Commons:Village pump

Shortcut: COM:VP

• Community portal
  • introduction
• Help desk
• Village pump
  • copyright
  • proposals
  • technical
• Administrators' noticeboard
  • vandalism
  • user problems
  • blocks and protections

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

COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES (index) Commons Help desk Village pump (general discussion) Copyright Proposals Technical Graphics and photography discussion Photography critiques Image improvement Illustration workshop Map workshop Photography workshop Video and sound workshop Categories for discussion Undeletion requests Deletion requests Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard Translators' noticeboard Work requests for bots Contact administrators Vandalism User problems (Dispute resolution) Blocks and protections Bureaucrats' noticeboard CheckUser requests Oversight requests Telegram IRC webchat Commons mailing list (archive) Commons' bugs on Phabricator 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/2024/07. Please note: If you want to ask why unfree/non-commercial material is not allowed at Wikimedia Commons or if you want to suggest that allowing it would be a good thing, please do not comment here. It is probably pointless. One of Wikimedia Commons’ core principles is: "Only free content is allowed." This is a basic rule of the place, as inherent as the NPOV requirement on all Wikipedias. Have you read our FAQ? For changing the name of a file, see Commons:File renaming. Any answers you receive here are not legal advice and the responder cannot be held liable for them. If you have legal questions, we can try to help but our answers cannot replace those of a qualified professional (i.e. a lawyer). Your question will be answered here; please check back regularly. Please do not leave your email address or other contact information, as this page is widely visible across the internet and you are liable to receive spam. Purposes which do not meet the scope of this page: Please do not make deletion requests here: use the relevant process for it instead. For technical support and graphics talks (PNG, SVG, GIF, etc.), please post on the Graphics village pump. To ask for image improvement, see: Graphic Lab/Photography workshop for photographs. Graphic Lab/Map workshop for maps. Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop for other illustrations. To ask for video or audio improvement, see Commons:Graphic Lab/Video and sound workshop. For translation requests, please post at Commons:Requests for translation. For media requests, please post at Commons:File requests. Search archives:     Start a new discussion

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.

Thatched water pump at Aylsham, Norfolk [add]

Centralized discussion See also: Village pump/Proposals   ■ Archive Commons:Requests for comment/Hosting of free fonts in Commons (18 July 2024) How do we organize categories by date (14 May 2024) Should PD-CQ Roll Call be used for recent images? (5 January 2024) Technical needs survey (17 December 2023) When does PDART apply to textile works? (15 November 2023) Does this image contain "love hearts"? (17 August 2023) Overhaul of categories by period (5 December 2022) Version of Saudi flag to use (11 July 2022) Concern regarding revocability of KOGL licenses (22 December 2021) Should deleting content from your own talk page be forbidden? (11 November 2021) Revise the COM:FOP Sweden section (1 February 2021) Change technical name of LRs to license-reviewer from image-reviewer(2 November 2023) 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.

August 21

Narrow locations for "taken on"

Hadn't we agreed that "taken on" location should never be more specific than country? I now see the narrow Category:Berlin photographs taken on 2018-04-25 resulting from a narrower use of that template, and even the narrower Category:Mitte (district of Berlin) photographs taken on 2018-04-25. I think this is a wrong direction and needs to stop. In the latter case it looks like something outside the template resulted in this narrow categorization. - Jmabel ! talk 15:45, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Categories are to hide our files. What better way to do that than to keep intersecting things until it's so specific that the category only contains one photo? You don't want people to actually find useful photo's, don't you?

