Commons:Village pump

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Shortcut: COM:VP

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓       ↓ Skip to discussions ↓       ↓ Skip to the last discussion ↓
🌐 Village pumps for other languages
COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES (index)
Welcome to the Village pump

This page is used for discussions of the operations, technical issues, and policies of Wikimedia Commons. Recent sections with no replies for 7 days and sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=--~~~~}} may be archived; for old discussions, see the archives; the latest archive is Commons:Village pump/Archive/2023/09.

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 Check location 4 2 Smiley.toerist 2023-09-17 10:48
2 Largest file? 6 5 Enyavar 2023-09-20 08:30
3 Higgins 5 2 RZuo 2023-09-19 06:34
4 Potential commons UTRS? 25 13 Abzeronow 2023-09-20 19:03
5 Your wiki will be in read-only soon (Wednesday 20 September 2023 for one hour) 2 2 Edelseider 2023-09-15 10:40
6 Location and Italian rail coach type 2 2 Smiley.toerist 2023-09-15 22:28
7 Regarding transfer from frwiki. 2 2 Thibaut120094 2023-09-15 18:13
8 Possible bug for the app of WLM Italy 14 3 Bjh21 2023-09-15 20:32
9 Russian copyright laws’ validity in occupied Ukraine 6 3 GPSLeo 2023-09-16 21:42
10 Tag for The Unlicense 9 6 Chamaemelum 2023-09-17 01:08
11 File:Allam Medical Building.jpg 2 2 Pigsonthewing 2023-09-19 15:18
12 Images based on purchased 3D assets 7 3 Hemiauchenia 2023-09-17 19:38
13 Translation of poetic works 2 2 Jmabel 2023-09-17 16:06
14 The 1ooed millionth file on Wikimedia Commons 4 4 PantheraLeo1359531 2023-09-20 15:07
15 Since most of the files I have transferred from frwiki have been retained for pd-textlogo, why not delete the redundant files on frwiki? 10 5 Grandmaster Huon 2023-09-18 06:38
16 Interpretation of Template:PD-Switzerland-official 6 3 Espandero 2023-09-19 10:28
17 Cropping 9 4 Jmabel 2023-09-19 18:48
18 {{Governo.it}} 1 1 MasterRus21thCentury 2023-09-19 12:03
19 Do we have tools do search through EXIF data of images on WIkimedia Commons? 4 2 Polarlys 2023-09-21 13:54
20 Clitoris Anatomy labels 2 2 Glrx 2023-09-20 23:58
21 Photo challenge July results 2 2 Anna.Massini 2023-09-21 06:55
22 FoP reform status by jurisdiction 1 1 Piotrus 2023-09-22 02:41
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.
Cast iron pump with handle dated 1875 in the form of a fluted column with Corinthian capital on a profiled, square stone base [add]
Centralized discussion
See also: Village pump/Proposals   ■ Archive
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.

September 10[edit]

Check location[edit]

I used the board on the train in

to identify Category:Ciano train station. I cant match with the other features in the category. There are sheds but no shed with a railtrack besides it. File:Ciano d'Enza station 2002 2.jpg is the same place. The same train type leads me to the conclusion, that this should be Reggio Emilia station. Be again I miss identifying elements to confirm.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:02, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

this train station should be around Parma as it is obviously the same train as File:Parma station 2002.jpg.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:08, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Smiley.toerist: File:Ciano d'Enza station 2002 1.jpg and File:Ciano d'Enza station 2002 2.jpg are located at Guastalla station. You can see the shed with those colours in this older Streetview image. Here you can see your 2002 view from a bit higher up. --HyperGaruda (talk) 12:01, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks I renamed the files. I suspect I travelled from Parma File:Parma station 2002.jpg to Guastalla File:Your boiler advertising train 2002.jpg? to Reggio Emilla File:Reggio Emilia station 2002.jpg. I was put on the wrong track by the Ciano d'Enza sign (upside down on the train).Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:48, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

September 11[edit]

Largest file?[edit]

Hi, Let's try some useless competition. ;o) What's the largest file on Commons? File:Atlas der Alpenländer, 1874 (14243013).jpg is 3 Gigapixels. Yann (talk) 19:08, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

These are larger:
    • Disclosure: I used the search function to return any image bigger than 50000 by 50000 pixels ;)
    --HyperGaruda (talk) 20:18, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Ah yes, computer-generated images can be created arbitrary of any size. It doesn't count. ;o) Yann (talk) 21:07, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    File:“Declaration of victory after the Battle of Leipzig on 18 October 1813”.jpg is slightly smaller (2.9 gigapixels) but it's a single image rather than several images stitched together. It's also quite a bit heavier at 1.49 GB vs 720.93 MB. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 16:04, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    We can even take this to the extreme. My guess is that one video may be the largest file in data, but is uploaded as split file due to the file size limit of 4 GiB (this is equal to 3:20 minutes to 5 minutes of a 4K video from a full frame camera). But if we look at the aerial photographs of Bavaria (ca. 70500m²) by the Bayerische Vermessungsverwaltunghttps://geodaten.bayern.de/opengeodata/OpenDataDetail.html?pn=dop40 and combine them to a single image of the whole state of Bavaria, we get approx. an image of 650.000 x 915.000 Pixels (40cmx40cm equals 1 pixel), or approx. 600 Gigapixels with approx. 1 terabyte in file size. The common size limit (JPEG, PNG, etc.) is 65535x65535, so it is hard to realize such an image :) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 14:38, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Why limit yourself to Bavaria? You want a high-resolution map of a large area, possibly a stitch of Category:100-sheets_Map_of_the_Russian_Empire_1804-1816, where each individual file measures 4900x4500 pixel. The full map is 13x10.25 of those sheets, i.e. 59k-x-50k pixel, that comes pretty close to the size limit. Additionally, it's a good contestant for the oldest largest file. So what you're looking for is old land surveys that cover as large areas as possible with as much precision as possible. --Enyavar (talk) 08:30, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    September 12[edit]

    Higgins[edit]

