Jump to content

Commons:Village pump

This page is semi-protected against editing.
From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

Shortcut: COM:VP

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓       ↓ Skip to discussions ↓       ↓ Skip to the last discussion ↓
🌐 Village pumps for other languages
COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES
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/2025/03.

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 Vector 2022 will be the default skin 14 11 PantheraLeo1359531 2025-03-05 14:20
2 Brunei Darussalam Newsletter 2 2 Pangalau 2025-03-07 12:43
3 Summaries of the last two Commons Community Conversations now available 6 3 PantheraLeo1359531 2025-03-05 17:20
4 "This file did not pass file verification." 9 3 Bawolff 2025-03-06 09:21
5 Is there a reason Commons doesnt allow us to convert MP4 files to WEBM when uploading? 12 8 Omphalographer 2025-03-07 19:37
6 Non-confirmed users still allowed to use Upload Wizard? 2 2 Commander Keane 2025-03-07 21:53
7 Respect and non-disturbance for long-term prolific contributor 43 15 RoyZuo 2025-03-12 02:18
8 Larger version is 180° rotated 4 3 TheDJ 2025-03-10 12:51
9 Decade by category navbox 10 3 Tvpuppy 2025-03-08 19:13
10 Universal Code of Conduct annual review: proposed changes are available for comment 1 1 Keegan (WMF) 2025-03-07 18:50
11 Clothing by date 10 5 Jmabel 2025-03-12 16:23
12 Theatre by year 8 2 Rathfelder 2025-03-11 20:25
13 Wishlist for new features on Commons 1 1 PantheraLeo1359531 2025-03-10 16:26
14 "AutoCats" script for automatic categories 1 1 Yaron Koren 2025-03-10 16:32
15 Possible mass upload of Trump-sensitive photos 6 4 Pyb en résidence 2025-03-12 08:25
16 Categories under Category:FoP-Switzerland 4 3 HyperGaruda 2025-03-12 19:47
17 "Winners of [Award]" vs "[Award] winners" categories 0 0
18 software generated information 3 3 HyperGaruda 2025-03-12 20:06
19 Undeletion 12 6 Ooligan 2025-03-12 20:55
20 Mainspace dab pages 1 1 Sbb1413 2025-03-12 17:53
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.

February 03

Brunei Darussalam Newsletter

Hello! I came across the Brunei Darussalam Newsletter, where some of the older issues contain a sidebar on the left side of page 2 that states: "Brunei Darussalam Newsletter is published fortnightly by the Department of Information. It reports on government, social and business events in the country. All money values are expressed in Brunei dollars $, unless otherwise stated. Any information in this newsletter may be reproduced; a clipping of the publication would be appreciated. For free subscription (Excluding postage) write to Information Department, Jalan Stoney, Bandar Seri Begawan 2041, Brunei Darussalam." An example would be here. So my question is whether the term "information" in that specific issue could also apply to images.

This has been previously used in "Category:Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Brunei) News Digest issues". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pangalau (talk • contribs) 13:52, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pangalau my opinions:
  1. "information" probably only refers to facts, like if there is an article talking about economic projects, it's free to "reproduce the information" (by writing your own article with the same facts), but merely copypasting the entire article would still probably be violation of copyright.
  2. users should be careful and should not construe any vague permission as compatible with com:l.
RoyZuo (talk) 09:52, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Noted, and I appreciate your opinionǃ Pangalau (talk) 12:43, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 04

"This file did not pass file verification."

Hi all

I've just tried to upload some svg files (individual pages of a booklet I've been working on for a Wikimedia chapter) and I'm getting a weird message with about 20% of the pages, it says "This file did not pass file verification". Two things:

  1. There is no further information about what this means and no link to documentation that explains this. How do I requestion this gets fixed?
  2. Does anyone know if there is documentation on what this error means and how to fix it?