(to be clear, that was sarcasm)

I wrote User:Multichill/Next generation categories quit some time ago and intersections just suck. Structured data might offer a solution for this in the future, but that still seems very far away. Multichill (talk) 19:29, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

What I'm looking for here is: am I correct that there was basically consensus that "taken on" location should never be more specific than country? And is there anywhere that consensus is documented? - Jmabel ! talk 23:11, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

That sounds like a reasonable idea. Ideally, the WMF should put in a faster Help:FastCCI backend so we can get rid of intersection categories entirely: just classify it as Category:Mitte (district of Berlin) and Category:Photographs taken on 2018-04-25, and the software will automatically know that it's supposed to be part of Category:2018 photographs of Germany (and as a reader, you can look up ridiculous intersections like Category:Mitte (district of Berlin) photographs taken on 2018-04-25 if you wish). We would need some mechanism to mark a subcat relation as non-diffusing, though. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:45, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I think to get rid of intersection categories, Structured Data is the answer. For example, files in Mitte in April 2017 would be:

SELECT * WHERE { ?file wdt:P180 wd:Q163966 . ?file wdt:P571 ?inception . FILTER (?inception > "2017-04-01T00:00:00Z"^^xsd:dateTime) FILTER (?inception < "2017-05-01T00:00:00Z"^^xsd:dateTime) }

Try it! — Sam Wilson ( Talk • Contribs ) … 01:22, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

For a "SQL like" statement that's bizarrely difficult and effectively encrypted against being a usable system. If that's how volunteers who currently using plain English category names are expected to make use of structured data, it's not getting off the ground as real volunteers, including 90% of technically minded ones, are not going to learn lists of P and Q numbers before being able to do anything. --Fæ (talk) 13:18, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Query and search are related but not the same read for example [1]. I would like to have better search which should include faceted search. So you can search for a keyword and facets like time (probably a slider) or location (probably a map) are offered. Multichill (talk) 16:28, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I'd love for categories to be metadata-generated, allowing you to go as specific or general as possible. As for diffusing/non-diffusing, I'd like to see something MediaWiki-driven that allows you to put such a flag in as a parameter much like what you can do with files. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 21:12, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

August 22

Where can I get other Wikimedians' opinions on my photos?

I already used to take picture with my older phone, but now I have a new phone that can really take good pictures. However I'm still a newbie in photography. How can I make better pictures? Where can I get other Wikimedians' opinions and suggestions? Tetizeraz. Send me a ✉️ ! 11:56, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

There isn't really any informal feedback system like this. You could nominate an image for Quality image but the standards are high, and although mobile phone photos aren't usually made QIs, that isn't a bar. But any defect in composition, exposure or processing is very likely to be spotted. Another way is to nomate for Valued image, but those nominated have be capable of being the best of a given topic, known as the scope. I'd suggest you take a look at Quality image candidates and Valued image candidates to see what is likely to be acceptable. Rodhullandemu (talk) 12:10, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

You might also ask others at Commons:Photography critiques. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 14:02, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Artist's impressions

(This discussion does not consider copyright.)

Should "artist's impressions" be allowed on commons? I ask this question because I saw File:Mathieu da costa.jpg. The subject was long dead before photography was invented. The file was probably the uploader's own creation. I pondered this and could think of a few scenarios:

1. impressions created by notable artists/agencies -- accepted unconditionally, because their creators are reputable. Examples: FBI's sketches of criminals, NASA artists' rendition of exoplanets, CGI of new buildings by developers/govt, CGI of dinosaurs/ancient humans based on fossils...
2. impressions of something that exists/existed in real world, created by wiki users. Example: someone draws a person/a building.
3. impressions of something that doesn't exist in real world, created by users. Example: someone draws some imaginary buildings, imaginary machines...

I feel that there should be tight restrictions for #2 and #3. For instance, if #2 is allowed, then users would be allowed to upload lots of drawings of Eiffel Tower, which are not desired. Users could upload their own drawings of File:Mathieu da costa.jpg for someone that doesn't have any attested portrait. That seems to contradict with what an encyclopedia is--a book that's attest from reliable sources rather than user-generated fiction. -- RZuo (talk) 15:08, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

• I have mixed feelings here but: Commons is not an encyclopedia. It is a media repository. We do host many images that would not likely belong in an encyclopedia. - Jmabel ! talk 17:18, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

  I am for keeping them, if they comply with the policy: Commons:PS.

