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/2024/05.

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 Editor trying to rename hundreds of images to include the location 16 5 Asclepias 2024-05-23 20:01
2 Mandatory captions 13 7 Sneeuwschaap 2024-05-27 22:59
3 Changes in UploadWizard: lost autonumbering 3 3 Marsupium 2024-05-23 09:48
4 Rename a file 8 6 Bjh21 2024-05-23 12:50
5 British English = Tsonga? 4 3 Jeff G. 2024-05-22 19:08
6 Emilio Segrè Visual Archives 5 2 Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 2024-05-23 17:56
7 Problem with Upload 2 2 Jmabel 2024-05-23 17:32
8 dates in structured data 2 2 ReneeWrites 2024-05-23 07:19
9 How is this possible ? 5 4 Alexpl 2024-05-24 15:32
10 Photographers 2 2 Ipr1 2024-05-23 21:00
11 Category:Bain copyright notice and Bettman 2 2 Asclepias 2024-05-23 18:44
12 Italian cultural heritage law application outside Italy 24 8 Rosenzweig 2024-05-25 10:25
13 Category:Steamboat Willie 13 5 ReneeWrites 2024-05-27 13:32
14 File upload wizard 3 3 Sannita (WMF) 2024-05-25 13:31
15 Another Person Image 3 3 Jmabel 2024-05-25 15:42
16 Feedback Invited for Wikimedia Commons Android App Upload Feature 9 4 Sannita (WMF) 2024-05-27 10:50
17 Scope question 5 4 Jmabel 2024-05-27 01:07
18 Upload Wizard, likely again... 12 5 Jmabel 2024-05-27 01:12
19 Privacy issues for faces and car license plates 9 7 Mr.choppers 2024-05-27 03:13
20 Add coordinates to images (bot task) 3 2 Fl.schmitt 2024-05-28 21:19
21 Seeking better understanding of an odd IP edit 2 2 Asclepias 2024-05-26 21:41
22 Philippines and COM:CSCR 8 2 JWilz12345 2024-05-28 11:01
23 Traditional/Folk music of Catalonia 2 1 Jmabel 2024-05-27 23:32
24 Strange PDF-Preview behaviour 2 2 Animalparty 2024-05-27 23:08
25 Why does the popup for file renaming refer to Commons:File naming? 1 1 Robert Flogaus-Faust 2024-05-27 22:45
26 Category:Film characters by actors 2 2 Adamant1 2024-05-28 19:49
27 Categories for photos by photographers 7 4 Enhancing999 2024-05-28 21:45
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 and gaslight at a meeting place in the village of Amstetten, Germany. [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.

May 17[edit]

Editor trying to rename hundreds of images to include the location[edit]

Jugermai (talk · contribs) has submitted hundreds of file rename requests (see their contribs) to add locations to images (at the beginning of the filename, too, rather than at the end), even when disambiguation is not needed. Has there been a discussion somewhere that suggested this would be a good thing? Isn't that what categories are for: to indicate the location of the subject of an image? It seems to me this is needlessly complicating the filenames, as well as moving the most important information (what the image actually contains) to the end of the filename. I don't want to approve any more until it's determined this is a good thing to do. Thanks for any input. ···日本穣 Talk to Nihonjoe 23:25, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone have any thoughts on this? I don't have a strong preference either way, but I'd like some input before I approve any more like this. ···日本穣 Talk to Nihonjoe 17:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As described, this sounds as a very bad idea. The policy is described in Commons:File_renaming#Which_files_should_be_renamed?, and it doesn't include that any file can be renamed just because of the naming preferences of some user different from the uploader. Even if the requesting user could argue that his version looks a bit better (which I think it doesn't in this case), the policy clearly states that "Files should NOT be renamed only because the new name looks a bit better."
If somebody wants to make clear that Toronto is in Ontario, Canada, file names aren't the right place to do it, but categories and structured data.
In summary, I think Jugermai's requests should be reverted.--Pere prlpz (talk) 17:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pere prlpz: That's kind of the way I'm leaning, too. I'll wait a bit to see if anyone else has any thoughts. ···日本穣 Talk to Nihonjoe 18:10, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nihonjoe: Looking only at the last 20 or so requests, almost all of them are blatantly bad and should be denied. In particular they're claimed under criterion 4 and that criterion is very narrow. As explained by the footnote at COM:FR#cite_note-4, it's only for use in two cases: files that are parts of a larger work and files whose precise names are depended on by external systems (such as Wikisource and complex templates). Neither of those applies here.
There are a few cases (e.g. File:Old Mill ruins (I0015208).jpg) where renaming might be justified under criterion 2. Specifically the "Generic category rather than specific item" sub-criterion. Most of them have adequate specifications of the location in the name already, though. --bjh21 (talk) 12:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bjh21: Thanks for your comments. That confirms what I was thinking. It might take more than just me to clean them up, though. @Jugermai: It might be good for you to go in and remove the rename requests for most or all of these. I'll see what I can do to help, but it would be best for you to clean up the requests. ···日本穣 Talk to Nihonjoe 17:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nihonjoe Thank you for the corrections and guidance! I will start undoing the change requests. Is it alright to leave the file names that have already been approved, or is it better to revert them as well? Jugermai (talk) 18:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jugermai: I would suggest reverting them as well. ···日本穣 Talk to Nihonjoe 18:37, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jugermai: I can probably bulk-remove the rename requests from the ones that haven't been renamed using COM:VFC, so you might not need to do those ones. Give me an hour or so... --bjh21 (talk) 19:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jugermai: With the help of the magical COM:VFC, I have removed the remaining {{Rename}} templates that you added citing criterion 4. I expect there are some cases where renaming under criterion 2 instead would be appropriate; feel free to request it again in those cases. I've done the one I mentioned above. --bjh21 (talk) 19:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bjh21 YAY! Thank you so much for your help, I'm so glad there was a quick fix!
I'll go through and undo the already approved ones, and possibly re-request the ones with vague names. I will also try to look more into the date issue (getting the correct data) and using the appropriate template. Again, I really appreciate your help and patience. Thank you! Jugermai (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, my apologies for causing trouble, I realize now I should have done more research before proceeding with all the name change requests! I am an intern working for Archives of Ontario (the uploader of the files), attempting to do data cleanup. Aside from editing the titles, I've also been editing the dates to be [ca. 1948-1972], as there was an error in the upload and most of the dates incorrectly read 1952. I understand the reasoning behind reverting the file name edits, but I just want to know if the date changes will/can be retained? Jugermai (talk) 14:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jugermai: Yes, those date changes will likely be kept. I would suggest not marking those as minor changes, though, since you're changing the meaning of the page. It would be even better to use one of the date templates like {{Other date}} or {{Complex date}}. For instance {{other date|~|1948|1972}} will give "between circa 1948 and circa 1972
date QS:P,+1950-00-00T00:00:00Z/7,P1319,+1948-00-00T00:00:00Z/9,P1326,+1972-00-00T00:00:00Z/9,P1480,Q5727902
" with proper translation into other languages.
Changing the names of files is special because those names are part of how files are referred to, both within MediaWiki and on external sites that use Commons' files. This is why we have quite restrictive file renaming guidelines and why renaming requests need to be approved by trusted users. --bjh21 (talk) 15:32, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jugermai: If you are certain that a date in the title of a file is wrong, that can be a valid reason to rename the file, but then that's per criterion 3, to correct an error. In the date field, if "ca. 1948-1972" is really the best that can be done, then "Category:Ontario in the 1950s" should also be removed. It may be replaced or not with "Category:Ontario in the 20th century". Isn't it at least possible to be sure that the date range is "1948-1972", without having to make it even more uncertain by adding "ca."? While editing, please also remove the empty "Category:" in many pages. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In some of those "1948-1972" cases, it's possible to easily narrow the date range, on the basis of the pictured people, objects, buildings, events. For example, a photo of Lt. Gov. MacKay (not McKay) must be 1957-1963, and by consequence the other photos of the same event. (With research, it may even be possible to find the precise date of the event, but I understand that must not be part of the internship job.) -- Asclepias (talk) 16:43, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While editing, a few other things could be usefully edited at the same time. Sometimes, the year category is not consistent with the date field, e.g. this photo has 1964 in the date field and 1960 in the category. A useful suggestion was made by a user on the talk page of the uploader VNDS: Commons indicates when images are in the public domain. For many images, their copyright is expired in Canada, they are also in the public domain in the United States, and thus they can, and probably should, use the proper public domain templates on Commons, as the case may be, such as PD-Canada and PD-1996, to adequately inform the viewers about their status. An offer, additionally, of an open license OGL-ON may be applicable for users in some countries in the rest of the world where a copyright might still subsist, but Commons gives particular attention to indicate the actual status in the United States and in Canada (country of origin). -- Asclepias (talk) 20:01, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 18[edit]