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 13:10, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@John Cummings: Since you don't say the date or file name it's hard to be sure. You say you "just" did this, but the most recent Filter Log entries I can find for you are almost a week back. Those were for trying to add a permission ticket when you aren't a VRT member. Actually, that's what I see for all Filter Log issued for you in the last month or so. - Jmabel ! talk 18:40, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Normally it would mean that the file is not an svg or has the wrong extension (this would not show up in the abuse log). It would help if you could upload the file somewhere else and link to it so we can see. Bawolff (talk) 20:11, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at logs, it looks like you tried to upload a 12mb file named "12 Case study pages Sudan.svg". Are you sure that wasn't supposed to be a .pdf instead? Case studies aren't usually in SVG format, and the error you got would be the one you would get if you tried to upload a PDF file with a .svg extension. Bawolff (talk) 09:39, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bawolff thanks, its definately an .svg, Jmabel, I don't understand what ticket you mean, am I doing something wrong? If so I'd like to correct it. To be clear, it won't show up in my uploads because it won't accept it as an upload. Here are the files which don't work, you can see from my recent uploads other svg files in the same series I made at the same time work completely fine Category:WikiGap Brochure...
I've started a phab ticket here
Thanks for any suggestions.
John Cummings (talk) 11:11, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jmabel, thanks but I'm completely confused, I didn't try uploading these images with a VRT template, I think I've only ever uploaded anything with the OTRS/VRT pending template.
@John Cummings It looks like those files have very large embedded JPEGs in them. Commons does not allow raster images embedded in SVGs to be larger than 10mb (after base64 conversion). I think this is the issue you are having. Bawolff (talk) 03:53, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bawolff, thank you very much for explaining, is this documented anywhere? John Cummings (talk) 09:07, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I added it to https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Help:SVG&diff=prev&oldid=912120003 last time this came up. As far as i can tell, its not an intentional change but a change because one of the programs mediawiki uses (libxml) changed its default. So all that would need to be done is for mediawiki to set the LIBXML_PARSEHUGE option to restore the old behaviour. Perhaps @Sannita (WMF) could convince the multimedia team to look into it. Bawolff (talk) 09:21, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 05

Is there a reason Commons doesnt allow us to convert MP4 files to WEBM when uploading?

Having to search out external software and websites just to even being allowed to upload videos in the first place is a huge annoyance which only helps discouraging users from uploading content here. --Trade (talk) 23:49, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Trade: Yes, "Commons does not support the more commonly used patent-encumbered video formats such as H.264 and H.265 that are used in MP4 and MOV files, since their use could require royalty payments" per COM:Video#Video formats.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 01:55, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's the whole point of converting the videos Trade (talk) 03:25, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Trade, this was a feature request in 2023: Commons:Requests for comment/Technical needs survey/Video conversion support. That discussion mentions video2commons which may help somewhat. See Help:Converting video. Commander Keane (talk) 03:21, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The reason is here: Commons:Requests for comment/MP4 Video. Pyb en résidence (talk) 18:52, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That RFC was over ten years ago, though. Consensus can change - as can the facts on the ground; did Wikimedia even support video transcoding at the time? Omphalographer (talk) 19:56, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 06

Non-confirmed users still allowed to use Upload Wizard?

I previously discussed how to implement the consensus disallowing any more local cross-wiki uploading into Commons. Somehow, I hadn't seen one reply, so the discussion was then archived without such.

Maybe I should've specified further as I'm doing now. Does Commons still allow non-confirmed users to use Upload Wizard, especially to upload files as "free"? (A previous proposal to restrict non-confirmed users from uploading videos and audio clips didn't go well. I'm starting this discussion cautiously before making any more proposals.) George Ho (talk) 22:06, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@George Ho, thanks for continuing to work on what I perceive is the terrible mess of cross-wiki uploads.
I can't work out the answer to your question:
Does Commons still allow non-confirmed users to use Upload Wizard, especially to upload files as "free"?.
Well, as far as I can see (and I am auto-confirmed so maybe non-confirmed can't even open the Wizard) the only way to progress past the release rights stage in the Commons Upload Wizard is to select either:
  • This work was created by me and anyone is free to use it.
  • This work was created by someone else and it is free to share.
Both "free". So your question is can users with an account less than 4 days old (non-confirmed) upload at all? As far as I can tell (if mediawiki:Manual:User_rights "user" corresponds to "Users" in Wikimedia world) this would be the "Users" group in Special:ListGroupRights and it says this group has "Upload" permissions. I have no idea if an edit-filter is being used to override GroupRights, but I think that would be very strange.
After writing all this I have confused myself. But I will post it in hopes that someone knowledgeable can participate. Commander Keane (talk) 21:53, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 07

Respect and non-disturbance for long-term prolific contributor

A user has been contributing to Commons tirelessly for nearly 20 years now. His/her at least 110k photos can be seen at Category:Photographs by Anonymous Hong Kong Photographer 1.