  See e.g. the related discussion here: Commons:Deletion requests/Edward Knapczyk files from 2013 and 2017

  Zezen (talk) 18:24, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

• We do host Fan art, including related deletion requests, to mention one more category. The question is whether those artist's impressions have potential for being educationally useful. Usually third party "artist's impressions" are, "Commons user's impressions" are not automatically, especially if there are photographs or notable artist's impressions. For portraits of historic people I'd think at least thorough research would be needed for the "impression" to be worthwhile. But some of our uploaders might be notable artists, some might have done thorough research, and for some motives we don't have much to choose from. –LPfi (talk) 18:34, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

  There are also the difference about the motive being relevant and us wanting an illustration on it, versus that the genre itself is relevant, and we want a sample. If there would be a big hoard of amateurs making their own Abraham Lincoln portraits, we'd like to have a sample regardless of the fact that we'd like a proper portrait by a notable artist for showing the person himself. –LPfi (talk) 18:39, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

there could also be a concern about copyright.

the example i quoted above struck me as it looked like a photo but the person lived in 17th century. only upon checking the file page did i realise it's a wiki user's artist impression.

there are many tools nowadays that can convert photos to drawing of a certain style, oil on canvas, black and white, pencil... you name it. i find these issues very problematic.--RZuo (talk) 23:12, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Misleading data and maybe more: "male erotic emancipation"

URLs: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:European_age_of_male_erotic_emancipatio_(thumb-readable).png and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:European_age_of_male_erotic_emancipatio.jpg

The map and its versions are used cross-wiki, I think I found it first in dewikivoyage.

See the decade-old comments there, the title, caption and descriptions "male erotic emancipation", "lawful pederastic [!] relationships", the map data itself, and the uploader's Toolforge record.

I have not commented there (yet) on purpose, as some Meta is involved, so experienced admins may advise us here first.

Zezen (talk) 19:58, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Zezen dropped me a line about this because I took a "related admin action" years ago, which I gather is the indefinite blocking of the uploader, Haiduc, on the English Wikipedia. That block arose from an off-wiki discussion by the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee, and so I can't discuss it. At a glance, I would say that the map's a problem because i. it's inaccurate (per the discussion on its talk page), and ii. rather than simply setting out the age of consent in various jurisdictions, it is labelled, for no discernible reason, as being about at what age boys are "emancipated" to engage in sexual relationships with men (which then creates further inaccuracies, as also noted on its talk page). Beyond that, I don't think I have anything to contribute here. Steve Smith (talk) 20:38, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Deep bows @Steve Smith. I thus also have nothing to add at this stage. Zezen (talk) 20:41, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I'll add that the labelling also creates a POV problem, I think, since it implicitly endorses the notion that children want to have sex with adults, and that it's only the government's meddling that prevents this. That is, of course, an endorsement calculated to normalize pederasty and pedophilia. Steve Smith (talk) 20:42, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Related:

• Commons:Deletion requests/File:European age of male erotic emancipatio (thumb-readable).png
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:European age of male erotic emancipatio.jpg

--Fæ (talk) 10:15, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Ta. Now that I can see, it had also been flagged also here User talk:Haiduc~commonswiki#Pederasty in 2011: "Why is the word pederasty here? This isn't Ancient Greece". Asking in Commons back then did not help, it is good that Steve gave a go-ahead this time.

Zezen (talk) 10:57, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

The often misunderstood component of these types of image is that Commons policies try to avoid getting involved in value judgements or censorship. The best strategy is to first examine whether a file has any possible copyright issue, then carefully examine whether a good out of scope rationale might apply. The latter only works if the file is not in any 'content' use on sister wikis. All of this means that highly contentious or in truth, anti-educational and damaging content may survive deletion requests. Obviously, if the media is itself "unlawful" under US law, then there's always the WMF office action route which may be highly preferable to attracting public attention of any sort.

At the current time, there are no good answers to this sort of polemical media which in the cold light of day is actually pointless and damages the "sum of human knowledge" because it literally ain't knowledge.

BTW the history of the Haiduc~commonswiki (talk · contribs) account is irrelevant as there was no global lock, and the account never was blocked on Wikimedia Commons. Plus, it's a tangent considering that they stopped meaningful contributions 11 years ago, so let's avoid old rabbit holes. --Fæ (talk) 11:11, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

August 23

Rename failed

A rename request was not filled in like it should be. First I tried to rename it with the request that was not filled in fully, after that I filled in the parameters and still I received an error. Can anyone take a look at this? File:Gedenktafel Nestorstr 22 (Wilmd) Vladimir Vladimirowitsch Nabokov.JPG?

