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/2021/10.

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

Broadwick St, Soho, London: a water pump with its handle removed commemorates Dr. John Snow's tracing of an 1854 cholera epidemic to the pump. [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.

October 04[edit]

Let's talk about the Desktop Improvements[edit]

Annotated Wikipedia Vector interface (logged-out).png

Hello!

Have you noticed that some wikis have a different desktop interface? Are you curious about the next steps? Maybe you have questions or ideas regarding the design or technical matters?

Join an online meeting with the team working on the Desktop Improvements! It will take place on October 12th, 16:00 UTC on Zoom. It will last an hour. Click here to join.

Agenda

  • Update on the recent developments
  • Sticky header - presentation of the demo version
  • Questions and answers, discussion

Format

The meeting will not be recorded or streamed. Notes will be taken in a Google Docs file. The presentation part (first two points in the agenda) will be given in English.

We can answer questions asked in English, French, Polish, and Spanish. If you would like to ask questions in advance, add them on the talk page or send them to [email protected].

Olga Vasileva (the team manager) will be hosting this meeting.

Invitation link

We hope to see you! SGrabarczuk (WMF) 15:09, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]

  • @OVasileva (WMF): «Notes will be taken in a Google Docs file.» Why in a Google Docs file? Why not in a page in a project wiki, maybe in a subpage under mw:Special:MyLanguage/Reading/Web/Desktop Improvements…? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 10:55, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    • ...or Etherpad? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:01, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]
      • @Tuvalkin: the notes will be taken just as usual in a standard way and standard file. During this meeting, no decision will be taken. It will be an informal talk. The official project documentation, on the other hand, is and will be available on MediaWiki.org and Phabricator. Also, some questions may be added to the FAQ. By the way, I'd like to remind you that the meeting will begin soon. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 15:10, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • @SGrabarczuk (WMF): Thanks for your reply. It is interesting that you say that you will archive the meeting notes in the usual way — a meeting that’s all about changing the usual way users interact with the “desktop”: I guess subverting and disrupting the status quo ante is good for us, users, who need to be forced into new work habits for our own good, while WMF employees really really must paste your meeting notes into a Google Docs file and cannot instead even consider using a WMF project page instead. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 15:46, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]

October 10[edit]

American Antiquarian Society[edit]

Hi, Was there any attempt to upload images from the American Antiquarian Society? According to their website, their graphic arts collection contains 400,000 historic American objects. They also have books, manuscripts, newpapers, etc. On Commons, we only have a a few paintings. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:36, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

What is their licensing policy? Ruslik (talk) 20:35, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I don't know about online, but my university library had a collection of early Americana from them on microfiche, and they all had copyright notices on them. (And the university library had no microfiche printers, either.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prosfilaes (talk • contribs) 22:26, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
@Ruslik0: Sorry, I didn't see your message. All their collections are PD due to age. Paintings and photographs are PD-Art, and small/medium resolution images of other items are under a CC license. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:04, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Unfortunately, it looks like they're using a non-commercial CC license according to [1], but as you said, any 2D reproductions should be fine per PD-Art/PD-Scan. clpo13(talk) 19:47, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]

How is "zandblazen" called in other languages?[edit]

ZANDSPUITEN zand spuiten zuigtechniek (66).jpg

Recently I created the Category:Zandblazen. It is described on the Dutch WP. It is a technique to transport dry material such as sand, ground, clay granules, shells, insulation material and gravel to places that are difficult to access such as a roof terrace or crawl space. I was surprised not to find an article in the DE, EN or FR Wikipedia. I asked a company in the Netherlands if they knew what it is called in other languages but they didn't. Because I can't imagine that this is unique to the Netherlands, my question is what is this called in other languages so I can fill it in at wikidata? Wouter (talk) 08:37, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