    The Flickr Commons team is stumped trying to identify this man named "Higgins" who appears to be in Manhattan in 1925 and would have been a newsworthy person: File:Higgins LCCN2014718609.jpg. Can anyone identify him? --RAN (talk) 04:14, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    James A. Higgins might be a possibility, but there're no other photos online to verify. found this thru https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=intitle%253AHiggins+-incategory%253A%22living+people%22+new+york .
    https://news-navigator.labs.loc.gov/search doesnt seem to have relevant photos either. RZuo (talk) 09:44, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Good clue! I looked to see if he had a US passport, but no, and his obituary has no image. No image at Ancestry either. There are still a dozen or so more from the Bain Collection unidentified, if you want to try. We are in a tranche from 1925 now, but some of the unknowns are from the a decade earlier. I will set up a page of the most prominent unidentified people later today. --RAN (talk) 12:46, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @RZuo: The Library of Congress thinks they found him: https://books.google.com/books?id=iQoEAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA48&dq=joe%20higgins,%20columbia%20records&pg=PA48#v=onepage&q=joe%20higgins%2C%20columbia%20records&f=false What do you think? --RAN (talk) 18:45, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    i dont have knowledge of america in early 20th century at all, so i cant say.
    the guy in "the billboard" does look quite similar, but i dont feel 100% sure. RZuo (talk) 06:34, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    September 14[edit]

    Potential commons UTRS?[edit]

    Blocked Commons editors with their talk page access revoked cannot usually appeal their block easily, (they could email an admin for help, but that is rarely considered) enwiki already has UTRS, why can't this be extended to commons as well? --Grandmaster Huon (talk) 17:01, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    No principled objection on my part, but a bit of an "is it worth it?" Do we have any idea how often this particular process results in someone being reinstated on en-wiki? - Jmabel ! talk 18:27, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Welp, we on ENWIKI use UTRS for people who have already lost talk page access (usually through further disruption) and people who have talk page access but who cannot follow the unblock instructions on their talk page. As you might imagine, suddenly being sent to a different venue does not improve their ability to understand the reasons for their block and make a convincing unblock request. But the goal should not be to unblock those incapable of being unblocked. The goal should be to provide a means of contact and education that reduces onwiki disruption and allows the appellant to come to grips better than if they were left in Limbo without a point of contact. And a few do come to understand how to address the reasons for their block well enough to be unblocked. Best, Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:50, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It's telling that simply being able to navigate the ENWIKI unblock procedure is considered a noteworthy achievement Trade (talk) 19:57, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I am curious if UTRS is merely a dumping ground for editors with whom we've lost patience and blocked their talk page, or if it's actually a means for someone to appeal a block successfully. Are there stats kept anywhere about the rate of successful appeals? ~Anachronist (talk) 00:11, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Not sure whether this is really necessary on Commons, as the average profile of our blocks is likely different than on :en. Usually we do not revoke talkpage access with our blocks. Typical exception are persistant vandals who continue on their malicious activity on their talkpage after being blocked. IMO, there is little need for such accounts to be unblocked ever. --Túrelio (talk) 19:11, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    What if these vandals change their ways to become constructive editors someday, how will they be able to contact commons to be unblocked? Since Commons has no UTRS and asking for unblock via email or talk page to other wikis may be considered block circumvention. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 19:22, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Not directly related to Commons but UTRS is also available for Global Lock lifting, but there are few volunteers avaliable to process these requests, but other than Meta and enwiki, UTRS is not avaliable on other wikis, there should be a global UTRS and Standard Offer proceedure for all wikis.
    Perhaps global arbcom to handle cross wiki disputes? Grandmaster Huon (talk) 19:23, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I think the existing general info-commons@wikimedia.org is sufficient for this very rare case. GPSLeo (talk) 19:44, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Enwiki info hotline doesn't respond to unblock requests. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 20:09, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    So I doubt the commons version will too. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 20:10, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    (Edit conflict) The Wikimedia Commons should have a UTRS and I don't think that "there should be a global UTRS and Standard Offer proceedure for all wikis." because "WP:SO" is an essay and not policy and it is simply enforced as policy, waiting 6 (six) months doesn't magically change someone's behaviour and deliberately telling people to wait 6 (six) months before being able to even make an appeal actually goes against the Commonswiki blocking policy which states that blocks are a preventative measure and not a punitive one, the SO is a punitive measure. Talk page and e-mail access could be revoked for many reasons beyond just talk page access, some admins just default to this and sometimes after a user sufficiently doesn't understand what they have been blocked for then an admin can decide that continued unblock requests are "a waste of time" and revokes these venues. Let's say that someone has learned to be less disruptive but they don't have TPA and can't e-mail anyone how would they appeal their block? It is considered to be taboo (and even an indef blockable offense) to request this on any other wiki. A UTRS would definitely solve this problem.
    My main issue with the UTRS is that it's all "behind closed doors", by default the bot that places the template on the blocked user's talk page should also include the entire message unless they themselves have selected to not want this to be publicly posted and the response should also be posted publicly on the talk page. The only exceptions should be in cases where privacy is indeed something to be protected.
    Users are commonly blocked for persistently uploading copyright ©️ violations and if someone learns how to respect copyright laws in 2 (two) weeks or so they shouldn't have to wait 6 (six) arbitrarily selected months over some English-language Wikipedia essay. Once TPA is revoked a standard template with information about unblocking, what the user needs to understand, and at the very bottom a link to the UTRS should be provided, obviously UTRS agents can revoke UTRS access like they already can at the English-language Wikipedia, but I don't think that we should prevent appeals for 6 (six) months for no reason other than that an essay stated the number. I also don't think that information about unblocks and how to get unblocked should be directed to general OTRS / VRTS members. Today the Wikimedia Commons has a relatively small user base, but in the future many more people can join and it's better to have the options and not need it than to need it and not have it, UTRS agents will most likely just be admins willing to take on unblock requests and won't increase the workload for anyone, it will simply simplify an otherwise difficult process to navigate. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:14, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Well all Wikimedia projects have a small userbase, the largest project, the english wikipedia has only 120,604 active users in the last 30 days. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 20:19, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    No, most indefinite blocks aren't for copyright violations, but for harassment, vandalism, socking, and other LTA. I don't have statistics, but that's my evaluation as longer-term admin here. I have been contacted by blocked users to other wikis, but the request is rarely in good faith. Yann (talk) 16:45, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    What if such LTA's change, the idea that once an LTA, always an LTA is unconstructive. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 18:25, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Potential CU blocks with TPA removed are difficult to appeal as there are only 4 CUs in commons and they are mostly busy, so it is difficult to get the block resolved in a timely manner. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 19:10, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I haven't been super active on en.wp UTRS the last few years, but Deepfriedokra's description is right on. It should be, they are probably the most active UTRS admin we have over there. By the time someobody reaches the point of a UTRS request, there is a solid chance they are a lost cause, but sometimes the more private one-on-one nature of UTRS seems to really work for some people, and they get unblocked. The only final avenue of appeal after UTRS is the Arbitration Committee, and Commons doesn't have that, so I think this is an idea worth at least considering as a final appeal venue for Commons, but of course it only makes sense if the admins here at Commons are willing to do it. En.wp also used to have the ban appeals subcommittee], which was comprised of a subgroup of the arbitration committe. I accidentally got it disbanded, but that's another story. Commons could try something like that even without an ArbCom, by electing a block appeals committee of something like four or five trusted admins. I do think it is valuable to have a final, off-wiki avenue of appeal that is something more than "just email any random admin you think might be sympathetic" but I'm not sure which model is agood for Commons in particular. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:24, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      UTRS with block appeal subcommittee, best of both worlds. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 04:56, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    •  Info The WMF is currently developing a new Private Incident Reporting System, maybe we could use this system for the purpose requested. --GPSLeo (talk) 07:06, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Thank you!
      Is this possible for all wikis? Grandmaster Huon (talk) 16:05, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      It's been in development for a year now and it hasn't been implemented yet?
      Come on. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 19:11, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    •  Info As a context note for current and future readers, the proposer of this change to Commons blocking policy/procedures has been indefinitely blocked on two language versions of Wikipedia in the last month. That doesn't invalidate the proposal to make changes on Commons but it may help editors understand the proposer's perspective. From Hill To Shore (talk) 21:55, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Warning sign Attention: Parallel vote going on at VP/P. --El Grafo (talk) 09:22, 20 September 2023 (UTC) Was it really necessary to split it up like this?Reply[reply]
      I have marked that other conversation as a resolved section and invited the participants to join the discussion here. From Hill To Shore (talk) 11:48, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Yes, I noticed the invite. Thanks, From Hill To Shore. As I said in the other thread, I'd be willing to support allowing UTRS on Commons. I agree with the others that this would probably be seldom-used on Commons. I also share the concerns that it would be less transparent than unblock requests on talk pages, but measures to improve communications by those who are not familiar with Commons is a good thing. Abzeronow (talk) 19:03, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    September 15[edit]