Mandatory captions[edit]

Hi. Apparently, captions are now mandatory, at least when using Upload Wizard. Has this issue been discussed before the implementation? Strakhov (talk) 05:49, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Strakhov: I believe that's a bug. See Commons:Upload_Wizard_feedback#Caption_same_as_Description:_boring_and_confusing. If this is something different, that's still the page on which to bring it up. - Jmabel ! talk 16:25, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This bug seems to force some veteran users to leave this platform. N509FZ Talk 前置，有座！Front engine with seats! 10:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you are a veteran user, just ignore the "Wizard" and use Special:Upload. - Jmabel ! talk 13:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But this isn't the reasonable excuse for abusing the power in developing without debugging. N509FZ Talk 前置，有座！Front engine with seats! 15:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Special:Upload is not practical if you have multiple files to upload, sadly UW is the only tool available (without needing to download Java). Bidgee (talk) 19:30, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure it is. You just ping-pong between two tabs and copy-paste the same text (or adjust as needed). Even for this I find it far easier to use than UW, which I've never liked at all. - Jmabel ! talk 05:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not practical for me, since the tab/window (if I have two separate browser windows) will suspend and refresh. I have found UW simple enough (until recently) to use. Bidgee (talk) 20:16, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I went back to the old form as well. Ymblanter (talk) 21:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel, Upload Wizard is apparently the standard upload tool for quite some time (at least since 2020, I'd say). It's perfectly possible to be a "veteran", or at least an experienced user, and to prefer uploading files through Upload Wizard. Those updates on the tool are just making it worse. Jesus, can't I simply write the descriptions and upload the photographs? RodRabelo7 (talk) 05:21, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying that there aren't plenty of veterans who use UW. I'm just suggesting that if you are a veteran and find it (increasingly) annoying, just go around it instead of being frustrated or, more drastically, leaving the platform. - Jmabel ! talk 21:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, that (compulsory captions) is a temporary problem, and if it is not fixed by now, it will be in a few days. - Jmabel ! talk 21:09, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely harmful change. The more time it takes to upload, the fewer files will be uploaded. These "captions" - third duplicate of the descriptions and filenames - are hardly needed at all. Sneeuwschaap (talk) 22:59, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changes in UploadWizard: lost autonumbering[edit]

So far, when loading many files, the number ending the names was increased by 1 in subsequent files. Now you have to renumber the names of all files manually. Why? Kenraiz (talk) 06:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a known problem and will be fixed with the next MediaWiki update. GPSLeo (talk) 12:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a phab ticket at hand by chance? Thx in advance! —Marsupium (talk) 09:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 21[edit]

Rename a file[edit]