It would be literally "sand blowing", and that term seems to be used in a few places, but it would usually refer to sand blowing in the wind. I suppose Category:Sand pumps would transport sand mixed with water, but what you want is transport of dry sand, like in Category:Sandblasting? --ghouston (talk) 09:01, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]
German company "Putzmeister" invented the self-driving concrete pump. Maybe it would be a start to look through the different language versions of the Putzmeister article in Wikipedia and look for links from there? --C.Suthorn (talk) 09:42, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]
As far as I could see are these concentrated on Slurry pumps. Not on transport of dry materials. Wouter (talk) 10:25, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I'm certainly aware of the technique for insulation material, which, in the US anyway, is called "blow-in insulation" and the machine is simply called a "insulation blower." Beeblebrox (talk) 18:18, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]
@Wouterhagens, Ghouston, and Beeblebrox: Google Translate calls zandspuiten "sand spraying".   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 18:44, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]
de:Vakuumförderer is about transporting loose dry materials (sand, gravel, fertilizer, …) by means of a vaccuum pump. Note that the article's title is referring to the device that does the job; the general priciple of doing it like this would be Vakuumförderung. Saugförderung seems to be an alternative term (saugen = to suck), sometimes in combination with Blasförderung (blasen = to blow) as Saug-/Blasförderung. --El Grafo (talk) 07:22, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
And companies based in German-speaking countries selling these things internationally seem to use the term (vacuum conveying on their english-speaking websites: [2], [3], [4]. There's also at least one US-based company using that term [5] – that's where I stopped looking … --El Grafo (talk) 07:28, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Thank you very much! I found with that info also the French word "Transport pneumatique". Wouter (talk) 08:49, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
There is also pneumatic conveying (Q1749024), of which vacuum conveying (Q94677056) would be a child, so I'll move the non-vacuum terms over there. — Huntster (t @ c) 13:28, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
We also have Pneumatic transportation, but as a redirect to the capsules-in-a-tube type of system. Otherwise I’d like to point out that sprayer suggests a dispersing action that fills space or covers a surface; blower is better for something with linear flow. A similar device for grain elevators is apparently an ensilage blower, Fr. souffleuse à ensilage.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 03:55, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]

October 11[edit]

Wrong categories added by CropTool[edit]

Hi,

this file, like many others, is not a featured picture. Nevertheless, the CropTool adds it in these wrong categories. I've fixed the issue here, and in other files (none were my own derivative works), but that's not finished. Other photographers are not active on the project, or not ready to fix others' mistakes. Thus, how to deal with the problem? Best regards -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:50, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]

The flaw also occurs with other categories. Example Mac Donald's sign removed because there is no Mac Do anymore on the picture. There are many others, not yet done. Thus, waiting for a clarification. Greetings -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:24, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]

  • @Basile Morin: Crop tool doesn't do much editing of the page. You are responsible to go in and edit after using the tool. - Jmabel ! talk 13:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • I did not use CropTool. Other users do (with my pictures). And many photographers like me find their images listed in wrong categories. I don't think the uploaders of original contents, here and outside, should be considered responsible for the mistakes generated by this tool employed by others. Example of a so-called "Featured Picture" (363 × 364 pixels). There are hundred files like this one. Where's the official user manual? -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:16, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • @Basile Morin: Yes, that's happened to me, too. The tool does tell people to adjust descriptions and categories, but there's no real way to force them, since we don't have a way to know if the resulting image still fits the old descriptions & categories. You should get a notification if someone uses CropTool to extract an image from something on your watchlist. You can choose to follow up if it matters a lot to you. I know that's not the answer you wanted to hear, but I believe that is the reality of the situation. - Jmabel ! talk 01:31, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Dear Jmabel, your opinion is very welcome. Thanks for sharing your experience. I agree with your idea written above, that the user is responsible "to go in and edit after using the tool". Could someone else confirm? A fresh input would be very appreciated. It may be obvious to some of you, but it is not for many users. They consider "the CropTool should do the job", full stop. At least a consensus on this simple point will certainly bring a considerable support -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:06, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
CropTool can't possibly know if something in the image has been cropped out and the category should no longer be present - if it could do that then we could let an AI handle categorisation.
That said, perhaps featured / good / valued image categories should be a special case and not copied to the cropped version. MKFI (talk) 06:04, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Agree. But right now, in practice, who is responsible for checking the categories? The user of the tool, or the photographer? Also a question to @Jmabel: where do you see "The tool does tell people to adjust descriptions and categories"? I can't find such a recommendation anywhere. -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:41, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment If an image is accessed as "good", "featured", ... Croptool does not allow to upload the crop under the same file name. Croptool could filter assessments when uploading under a new name, croptool could show an input area with the file description for the cropper to edit the description and croptool could notify the original uploader at them user talk. --C.Suthorn (talk) 09:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Examples of CropTool's errors:

  1. Assessing false featured files like this one, that one, or that one, displaying explicit yellow templates on the page, whereas the real ones are here, there, and there.
  2. Automatically placing files in wrong categories like Category:Commons featured widescreen desktop backgrounds (example 1, example 2), Category:ESC 2013 featured picture candidates (example 1, example 2), or Category:Featured pictures of Tokyo (example 1, example 2).

