these categories are usually not for works that are intended primarily as artworks, and which exist precisely for an illustrative purpose. - Jmabel ! talk 03:46, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

June 25[edit]

Metadata problem[edit]

File:Double-crested Cormorants, Crystal Beach, Florida.jpg has a load of nonsense in the metadata, 'User comments' section, which is causing page display problems. Can the metadata be cleaned up? Thanks! - MPF (talk) 22:12, 25 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • @MPF: The only way to edit the EXIF data is to download, edit with exiftool or something similar, and re-upload. - Jmabel ! talk 00:04, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thanks! I tried that with GIMP, but couldn't find the lengthy 'text' causing the problem in the exif-editing section. Would you be willing to give it a go, please? - MPF (talk) 00:09, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • @MPF: As I said, if you want to go for it, exiftool is usually the right tool for this. I haven't had occasion to use it in a long time, note even sure I have a copy on this computer, and I have a lot else on my plate. - Jmabel ! talk 01:46, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel: - well, I know I don't have a copy on my computer, because I've never even heard of 'exiftool' before, let alone not ever used it before :-) Anyone else, please? - MPF (talk) 08:52, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MPF: I've done it. — Sam Wilson ( Talk • Contribs ) … 23:43, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Excellent, thanks! - MPF (talk) 23:50, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Scope of a PD (as per URAA) picture[edit]

Hello, I have scanned a photography dated from 1960 (and thus falling under {{PD-1996}} as per {{PD-AR-Photo}}) of a group of people in one of the isles between Victoria and Rosario in the Paraná flooded savanna. I want to know if it is within the scope of this project. --Lugamo94 (talk) 23:46, 25 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Lugamo94: Assuming you are correct about the copyright status, there's really no way someone can say whether the photo is in scope without seeing it. - Jmabel ! talk 00:06, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel: Here is a low-res preview of the front and back. Lugamo94 (talk) 00:12, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Lugamo94: I'd say if that is PD, then it is presumably in scope. - Jmabel ! talk 01:48, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel Thanks. Lugamo94 (talk) 01:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

June 26[edit]

Deleted files history - asking as nominator[edit]

A few days ago I spent some time patrolling new files and some older files, and nominated about 20 for speedy deletion - some were selfies or personal files, some had copyright issues. Is there a way to monitor these nominations as a regular user? I think the files got deleted, because all these actions disappeared from my contribution history. - Tupungato (talk) 08:06, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Tupungato - head to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:DeletedContributions/Tupungato and you can see they've all been deleted - MPF (talk) 09:04, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not for me :) The action you have requested is limited to users in the group: Administrators. -Tupungato (talk) 14:25, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Tupungato: I usually stick files that I nominate for speedy deletion on my watchlist. The watchlist then shows the log message when the file is deleted. --bjh21 (talk) 09:41, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes. As a non-admin, watchlist is pretty much the only way to do this. - Jmabel ! talk 14:42, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you're using the QuickDelete gadget to tag files for deletion - which you probably should! - it will add a notice to the uploader's talk page when you tag a file for speedy deletion. Those edits will stay in your contributions, and you'll be able to track the status of the deletions from there. Omphalographer (talk) 00:41, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categorizing a category redirect[edit]

I have often seen users mention and sometime enforce the idea that category redirects should not themselves be placed in a category (except Category:Category redirects I guess). The note added by {{Category redirect}} even explicitly states: "Redirected categories should be empty and not categorised themselves."

That is all well and good, but I wonder if this is just tribal knowledge being passed down. I assume there are reasons, but in looking, I was unable to uncover anything more than just 'don't do it'. I would really like to know why this prohibition is in place so I can better understand if we should be considering an exception to this rule for some COM:CFD issues, or if that is going to create real problems. Josh (talk) 09:21, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • @Joshbaumgartner: Why => because when people are navigating down the hierarchy, they should find actual categories, not a slew of redirects. - Jmabel ! talk 14:45, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel: That sounds valid. What I am investigating is whether that is better or worse than nested categories about the same topic. Right now we have multiple nested categories for the same topic, such as the same aircraft:
  • Category:Aircraft by registration
  • Category:AB-CDE (aircraft) - has all of the files depicting this aircraft
  • Category:Aircraft by construction number
  • Category:Aircraft c/n 12345 - only has Category:AB-CDE (aircraft) in it
  • Category:AB-CDE (aircraft)
Normally we would merge 12345 and AB-CDE as they just different identifiers for one and the same aircraft. However, if we do that, then it disappears from either the registration or construction number index. This dilemma could be solved by categorizing the redirect. I'm not bringing this up to discuss why aircraft are organized this way or why it is useful, that's a different question (and yes I know several c/n's have multiple registrations and vice-versa, this is not that). I just want to illustrate the issue and would like to know what the real downside is to categorizing a redirect so we don't have duplicated nested categories just to permit indexing. Josh (talk) 03:33, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Books about the Flora of California[edit]

HELPː I thought I was taking my time in moving PDF books into a new Cat within Category:Books about the Flora of California and when I used cat-a-lot to remove the PDF files I had put in a seperate Category, I think I removed all of the original filesǃǃǃ Where did they go? Where do i find them to put them back. I am so sorry I didn't look properly. I know it's the 2nd or 3rd time but I thought I was being careful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Photo Archives (talk • contribs) 17:11, 26 June 2023‎ (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Sporting goods"[edit]

In terms of shops, I think we have a bit of a conflation in the hierarchy between at least two distinct types of shops. As you go up and down the hierarchy, "sports shops" "sporting shops", and "sporting goods shops" appear in category names. In the U.S., and especially before 1970 or so, "sporting goods" mostly means/meant hunting and fishing, maybe camping, not a lot that would be called "sports" nowadays (though they did usually carry some baseball gloves, etc.). On the whole the were more like what is now called an "outdoor equipment" shop, a term we don't seem at all to have in our categories.

This came up because I needed to categorize File:Seattle - Warshal's Sporting Goods, circa 1970s (52899606237).jpg. I ended up using Category:Sporting shops in the United States, but it puts it in a category with things like an Adidas shop, or the team store of a minor league baseball team.

Anyone interested in sorting this out? I could start a CfD, but a lot of categories are potentially affected, and I have no particular expertise or focus in the area. - Jmabel ! talk 19:22, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

June 27[edit]

Wikimedia Commons dark mode[edit]

Does anyone know hif this exists? The chrome extension i use causes Commons to lag a lot--Trade (talk) 01:26, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This has been a suggestion for quite some time and there’s a page outlining it at en:Wikipedia:Dark mode, but I haven’t found any gadgets that fully implements dark mode. There are some skins with a dark appearance that can you install on your server if you have MediaWiki. Sorry if this isn’t the greatest answer to your question. Dylan | ✉ | ✓  03:28, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Trade — You might want to take a look at en:User:Volker E. (WMF)/dark-mode, not perfect but works. Dylan | ✉ | ✓  03:31, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

June 28[edit]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump&oldid=777883114"