How do I rename an image here? File:Pinconning.jpg is clashing with a Pinconning.jpg on Wikipedia proper, and I would like to rename the former. TenPoundHammer (talk) 18:02, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You could just use the export to wikimedia commons button inside (top of) the wikipedia page, during the export process you will have the opportunity of renaming the file to (example) Pinconning, cows in a field.jpg. Otherwise, you could apply for file mover rights to rename your own file, which is unnecessary. Broichmore (talk) 19:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Broichmore: the "export" approach presumes User:TenPoundHammer wants to move the file to Commons from [an unspecified] Wikipedia. I think what they are complaining about is that the Wikipedia file is "masking" access to the Commons file on that Wikipedia. Seems like a valid reason to move/rename the Commons file.
@TenPoundHammer: I can't see the particular form of the UI that you get, but there should typically be a "move" button in a navigation strip just above the image. If you don't have filemover privileges, that will just let you request a move for someone else to carry out. Alternatively, you can edit the wikitext and use {{Rename}}, which will have the same effect. - Jmabel ! talk 03:21, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The file was uploaded to enwiki under a free license. I see no reason to not have a file like that on Commons instead, so now it is. ReneeWrites (talk) 19:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TenPoundHammer: COM:FRNOT item 3 says that in such cases the file on Wikipedia should be renamed. Inertia6084, who renamed the Commons file, might want to review our guidelines. --bjh21 (talk) 12:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This was uploaders request (Criterion 1), although Crit. 6 was given. So "... who renamed the ... want to review our guidelines", doesn't make sense. How should I have known this? The history says "(Uploaded own work with UploadWizard)", not "uploaded from en.wiki" - So the uploader uploaded this themselves, not via Wikipedia. Inertia6084 (talk) (talk) 12:43, 23 May 2024 (UTC) PS if someone likes to get it renamed to another name, please give me a ping. Thnx. - Inertia6084 (talk) (talk) 12:43, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Inertia6084: Oh, yes, it's me who should have reviewed the history of the file! I'm very sorry! I shall now go and rename some files to compensate for my mistake. --bjh21 (talk) 12:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 22[edit]

British English = Tsonga?[edit]

I have my language preference for this project set to "British English", as English is my mother tongue (do people have any idea just how offensive it is for English to be termed as 'British English" while American English is described as 'English', I wonder?). In the last week or so, parts of any page I access are displayed in a language that Google Translate seems to think is at least partly Tsonga; example: "Yi efo/eka'e gwa ebo wo le nyangagi wuncin ye kamina wunga tinya nan". Does anyone know what's going on, and if anyone's working to fix it? Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:30, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Justlettersandnumbers: That text shows here.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, we have both "British English" (en-UK) and "American English" (en-US). Unqualified "English" (en) can be either, or any of a number of other national variants (e.g. en-CA or en-IN), and is on something of a "first come, first serve" basis. No comment on the Tsonga thing, though. - Jmabel ! talk 17:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We also choose not to fight the American Revolution again.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emilio Segrè Visual Archives[edit]

Someone left a message here stating The Emilio Segrè Visual Archives copyright policy: Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Harold_Urey,_c._1932.jpg. Is there anyway we can automate aggregating all the images that originate with them into Category:Emilio Segrè Visual Archives? --RAN (talk) 18:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): am I correct that the the Emilio Segrè Visual Archives is a subset of the Niels Bohr Library and Archives? If so, is there anything in the source URL that will tell us that a particular file is part of the Emilio Segrè Visual Archives? - Jmabel ! talk 18:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure what belongs to what part of the archive, but when I search for Emilio Segrè Visual Archives I get those results, can you see them from the link, if not just type "Emilio Segrè Visual Archives" in search. It appears that images from the Emilio Segrè Visual Archives have their own copyright statement apart from the Niels Bohr Library and Archives. It appears that Niels Bohr Library and Archives may house the physical prints. --RAN (talk) 19:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): I would suggest that rather than a fully automated solution, you could use Cat-a-lot or VFC on that search result to add the category. Probably there are other tools as well, but those are the two I would consider. - Jmabel ! talk 17:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with Upload[edit]

There is a problem with Special:Upload. Once you have completed the form and submit for uploading, if there is a problem with the selected file name it chooses a new valid name and gives you a chance to proceed. It used to have buttons to change the name or use the selected name. But the problem is it looses all of the description, licencing & categories that has been entered, just offering a blank form with a basic description template. Keith D (talk) 21:44, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Keith D: I'm not sure I follow that. Could you describe the old and new sequence, indicating where they differ? Or maybe someone can understand this as written and give you an answer. - Jmabel ! talk 17:32, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 23[edit]

dates in structured data[edit]

In structured data when you add a date for inception or publication_date, you have the option of making it "Mark as prominent", is there an instance where you want to mark a date that way? Or do we not need "Mark as prominent" when dates are added? --RAN (talk) 05:22, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If a field only contains one entry it's automatically treated as the prominent one. This is the default, so you don't need to worry about all the entries on Commons or Wikidata that don't have them marked as such. The prompt to mark something as prominent only appears if there are two (or more) conflicting entries in one field, in which case Wikidata doesn't quite know what to do with it and asks you to pick one. ReneeWrites (talk) 07:19, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How is this possible ?[edit]

How is this possible ? The File:Silvermynt - Skoklosters slott - 109422.tif was rotated in 2019 but still appears upside down ! --DenghiùComm (talk) 15:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It shows the correct alignment, the problem seems to be on your side. Alexpl (talk) 15:32, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Photographers[edit]

Some categories for photographers display the Creator template and some do not. Which is the preferred? RAN (talk) 17:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When a photographer does not have Creator-template it likely hasn't been created yet or it hasn't been added to Wikidata (where it should be marked). Also Commons is slow to update the view for recently added entries under categories. Ipr1 (talk) 21:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bain copyright notice and Bettman[edit]

At Category:Bain copyright notice Bettman Archive appears as a subcategory, but should not. Can someone see what is causing the inclusion? --RAN (talk) 18:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Someone forgot the colon there. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Italian cultural heritage law application outside Italy[edit]