To make a test, I installed the gadget, and the interface didn't ask me much, did not warn about the categories, it just created a new file with a new name, and the errors were automatically generated. -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:57, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Thanks for confirming what I wrote. --C.Suthorn (talk) 12:56, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Confirmation granted that "Croptool does not allow to upload the crop under the same file name", but disagree that "croptool could show an input area with the file description for the cropper to edit the description". On the contrary, no such area in the interface. Just a very tiny section "Upload comment", automatically filled with the parameters, and no possibility to edit the description, the templates, nor the categories. -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:11, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]

@Basile Morin: I see now that CropTool tells you to change the filename if that is not appropriate, but does not say that about description & categories. It probably should. - Jmabel ! talk 15:33, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Agree. This current interface is so simple that it causes problems. Another way to solve the issue is to warn the users, to teach them, to explain what to do -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:11, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Name conventions for artists[edit]

Hi. Am searching for some guidelines on which name to apply to artists who changed name during their lifetime. In Wikidata we can give alternative names, making other names searchable, but still the category for the artist has to have a specific name. The question arises from a series of edits by a user who moved Category:Paintings by Lili Elbe to Category:Paintings by Einar Wegener with the comment that they were all signed as Wegener. Lili Elbe (a.k.a. The Danish Girl) was the name the artist wished to be known as, so the naming convention is up for discussion. The user who made the edits might have followed the guidelines in Commons:Ownership_of_pages_and_files and started a discussion on the relevant talk page, but chose to make the changes immediately, and they are now appearing as unpatrolled edits. Before patrolling them (or reverting them) it would be nice to hear if the community could share some thoughts on the naming conventions. Cheers --Rsteen (talk) 06:41, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]

  • @Rsteen: I'm not going to wade in ignorantly as to which name is correct in this case, but there should be text on the category page giving both names to make it easily searchable. This happens all the time for buildings, and sometimes for place names. See, for example, Category:Safeco Plaza (Seattle, Washington). Plus there should be a cat redirect in a case like this. - Jmabel ! talk 14:10, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Categorising individual days[edit]

We have a category for each day, such as today, Category:2021-10-11. I have just categorised this with the newly-created Category:Individual Mondays, and created six other categories one for each day of the week.

I propose that we subdivide these by years, so that we have, for example, Category:Individual Mondays in 2021 (or, if preferred Category:Individual Mondays in the 2020s) - I do not think we need to subdivide further, such as by month.

I further propose that we apply these categories automatically either through adding code to {{Date navbox}}, or better by merging that into {{Wikidata infobox}}, and applying that.

Otherwise, I will ask a bot operator to apply them directly. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:09, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]

  • @Pigsonthewing: I'm missing the usefulness of this. Can you explain? - Jmabel ! talk 01:32, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    • I don't undertand your question. Are you querying the usefulness of categorisation, or of creating sub-categories by year, or of automating categorisation through templates, or of merging templates, or of using a bot? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:28, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
      • It was my first thought too when I read this item: why should we want to have categories for individual weekdays, like Monday? When, in what cases/situations would they be useful? JopkeB (talk) 12:25, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
        • Same for me. Can't really imagine a situation where somebody would go to commons looking for a picture that was taken on a Friday? --El Grafo (talk) 13:17, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
        • With proper category intersections, a lot of things come to mind. In highly religious areas, a Sunday may look vastly different from a Monday, people-wise.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:29, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Proposal to change MOTD to MOTW at VPR[edit]