A recent example of his/her prolific contribution can be seen at wikimap stats. S/he uploaded at least 7000 (6435 of them geo-tagged) photos of Okinawa this year (it's been only 2 months) alone. In comparison, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=deepcategory:%222024_in_Okinawa_prefecture%22 "2024 in Okinawa prefecture" has less than 400 files in total. 7k uploads are already quite a lot for any user, but just a fraction of his/her decade-long commitment. As far as I can tell, s/he has been doing so without much attention since 2006.

However, certain users have been targeting this long-term contributor in recent years because of this contributor's unusual habits. Actions they have demanded include but are not limited to: blocking, banning, locking all accounts; deleting all uploads.

As such, I would like to ask the community to help stop such harassment against the long-term contributor. In my humble opinion, anything, other than reasonable inspection of his/her uploads based on com:l, should be stopped. RoyZuo (talk) 07:30, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

+1 --Achim55 (talk) 07:34, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
+1 -- C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 12:58, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't respect and non-disturbance be self-evident for every long-term prolific contributor on Commons? --A.Savin 07:54, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RoyZuo: But there is abuse. LuciferianThomas wrote in this Edit Summary: "Intentional wrong-naming files and incorrectly categorising files is clearly abusive behaviour; in scale it is even clearly vandalism". See also m:Requests for comment/Blatant sockpuppetry in good faith.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:09, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I recognize Anonymous HK Photographer 1 made a lot of good contributions here, but the problems extends beyond “unusual habits”, many of their uploads have copyright issues. Although this problem only concerns a small proportion of their overall uploads, but since they upload hundreds of images weekly, the problematic uploads pile up to a lot.
I agree with you that the actions demanded above are not suitable, but at the same time I don’t think it is harassment to demand when there are valid concerns. It would be better if you can suggest examples of which specific actions by specific users you think constitutes as harassment. Tvpuppy (talk) 16:05, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I salute the anonymous HK user, this can't have been easy. Everyone can make errors, and there are many other ano- and pseudonymous contributors who can eventually fix them. Where there are valid concerns with some of the uploads, we should of course adress that, but overly punitive reactions seem like overkill imo. --Enyavar (talk) 17:14, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cosigning the original post. We do not need yet another case of prolific users being scapegoated and insulted until all eternity, like has happened several times on enwiki. Gnomingstuff (talk) 05:07, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Communicating with other users, and changing problematic behavior (like uploading copvios) when notified, are non-optional parts of participating in Commons. Not only does this user not respond on their talk page, nor in DRs and CfDs, it is not even possible to communicate with them because they are constantly changing accounts. They are also violating multiple account policy by failing to link the accounts: Where a user has multiple accounts it is an expectation that they publicly disclose those accounts, usually on each of the relevant user pages providing links to each other. The use of numerous accounts also makes it extremely difficult to track issues like copyvios and improperly named files; however, it is clear that these amount to a non-insignificant proportion of their uploads, and thus add a great deal of work for the community.