---

The error: Error while moving the page. Een gedetailleerde beschrijving van de fout wordt hieronder getoond: API request failed (titleblacklist-forbidden-edit): The title "File:Gedenktafel Nestorstr 22 (Halsee) Vladimir Vladimirowitsch Nabokov.jpg" has been banned from creation. It matches the following blacklist entry: " .*(mattia|vlad|morleo)[^\/]*(mattia|vlad|morleo).*" <i>at Mon, 23 Aug 2021 21:23:46 GMT</i> <u>served by mw2397</u>

---

It looks like the new title is blacklisted, but I think it's probably something 'small'. Thanks in advance. - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 21:26, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I could rename the file without any problems, File:Gedenktafel Nestorstr 22 (Halsee) Vladimir Vladimirowitsch Nabokov.jpg, perhaps a small hickup. Elly (talk) 22:27, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @Ellywa: - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 11:00, 24 August 2021 (UTC) PS sometimes a few hours later it can be renamed, but now I doubted a little.

August 24

Can you edit Template:NoFoP-South Korea/fr and add Template:NoFoP-South Korea/es?

I added content related to South Korean de minimis to Template:NoFoP-South Korea/ko and Template:NoFoP-South Korea/en.

However, I can't edit Template:NoFoP-South Korea/fr because I don't know French.

Can you edit Template:NoFoP-South Korea/fr?

And, please add Template:NoFoP-South Korea/es. I don't know Spanish.

Ox1997cow (talk) 06:25, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Ghost date cat

This photo is tagged with Category:Photographs taken on 1985-08-20, yet I cannot find where this information is being stored — it’s neither in the file pages’s wikitext nor (apparently) in the SDC. Help, please? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 09:18, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@Tuvalkin: the cat appears to show the current calendar date but in the year 1985. It first showed up with the addition of {{Taken on}}; this template wants a complete date, not just a year. I believe changing that to {{Taken in}} will fix it.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 10:07, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

• @Odysseus1479: thank you! No excuse for me — I already know of this quirk, but somehow forgot about it this time. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 10:19, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Identical audiovisual files uploaded with different coding formats, which one to keep?

for example, File:Hot twerk choreo.webm (VP8) vs File:Hot twerk choreo (no audio).webm (VP9).

there're lots of formats: List_of_codecs. when something is uploaded in different formats, should only one, or several, or all of them be kept? RZuo (talk) 13:26, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Having a tip jar on user pages

Any thoughts on whether as a community we would allow adding a 'tip jar' to a user page?

Though I've had some support and the odd donation over the years towards hardware, the vast majority of my projects have had nil funding and ongoing costs of bandwidth, some software, and wear and tear (on memory and drives) have never been factored in. It would not count as spam, so I think this would be allowable under the WMF terms of use (happy to be corrected) and I could declare any donations via this route if folx wanted transparency and if there were any to declare! Maybe if we do allow it, we might want to define in what circumstances/projects/types of users where it would be valid. --Fæ (talk) 17:26, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

• @Fæ: I'm simultaneously super-sympathetic to you on this, especially considering the amazing amount you do, and very worried that this could open a can of worms. Yes, we'd really need to be clear on where this would be OK and where not. - Jmabel ! talk 19:52, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

  I'm thinking that there have been some projects where some direct but small crowdfunding was used outside of any WMF Affliate, anyone know of an example? But I may have misunderstood how they worked. "Tips" would uncontroversially be to help expenses for projects, not to buy me nicer shoes, so it could be arranged as linking to an external site for maintaining specific long-running projects like COM:IA books or the COM:UK legislation project, rather than funding the uploader. Anyone is free to run a Wikimedia project crowdfunding page, just as Affiliates can take donations even though they are (mostly) not allowed to do fundraising campaigns, but the question is just whether a Wikimedia Commons user can or ought to add them to their user page based on our local consensus around what is or is not spam.