    Your wiki will be in read-only soon (Wednesday 20 September 2023 for one hour)[edit]

    Read this message in another language • Please help translate to your language

    The Wikimedia Foundation will switch the traffic between its data centers. This will make sure that Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia wikis can stay online even after a disaster. To make sure everything is working, the Wikimedia Technology department needs to do a planned test. This test will show if they can reliably switch from one data centre to the other. It requires many teams to prepare for the test and to be available to fix any unexpected problems.

    All traffic will switch on 20 September. The test will start at 14:00 UTC.

    Unfortunately, because of some limitations in MediaWiki, all editing must stop while the switch is made. We apologize for this disruption, and we are working to minimize it in the future.

    You will be able to read, but not edit, all wikis for a short period of time.

    • You will not be able to edit for up to an hour on Wednesday 20 September 2023.
    • If you try to edit or save during these times, you will see an error message. We hope that no edits will be lost during these minutes, but we can't guarantee it. If you see the error message, then please wait until everything is back to normal. Then you should be able to save your edit. But, we recommend that you make a copy of your changes first, just in case.

    Other effects:

    • Background jobs will be slower and some may be dropped. Red links might not be updated as quickly as normal. If you create an article that is already linked somewhere else, the link will stay red longer than usual. Some long-running scripts will have to be stopped.
    • We expect the code deployments to happen as any other week. However, some case-by-case code freezes could punctually happen if the operation require them afterwards.
    • GitLab will be unavailable for about 90 minutes.
    This project may be postponed if necessary. You can read the schedule at wikitech.wikimedia.org. Any changes will be announced in the schedule. There will be more notifications about this. A banner will be displayed on all wikis 30 minutes before this operation happens. Please share this information with your community.

    Trizek_(WMF) (talk) 09:23, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Good to know, thank you! Edelseider (talk) 10:40, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Location and Italian rail coach type[edit]

    What type of carriage is this?

    Probable the same location are File:GTT trains 2002 1.jpg and File:GTT trains 2002 3.jpg. I think these are trains of the defunct ATCM compagny (Category:ATCM)(or Category:SATTI?). Smiley.toerist (talk) 22:28, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Correct your signature @Smiley.toerist: Grandmaster Huon (talk) 16:06, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Regarding transfer from frwiki.[edit]

    I am currently performing media tranfers of logos that fall below TOO from frwiki to commons, can this be turned into a full-fledged initiative that I can lead, and can some stewards or global sysops delete the local copies of files, my goal for this project is for frwiki to substantially have a substantially lower amount of local files than it is currently. --Grandmaster Huon (talk) 16:11, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    frwiki has its own sysops and its own policy regarding logos, stewards can’t delete files there.
    A lot of the logos you imported here on Commons are clearly above COM:TOO.
    I suggest you familiarise yourself with COM:TOO by reading previous deletion requests before doing a mass upload here.
    The frwiki community doesn’t seem to think it’s a good idea. Thibaut (talk) 18:13, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Possible bug for the app of WLM Italy[edit]

    Hi. It's the second time this issue has occurred, as you can see here (please if you want to fix it, don't recover it, it should be uploaded as WLM file, just remove it entirely). As confirmed by User:DarwIn, we had to clear the history of another file from 2017 yesterday. Apparently, there could be a rather peculiar bug in the WLM Italy app.

    This user has been a precise uploader in the past and not particularly messy. Therefore, what happened may have seemed absurd the first time, but now that it has occurred again, it's quite baffling. Essentially, when he tries to upload at least this specific file, it ends up becoming a new version of "random" (well... both times of high quality) files from years ago.

    While we are troubleshooting this issue, please keep an eye out for any similar occurrences. It appears to be related to the image in some way because it only happens with this snapshot and not this this one, but the app might be somehow involved in this problem.