I believe a good first step would be a one-account restriction, enforced by technical means as necessary. If the user cannot abide by that extremely basic standard to enable communication and tracking of their behavior, then they are a net negative and do not belong on Commons. No amount of being prolific justifies a user ignoring basic community norms and uploading significant numbers of copyvios. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:24, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pi.1415926535: I agree.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:02, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
+1 Longterm users shouldn't get a free pass from following the same standards on here everyone else has to just because of how long they have had their account. Its super easy for newish contributors to be sanctioned or blocked over minor non-issues but there's zero consequences for longterm users who don't follow the rules or act abusively. The same goed for admins. Things like repeatedly uploading COPYVIO should be dealt with accordingly regardless of how long the user has been on here or what privileges they have though. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:27, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand how a blatant long-term violator of the Commons:File naming guidelines (Correct – The name should describe the file's content and convey what the subject is actually called. Inaccurate names for the file subject, although they may be common, should be avoided.) is considered a "long-term contributor" by some users above, so apparently people can just upload tons of images and name them incorrectly just to make a mess of Commons to be called a contributor and not an abuser? The large number of files uploaded actually made a heck of a lot more abuse and disturbance to Commons than any other normal user naming files inappropriately. I am very certain that mass contributions does not allow mass disruption and guidelines-breaking in the same scale.
I agree that the upload images are contributions, but the naming of files to an extent of requiring lots of file renamings is definitely abusive editing behaviour, which shall lead to a damning sanction. If RoyZuo insists on calling this abusive user a "contributor" without considering the harm to Commons and unnecessary work to fix all those issues, then I would say they probably did not care about the negatives the abusive user brings, and does not respect the naming guidelines, to a point that they can flat out intentionally cover the intended accused violations and point fingers at the accusers for accusations that we did not make. LuciferianThomas 23:59, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I could (but will not) name quite a number of long-term contributors whose work here routinely falls short in one or another respect. I don't see a reason to single out this one. Yes, technically you can communicate with most of the others, but in practice? If they ignore all comments, or brush them off, the result is the same as if there were no channel of communication. - Jmabel ! talk 00:44, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I personally do think we need to be more strict about that sort of editor in general. In this specific case, the use of multiple accounts makes it easier for this editor to avoid scrutiny - it would require a great deal of work to determine how many of their uploads have been deleted, or if they have ever been blocked, because the contributions are spread over dozens of accounts. (If any of the accounts have ever been blocked, then this is block evasion, pure and simple.) It also means that the editor likely has not even seen DR and CfD notices because they abandon accounts after using them once, so they may not be aware of the hundreds of copyvios they have uploaded. Forcing them to use a single account would put them on the same footing as every other editor and allow the community to address their issues with file naming and copyvios. Right now, the community has no ability to even address their behavior because of the account-hopping. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:14, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's never the actual issue that's the problem. It's pointing out the issue that's the problem. someone can harass you on here all day and no one will bat an eye about it. But then you can be blocked for intimidation if you dare to point out that's what they are doing. The priorities on here are just screwed and it's always an endless exercise in pandering to seniority. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:12, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would say both are problems as important as the other. The long-term disruption pattern shows the inability of the Commons administration to "see what the problem is" and to enforce the very rules of Commons, and the counter-accusation of harassment or intimidation by those who think such abuser is a contributor shows the inability of such users and the Commons administration to care about the actual issue instead of pointing fingers at those who raise a problem. LuciferianThomas 02:14, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're allowed to call this person something other than an "abuser," you know. It will not kill you to treat them like a human being. Gnomingstuff (talk) 03:25, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can keep on ignoring the abuse. It's clearly within my right to call this anonymous user an abuser for his blatant violation described below. LuciferianThomas 11:00, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And in return, "it will not kill you to actually care about what is actually happening and not just blaming the one who points out a real issue, whether you like it or not." LuciferianThomas 11:08, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Link to evidence of "blatant long-term violator of the Commons:File naming guidelines".
Otherwise, I consider the accusation as invalid and personal attack against the long term anonymous contributor. RoyZuo (talk) 21:54, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For the fact that I had only gone through 5 of 98 MTR stations in Hong Kong to move over 50 instances of incorrectly named files and incorrect categorisation for MTR stations? At this rate, there's probably thousands of files misnamed and miscategorised from this user just for the files uploaded for MTR. This is blatant violations and circumventing anti-abuse. LuciferianThomas 10:59, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"the fact that I... move over 50 instances"