  By the way, I'd also check with the WMF before doing anything on-wiki, just in case. --Fæ (talk) 20:16, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

• Agree with @Jmabel: . Not worried about you @Fæ: , but what about someone with vested interests, e.g. political motivations, or other such interests such as promoting a tourist spot? Krok6kola (talk) 23:57, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

It may be heavy-handed, but we could always have a norm that any 'tip jar' type links on a user page need to go through a standard Commons proposal. If we don't ban them, then we need to avoid making it more of a burden than putting in a grant request for ten times or a hundred times whatever someone might actually get from a handful of 'tips'. If we do ban them, then that's probably something worth a mention on our user page guidelines.

Context For those unaware about the costs of running the WMF or a WMF Affiliate, small expenses or micro-grants are highly inefficient. If someone needs, say, $100 to buy some minor hardware, like a hard drive or a RaspberryPi to use as a headless home server for an open knowledge project, then the end to end costs of reviewing, authorizing and transferring money or purchasing kit for the beneficiary, may well be significantly more than the value of the grant. This alone is a very good reason to allow self-run crowdfunding, or simply direct giving, rather than passing through intermediary 'agents', regardless of how well-intentioned they are.

BTW, try asking the WMF or an Affiliate about their efficiency, you get interesting answers. --Fæ (talk) 10:45, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I think it would be okay if users link a supporting method on their page. Maybe we should create and template for this with a standard disclaimer like "These donations go to the user directly. The WMF is not involved. The user is responsible for all legal requirements." --GPSLeo (talk) 11:55, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Strong no. A can in a can in a can of worms, no time to look for a Matryoshka doll illustration here in Commons. Zezen (talk) 12:26, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Why? Direct giving is well established and there are several secure ways of doing it. It's hardly a 'can of worms', even WMF trustees have approved of volunteers looking for direct funds.

Someone may well want to give $1 towards a Commons project rather than donate $100 to the WMF hoping that $1 of that might end up going to otherwise unpaid volunteers who might happen to also satisfy the WMF grants programme, rather than WMF or Affiliate operational costs.

BTW I see you have a special interest in LGBTQ-related topics. As a general reminder m:LGBT+ exists and can help support any LGBTQ contributors wanting to talk off-wiki in a safe space environment. --Fæ (talk) 10:42, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

• We could call it "OnlyFae" it'll be great. Nothing ould possibly go wrong with this rock-solid idea to panhandle on Commons! Beeblebrox (talk) 21:04, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Why the personal attack, disgustingly sexualizing me by using an "OnlyFans" allegation? You are deliberately creating a hostile environment, it is unwanted.

You have for years been helping to whip up off-wiki trolls to make attacks and false claims about me, openly in public under your Wikimedia account name. These are the actions of a bully with authority, someone that should never have access to Oversight. You know full well that some of the people you are prompting off-wiki are potentially dangerous and you know that I have had years of being targeted with abuse and death threats.

You frighten me. --Fæ (talk) 11:52, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: Your comment doesn't help, and is of unacceptable behaviour. Please retract your comment and apologize to Fæ. pandakekok9 08:37, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

i never agree that "links to donations/crowdfunding" could be in violation of wikimedia websites or the "wiki spirit". sometimes i see sysops banning people or deleting user pages because they have such links. i find that extravagant.

1. as far as i am aware, no wiki policies forbids users collecting donations.
2. why should wiki sites be different from any kind of ugc sites such that people cannot put the common "give me a coffee/beer" kind of thing, for readers to voluntarily give some appreciation?
3. most people who visit wiki websites dont even know how to figure out who's behind the text and photos. they assume content pop up just like other big media corporations. having a link on the user page is by no means excessive promotion.
4. WMF itself runs those big ass donation banners and ask for so much, but is not so transparent with its finances, yet users arent allowed to put a simple link on user pages?
5. there are contributors whose work i am very grateful for, for example the Category:Photographs by Anonymous Hong Kong Photographer 1 who's been around longer than most people and continuously uploading. a way to give material appreciation to users i like would be nice.