    If there are any other occurences please share... Alexmar983 (talk) 16:19, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    According to the user, he used a different PC but a very similar or the same title so that could be the bug. The other file involved yesterdays was this one (sysop can see the deleted history), maybe he switched from Italian to English... i have to ask again. We will try again with a totally different title, a very long one, but it's clearly also something missing in the app interface that is not showing some warning.--Alexmar983 (talk) 16:27, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    We can not simply keep this file. We have no information on what license the uploader wanted to upload the file. We have no guideline to use the license we have for the text as fallback in such cases. So the uploader needs to upload the file again. GPSLeo (talk) 16:42, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That's what I siad he will do... the more important thing is the bug. There are 1000s of file uploaded already via this app and IF that warning is not active any newbie using a generic title is uploading new versions in random old files... that is more important now as an issue...--Alexmar983 (talk) 17:14, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I checked and found no possibility to prevent this as the app does not set any edit summary and checking for the oauth_consumer in AbuseFilters also seems to be broken. The general limitation of file overwrites that is planned anyway would also prevent this and could be turned on immediately. But I wanted to wait until the bug in the testing environment is fixed. GPSLeo (talk) 18:45, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I am surprised this option is even possible...especially for an app targeted at newbies who statiscally use exisiting short recurring titles a lot...--Alexmar983 (talk) 18:59, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    How on earth this was not noticed during the past two weeks? Most of Tuscan WLM users are trained and they usually avoid "simple" file names, this one was not one of the most active one but he informed me as soon as he noticed the bug. There must be other users who saw this after 1000s of files...Let's hope we were lucky and that was the first case...--Alexmar983 (talk) 19:02, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I've reverted File:Before Sunrise.jpg since it's in use on several Wikipedias and it seems inappropriate to leave those pages broken while we hunt the bug. --bjh21 (talk) 18:49, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Of course it is, as we did with the other file which was not used... but we need focus on this bug... it could appear again in other apps...--Alexmar983 (talk) 18:57, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Here's a Quarry query to find revisions tagged OAuth CID: 5309 that aren't the first revision of a page: quarry:query/76629. There are only ten, so I'll revert all the remaining ones. --bjh21 (talk) 19:35, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Great. Thanks.So my guess was correct, it couldn't have been the first occurence... I will check if there are some Tuscan one to inform the uploaders and when I have time inform other people, I have also left a post on Facebook of Toscana Wiki to avoid short string... I really don't have so much time but I'll do my best--Alexmar983 (talk) 19:47, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Oh. There aren't only ten: I'd forgotten there was a limit of ten results set on my query. There are actually 141 revisions affected. Many of them are files overwritten by their original uploader within a few minutes (e.g. File:Torricchio - Chiesa di San Michele Arcangelo - foto di Gianfranco Scagnetti.JPG), so probably don't need to be reverted. bjh21 (talk) 19:53, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes I see some are legit. Other ones even if uploaded after few minutes by the same user probably are not, in that case (I see one here) it's the uploader deleting a sequential number with the same one as part of a series, de facto hiding a file. In any case these users have to be informed and checked... I am sending already private messages...--Alexmar983 (talk) 19:59, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thanks! I've reverted the ones where the previous uploader was a different user and left {{Dont overwrite}} on the appropriate talk pages. The query could probably be improved, but I don't have time today. --bjh21 (talk) 20:32, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    September 16[edit]

    Russian copyright laws’ validity in occupied Ukraine[edit]

    I noticed a city flag, File:Flag of Krasnyi Luch (LPR-recognized).svg, is tagged as not subject to copyright in Russia. But as far as I can tell it was published by Russian occupation authorities in occupied Ukraine, where Russian law is invalid. We should respect the actual law, and not implement war policies of violent, coercive governments where they violate sovereignty of legal, democratic governments.

    I believe all licensing depending on the imposition of Russian law on countries outside Russia should be removed, unless there’s some legal opinion legitimizing them. —Michael Z. 2023-09-16 14:51 z 14:51, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    This would be a problem for other copyright questions. But in this case this was published by a Russian public institution so their copyright and licensing rules apply independently of the location where they publish something. I do not think that the logo was created by Ukrainian forced laborers captured by Russia. {{PD-USGov-NASA}} also applies to all photos taken by NASA employees, also if they are not in the US or space. GPSLeo (talk) 15:09, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    No, it was published by the “Luhansk People’s Republic,” in Ukraine, in 2018, while it denied being controlled by the Russian Federation. (In 2022 a Dutch court found that the LNR had been under overall control of the RF since May 2014.) Russian law has never had jurisdiction there.
    Parts of Ukraine have been subject to a coercive and lawless foreign regime since 2014. Ukrainian enterprises were looted and taken captive from 2014. Ukrainians have had Russian passports forcibly imposed, and now have been forcibly conscripted to die fighting in Russia’s war against Ukraine. It’s entirely reasonable to assume it was literally created by Ukrainian forced laborers captured by Russia.  —Michael Z. 2023-09-16 15:29 z 15:29, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Michael, I understand the point you are trying to make, but I don't think it's relevant. You are effectively saying that a group in rebellion against the Ukrainian government are stuck with a copyright they don't claim and don't want because the laws of that government say they have it, and that therefore material that they consider themselves to have put in the public domain requires them to overtly release rights granted by an authority they don't recognize. The intent to follow Russian law and to place this in the public domain appears to me to be quite clear. - Jmabel ! talk 16:50, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    No, and I don’t quite understand that. What I am saying is the work in question appears to tagged with a licence that doesn’t apply in the country it was published in. I’m not expert enough to judge if this is acceptable for use, so I posted here. I suppose it shouldn’t be used unless we can clearly demonstrate that there is an acceptable applicable licence.  —Michael Z. 2023-09-16 18:25 z 18:25, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This is not a license compared to others. This “license” indicates that the author is an employee of the institution and that the work was published under the conditions of the institution. In this case the institution is the Russian federation, but every private company could have a similar license for their works. GPSLeo (talk) 21:42, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Tag for The Unlicense[edit]