Last month, there were two threads here about the high number of low quality material showcased in MOTD. Among the proposed fixes was to change MOTD to Media of the Week, to allow for selecting higher-quality media (at least until we can reliably surface good content on a daily basis). See here: Commons:Village_pump/Proposals#Change_Media_of_the_Day_to_Media_of_the_Week. Pinging participants of that thread: @Ellywa, Yann, Multichill, RZuo, and De728631: @Geni, Eatcha, King of Hearts, and Colin: — Rhododendrites talk |  18:32, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Today, it appears indeed "no media of the day". I did not analyze the cause of problem. Is it a matter of not enough material, or are there not enough people willing to search for material an put it on the list? But perhaps the solution would be the same, as you propose. I am not against it, it can be easily changed if there is more material available. Elly (talk) 19:32, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Or perhaps there is not enough material because it is near impossible to upload a video of more than 60MB for some time now. --C.Suthorn (talk) 09:11, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I agree with Rhododendrites, per previous discussion. The material is generally extremely weak, to the point where we are wasting viewers time with it. Are there even enough nuggets of gold to have it weekly, or have they all been spent already? Maybe weekly + a period off the main page to build up new material. -- Colin (talk) 10:36, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]

October 12[edit]

Main page revamps[edit]

In light of this comment by user "Geni" comparing our main page with the English-language Wikipedia's and mentioning "Did You know?" (hereafter "DYK") I began to think about how to improve the main page, most of the main page actually isn't about the content on the Wikimedia Commons. (Well, being about broad categories but no clear examples.)

I was thinking about emulating several things from the English-language Wikipedia such as DYK, for example we can have a trio of photographs with captions about some uncommon facts, these could display a diverse number of topics like mathematics, biology, economics, anthropology / ethnology, Etc. with some minor information about what is pictured. Likewise, we can have a "On this day in media", photographs illustrated or other media types don't have to be of high quality, just of high educational value. For example, showcasing an event that happened on this day two-hundred (200) years ago, or an illustration of a scientific discovery, or just a portrait of an important person born on that day.

The main page has so much potential that it is not being used for, I don't think that we should exclusively strive for the best quality but just for the best educational value, have an image that explains difficult concepts in simple ways and put it on the main page. Make the main page into "an event" and it will likely motivate more people to upload works and showcase the works we already have. I can create a concept main page when I find the time but I first wanted to discuss it here to get some feedback. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 09:48, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]

this page hasn't been updated since 2018. There is nothing wrong with that, but it is simply not the same as a potential "This day in media". --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 09:55, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Did you know ...
... that the Djamaâ El Djazaïr is the largest mosque in Africa. It houses the world's tallest minaret and is the third-largest mosque in the world after the Great Mosque of Mecca and Al-Masjid an-Nabawi of Medina both in Saudi Arabia. Djamaa el Djazaïr.jpg
Lâm-thời Liên-hiệp Chính-phủ Việt-nam Dân-chủ Cộng-hòa ra mắt Quốc-hội ngày 02 tháng 03 năm 1946.jpg
 ... that the Bảo Đại Emperor served as the Supreme Advisor to the government of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam as "Citizen Vĩnh Thụy" following his abdication.
... that in 1966, James Island was removed from surrounding Quillayute Needles National Wildlife Refuge by the United States Department of the Interior, and returned to the Quileute when the island was discovered to be part of the Quileute Indian Reservation. Quileute Reservation.jpg

I made the above concept, obviously that template wouldn't be used but I couldn't find the exact templates used on the main page for emulation, I thought that this would be sufficient to showcase the general idea of what could be done with it, perhaps it might be best to only limit entries to Quality Images (QI's) and Valued Images (VI's) as I literally just used random images, but as the Wikimedia Commons is a more mediacentric Wikimedia website I think that every entry should have an image, likely these images should only rotate every two (2) days or more, until enough people work at it to make if a daily occurrence. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 12:58, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]