Most of us long believed that the Italian cultural heritage law (a non-copyright restriction-related law from 2004) only applies uses within Italy. This is finally untrue: the law has jurisdiction outside Italy as well. It is documented at w:en:Vitruvian Man#Legal dispute as well as in this article by Belgium-based COMMUNIA, regarding a successful case against a famous German toy manufacturer. Whether the same applies to the Internet is a gray area, however, but I may feel the Italian courts will abhor American lex loci protectionis defenses just as they abhored the German toy manufacturer's defense that they are in Germany and are not subject to the laws of Italy. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 21:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the German toy manufacturer got an ally from a court in Stuttgart, which ruled that the company has the right to reproduce a public domain work, much to the fury of the Italian ministry of culture, which now argues they are prepared to challenge the "abnormal" ruling made by Stuttgart court, even in the European or even the international legal arenas. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 21:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Links:
-- Asclepias (talk) 23:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it doesn't affect us unless US law recognizes it, right? We only have to follow US law. We choose to follow non-US law as a courtesy, but if we decide as a community that the law "represent(s) an assault on the very concept of a public domain", we can feel free to ignore it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@King of Hearts that may be, unless either the Italian art gallery sends a cease-and-desist letter to Wikimedia, or if an international court (assuming the Italian officials have already filed complaint on the international stage) ruled that the law of the artwork's country if origin is honored, not the law of the countries of the "infringers" (be it German or U.S. laws). But, yes, it may be a matter for the next generation of editors, as this may become the very first of cases where extraterritoriality of a law is involved and may change the perception of lex loci protectonis principle. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Italian entities do not target Commons anyway (for now), because their rules target commercial uses (for now). But they might try to target people who reuse Commons files commercially. The saying that we only have to follow US law is used specifically in the context of copyright law (because treaties provide that a website is assumed to be publishing in the country of the servers for matters that relate specifically to copyright, although there are nuances), but not necessarily in the context of other laws. In matters other than copyright, if something published on a website violates a law in a country, the usual rules can apply in that country. The Italian cultural assets code is not based on copyright. (It's doing something with effects similar to copyright without calling it copyright so it circumvents the limits of copyright.) In general, a country's laws must be complied with in that country. What's special is that the Italian entities claim that the Italian cultural assets code applies even to uses occurring entirely outside Italy and that non-Italian courts do not have jurisdiction to decide about it even in their own respective countries. -- Asclepias (talk) 01:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For mitigation reason, the templates {{Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer}} and {{PD-Italy}} should include a warning (probably a separate box below the relevant box holding the PD text) that states reusers globally should exercise caution when reusing Italian public domain works if those works are works of art and architecture, due to the cultural heritage laws of the country, and with link to COM:General disclaimer. Note that due to the situation, the scope of the warning should be international and not confined to the Italian reusers. And ICYMI, Getty Images might be the first of U.S.-hosted media repository sites to be targeted by the expanding Cultural Heritage Code: read here. The impacted work is the famous Statue of David by Michelangelo in Firenze/Florence, and the Florentine court is ordering the Italian-language edition of Getty Images to take down all images of the statue, using the Cultural Heritage Code as the basis. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If they are really enforcing this I this this will soon go to the European Court of Justice and I do not think that this rule complies with the copyright directive. GPSLeo (talk) 05:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is hubris on the part of the Florentine court.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 08:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JWilz12345: The MiBAC-disclaimer template is already the warning made for that. The scope of the PD-Italy template is to describe the copyright status in Italy. Adding text about something else would be confusing. -- Asclepias (talk) 10:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The template does not seem to have a strong language, however. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:42, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The two Florence cases seem to be about the validity and the application of the Italian code within Italy. In that sense, they are not really out of the ordinary. The Da Vinci cases are those where the Italian ministry of Culture claimed to rule what is done in the entire world. -- Asclepias (talk) 10:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Asclepias Getty Images is not hosted in Italy, however. It is hosted in the U.S. just like Wikimedia sites. Getty is HQ-ed in Seattle, Washington. The Italian language-version of the site is no different from the projects Wikimedia Foundation currently hosts (enwiki, Commons, idwiki, itwiki et cetera). Several of Wikimedia projects have made it a rule to only comply with the U.S. law since the servers are in the U.S., using lex loci protectionis principle (except a few ones like dewiki which mostly follows German law, ruwiki which follows Russian law, ukwiki which follows Ukrainian law, and us Commons which mostly follows the work origin's country's law in terms of artistic works and architectural works). The fact that Getty immediately complied and made such images unavailable, even if the Italian language-edition of Getty is most likely hosted in the U.S., means that in recent times the lex loci protectionis (to only follow U.S. law) seems to be evaporating. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder what they would have to say about 3D reproductions of the famous Statue of David by Michelangelo in Firenze/Florence (and other Italian statues) that Caesar's Entertainment has put up in it's hotels and casinos.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The German publisher disagreed with the Italian court ruling that said they were not allowed to use this Leonardo drawing in a commercial way, both in Italy as well as abroad. So the publisher pre-emptively went to a German court to get a ruling in their favor. The German court then ruled that Italian laws only apply in Italy, but not in other nations like Germany. So while some Italian authorities seem to think Italian laws give them some worldwide authority in these matters, so far no court outside of Italy has agreed with that. --Rosenzweig τ 13:37, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I note that they went to Stuttgart, not Köln. ;) -- Asclepias (talk) 14:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not surprising, the publisher is based close to Stuttgart, and unlike the press or Internet cases this is about a (possible) civil lawsuit, for which Stuttgart would be the venue. --Rosenzweig τ 14:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosenzweig still, like a typical Filipino TV drama series stereotype, the Italian authorities-made legal drama isn't yet over, as they are pondering to contest German court ruling either in a European or international venue or court. At least, the German court ruling has given a hard slap to the faces of the Italian cultural authorities seeking to privatize anything in public domain, and concerned free culture advocates, like several Wikimedians, should remain vigilant and continue to counter the cultural heritage restrictions. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NoYes, it most likely isn't over. Italian authorities apparently like drama. --Rosenzweig τ 14:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosenzweig I said it isn't yet over. I didn't said it's over. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:41, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know, I probably used the wrong word here. --Rosenzweig τ 10:25, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like a comment in the page linked above: Next thing Egypt will be demanding licensing fees for photos of the pyramids. I bet this to backfire in a big way if they try to enforce it worldwide, like a Streisand effect. Yann (talk) 19:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While it's interesting to conjecture how this may play out, may I assume that the only real consequence for Commons at present is a template about a non-copyright restriction, possibly linking to somewhere that the status of this is discussed at length? - Jmabel ! talk 00:08, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On Commons, yes. Commons adds the MiBAC template. The consequences on the use of Commons files may vary. it.wikipedia does not use some Commons files. -- Asclepias (talk) 01:50, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 24[edit]