...

i never saw the need for a discussion on this either. such links for donations should be allowed, plain and simple.--RZuo (talk) 23:12, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

to sum it up: such links are passively, not even actively, seeking donations; donations are made on completely voluntary basis; and the knowledge threshold to be able to find the link on user pages is already too high for most visitors of wiki websites.--RZuo (talk) 23:20, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with this. We had photographers who made requests for donations of better cameras on their user page, and we didn't have a problem with that. I think a bit of financial help to our volunteers (especially bot operators, photographers, and other technical users like independent MediaWiki devs) wouldn't be against our mission. pandakekok9 08:37, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Beeblebrox

Does Wikimedia Commons want to support contributors who harass fellow Wikimedians off-wiki?

Just hours after I wrote above the statement that @Beeblebrox: frightens me by the way that for years they have encouraged trolls to attack me by posting abuse targeting me off-wiki, they posted:

Re: Fae wants a taste of that sweet, sweet WMF money
In their mind they are the most beloved user Commons ever had, after all they have made so very many contributions! I forget who told me about that, again and again and again. :evilgrin:
The fact that they can't get elected as an admin or get on the volunteer response team is only because of homophobia, it can't possibly because nobody trusts them.
Beeblebrox Sun Aug 29, 2021 12:13 am

This is not a joke, it has never been a joke. They have for years been posting in public discussions about me off-wiki where they know that there are people taking part on that site that have run long-term abusive accounts and have made threats against my life and my family.

Why is this person trusted with Oversight access? They are a troll and attack Wikimedians off-wiki in a sneaky unpleasant way, trying to get others attacked. This is bullying, this is harassment. The comment about "homophobia" is deliberate gaslighting, and a way to trigger the abusive trolls they are appealing to, am I supposed to stop volunteering for Wikimedia LGBT+ and stop being an openly LGBTQ contributor to make Beeblebrox leave me alone? We block abusive accounts for harassment, just because someone knows very well how to game the system by posting the abuse off-wiki and encouraging other people to post more abuse or make anonymous attacks does not stop them from being a part of this harassment campaign.

I am frightened of Beeblebrox, clearly, they see me as an object to damage, not a person.

The intention is to use an off-wiki site to drive another contributor off Wikimedia projects, to cause them real life harm and to ensure that others are frightened to discuss topics that Beeblebrox wants to shut down or control. We need to be able to hold people that bully and abuse others this way to account. --Fæ (talk) 08:07, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

• Please note that my access to advanced permissions on other projects is obviously not a Commons matter. If we're going to play that game we should obviously discuss why Fae is indef blocked on the same project. The rest of this is just typical Fae drama-mongering and not worth further comment. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:32, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Are you going to stop your unpleasant personal attacks off-wiki and fomenting abuse and harassment against me off-wiki with your "mates" or not? If your intention is to make me fear you, you succeeded. I am frightened of you, I am frightened of what else you might do to harm me in your years long campaign. --Fæ (talk) 08:38, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Also this is obviously the wrong forum for this discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:41, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Google PhotoScan

I've just discovered Google's "PhotoScan" app (Android and iPhone), and am very impressed on first use. It takes multiple pictures and uses them to create a rectified, glare-free copy of a 2D original. Examples are in Category:Acquired with Google PhotoScan, but there are surprisingly few.

Has anyone written (or can anyone offer) tips for using it? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:20, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Ha and ta for the tip, @Pigsonthewing: installing it now. It may be just what I needed some years ago to take pics of weird, controversial toys and memorabilia through shop windows, see e.g. Jew with a Coin.

Will test it and may return with results in some days' time. Zezen (talk) 12:39, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

August 25

Replacing licenses of files uploaded by other uploaders

In the course of uploading NASA's image I encountered that a certain file is already uploaded by another user with the PD-own template instead of PD-USGov-NASA. Strictly adhering to the Wikipedian behavioral guideline of the good faith presumption (WP:GF), I interpret this fault as a result of his inattention. Therefore I am more inclined to help a colleague than to file a complaint about this case. Can I fix his error myself by editing his file description changing PD-own to PD-USGov-NASA and 'own work' to 'NASA'?