  • Ultimately the commons main page is fair less significant the EN one. Commons gets around 150K a day against EN's 5 million. It also has far more editors interested in engaging with it. Until we get a decent sized group of people interested in doing things with the commons main page I suspect its best to keep it as static as possible.Geni (talk) 14:24, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I don't disagree with that assessment but this might also be a "Chicken and egg" situation, the Wikimedia Commons doesn't seem to have that many collaborative pages that actively invite people, in many cases "people are islands" here who just upload stuff and leave, some just categorise and leave, some just nominate some stuff for deletion and leave, even if someone does all three (3) they aren't often likely to engage with other users to work together, people here don't seem to create taskforces to upload specific works or "tackle" specific websites. Sometimes this happens with people wanting to import as much as possible from the Internet Archive following its lawsuits and its future being in jeopardy and I have seen some collaborations in file talk pages and with graphics, but generally speaking people rarely search media together, despite it not being so different from discussing topics and comparing research and sources like one would do at a Wikipedia. I do think that these things are more suited for a larger community, but the Wikimedia Commons has existed 17 (seventeen) years and while I do think that in the future there is certainly hope for it becoming a larger website (by sheer volume it's already the largest Wikimedia website), the factors for why we haven't seen a large growth haven't been properly explored yet.
I asked a friend why he thinks that the Wikimedia Commons doesn't have more contributors, his response was basically that it's more collaborative to work on texts together and that it's easier for people to simply write a text than it is to make good photographs, he further elaborated that when people want to upload a photograph that they are met with a message promptly informing them that their works will be "Free forever" and that many professional photographers don't like the idea of having to give up control of their photographs and that contributing to the Wikimedia Commons is like taking the full costs of being a photographer but having $ 0,- reward for it. He said that this is something that people like him and I would cheer on but is simply too unattractive for the vast majority of people that would theoretically want to contribute here as a hobby. I tend to agree with these points. He said that when writing for Wikipedia someone can "just sit on their ass and do something" but that contributing (content) to the Wikimedia Commons require more effort. I think that there are many factors why we have a small community compared to the English-language WIkipedia. We should try to look for more ways to motivate people to join, my friend basically summed the Wikimedia Commons up as "Less "reward" for more work". I think that having your photographs on the main page might incentivise some people, I know that people are often "trophy chasers" and I think that something like a DYK would motivate more people to contribute, as I think that the reason why the Media of the Day (MOTD) failed is simply because it takes even more effort to upload to the Wikimedia Commons.
I asked people who have photography as their hobby about joining the Wikimedia Commons and nothing scares people off more quickly than our licensing terms (I see this as an issue with a copyrights obsessed culture rather than ours), so I understand why getting more volunteers is difficult, but we should also try to present the Wikimedia Commons as "a home for public domain books", "a home of art", "a home of online museums", Etc. I think that presenting the diversity of Wikimedia Commons content on the main page helps, for a lot of people viewing the main page will make a good "first (1st) impression" of the website so I think that at least some improvements could be made. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:33, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment, comparing the Wikipedia page on the "Wikimedia Commons" before September and after September it reveals that very little people actually discuss the Wikimedia Commons outside of its controversies (and I can find a number of controversies that haven't been listed there yet), the Wikimedia Commons doesn't seem to have any "outreach" programmes nor does it seem to try to actively promote itself to the outside world. I see armies of people to warn new uploaders but I rarely see people actually trying to get new volunteers to join, we have Wiki-drives for Wikipedia's but we don't have events where we teach librarians to scan documents or something. The people who are here now are the people that chose to join despite its lack of outreach rather than because of any efforts to present itself to the outside world. There is a lot of media here, yet we rarely present it, most of it is actually being presented by other Wikimedia websites... --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:44, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]

October 14[edit]

The (in)visibility of the Wikimedia Commons[edit]

While reading this article looking for news coverage of Wikisource I came across something interesting, while this article discusses the Creative Commons movement on the internet and online free image resources it doesn't even mention the Wikimedia Commons at all, it does mention Wikipedia but not this website. I don't really want to create another section but as I would consider this to be "Out of scope" for the main page revamps discussion above I thought that it might be wise to do so. One thing I have been wondering for quite is why the Wikimedia Commons has remained "such an obscure website", despite its massive size and already existing for 17 (seventeen) years I have yet to meet a person in real life (IRL) know what the Wikimedia Commons is if I mention it to them, there also seems to be very little press coverage of this website and its events (unlike with Wikipedia) and despite its images being used in a lot of highly visible places I rarely see people reference it. Likewise, Wikisource as a project would be quite ambitious and theoretically it could become one of the largest libraries in the world but as of now it almost has 5.000.000 (five-million) or so works, only a third of any of the world's largest libraries, the Wikimedia Commons only hosts 3,032,762 office files (the category which includes books and other texts).