  1. https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=move&user=LuciferianThomas&wpFormIdentifier=logeventslist&wpfilters%5B0%5D=newusers 22 move logs.
  2. https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&target=LuciferianThomas&namespace=all&tagfilter=RenameLink&limit=50 7 edits
As of 17:08, 11 March 2025 (UTC), you have a total of 22+7=29 edits related to renaming any files by the long term contributor.
Is 29 even close to 50?
So you are making up "fact" and misleading the entire Commons community with exaggerated accusation against the long term contributor. It should be noted that you have repeatedly exaggerated this accusation since early 2024. In your own words, such repeated misleading actions are abusive and should lead to blocking of your account.
And this is only 1 single problem of your many similar accusations. RoyZuo (talk) 17:08, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely said "incorrect files and incorrect categorisation", but I guess you are just blindsided to the side of the fact you believe in. I might have miscounted moved files, but I have definitely removed hundreds of miscategorised images – pictures of shops (within the station) in the focus, or even their products, instead of the actual station. You tell me this is an image of Po Lam Station? Yes the picture might be taken in Po Lam Station, but it's absolutely nonsense to say it's a picture of Po Lam Station.
Heck, even 29 misnamed instances of say 600 images is a 5% mistake rate, not to mention all the other images that are miscategorised to the level of nonsense. If any editor makes so much mistakes in their editing, how is that not even disruptive? I won't call 22 images of cakes, Mrs Fields cookie products, convenience store products to be "contribution to a station category" – it tells nothing about the actual station.
Your repeated negligence to the actual happenings of the case, making up what I say when you just didn't read, and making up "facts" to mislead the entire Commons community with exaggerated accusation of harassment without caring for the actual disruption is clearly abusive behaviour and should lead to the blocking of your account here on Commons, just like you have been in three other wikis. LuciferianThomas 00:31, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh btw, the linked image is geotagged in LOHAS Park station. Guess that's an extra count of misnaming images, heh? LuciferianThomas 00:33, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"At this rate, there's probably thousands of files misnamed and miscategorised from this user just for the files uploaded for MTR"
there are roughly 3600 files related to MTR https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?sort=create_timestamp_desc&search=MTR+incategory%3A%22Photographs+by+Anonymous+Hong+Kong+Photographer+1%22 .
Either you can prove your extrapolation, or it should be considered as nothing more than just another exaggeration and personal attack. RoyZuo (talk) 01:16, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And you now admitted that you had removed photos taken in a train station from a category under that train station: that is definitely violation of policy Commons:Categories#Types_of_reflected_relations.
Here is 1 such violation of policy by LuciferianThomas https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?diff=952770572&oldid=715233481 which removed the file from anywhere under Category:LOHAS Park Station, its location of creation (P1071).
Then you made the false accusation of incorrect categorisation against the original uploader and also exaggerated your accusation. RoyZuo (talk) 02:18, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And also Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2024/01#Problematic_file_names_and_irrelevant_categorization_by_sockpuppet_group, issue has been detailed before. You can keep pretending that this has not been talked about before, and dismiss my accusations against the abuse, but you will not change the fact that there is indeed abuse, and that the abuse causing widespread inaccuracies in Commons. Heck, you can even keep promoting this behaviour as contribution or "not a serious problem", but this will only show that you don't really care about the truth. LuciferianThomas 11:05, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And whether you like it or not, sockpuppetry is clearly a violation anywhere on Wikimedia. From the start, you are supporting sockpuppetry, and it doesn't really matter who was abusing socks. I personally never asked for files to be deleted, I would only ask for a block on sockpuppetry to prevent further disruption, and if they are willing to contribute by the rules (especially for content accuracy and sockpuppetry), I'm more than happy to see further contributions from the user. However before then, sockpuppetry and disruption by inaccuracy is a big fat no from my stance. LuciferianThomas 11:13, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, one supports like. Not to paint a bad picture on RoyZuo, but being blocked in two wikis for uncivil behaviour and IDHT respectively doesn't seem to have stopped them from failing to actually get the point yet again. I won't dismiss what they say by their past history, but I will dismiss it for the fact that it is negligent the truth and accusative against the ones who actually care about accuracy and compliance. LuciferianThomas 11:23, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_110#RZuo, and it clearly isn't this user's first time defending the disruptive anonymous photographer with actions that do not comply to rules. Why would they now be caring about the truth? They won't. LuciferianThomas 12:00, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just quickly skimming through Category:Yau Tong Station: I have already spotted 3 more files that are mislabeled, and are in fact taken in Tiu Keng Leng station. I guess here's your evidence? LuciferianThomas 11:57, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone tries to argue that Yau Tong and Tiu Keng Leng stations are easily mistaken for their similar livery, this is one example of the anonymous photographer labeling things completely and impossibly wrong. LuciferianThomas 12:03, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