Category:Steamboat Willie[edit]

I feel like the category have been falling victim to overcategorization. Any suggestions?--Trade (talk) 17:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you weren't kidding. This is wildly excessive. Cross-cutting categories like Category:Steamboat Willie artworks by language by type are completely unnecessary, especially when there's only a few "artworks" being categorized; all these categories are doing is making files harder to find.
Most of this system of subcategories was created by an IP editor about two weeks ago; this isn't a long-standing situation. I'll see what I can do to start getting this cleaned up. Omphalographer (talk) 20:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the Scooby Doo and Space Jam categories suffers from similar issues. Trade (talk) 21:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All from the same user. If we just delete all the categories this one guy made it solves every problem at once. ReneeWrites (talk) 22:02, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, this user edited via 2001:8003:DD56:5500:A199:3CE6:9012:1D9A (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RBL • • guc • stalktoy • block user • block log), and then other addresses within 2001:8003:DD56:5500::/64 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RBL • • guc • stalktoy • block user • block log). It is a part of the problematic 2001:8003:C000::/35 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RBL • • guc • stalktoy • block user • block log), as well as the problematic 2001:8000::/19 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RBL • • guc • stalktoy • block user • block log). Pinging @Graham87, Albertoleoncio, who blocked them on other projects, for input.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 22:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a different user from the one I was after with my block. Those IP ranges are used by Australia's largest phone company so they're going to have a lot of users. Graham87 (talk) 06:46, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Graham87: Thanks. Do we have any Australian Commoners who could have a word with Telstra about this?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:38, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G.: That probably wouldn't help. On the English Wikipedia they tried that sort of thing with the Abuse response team, but it never went anywhere. Graham87 (talk) 14:56, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What could Telstra even do? Trade (talk) 15:25, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Trade: They could enforce their ToS.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:45, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Getting an ISP to take action against a subscriber is extraordinarily uncommon, even for long-term abusers who are obviously engaged in inappropriate activity (e.g. deliberately evading blocks, posting violent threats, etc). None of that is even the case here; while creating useless categories is undesirable it doesn't rise anywhere near the level of taking action against the user. Omphalographer (talk) 18:19, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wanted to make a list here of all the subcategories this affects, but thought the better of it after finding out The Space Jam category alone has over a hundred subcategories for what are maybe 20 images. I started a CfD here. ReneeWrites (talk) 07:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Created CfD's for the following:
In total these cover over 500 categories.
--ReneeWrites (talk) 13:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 25[edit]

File upload wizard[edit]

Hello everyone,

I've recently noticed a new upload interface in my account. Previously, when I didn't provide a title for the image during the upload process, the file name would be automatically used as the title. However, with this new interface, I have to manually re-enter the file names. This change is not practical in my opinion, and I'm wondering if there's something I may have overlooked or if there's a way to revert back to the old interface.

Regards. Riad Salih (talk) 11:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Sannita (WMF).   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:11, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Riad Salih, this is a known bug that we're about to fix, if everything goes right the fix will be live in a matter of a few days. We're currently testing it in beta to see if it works. We apologise for the problem. Sannita (WMF) (talk) 13:31, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another Person Image[edit]

I see an article in en-wiki about an youtuber,but this article has no image of this YouTuber.i personally know him. And I can get his image from his YouTube or Instagram with his permission.how can I do that formally.
--KEmel49 (talk) 12:18, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@KEmel49: Hi, and welcome. Please follow the advice at VRT, or have him do it with a carbon copy to you.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:50, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or, possibly more simply, in a public-facing post on either YouTube or Instagram (Instagram is probably easier, because you want a static image), he can indicate a free license he is offering for a particular image, and then you can cite that as a source when uploading. - Jmabel ! talk 15:42, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback Invited for Wikimedia Commons Android App Upload Feature[edit]

Hello Everyone,

I am Kanahia, currently working on the Wikimedia Commons app as part of my Google Summer of Code project. The Wikimedia Commons app is an Android application that allows users to upload pictures from their Android phone or tablet to Wikimedia Commons. My GSoC project is primarily focused on improving the upload feature in the app. Therefore, I am seeking feedback related to the issues faced during upload.

Please share any issues you have encountered with the Android App for the last 6 months or suggestions for improvements by replying to this message.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanahia123 (talk • contribs) 14:48, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kanahia123: you might want to create a page parallel to Commons:Upload Wizard feedback.
@Sannita (WMF): is your team by any chance aware of some Android upload issues that Kanahia123 might work on? - Jmabel ! talk 15:46, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kanahia123 and Jmabel: I suggest Commons talk:Mobile app as the primary point of contact for people using and developing for COM:APP.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:53, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, better than what I suggested. - Jmabel ! talk 16:00, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel No, my team does not work with the app. Maybe the Mobile apps team could. Sannita (WMF) (talk) 12:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sannita (WMF): I didn't suggest that you worked on the app, I just thought you might have heard about some issues with it. - Jmabel ! talk 21:10, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel No, I haven't heard of malfunctions on the app, but again, being that I don't work on it means my focus is not necessarily on that. I can make an inquiry, as soon as I have a couple of minutes, but I can't promise anything. Sannita (WMF) (talk) 10:50, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The current version of this mobile app doesn't display the exact upload count.and this also doesn't load the profile section and achivements levels etc.hope new version will be better.
--KEmel49 (talk) 17:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@KEmel49: what do you mean by "the profile section and achi[e]vements levels"? - Jmabel ! talk 19:17, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel
here is an example of a good profile section and achivements levels.but the current version doesn't load this section and shows error again and again besides having superfast internet.
--KEmel49 (talk) 19:32, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scope question[edit]

A couple of months ago, I happened to be on the Plaça de Sant Jaume in Barcelona after a wedding at the Ajuntament (city hall) let out. I took a bunch of pictures of the people at the wedding, who were total strangers to me, and have uploaded the best of these to Flickr. As I understand it, there are no problems with these images under Spanish personality rights law other than the limitations that apply to all photos of people taken in that country (In Spain, pretty much exactly as in the U.S., without a model release you can't use them in advertising or imply an endorsement by the subject of the photo; you can't use them for slander; etc.): they were taken in a clearly public place, and there is nothing in them that would be detrimental to anyone's reputation. On that basis there would seem to be no problem having these on Commons.