If not, should this file (File:Mars Perseverance ZLF 0031 0669690707 527FDR N0030828ZCAM05000 0480LUJ.png) be nominated for deletion (thus allowing me to upload it again on behalf of myself and under another file name - I need this image for one article)? Cherurbino (talk) 22:05, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine for any image that is inherently PD. I do that all the time with {{PD-textlogo}} where there's no evidence of permission from the company but the logo is obviously below COM:TOO. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:09, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

August 26

Autopatrol for filemovers

I noticed that the filemover usergroup doesn't include autopatrol in the privileges granted. Shouldn't we include it like we do for patrollers, since our criteria for filemovers are stricter than autopatrol? I see one user who is granted filemover but not autopatrol. There may be others, but I haven't looked. pandakekok9 02:50, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Same picture, different person

File:Dijana_Stevin_2_20160417.jpg File:Ivana_Lovrić_(2016).jpg These to files represent the same person, but it is in two different categories, first for Serbian and second for Croatian handball player. How is it possible to find out which person this really is? Also there is this uncropped photo which is a clue that it is Ivana instead of Dijana. File:Ivana_Lovric_et_Sanela_Knezovic_20160417.jpg. SimplyFreddie (talk) 08:24, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

• @Wenflou and Laddo: - Jmabel ! talk 15:34, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

My bad, SimplyFreddie is right. It's Ivana Lovrić and not Dijana Stevin ! @Laddo and Jmabel: --Wenflou (talk) 18:11, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

@Wenflou: I requested name change of the picture and changed category. — SimplyFreddie (talk) 20:17, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Declined picture for renaming maybe copyrighted

Hi, yesterday I declined this image for renaming. Now the uploader asks if I can make an exception, but the file is copyrighted on en.wikipedia. According to the guidelines it should be renamed there, but I think this copy looks a lot like the original on en.wikipedia. I didn't see it at first, but saw it a few minutes later. See my talk page, here - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 10:53, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Considering it was just uploaded, and the person requesting the rename is the uploader, he could've made the request with Criterion 1 as justification and it would have been fine to move. Personally, I usually just change the criterion to criterion 1 whenever it's the uploader requesting a rename, but the rename isn't quite justified under whatever criterion they've submitted the rename request. TommyG (talk) 11:25, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

The filename is the same as on en.wiki and it's copyrighted there. The file has the same extension (png) and is maybe a bit bigger with lower pixels. So it's not the wrong choice (I change the reason often, from crit. 2 to 1, etc.) but the same filename on wiki and here. I cannot determine whether this version of the file is sufficiently different from the original. Thanks for the reaction. - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 12:28, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

The filename is the same, but the image is different. this is the image on en:WP, it shows a slice of lime, while the file on commons doesn't show that. It is taken from another website, probably not an officieal Cocacola design. I see no problem in renaming, but I did not check our guideline for this. Elly (talk) 12:56, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Elly, I didn't see it. My sight is not so good today (and it wasn't yesterday in the evening), it depends.. Thanks! - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 13:10, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Page translation step knowledge

Can anyone please tell me what steps or permissions do I need to translate the main page and some important pages of Commons into Manipuri language (aka. Meitei language), which has its own mni wikipedia and mni wiktionary? And if someone started a translation but isn't complete, can I help the user by translating the remaining untranslated portion? Haoreima (talk) 11:59, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

August 27

Downing Street Twitter?

re https://twitter.com/10DowningStreet/status/1430434273740443653

Does anyone know the licensing for the Downing Street twitter? (I can't see it). Can we use this? Are we already importing it somewhere? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:03, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I looked at this a year, or two, ago and wrote to the official email address. No reply. Nothing on Downing Street-related policies explains what the copyright might be. If photographs are not on a .gov website, taking them from Twitter is unknown copyright, even though "in theory" it is an official 10 Downing Street publication. --Fæ (talk) 11:41, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

August 28

Maps and the United States Threshold of Originality

• https://vi.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%E1%BA%ADp_tin:%C4%90%E1%BA%A3ng_k%E1%BB%B3_%C4%90%E1%BA%A3ng_V%C3%AC_d%C3%A2n.png

I found the above flag on this page (another Musée Annam sockproject) and it's locally uploaded to a Wikipedia. The flag belongs to an American political organisation the only copyrightable part of the flag would be a simple map of Việt Nam. However, it is simply a map based on the borders of the country, is such a simple concept even copyrightable under US law? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 12:40, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

• @Donald Trung: My guess is that it's not copyrightable in the U.S., but questions like this are better asked at Commons:Village pump/Copyright. - Jmabel ! talk 16:07, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Bot run for category files

I have gone into semi-retirement due to a number of factors, some on-wiki, some off-wiki.