+1 I don't think this contributor is a "net negative" for the project, but the issues he's causing are difficult to track because they are spread over literally hundreds of different (non-disclosed) accounts, and he is impossible to communicate with, and those are both problems. Enforcing a one-account policy restriction (with small carve-outs for things like disclosed alts or pseudonyms maintained for safety reasons) seems more than reasonable to me. ReneeWrites (talk) 10:13, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand at all why RoyZuo brought up this issue as an alleged supporter of the anonymous photographer. This was debated almost everywhere because someone was really busy to get the anonymous photographer blocked or globally locked for socking by whatever means possible. There were two unsuccessful attempts on Commons to have the photographer blocked. The latest ate issue was also ported to Meta, meta:Requests for comment/Blatant sockpuppetry in good faith, where the request was recently denied. I really think that this should stop now, unless someone thinks that yet another attempt at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems might have a different outcome. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 11:19, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert Flogaus-Faust the hostile actions against the user are succeeding and files are blindly massively deleted Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Anonymous Hong Kong Photographer 1.
It takes 1 sysop to give in to the relentless harassment and delete all the files, but it will take many more users' collective effort to fend for the contributor and their contribution, because they never dispute the attempts at deletion or defend themselves.--RoyZuo (talk) 22:03, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then so be it. It is obvious that the anonymous photographer's socking without disclosure of the other accounts is not according to the rules, even though this had been tolerated for some time. The reason for the mass deletion is that there are FoP issues with many of the files. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 11:47, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Pi.1415926535 "They are also violating multiple account policy..."
that's not a policy, but merely an article, a write-up https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sock_puppetry&action=history .
all the policies (on meta) are here meta:Category:Policies. that page you quote is not part of them. RoyZuo (talk) 19:30, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Those alledged issues with "massive uploading of copyvios" etc seem to be massively overstated. First of all, these issues are not "these photos have been stolen from some photo agency and are falsely claimed own work" as it appears to being framed, but only FOP, where the uploading does not violate any copyright laws, only Commons policy which does not allow restrictions on commercial use. Then, the people who regularly nominate massive amounts of images uploaded by this person seem to be unwilling to use VFC for their mass nominations, which makes proper review of those DRs an incredible pain. Just a week ago I spend over AN HOUR copy-pasting keep under over 250 DRs, where the nominator apparently carelessly misinterpreted some FOP law (while reviewing them even longer before, and this is a pain when the files are in 200 seperate DRs instead of one or a handful). Those +250 (!!!) DRs have all been kept. The people witchhunting this anonymous guy keep creating massive numbers of questionable DRs, where commenters are unable to keep up with - most of the DRs have no comments as it is de facto impossible to properly review and comment on all of them. Also, many of the "issues" claimed at Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Anonymous Hong Kong Photographer 1 like "Using strange names in accounts.", "User pages only created as galleries." or "Indirect disclosure of personal information." are such non-issues to the point that they are laughable. Points such as a single instance of "Intentionally removing sockpuppetry tags." where it is zero indication that this was intentional, or "Systematic, but inconsistent categorization." with zero source, feels like "I just don't like that" instead of being based on any policy whatsoever. ~TheImaCow (talk) 00:46, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Krd has aparrently just casually deleted thousands of files uploaded by this anonymous person with the reason "created by abuser", without any consideration for anything. Where exactly is this mentioned as a valid reason at Commons:Deletion policy and how isn't this an act of massive vandalism? ~TheImaCow (talk) 00:58, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I browsed through a good percentage of their files laat night and a lot of them had FOP issues. Its pretty clear that isn't something they know or care or about. Regardless, its super unrealistic to expect other users to sift through and nominate their uploads for deletion. Especially given the sheer amount of socks. That's on them for using so many alts and not following the guidelines on a basic level. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:14, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
okay, and I just browsed to some random of their galleries at User:Gindcheoutarkoadf_OK, User:GISTZIS rAhsueLLS pxwomc, User:GEEHAWUMENKIN 106, User:GAUAI Shfj 992833 --- +1000 images, maybe five where I'd say "not FOP compatible", ~15 redlinked images, none of the DR's I checked had any comments. Perfectly acceptable rate. ~TheImaCow (talk) 02:04, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd keep the images of food myself. All the ones of store signs, packaging and the like are probably copyrighted though. Not to mention there's SCOPE issues with a lot of their photographs. I really don't see how most of the images don't go against the whole "must be realistically useful for an educational purpose" thing.
I forget where it is right now, but one of the policies says something about someone's personal vacation photos not being educational. That's essentially what these photographs are. 25 random, mundane shots of a hotel room the guy was staying at. Realistically how many photographs of a slept in hotel bed do we need on here? They are just using Commons as a personal file hosting site at that point. It would be a super pedantic time waster to separately nominate all of those images for deletion. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:19, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, there are also a ton of photos of items in shops in MTR stations. I have absolutely no idea what the photos are even trying to express for some of them, not to mention the other disruptive bad naming and categorisations. LuciferianThomas 13:30, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Larger version is 180° rotated