    If images or other media are licensed under "The Unlicense," are they allowed on commons, and if so, how should the copyright status be indicated? Chamaemelum (talk) 20:09, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    WTH is "The Unlicense"? Could you provide a link to some more information. --Túrelio (talk) 20:16, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Presumably en:Unlicense, "The Unlicense is a public domain equivalent license for software which provides a public domain waiver with a fall-back public-domain-like license, similar to the CC Zero for cultural works." Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:21, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Andy is correct. It is a license similar to CC0 with the following text:
    "This is free and unencumbered software released into the public domain.
    Anyone is free to copy, modify, publish, use, compile, sell, or
    distribute this software, either in source code form or as a compiled
    binary, for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial, and by any means.
    In jurisdictions that recognize copyright laws, the author or authors
    of this software dedicate any and all copyright interest in the
    software to the public domain. We make this dedication for the benefit
    of the public at large and to the detriment of our heirs and
    successors. We intend this dedication to be an overt act of
    relinquishment in perpetuity of all present and future rights to this
    software under copyright law.
    THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND,
    EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF
    MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT.
    IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR
    OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE,
    ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR
    OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
    For more information, please refer to <http://unlicense.org>" Chamaemelum (talk) 21:13, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Probably OK, though the specific reference to "software" gives me pause. Are people in fact using this for any type of file that we ever actually host on Commons? - Jmabel ! talk 22:11, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    On the current evidence, I'd object to use of that licence on Commons. The licence is specifically for software, so any other media released under that licence may not be correctly licensed. The rights holder could later dispute the validity of a release for certain file types and take reusers to court. We wouldn't want to be enabling that sort of behaviour. The licence would be okay for software, but do we allow software uploads on Commons? I can't think of any examples. From Hill To Shore (talk) 22:36, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    PDFs are written in a page description language based on PostScript. Fonts are legally considered software if they meet certain requirements. SVGs are XML-based. So, if such description languages constitute software, then I would say we do host software. Elizium23 (talk) 00:03, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Right. If a law talks about copyright of "print materials," but we host them digital scans or as text, or if a law talks about copyright of "photographs" but we host them as strings of 1s and 0s, it is understood that even though we are hosting an abstraction of the original thing, copyright law applies as if we did host the original thing itself. This makes me think that abstractions of software under The Unlicense, such as a screenshot of the program, still fall under The Unlicense. Chamaemelum (talk) 01:08, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It looks like the template people are using is "This work has been released into the public domain by its author, [author]."
    Or: "This file is in the public domain because The creator of the game has expressly stated that it is Public Domain in it's entirety."
    These examples seem to use The Unlicense, some more than others:
    File:Youtube-dl downloading Big Buck Bunny.jpg
    File:FC-SR-outro.jpg
    File:OCaml Logo.svg
    Category:Risklayer
    File:FC-SR-logo.jpg
    User:Pandakekok9/common.js
    File:FC-SR-anotherwaytoscroll.jpg
    MediaWiki:Gadget-jStorage.js
    Category:Wikyrill-o-mat
    File:FC-SR-nuts.gif
    Category:Coming Out Simulator 2014
    Images created directly by software seem to be an extension of the original software. I.e., someone releases a video game under The Unlicense, and all graphics are created by the video game's software. In this scenario, a simple screenshot of the 3d render of the world in the video game would fall under The Unlicense, in my opinion. A unique creative work seperate from the software, such as a drawing or logo made within the video game, or a book written in a text editor licensed under The Unlicense, would not fall under The Unlicense. That is: is the media a depiction of the software, or is the media its own standalone creative work? Chamaemelum (talk) 01:05, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    File:Allam Medical Building.jpg[edit]

    Hello, it looks like the original file was overwritten in 2018 by a file which appears from the file info is a copyrighted image. Could someone have a look and delete the latest version if it is a copyright otherwise move it to a different name so original can be used. Keith D (talk) 22:23, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Good spot. I've reverted and flagged the copyvio revision for deletion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:18, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Images based on purchased 3D assets[edit]