It was my sincere hope that someone would pick up my bot's activities from the source code, but the learning curve has been too steep.

I have received numerous requests for a restoration of the daily galleries for categorized files. As such, now that I have some free time, I will be restoring the bot for this purpose only. It will catch several months of missed galleries but will be taking a slow approach in order to allow people to tweak the configuration parameters.

I will leave this discussion up for 48 hours before I take action in case there are any objections.

Courtesy ping @Derbrauni, Rsteen, Krok6kola, Sk, Emha, EugeneZelenko

Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 15:26, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Magog the Ogre. This is such good news. Thank you, you have just made my day. Cheers --Rsteen (talk) 15:31, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for adjust bot code to API changes and all your work at past! I think will be good idea to recruit backup bot operators and move bot to shared account. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:32, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for everything you have done, so much more than the bots (I do not want to minimize that!) but so much else. Plus for being a wonderful, kindly presence on the Commons. All good wishes, Krok6kola (talk) 15:36, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

thx for your service.

where are the source codes? (sorry if this question is silly.)

i'm interested and happy to help even though i'm optimistically speaking probably at least two years of learning away from being able to handle these codes. so often valuable tools are discontinued when developers retire. another tool that i've always wanted to save is v2c... RZuo (talk) 16:07, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Template:Ministry of Defence Serbia

In October 2020, I asked for clarification about the text "Reproduction is allowed in the whole and parts with specifying content source" on the bottom of all the http://www.mod.gov.rs/eng pages and received no response. It's been nearly a year, and the files I asked about have remained un-License reviewed. Meanwhile, I've looked around the templates in Category:Custom Attribution license tags: a number of these are considered to be "Attribution" with very similar usage notes. For example:

• Template:Attribution-AgenciaSenadoBr is based on the usage statement "A reprodução de matérias e fotografias é livre, desde que não haja descaracterização de conteúdo e mediante a citação da Agência Senado e do autor. Fonte: Agência Senado" (Google Translate: The reproduction of articles and photographs is free, as long as there is no mischaracterization of the content and by citing the Senate Agency and the author. Source: Senate Agency). This one also survived a deletion attempt, Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Attribution-AgenciaSenadoBr saying that didn't specify commercial use or derivative works.
• Template:Eurovision-Spain is based on the usage statement "Todo el contenido incluido en esta web, del que eurovision-spain sea propietaria, puede ser utilizado libremente, en base a su denominación de "copyleft", sin solicitar autorización previa siempre y cuando se indique "eurovision-spain.com" como fuente la misma." (Google Translate: All content included in this website, owned by eurovision-spain, can be used freely, based on its "copyleft" name, without requesting prior authorization as long as "eurovision-spain.com" is indicated as the source. herself. ) This also survived Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Eurovision-Spain (though it is less clear why).

So, it seems there is precedent that this very similar notice qualifies for a Custom Attribution license tag. So I'm making it, and intend to apply it to all relevant files, including the ones I asked about first, the files in User:EatchaBot/Files-requiring-license-review-gallery-uploaded-by/130309p. If anyone has any objections you may speak now (or forever hold your peace... you may kiss the bride. No, that's something else.)--GRuban (talk) 18:26, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion, the template in question should be allowed. "parts," to me, seems to mean derivatives, and "reproduction is allowed" makes no exception for commercial use. The next template, I'm not so sure about; the "reproduction" is free, but do derivates really count as reproducing something? The next template seems to be fine; "used freely" implies that one can make derivatives, because that is a part of using it freely. Zoozaz1 (talk) 20:17, 28 August 2021 (UTC)