When I click on File:Exterior del Museo.png to see the enlarged version the image has been rotated by 180°. How to solve that? Wouter (talk) 12:37, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Wouterhagens: Rotate it again locally. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Exterior_del_Museo.png looks fine to me on the latest Chrome and Windows 10.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:12, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Jeff G.: Thanks. I experienced the problem with Firefox and to my surprise not in Safari. Wouter (talk) 18:54, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This general happens when there is conflicting rotational information in the metadata of the files. One type of metadata says one thing, and the other metadata says the other thing. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:51, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decade by category navbox

This needs editting so things like Category:Cross-country skiing in the 1900s go into a subcategory, not into Category:1900s Rathfelder (talk) 13:35, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the template so it is now in the “Sports in the XXXXs” category instead. Tvpuppy (talk) 13:47, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. There are a lot of similar issues. Is this the place to ask them to be fixed? Rathfelder (talk) 09:56, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, usually for most you can do it here. If the page is using a template, you can go to the template discussion page instead. Tvpuppy (talk) 13:07, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please can someone look at the templates for Category:1910s political cartoons of the United States, Category:Microphones in the 1910s, Category:Science fiction in the 1910s, and Category:Home kitchens in the 1910s and take them out of Category:1910s? Rathfelder (talk) 10:01, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Overcategorization like that is a pretty common issue for these types of templates unfortunately. At least IMO categories should just be added manually without the pointless navbox or there should at least be an approval process. By date templates are more trouble then they are worth at this point though. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:05, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m looking into it. Will try to fix each of them. Tvpuppy (talk) 13:07, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rathfelder Now they should be all fixed. Let me know if I have missed anything. Tvpuppy (talk) 15:54, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's it - for now, at least. Thank you very much.
One other question: English wikipedia has a very useful template {{Navseasoncats}}, but it doesnt work here. Is there an equivalent, or could one be made? Rathfelder (talk) 16:04, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It would be very useful here, but to my knowledge, there isn’t an equivalent. One could be made, but that’s outside of my technical abilities. Tvpuppy (talk) 19:13, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Code of Conduct annual review: proposed changes are available for comment