So my question is, why hasn't the Wikimedia Commons grown as much? Are there any outreach programmes? Would it be wise to try and start such a programme? I personally am inclined to think that our focus should be on trying to convince organisations to donate their works, like GLAM organisations but also private collections. If there are currently 500.000.000 or so freely licensed images on the internet (according to the aforementioned article) then the Wikimedia Commons hosts 70,051,301 of those which is more than a tenth (1/10th), yet it is rarely discussed when discussing free media files and GLAM's seem to want to come up with their own solutions rather than donate here, would Structured Data on Wikimedia Commons (SDC) be a good solution for them and did it have an effect on GLAM's donating? The Wikimedia Commons doesn't seem to have a newsletter where announcements of GLAM donations are reported in or what has been donated so I wouldn't know where to find such information. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 08:35, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]

"why hasn't the Wikimedia Commons grown as much" - In my experience, many new users find it too comlicated and too unwelcoming. "Are there any outreach programmes?" - Many, both small and large: not least the Wiki Loves... series, and Wikimedians in Residence. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:55, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Broken svg file: Transnistria map[edit]

I noticed https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/89/Transnistria_in_Moldova_(de-facto)_(semi-secession).svg reporting an error, there seems to be a problem with the file. This is the file: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Transnistria_in_Moldova_(de-facto)_(semi-secession).svg. Maybe someone can fix this. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarthBrento (talk • contribs) 10:46, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]

@DarthBrento: Hi, and welcome. Thanks for the report, please see COM:SIGN. Pinging @Nicolay Sidorov as uploader.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:06, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Fixed. Bad entity replacement for i: namespace. Glrx (talk) 16:32, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]

How to upload images from a Flickr account with 8000 images? Flickr2Commons doesn't work[edit]

Hi all

I'm looking at uploading images from a Flickr account of natural history images (including some holotypes) which has around 8000 CC licensed photos, almost all will be useful for Commmons. I've attempted to use Flickr2Commons to upload them but its too large and the tool doesn't load. It does have some albums but I don't think it includes all the images, maybe not even half. Is there another tool or process I could possibly use? I'm not able to use any python tools or anything complicated like that. Is there maybe a bot I can request to do it and tidy up the metadata while they're on Commons?

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 11:37, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]

@John Cummings: Sounds like a job for Commons:Bots/Work requests. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:51, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Thanks very much Pigsonthewing, hopefully its a simple request copying from Flickr. John Cummings (talk) 18:47, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Voting begins for the MCDC Election[edit]

Voting for the election of the members for the Movement Charter drafting committee is now open. In total, 70 Wikimedians from around the world are running for 7 seats in this election.

Voting is open from October 12 to October 24, 2021.

The Movement Charter committee will consist of 15 members in total: The online communities will vote for 7 members, 6 members will be selected by the Wikimedia affiliates through a parallel process, and 2 members will be appointed by the Wikimedia Foundation. The plan is to assemble the committee by November 1, 2021.

You can learn more about each candidate to inform your vote here

You can also learn more about the Drafting Committee here

We are piloting a voting advice application for this election. Click through the tool and you will see which candidate is closest to you! To try out this tool, visit: App

Go vote at SecurePoll: Vote

Read the full announcement: here

Best, Zuz (WMF) (talk) 15:04, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]

October 15[edit]

Tagging probably miss-identified cityscape[edit]

Hi. Which would be the best existing template to tag a probably miss-identified cityscape? Strakhov (talk) 08:06, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]

  • @Strakhov: Probably {{Fact disputed}}, but if you'd be more specific we might be able to move a lot more quickly toward correcting it. - Jmabel ! talk 12:32, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Thanks, Jmabel. I had used {{Inaccurate description}} but I was sure there had to be something better. {{Fact disputed}} is much better indeed. This is the file: File:Blick über den Hafen und die Stadt Triest c1900.jpg -> it bears a suspicious resemblance to Palma de Mallorca. Strakhov (talk) 12:24, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • @Strakhov: I guess the clincher would be if that is identifiably Bellver Castle on the hill, vs. Castello San Giusto. - Jmabel ! talk 15:27, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Thanks! Mystery solved. :) Strakhov (talk) 13:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]

User uploading again the same images after mass deletion[edit]

Hi. A mass deletion has been performed 2 days ago for images uploaded by Exxelia Groupe. The user has uploaded again some of the same images with the same problems without any attempt to start a discussion. What should be done ? --NicoV (talk) 12:21, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Thank you. The Exxelia site is licensed under CC 3.0 (we are in the process of modifying the legal notices page to indicate CC). The images were uploaded with the CC 3.0 license. If this is still not suitable, please let me know exactly what to do.