My question is: are they within scope? It seems to me that they are a good illustration of people of a certain class in Barcelona at this time at a certain sort of social occasion, etc. However, I've also seen rather similar images deleted as "personal images."

Thoughts? - Jmabel ! talk 23:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting question I have also seen images deleted as "Taken clearly without consent" Oxyman (talk) 23:42, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These seem fairly high quality, non-promotional, and with possible illustrative uses (people laughing, hugging, etc.) and obviously you have plenty of legit contributions, so I'm not sure what the issue is? Gnomingstuff (talk) 04:15, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At first sight, I would indeed nominate them for deletion because of "personal photos" and unknown/not notable people. But I am not an expert at all on portrait photography, street photography and art photography, if they fit the criteria for one of these genres, that might be reasons to keep them (but then the genre should be attached to the files as a category). And they might be a good illustration of people of a certain class in Barcelona at this time at a certain sort of social occasion, but then you'd better create a category for the six of them, in which these aspects are reflected in the category name and the parent categories. JopkeB (talk) 06:04, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The categories would presumably be more like things about fashion in a particular time and place, more or less what we do with equivalent century-old photos, which we always consider to be in scope. - Jmabel ! talk 01:07, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 26[edit]

Upload Wizard, likely again...[edit]

While uploading a file through Upload Wizard, why can I only license it under CC0, CC BY 4.0, and CC BY-SA 4.0? I even tried modifying the default license on Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-uploads, but nothing happened.

Also, is caption now mandatory? Why? Has the community been consulted in that regard?

Can I change the way Upload Wizard works for me? I know what I'm doing when uploading something through it. The new version just makes it a pain in the neck—more than it already was. RodRabelo7 (talk) 05:01, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ITookSomePhotos, Jmabel, ZandDev, Strakhov, N509FZ, Bidgee, Ymblanter, Kenraiz, GPSLeo, Marsupium, Riad Salih, and Sannita (WMF): pinging users who have commented on topics related to Upload Wizard. I suppose the question regarding the licensing (why only three options?) hasn't been addressed yet. Regards, RodRabelo7 (talk) 05:17, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you need other licenses for own works? For not own works you can choose from all licenses. Caption and description are now merged. As the description was always mandatory this also makes the caption mandatory. More customization for the UploadWizard is requested many times and I think this is now finally on the WMF roadmap. GPSLeo (talk) 06:36, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GPSLeo,
  • Why would you need other licenses for own works?
Why wouldn't I? {{Multi-license}} is a thing after all. OK, I can upload it with CC BY-SA 4.0 maybe, and then change it with VisualFileChange. But not everyone knows how to use it, especially newcomers. And the old license would still be visible in file's history, and they are irrevocable...
In regards to the caption issue, I always found it strange to have caption and description identical. As far as I'm concerned, the caption is supposed to be a short description of what's going on on the picture, while the description itself can be really extensive. Apparently that's what the policy states: Commons:File_captions#How_is_this_different_from_descriptions?. That has nothing to do with "more customization"; one year ago I could do exactly the same thing I can do now with Upload Wizard (and more!), but with more freedom. These updates are taking it from Upload Wizard, with the excuse of filtering copyright violations (they're still uploaded anyway) and making the tool more customizable (it's not). RodRabelo7 (talk) 06:47, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Things like {{Multi-license}} are nothing that is done by newcomers. If you want to use this in the UploadWizard you can still choose not own work an then fill the source field with {{Own}} and the author field with your name. The number of cases where the description is to long to also be a caption are very rare. Having the text in both description and caption is only for old tools they are not adapted to also look at the caption. GPSLeo (talk) 06:59, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I never mentioned it's done by newcomers, but you provided a decent solution to the issue anyway. It could be more obvious, of course, but it's feasible at least.
  • The number of cases where the description is to long to also be a caption are very rare.
Still they exist and should be taken into account before Wikimedia single-handedly changes it. I didn't understand the last sentence of your comment, and translating it isn't helping me. RodRabelo7 (talk) 07:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can still give separate description. I meant that copying the caption into the description is only done for tools they expect a description in the wikitext and would fail if there is only the caption. GPSLeo (talk) 07:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The issue with the captions is they they are CC0 (which is failed to be disclosed to uploaders), so unlike the description (which will be CC-BY-SA 4.0). Bidgee (talk) 08:09, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't most captions fall under PD-text anyways? Trade (talk) 18:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is the way it is currently setup. The description input box is automatically hidden, only the caption input box (max 250) is visible with "copy to description", so you will have people adding detailed descriptions, rather an a simple one (which is what a caption is). Bidgee (talk) 20:31, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RodRabelo7: In relation to the caption, yes the WMF UploadWizard development team made it mandatory without any community consensus. They have said that they will remove it from being mandatory but have yet to do so (see the discussions on Commons:Upload Wizard feedback.
When it comes to licensing, since I cannot use the drop down to select a CC 3.0 license I just use "This is someone else's work and is free to share." and then select "Enter a different license in wikitext format", add the license template and the other fields just add {{Own}} to step 2. and then Bidgee to Step 3. Though I'm not using the UW until the mandatory caption is removed. Bidgee (talk) 08:04, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Crumbs for @User:Sannita (WMF). - Jmabel ! talk 01:12, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Privacy issues for faces and car license plates[edit]

Privacy issues concerning modern day faces of ordinary people has been brought up a few times already regarding cars and their license plates. Even recently above here on this page, for faces of attendees at weddings.

I know that Mr.choppers, when he uploads photos of cars, blurs out faces and number plates. He has detailed at length in the past the reasons why! He's entitled to do that, as he see fit of course. It's an individual’s prerogative.