    I am currently in a dispute with @FrankHM: regarding this image: [1]. This image is based on a purchasable 3D asset on Renderosity by Raul Lunia (Dinoraul). [2]. FrankHM has asserted that he has purchased a standard license to use the model from Renderosity (stated here), and therefore per Renderosity's license agreement he can create images that are copyrightable to him. (Covered in the section "Allowed uses of the standard license" [3]). Would something like this require UTRS to show proof of license? I have concerns that this image is not acceptable under the license regardless, as the relevant section says that the render must satify these criteria: 1. The new work does not compete with the original Product. 2. The new work is uniquely different from the original Product. However, I don't see how a render of the 3d model on a white background could be considered not-compete or "uniquely different" from the original 3d model. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:54, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    The license for the 3D model is:
    "
    The Buyer shall not redistribute the Product, in whole or in part, in any file format for sale or for free. The Buyer shall not store the Product any place where it could be used by another person or party (whether it is on a network or on the Internet). The Buyer shall not convert or recreate the Product to any other media format and re-distribute the files, regardless of whether it is for sale or free. The Buyer shall not use the Product in such a way that the original materials could be extracted. Products sold at Renderosity shall not be used for illegal purposes."
    The PRODUCT I have bought is a 3D model (.OBJ file). This file is NOT present in the picture! The picture is a plain .JPG file wothout that do not contain any 3D information.
    More:
    "The Buyer may copyright any newly created rendered images using the purchased, original Product files, provided the original Product files remain protected from being extracted from the derivative work. The Buyer may use the Product in rendered images for any personal or commercial projects, as long as the Artist’s work is protected from extraction and the Buyer has not violated any other terms of the License."
    That is: I can create ANY picture and I can claim copyright of these pictures as long as I do not include the 3D model (.OBJ file).
    How I render MY image is not of your concern. If I choose to use a blank background that is MY choice.
    Before YOU start claim copyright violation, YOU need to learn the rights (and probably learn to read). It do not state ANYWHERE in the LICENSE file that the render image have to be "considered not-compete or "uniquely different" from the original 3d model"; Rather the oposite. The Buyer are not allowed to change the 3D model!
    .:. Frank .:. FrankHM (talk) 00:07, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    A render of the 3D model clearly qualifies as a "newly created work" for the purpose of the license, and therefore the non-compete and "uniquely different" criteria clearly apply to it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:09, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Where imn the licese file do YOU read "non-compete and "uniquely different"
    END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT
    FOR RENDEROSITY MARKETPLACE ITEMS
    GENERAL RESTRICTIONS AND TERMS OF USE:
    It is the Buyer’s responsibility to read and understand this license (the “License”). If you are unsure about anything in this License, please send an email to copyrights@renderosity.com before using any Renderosity files.
    This is a legal and binding agreement between you (the “Buyer”) and Renderosity MarketPlace, (“Renderosity”). By installing, downloading, copying, or otherwise using any Renderosity files (the “Product”), you have conclusively accepted all of the terms and conditions of this License.
    Purchase of the Product from Renderosity grants the Buyer a limited, non-exclusive, non-transferable license to use the contents of the encapsulating zip file. The Buyer may use the Product commercially in the form of rendered images but may not distribute the Product or any of the Product’s files. The Artist (Author) retains all copyrights to the files. The Buyer shall not copy, modify, reverse compile, or reverse engineer the Product, or sell, sublicense, rent, or transfer the Product to any third party.
    This License does not grant permission to produce a real, tangible replica of the 3D mesh/model/product acquired. An additional license for production rights may be purchased by contacting Renderosity and will be subject to negotiation and approval by the vendor. Renderosity will contact the vendor on the Buyer’s behalf.
    The Buyer shall not redistribute the Product, in whole or in part, in any file format for sale or for free. The Buyer shall not store the Product any place where it could be used by another person or party (whether it is on a network or on the Internet). The Buyer shall not convert or recreate the Product to any other media format and re-distribute the files, regardless of whether it is for sale or free. The Buyer shall not use the Product in such a way that the original materials could be extracted. Products sold at Renderosity shall not be used for illegal purposes.
    The Buyer may copyright any newly created rendered images using the purchased, original Product files, provided the original Product files remain protected from being extracted from the derivative work. The Buyer may use the Product in rendered images for any personal or commercial projects, as long as the Artist’s work is protected from extraction and the Buyer has not violated any other terms of the License. The Buyer may backup copies on hard drives, CD or DVD of the zip file for personal archival purposes only. The Buyer may not store files online. For Merchant Resource Products, additional permissions or limitations of rights will be specified in of each Product’s readme file. Software programs and utilities may have an additional license from the company or vendor that developed it. The Buyer agrees to be bound by the additional permissions and limitations contained in the Merchant Resource Products and Software Programs or utilities. For any product to be considered a Merchant Resource, Software program or utility, it must be clearly stated as such.
    The Buyer retains this License, even if the Artist stops selling the work at a later date, or decides to charge a different price.
    OWNERSHIP:
    The Artist has verified that all items in the zip file are his/her own original work. Any components of the Product containing work from third parties require documented proof of rights to use, and are on file at Renderosity. All Renderosity Artists represent and warrant that they legally possess the power to grant the Buyer this License for all enclosed materials.
    REFUNDS AND REVOCATION OF LICENSE:
    Renderosity or the Artist may revoke this License upon receipt of information that the Product is being used in violation of any copyright laws or it is shown that the Buyer has violated any of the terms and conditions above. Upon receipt of notice that the Buyer has violated any copyright laws or the terms or conditions of the License, the Buyer shall immediately delete all Product files, both in original and derivative form, contained in the notice.
    If the Artist shows that any of the original material can be extracted from the Buyer's derivative work, the Artist may require both the original and derivative work, and all copies thereof, to be deleted. The buyer may be banned from the site, and downloads may no longer be available. Upon receipt of such a demand, the Buyer shall immediately delete all Product files, both in original and derivative form, contained in the notice.
    In the event the Buyer is not satisfied with the Product, a refund may be issued based upon Renderosity’s refund policy. Issuing refunds is at the discretion of the Artist and/or the Renderosity MarketPlace staff. Refunds will be issued only after the Buyer has worked with the Artist to correct the problem. If a refund is issued, the Buyer must delete all copyright protected Product files on his/her computer and any creation that was made using the Product.
    NO WARRANTY ON PRODUCT:
    THE PRODUCT AND RELATED SERVICES ARE WARRANTED, IF AT ALL, ONLY ACCORDING TO THE EXPRESS TERMS HEREOF. EXCEPT AS WARRANTED HEREIN, RENDEROSITY HEREBY DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES AND CONDITIONS WITH REGARD TO THE PRODUCT. THE PRODUCT IS LICENSED “AS IS” WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND TO CUSTOMER OR ANY THIRD PARTY, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OF THE PRODUCT, FITNESS FOR THE BUYER'S PURPOSE OR SYSTEM INTEGRATION; INFORMATIONAL CONTENT OR ACCURACY; NON-INFRINGEMENT; AND TITLE. THE BUYER AGREES THAT ANY EFFORTS BY RENDEROSITY TO MODIFY ITS GOODS OR SERVICES SHALL NOT BE DEEMED A WAIVER OF THESE LIMITATIONS, AND THAT ANY RENDEROSITY WARRANTIES SHALL NOT BE DEEMED TO HAVE FAILED OF THEIR ESSENTIAL PURPOSE. THE BUYER FURTHER AGREES THAT RENDEROSITY SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO THE BUYER OR ANY THIRD PARTY FOR ANY LOSS OF PROFITS, LOSS OF USE, INTERRUPTION OF BUSINESS, OR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OF ANY KIND WHETHER UNDER THE LICENSE OR OTHERWISE, EVEN IF RENDEROSITY WAS ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES OR WAS GROSSLY NEGLIGENT. Some jurisdictions may not permit the exclusion or limitation of liability for consequential or incidental damages, and, as such, some portion of the above limitation may not be applicable. In such jurisdictions, Renderosity’s liability shall be limited to the greatest extent permitted by applicable law.
    INDEMNIFICATION:
    The Buyer hereby agrees to indemnify Renderosity and its directors, officers, agents, and employees and to hold each of them harmless in all respects, including costs and attorney’s fees, from and against any and all claims, demands, suits, or causes of action of whatever kind or nature and resulting settlements, awards, or judgments resulting from any breach by the Buyer of the License. This indemnity shall survive the termination of the License.
    GOVERNING LAW:
    The License shall be governed by the laws of the State of Tennessee. For the purposes of the License, each party hereby consents to the personal jurisdiction and exclusive venue of any court located in Rutherford County, Tennessee.
    Force Majeure:
    No party will be liable for and shall be excused from any failure to deliver or perform or for delay in delivery or performance due to causes beyond its reasonable control, including but not limited to, work stoppages, shortages, civil disturbances, terrorist actions, transportation problems, interruptions or power or communications, failure or suppliers or subcontractors, natural disasters or other acts of God.
    SEVERABILITY:
    The provisions of this License are severable. If any provision of the License is for any reason held to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable, the remaining provisions of this License shall be unimpaired and continue in full force and effect, and, to the maximum extent permitted by law, the invalid, illegal, or unenforceable provision shall be replaced by a mutually acceptable provision, which, being valid, legal, and enforceable, comes closest to the intention of the parties underlying the invalid, illegal, or unenforceable provision. FrankHM (talk) 00:16, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You can find the section by pressing "ctrl f" and then searching for the phrase "uniquely different". It's clearly there in the standard license under the section "ALLOWED USES OF THE STANDARD LICENSE" as I previously stated. [4]. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:22, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Furthermore, it clearly states that "The Buyer shall not recreate the Product or convert to any other media format and re-distribute the files, regardless of whether it is for sale or free." in that. In the first place, I feel that the fact that the file is marked as "Frank Markussen's Own Work" is itself a problem. It would be best if we could contact Raul himself, but unfortunately he is no longer in this world. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 04:49, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I concur, I've opened a deletion discussion. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Cronopio_dentiacutus.jpg . Please participate if interested. Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:38, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    September 17[edit]