Thank you. --Exxelia Groupe (talk) 12:32, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]

  • ✓ Done Blocked for a week, all files tagged. @NicoV: Please note that this is the wrong forum. It should go to COM:ANU. Thanks, Yann (talk) 12:42, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • How does "blocked for not starting a discussion" work then? They're claiming that this content is now acceptable, but it isn't as yet without further editing. Which won't now happen until after the files have been deleted, because they've now been blocked for _just_ long enough to allow that to happen. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:01, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • @Yann: They seem to be finally ready to talk, and trying to fix things. It looks like all their uploads predated the discussion here. I would suggest unblock, with a firm warning not to upload anything else until we work this all out, and block only if they violate that. - Jmabel ! talk 17:31, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]

@Exxelia Groupe: Once you have this sorted out on your own site: assuming you put the licensing information in one central place, you will want to add a link to that to the "Permission" field of the {{Information}} template for each image. Also, you will want the license you indicate on Commons to match the license granted on your site. Further, the "Source" field of the {{Information}} template for each image should be the URL of the page on your site where the image is displayed.

An alternative (or addition, if you prefer) would be to go through the COM:VRT process and send an email that clearly comes from you organization, indicating that this account is operated on behalf of your organization, and that licensing granted by this account is effectively licensing granted by you organization. - Jmabel ! talk 15:32, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]

WikidataCon 2021[edit]

Hi all. I'm posting here as a co-curator of the 'Sister projects' track for WikidataCon 2021, which will take place online on 29-31 October 2021. The conference website is at [7].

Integrating Wikidata content has mostly been welcomed here. We would really like to see case studies both about how this has gone well, and where issues have been encountered. Whether you like Wikidata or not, please consider submitting a session proposal to explore the issues that you are most interested in.

You can find information about how to submit a session proposal at [8], and you can access the submission form at [9]. Please submit a session proposal through the Pretalx process so that we can review and schedule it appropriately - and make sure to mark it as a 'Sister projects' track proposal. Please note that we cannot accept a session outside of the Pretalx process. We also encourage you to submit talks to other tracks if you are interested!

Note that the deadline for submitting proposals is the 20th October - sorry for the short notice! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:55, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]

October 16[edit]

New file names including old name[edit]

When a file has a bad name it gets a new one, e.g. File:---The alleys of the city.jpg becomes File:Alley in Bou Saâda, wooden ceiling 1.jpg.
But there are many renamings by @MONUMENTA that needlessly immortalize the old name in the new one:

I think these parts should be removed, and this scheme should not be used anymore. --Watchduck (quack) 09:47, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]

I had been doing it so that his previous name was recorded, if you consider it incorrect, I myself will eliminate that scheme from all my past transfers.MONUMENTA Talk 13:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
@MONUMENTA and Watchduck: I think it's best not to do this, but no need to clean it up where it has already happened. - Jmabel ! talk 15:34, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
@MONUMENTA: It is enough to preserve the old name in the redirect. I would change at least the last one, to get rid of the equals sign. (maybe to File:Melilla town hall at night.jpg) --Watchduck (quack) 17:14, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]

License of Images of Works by Artist Anna Ostroumova-Lebedeva[edit]

The artist Anna Ostroumova-Lebedeva died in 1955 which is less than 70 years ago. Most of the images in this category have a license tag of PD-old-70-1923 which seems wrong to me. There seems to be a way to keep the images. They are PD in USA because published before 1926 and there is a similar license for Russia. I don't know enough about this topic and don't want to change the license tags myself. Anybody else? -- Andreas Stiasny (talk) 09:56, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Some of her works may be {{PD-RusEmpire}}. Rest should be deleted and restored in 2026. Please use batch deletion request and add Category:Undelete in 2026 there. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:29, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Flickr Foundation[edit]

Flickr have announced the "Flickr Foundation":

"We believe the establishment of a non-profit Flickr Foundation will combine with Flickr to properly preserve and care for the Flickr Commons archive, support Commons members to collaborate in a true 21st-century Commons, and plan for the very long-term health and longevity of the entire Flickr collection. We’re also in the early stages of imagining other educational and curatorial initiatives to highlight and share the power of photography for decades to come."