However, the correct way to do it (I feel) is to upload the original unedited image and then revise it with the doctored fuzzed up replacement. Then in 121 years or whatever, we can replace the revised version with the original. People in the future will want to see the car in the image, with its license plate. This should our policy with anything blurred out for privacy reasons. _ Broichmore (talk) 16:42, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just my opinion but it seems like that would be a hassle since regular users can't hide original versions of images. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:47, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not talking about hiding, I'm saying overwriting. Revise/hide as in overwrite. Broichmore (talk) 16:59, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even overwriting the photograph, the photo isn't hidden (only a Sysop/Admin can do that at the request of the uploader, which I'm sure both parties wouldn't want to do if you have 100s or 1000s of photographs). Bidgee (talk) 20:26, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for mentioning me. FOP applies - anyone can upload whatever they like, that they photograph in public. I won't do it, because it is rude and I feel safer being able to point to anonymized photos in my uploads when people are uncomfortable about me and my camera. Even Google blurs faces and plates for Street View. In 121 years, AI will be able to add typical 2020s faces and license plates if humanity is still somehow hanging on and wants these photos to look more genuine. Best, mr.choppers (talk)-en- 17:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr.choppers FoP is not relevant here because there is no copyrighted sculpture, artwork, or architecture involved. And no, there is always the issue of authenticity if A.I. modification to an existing image is made. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 19:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
JWilz12345 You're right, I should have referred to COM:CSCR. My point was that this is entirely up to the uploader; not expecting or advocating for AI modifications. And, as is pointed out by others, different countries have different requirements and some are much more pro-privacy. Forcing Commons contributors to upload things they don't want to upload is a non-starter. mr.choppers (talk)-en- 03:13, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you upload it here - you publish it. It is irrelevant if you blur something in a newer version of the file, if the original version is still available for everybody to see. And ordinary people, identifiable on your photo, can force wikimedia to delete it. Not even a requirement to consult you. Alexpl (talk) 19:59, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"can force wikimedia to delete it." This really varies by country. In France, there are enormous rights of privacy in these terms. In the U.S., in a clearly public space, you may legitimately take a photo of anyone and publish it; simply being in that space is implicit consent. About the only legal issues for this in the U.S. are (1) it can be a little tricky to say exactly whether certain spaces are public (e.g. in a shop; in the audience at a performance; etc.) and (2) you can't use the picture to imply that the person is endorsing a product, political candidate, etc. Surprisingly, at least in my view, there isn't even any U.S. law against publishing such an image to embarrass with the deliberate intent to embarrass the subject of the photo (though I certainly wouldn't do that, and I don't think we should publish such an image). - Jmabel ! talk 01:22, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add coordinates to images (bot task)[edit]

Regarding a recent bot request (add coordinates to images), i've started to write some pywikibot code (please bear with me - i'm new to python, it's my very first pywikibot project, and it's in a very early stage...), but I've got some questions and would be very glad to get some "community advice":

  • Are there any legal impediments to taking coordinates from OSM automatically and add them to Commons files? Would this violate any license restrictions? Maybe that's a question to ask in some OSM forums?
  • There are different types of OSM objects that may have assigned a Commons file as attribute: Nodes, Ways and Relations. If it's a Node, then the coordinates to assign are clear - the lat/lon of the Node itself. But what to do if the Commons image is an attribute of a Way - for example a building, mapped as area (or even a Relation)? There are multiple coordinates available (each node that's part of the way has its own). How to determine the coordinates to apply? The ideal solution would be calculating the geometrical center of the mapped object - but I simply don't know how to do this. Is it acceptable to take the coordinates of an arbitrary node?
  • What about adding {{On OSM}} to Files? The template docs seem to restrict the usage of that template to Categories, but I don't see a reason for this restriction. Applying that template to Files would be very useful, it may act as "backlink" and would reflect the flexibility of OSM's wikimedia_commons attribute that may take Categories as well as Files as value.

--Fl.schmitt (talk) 20:17, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking into this. It would solve an issue with these countless uploads by OSM users that lack that metadata and better integrate the images into Commons.
Users at OSM would likely have have a better take on these questions than me. Ideally they would also be invited to add coordinates directly at uploads. This however wont solve it for the backlog.
For Commons, I think even vague coordinates are better than no coordinates. So yes to ways and relations. Enhancing999 (talk) 13:19, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Glad about your reply, @Enhancing999 - in the meanwhile, i've found that it's quite easy for way/area coordinates: Overpass API is able to deliver "center" coordinates for a way/area, thus we should get a nice, precise location in most use cases (not sure if the area has a strange shape). Bot code is almost ready, awaiting response to the bot request. Let's wait and see... Fl.schmitt (talk) 21:19, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking better understanding of an odd IP edit[edit]

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Rear_deck_of_MV_John_H_(ferry)_0_(9360694885).jpg&diff=prev&oldid=879388942 : not sure what is going on here, is this a correct edit or should it be reverted? - Jmabel ! talk 21:05, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revert. And looking at other edits by the same IP, it looks like there's vandalism. The IP was already warned twice too, but it continues. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:41, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 27[edit]

Philippines and COM:CSCR[edit]

See also COM:CSCR#Unknown or no data.

The CSCR status of the Philippines was last-discussed at Commons:Village pump/Archive/2021/05#Applicability of the Philippines at Commons:Country specific consent requirements, with no definite conclusion.

However, there is now a source (which is from last year) that directly discusses the legality of photos of someone taken in public spaces, and I have modified the PH section in the guideline page accordingly.

Respicio & Co. cites the Data Privacy Act of 2012 (text), which is also being cited by one Filipino Wikipedian on Facebook (see this) as the reason for "no-FoP in the Philippines" (erroneously connecting no-FoP rule with Data Privacy Act). Of course, the Wikipedian's claims are irrelevant and baseless as no-FoP is only about the absence of legal right allowing commercial sharing and distributions of images of public art especially on the Internet and I.T. media, while Data Privacy is about the responsibility of the photographers in taking photos of the persons in public or sharing/using the said photos.

Here are the questions:

  1. Is the Data Privacy Act of 2012 having bearing for the Philippines status at COM:CSCR?
  2. Should the Philippines section be mature enough to be included in the main list, or should it remain at "unknown or no data"?
  3. Relating to Number 2, if to be included, what colors will be used for the Philippines in the CSCR table on the top of the guideline page?