    Translation of poetic works[edit]

    Question: Which is better, translating the contents of a file of a poem or poetic work literally (i.e. word by word and accounting for grammar and other subtleties), or taking a translation of said contents from an (obviously) free source that preserves the file's poetic nature?

    Context: Commons has several sound files for the German national anthem Deutschlandlied, some more commonly used than others across the projects and usually with captions. The captions themselves tended to be literal, rather than poetic, as is the Swedish TimedText for one of the files. Songs fall under the scope of this discussion because of their inseparably poetic nature and will never or almost never have lyrics in prose. While I concede that literal translations are useful for reading the precise semantics of original works, I always leaned toward the view that the translator ought to retain such works' poetic character. This might not be important when there are no authors to translate them at all, but what about those who have? In the case of Deutschlandlied, Project Runeberg hosts a scan of a 1916 book containing a poetic translation, pages 11 to 12. I would just go ahead and replace the caption with that translation, but in the absence of Commons guidance, I find my self in a moot situation. After all, translations like that are not official, and there probably will never be one anyway. Has there ever been a discussion about how to deal with poetic works, particularly in relation to poetic translations by noteworthy authors?

    I am keenly aware of the Translators' noticeboard, but since I am discussing guidelines, I thought it better to bring the discussion here for a sooner and clearer clarification on Commons' position on the matter. FreeMediaKid$ 10:01, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    • I don't think either is "better", and having both versions available (presumably under distinct filenames) would be good.
    • I presume you know -- but just in case -- that since the fall of the Nazis, only the third verse is used. The earlier verses, whether translated literally or poetically, are a touchy matter in present-day Germany, to say the least. - Jmabel ! talk 16:06, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    The 1ooed millionth file on Wikimedia Commons[edit]

    Good evening! Today Wikimedia Commons has crossed the milestone of 97.5 million media files, in connection with which I would like to ask the question - will it reach the historical milestone of 100 million files by the end of 2023? In this regard, I have an idea for organizing a file upload marathon, regardless of copyright, and it would be advisable to coincide with several significant dates, such as Thanksgiving, Halloween, etc. MasterRus21thCentury (talk) 11:33, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Flickr has a lot of free files that can be used for upload, so is youtube. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 19:01, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @MasterRus21thCentury: Can you please explain what you mean by, "regardless of copyright"? Commons has strict policies on copyright, so we need to be careful with phrasing your idea in a way that avoids confusion. From Hill To Shore (talk) 08:41, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    With a daily average growth of approx. 30300 files in 2023, we can assume to reach the threshold in 70-80 days, which is end of November or beginning of December 2023 --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 15:07, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Since most of the files I have transferred from frwiki have been retained for pd-textlogo, why not delete the redundant files on frwiki?[edit]

    I believe the community on frwiki has a low TOO that doesn't reflect practices here on commons and wikimedia as a whole. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 19:08, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    You should probably give a read to COM:TOO France and ponder if frwiki was correct in keeping those files local. Especially since you were blocked for your actions in regards to them. -- ferret (talk) 21:16, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    We can all agree that this is below TOO. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 22:07, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    France doesn't use sweat of the brow, so most of the logos are too simple to be copyrighted. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 22:16, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    While I would guess that the logo you give as an example is below TOO in France, it's probably close enough to the borderline that if fr-wiki is more comfortable retaining as locale, I can certainly imagine a fair rationale for them to do so. - Jmabel ! talk 22:21, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Still have plenty below TOO files left in frwiki. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 00:02, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    For File:Logo-groupe-sos.webp you forgot to copy across the author and date information, which I have now inserted. If you are going to transfer files from any other wiki projects, make sure to do a manual check that all information has come across. In this case, the French wiki template seems to insert "inconnu" ("unknown") for any blank fields, while Commons does not. This means if you leave everything to the automated tool, you will lose a lot of valid information. I note that the French wikipedia users said you were relying on translation tools rather than knowing their language yourself; if you don't know the source language enough to replicate the valid information here, I would advise against attempting any more transfers from other languages. I have not checked any of your other transfers yet for any similar mistakes. From Hill To Shore (talk) 05:07, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    This section is WP:PROXYING and/or canvassing, this user has been blocked indefinitely from frwiki (and enwiki, probably dewiki soon) for machine translations and for asking deletion of logos above COM:TOO after uploading them to Commons.

    Links: [5][6][7].

    No file has been "retained" since there were no deletion requests.