More at https://www.flickr.org/ - Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:25, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]

User:Fæ[edit]

It sadly looks like User:Fæ isn't coming back. Unsurprising, given how he was treated.

Is anyone going to pick up his regular tasks, such as periodic Portable Antiquities Scheme uploads? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:55, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]

October 17[edit]

May a file be deleted due to disinformation?[edit]

Death rates from energy production per TWh.png

Apart from hiding the source, which is here, the maker has omitted the lower part of the original chart. That makes it quite misleading, because precisely the with nuclear power competing non-fossil fuels are removed.--Wickey (talk) 14:40, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

@Wickey: It's in use, so I suggest your best approach would be to add your concerns on the image description page; and on the talk pages of the articles where it is used. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:06, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I don't believe that page is the source. This is purely impression, but looking at it, I think it was copied directly as is from some other page on Our World in Data, which would mean we were violating the license. It is too precisely a copy to be a new creation--logo in the same place, logo included at all, citation and text in same font--yet too different to be an edit--different citation, different colors. I'm not sure quite misleading is fair; if you want the numbers for solar versus nuclear, they're not included on that graph.
I've uploaded File:Death rates from energy production per TWh (including solar).svg from the source, since it is CC-BY-4.0. --Prosfilaes (talk) 22:32, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
@Wickey: @Pigsonthewing: @Prosfilaes: I nominated this file for deletion, because it violates the terms of the license. --Ooligan (talk) 03:13, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Thank you. I actually was not sure if there was such a reason for deletion. There is another issue, though. Can everyone produce such images, whether disinformation, misinformation or original research and upload it to Commons? Upload of course, but will it be accepted?--Wickey (talk) 08:49, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
@Wickey: COM:EDUSE is the relevant policy here – all files on Commons need to be potentially useful for an educational purpose (within a rather large margin, and with some exceptions for personal images on user pages). If something is purposefully and blatantly misleading, it is not educationally useful. Unless, of course, it is clearly marked as such and used as an example for misleading information. That's why we keep things like Category:Nazi propaganda and Category:Donald Trump tweets. If a file is being used in an article on Wikipedia (or another sister project), it is automatically considered to be useful for an educational purpose.
In practice, that means: If you want something removed from Commons for not being useful for an educational purpose, you better first check if it is used on Wikipedia. If it is, start a discussion there first, proposing to remove it from the relevant article for being wrong/misleading/… Only after that has been agreed on and done does it make sense to start thinking about how to remove it from Commons as well.
NB: Copyright issues are a much stronger argument for deletion. So if you can prove that a file is a copyright violation in some kind of way, it's not worth the effort wasting time and energy on lengthy discussions about educational use. --El Grafo (talk) 10:13, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Thanks all for your time.--Wickey (talk) 15:25, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]

October 18[edit]

North London Regent's Canal[edit]

Regent's Canal Heron at 7 Acton's Lock 1171.jpg

A silly basic question. From a Lumix, I tried to upload a batch of scenes along the north London Regent's Canal quickly using Upload Wizard. All are geotagged in the exif. Upload Wizard did not transfer the Latitude and Longitude from the exif into the Location fields. Look at the image- and there is no geotag in the description. Download the image to your local PC, right click on properties/image and there it is -the original geotag. The data is there but not displayed or displayable on the server. I tried it again on my Nikon and it did the same. Why? Is this a feature? Is this on someones to-do list? ClemRutter (talk) 18:21, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]

A tiny bugbear. On upload wizard, one can copy down the description fields from the first image to each image below- which I do a lot. What you can't do is copy down the description from any other image to all the images below that one. For example 20 images of Acton's Lock of which image 14-20 are of a Heron at Acton's Lock. All 20 take the same description and categories but the last 6 need a few extra words about the bird-and an additional category. Should be easy to code. ClemRutter (talk) 18:21, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump&oldid=599865349"