Ping two other participants of the 2021 discussion: @Clindberg and Aymatth2: . JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Data Privacy Act does not seem to be relevant. The text does not mention photographs or pictures anywhere. By "data" it seems to be concerned with the type of information that may be collected by an app or server about a person's activities, which could include financial transactions, web site visits, text messages etc.. I suppose a lawyer could stretch this to say a photograph is a record that a person was in a given place on a given date and time with other identifiable people, but I think that is a stretch. Is there a law or court judgement in the Philippines that explicitly says that photographs of people in public places can or cannot be published without their consent? That is what we need. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:52, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Aymatth2 there appears to be no court case in our country regarding incrimination of photographers or users of their images of identifiable people. However, the w:en:National Privacy Commission in 2022 issued an advisory opinion to a local division of the Department of Health within Metro Manila, regarding the legality of taking photos of certain medical facilities as part of their health monitoring activity. Their response: "the image of an identifiable individual captured in a photograph or video is personal information about the individual and, thus, covered by the Data Privacy Act of 2012 (DPA)." In essence, the NPC considers photographs as "data" that warrant proper use under Data Privacy Act of 2012, pre-empting any court ruling on the matter. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:14, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That seems clear enough. I would say that it should be cited in the Philippines entry in COM:CSCR, which should be moved to the main list. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:51, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Aymatth2 however, what would be the color statuses of the Philippines in the table? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:51, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Permission required to take a picture: No. To publish: Yes (with exceptions). To use commercially: Yes. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done adding: revision_id 879686946 of CSCR. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:46, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Contrib's.) 11:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Traditional/Folk music of Catalonia[edit]

I'm adding a bunch of photos to Category:Castells a la Plaça del Pi for the Festes de Sant Josep Oriol. A fair number of my photos show the musicians who accompany the castellers. (For that matter, I also have some photos of such musicians in other contexts.) We don't seem to have a Category:Traditional music of Catalonia or Category:Folk music of Catalonia, which seems surprising for a region so conscious of its folk traditions. Am I just somehow looking under the wrong category names, or is this an area of the category tree that needs building out? - Jmabel ! talk 04:28, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lacking any response, I'll create Category:Traditional music of Catalonia. If something is out there, we can always merge later. - Jmabel ! talk 23:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strange PDF-Preview behaviour[edit]

According to the archived village pump post Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2024/05#Strange_behaviour_of_PDF_previewer i have the same problem on c:File:ZentralGut 995739210105505 Moos Schriften Hofbruck.pdf i am pretty sure, that there were the preview images after uploading the pdf on May 15 and btw it is possible to fetch page based images (see s:de:Index:ZentralGut 995739210105505 Moos Schriften Hofbruck.pdf), but the preview on the file page lacks. i have purged the file page multiple times, no changes are affected. does someone have any ideas about this behaviour? thanks in advance, Mfchris84 (talk) 09:55, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also have recently been having trouble viewing the thumbnails of pdfs, whether on the file page themselves, in the {{Book}} template, or category infoboxes, for instance File:History of Santa Cruz County, California (IA historyofsantacr00harr).pdf and File:Two volunteer missionaries among the Dakotas ; or, The story of the labors of Samuel W. and Gideon H. Pond.pdf. Sometimes purging cache restores the preview image briefly, but after a few page refreshes it vanishes again. This problem seems to occur in both mobile and desktop views, without regard to browser or device. --Animalparty (talk) 23:08, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the popup for file renaming refer to Commons:File naming?[edit]

Hi everyone, I wonder why the popup window for file renaming (Alt-Shift-M on an image page) refers to Commons:File naming even though this page still says that it is just a proposal (after a vote on its talk page from 2010!) --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 22:45, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 28[edit]

Category:Film characters by actors[edit]

Most of these categories contain no media of their own, but subcategories of characters (that are often played by multiple actors), and the structure is often circular in nature (e.g. the category "Whoopi Goldberg" has the subcategory "Whoopi Goldberg characters", which has the subcategory "Shenzi", which has the subcategory "Whoopi Goldberg"). Most if not all of these were made by the same IP user who created a huge amount of category spam in Category:Space Jam, Category:Mickey Mouse and a bunch of others.

I don't think this category tree structure is inherently invalid, but I feel it's mis-applied and excessive in most of these cases. I'd like to hear more people's thoughts on this before I take this to CfD though. ReneeWrites (talk) 19:19, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The whole thing seems rather ambiguous and pointless. Like the parent is called "Film characters" but then the subcategories aren't even characters. Or maybe they are. Is a category like suppose to be for "characters of Chris Rock" or "Characters played by Chris Rock"? It's not really clear. Then on top of it a lot of the sub-categories only contain one child category but no files, which I'm not really a fan of. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for photos by photographers[edit]

It seemed to me these are meant to be hidden (meaning "visible", but below the topical categories).

What's the current thinking of that? @Vysotsky, @Swiss National Library. Enhancing999 (talk) 20:56, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If they're Commons users those categories should be hidden, yes, but if they're notable photographers I believe they can also be mainspace categories. Which categories is this about? ReneeWrites (talk) 20:59, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a general question. Also, images appear as categorized when the category isn't in the second line. Enhancing999 (talk) 21:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but there are quite often user categories of private hiking or cycling (travel) tours that are not hidden. Is there actually a real rule as to when user cats have to be hidden or not? --Msb (talk) 21:10, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Same thoughts with me. If a Wiki article is written about a photographer (like about Bruno Wehrli) or the photographer is notable in other ways, the category should not be hidden; if he or she doesn't have one, it is likely to be a hidden category. (And be sure: I might have made some mistakes in the past re this stance, either on one side or the other. I don't mind to correct these mistakes.) Vysotsky (talk) 21:13, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is, you can find the policy on user categories at COM:USERCAT. ReneeWrites (talk) 21:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At Category:Photographs by photographer about 2100 direct subcategories are hidden, the other 1700 aren't.
If the photographer has a category about themself, that category wont be on the second line, even if it only includes a category for their photographs. Enhancing999 (talk) 21:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 29[edit]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump&oldid=879925640"