    Logos uploaded by Grandmaster Huon can be found here since they don’t show up in Special:Uploads because of FileImporter. —Thibaut (talk) 05:42, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    How can I be unblocked from frwiki? Grandmaster Huon (talk) 06:33, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes, I was blocked from frwiki for those concerns, enwiki is a different story, and dewiki is in good standing. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 06:38, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    September 18[edit]

    Interpretation of Template:PD-Switzerland-official[edit]

    Hi, a few months ago SpinnerLaserzthe2nd started importing logos from swiss municipalities on Commons that were previously stored on frwiki. Such logos can be found there: 1 and 2. SpinnerLaserz claims that Template:PD-Switzerland-official makes all swiss municipalities logos ineligible for copyright. I'm unsure about this interpretation. From my understanding its the acts, means of payment and so on that are ineligible, but the logos could still be protected. I would like a second opinion on this. Thanks, Espandero (talk) 11:00, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    @ARK Are logos are exempted from copyright? Because I do know the municipal logos are officially used by governments. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 15:56, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I don't think it's a mather of the logos being used by the municipalities or not (of course they are). It's more a question of the interpretation of the law. To me it states that the acts, means of payment, ... are public domain, but I'm not sure that it means every image used in those documents are public domain. Since "logos" are not listed in the law I would tend to think they might be protected by copyright. - Espandero (talk) 16:06, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I had emailed the Swiss government to see if the logos were copyrighted. Everybody knows that Swiss coats of arms and flags (all of which are banner of arms) are exempt from copyright in Switzerland. If the government state the logos are still copyrighted, we can move them to the mainstream Wikipedias. I know that years ago, another user (3122WIKI) had uploaded a municipal logo with this template. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 16:17, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Brand markers such as logotypes, municipal or otherwise, are primarily covered by trademark legislation. For guidance, I would recommend you look to the logotypes of major Swiss brands as featured on Commons: ABB, Coop, CSS, Migros, SBB, Swiss Post etc., all of which use the same permissions templates in their respective file description. An outlier is the UBS logo on German Wikipedia, which points to the contested nature of the usage but seems to err on the side of caution (see also the UBS logo on English Wikipedia). Standard disclaimers apply. I'm not a lawyer. ARK (talk) 08:20, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Logos that are on Commons are usually concerned by C:TOO, as shown by the exemples above. It seems to me that at least some of the municipalities logos are not in this range. So it's either the logos are in the public domain because of Swiss laws, or they're copyrighted and those that are above the threshold of originality should be deleted and set back on WP:fr. Espandero (talk) 10:28, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    September 19[edit]

    Cropping[edit]

    File:Nayab Singh Saini calling on the Minister of State for Labour and Employment (IC), Shri Santosh Kumar Gangwar, to discuss to upgrade ESIC facilities in the state, in New Delhi.jpg Can someone crop the image of person standing in right. He is Nayab Singh Saini, a minister of Haryana. Admantine123 (talk) 05:40, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    On the left hand side of the screen showing the image, there should be a link to the crop tool. If not there, here is a link to it Try it out... Broichmore (talk) 10:26, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I did it but the original image got replaced by the new one. The original should also be present separately. Admantine123 (talk) 12:40, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Admantine123: I've reverted your change. Please try again, but on the second screen, select "upload as a new file" rather than "overwrite". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:08, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'll do it for them. - Jmabel ! talk 15:08, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Admantine123: the added image needs categories; the original image still needs at least one category that applies to Nayab Singh Saini. - Jmabel ! talk 15:15, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thanks a lot, let me check. Admantine123 (talk) 17:21, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Jmabel: Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:28, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Pigsonthewing: in this case, I'd rather teach him to categorize, and didn't want to ask him to do several things. - Jmabel ! talk 18:48, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    {{Governo.it}}[edit]

    Hello! Who can find files from the Italian government website through PetScan and apply the appropriate license? MasterRus21thCentury (talk) 12:03, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    September 20[edit]

    Do we have tools do search through EXIF data of images on WIkimedia Commons?[edit]

    Do we have tools do search through EXIF data of images on Wikimedia Commons? I am currently amazed at the amount of Getty images, some of which are tagged as copyright infringement only after months or years. Regards, --Polarlys (talk) 18:50, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Remember Getty also republishes historic images that the Library of Congress has released either as CC, PD, or "no known copyright restrictions". They also republish Associated Press images that the LOC says have never had their copyrights renewed. Those images up to 1964 had their copyright expire. AP images are "made public" by their distribution to news outlets, even if never published in a newspaper or magazine. --RAN (talk) 21:24, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It is still a good idea to search for newer images, we generally side with images in archive never being published, until proven so. Considering the above exceptions. --RAN (talk) 04:57, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Richard, thanks for your comment, but I don't think photos of current football matches or concerts fall into this category. Viele Grüße, --Polarlys (talk) 13:54, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Clitoris Anatomy labels[edit]

    Request word labels in English in SVG file. .... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 22:17, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Tracked in Phabricator
    Task T335361
    Tracked in Phabricator
    Task T337199
    The version of Thumbor introduced in April 2023 causes this problem with all multilingual SVG files whose default language is not English.
    For this file, the default language is numbers.
    Glrx (talk) 23:58, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    September 21[edit]

    Photo challenge July results[edit]

    climate change: Entries • Votes • Scores
    Rank 1 2 2
    image
    Title Storm Mathis - Lake Zug oceans are rising Contaminación atmosférica
    en la ciudad de Madrid
    Author Roy Egloff Spielvogel Saldeplata
    Score 13 9 9
    half: Entries • Votes • Scores
    Rank 1 2 3
    image
    Title Farm track near
    Micheldever, Hampshire    		 My birthday cake!
    Oops there's only half left!    		 Ein in der Längsachse
    vertikal zerstückeltes Automobil.
    Author Simon Burchell Anna.Massini Levin Holtkamp
    Score 15 15 11

    Congratulations to Simon Burchell, Anna.Massini, Levin Holtkamp, Roy Egloff, Spielvogel and Saldeplata. -- Jarekt (talk) 02:41, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Thanks (⧼Anna Massini alias PROPOLI87⧽) (talk) 06:55, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    September 22[edit]

    FoP reform status by jurisdiction[edit]

    We have a great page on Commons:FoP, but I could not find a corresponding listing on how local WMF chapters are trying to lobby for law changes, if at all, plus other relevant changes in legal jurisdictions per country. Ping User:JWilz12345 who inspired me to start this discussion with several examples. Also ping User:Ymblanter who recently on en wiki told me in the context of Ukraine that "WM Ukraine is aware of this and, as far as I know, they think it is not possible at the moment." Perhaps they could elaborate here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:41, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Hidden category that shouldn't be[edit]

    How to unhide this category. Broichmore (talk) 08:06, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Temporary guardrails[edit]

    What type of category can I use for these traffic guardrails? Smiley.toerist (talk) 08:27, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump&oldid=803515718"