Please help translate to your language.

I am writing to you to let you know that proposed changes to the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) Enforcement Guidelines and Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) Charter are open for review. You can provide feedback on suggested changes through the end of day on Tuesday, 18 March 2025. This is the second step in the annual review process, the final step will be community voting on the proposed changes. Read more information and find relevant links about the process on the UCoC annual review page on Meta.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. This annual review was planned and implemented by the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, you may review the U4C Charter.

Please share this information with other members in your community wherever else might be appropriate.

-- In cooperation with the U4C, Keegan (WMF) 18:50, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 08

Clothing by date

Category:Clothing in 1957 - and later dates are this way round. Category:1899 clothing and earlier dates are the other way round. Wouldnt it be nice if they were all the same way round? Rathfelder (talk) 22:39, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The proper name should be “Clothing in XXXX”, so I have renamed the categories for 1899 and before. Tvpuppy (talk) 23:44, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 10

Theatre by year

Could anyone make some new templates for other countries like the one for Spain? Category:Theatre of Spain by year? Rathfelder (talk) 13:46, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to see if I can make one. Do you mean a template for “Category:Theatre of X by year” itself or its subcats i.e. “Category:YYYY in theatre of X”? Tvpuppy (talk) 15:27, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I created a template for “Category:YYYY in theatre of X”, see {{Theatre of country by year}}. In theory, it should work for any country and any year, without adding any parameters. See Category:1936 in theatre of Spain for example. Tvpuppy (talk) 16:59, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's great! Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 19:17, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rathfelder I also finished making {{Theatre of country by decade}} for the decade categories “Category:Theatre of X in YYYYs”. It should also work without parameters, see example at Category:Theatre of the United States in 1910s. Tvpuppy (talk) 17:59, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just what I need! Rathfelder (talk) 18:01, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rathfelder I have just finished {{Theatre of country by century}} for the century-categories. It works the same as well. Tvpuppy (talk) 19:22, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is really helpful. Speeds things up no end - and I dont have to worry about miss clicking! Thank you very much. Rathfelder (talk) 20:25, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wishlist for new features on Commons

Hi!

I invite you to join the wishlist of proposals for new functions on Commons. The focus lays on the support of colored meshes, which is highly requested and elemental for future media, and the support for DNG files to be archived. Several additions have also positive influence on sister projects like Wikipedia. We're happy to see you there :) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 16:26, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"AutoCats" script for automatic categories

Please check out the new user script AutoCats - it attempts to provide a solution for what I think has long been a sticking point in Commons: the lack of translation for category names. Any feedback is welcome! Yaron Koren (talk) 16:32, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 11

Possible mass upload of Trump-sensitive photos

Hi! In Denmark there are news reporting that Trump is trying to eliminate lots of photos that contain "sensitive" words. So Gay, Trans and Equity for example.

The story in Denmark is that it also affect Category:Enola Gay because of the word "Gay". And story also tells that people try to avoid words that include "trans" so for example "transaction" and "Equity" even if the meaning is w:Equity (finance).

I do not know if it is actually true but if it is true then I wonder if someone can do some magic and mass upload files to prevent them from being deleted. MGA73 (talk) 11:00, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably you refer to works of the US Federal government. Such works are commonly bulk-uploaded here anyway; have you found any sets that are not? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:00, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Correct works of US Federal government. No, I have not found any good sets. I just thougt it would be good if "everyone" helped out. --MGA73 (talk) 18:03, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Commons have un million files from Department of Defense (DoD): 300 000 from Fæ, 300 000 from OptimusPrimeBot (which is still uploading new files) and 400 000 from different uploaders. DVIDS, the wikicommons of DoD contains 5 millions pictures.
I've created a cat to identify files deleted by DoD: Category:Images removed from DVIDS. Pyb en résidence (talk) 19:08, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pyb en résidence's new category also includes a list of deleted files from the AP's recently published database of deleted DVIDS files -- is anybody working on bulk uploading those links from that database that do work? Is there anything other Wikipedians can do to help? -- Gaurav (talk) 23:38, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm using Openrefine to categorize uploads by Fæ based on the AP database. Don-vip is categorizing OptimusPrimeBot uploads with a deadlink to DVIDS. It's not perfect because some files might be delete for another reasons than anti-DEI. Pyb en résidence (talk) 08:25, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Categories under Category:FoP-Switzerland

The categorizations of many categories here are problematic. Supposedly, {{FoP-Switzerland}} should not be used in categories of specific artworks and buildings, as country-specific templates are meant for file namespace only. Moreover, the categories of several artists were slapped with this template, making the categories ending up categorized under this category. It isn't correct to tag the artists' categories with this template, as the artists may have made artworks located in countries with no liberal panorama exceptions. I suggest using {{FoP-category}} for categories of Swiss works themselves, and removing the FoP tag from the categories of artists ({{NoUploads}} suffices). Since there are 700+ categories under Category:FoP-Switzerland, manual fixing of the categories is impractical. I hope there's "VisualCategoryChange" that can custom replace some content of multiple categories at once. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 12:33, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Support I've never really been a huge fan of people adding licensing templates to categories myself. They should really only be used on files. Feel free to ping me when (or if) this is approved and maybe I can help clean some of it up. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:55, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm actually doing it now to some of the categories, replacing FoP-Switzerland with FoP-category. But I can't finish them all due to manual editing and that there's too many categories (less than 600 now but more than 500). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 13:09, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it should be possible to modify such templates in a way that it gives a different output depending on the namespace it is used in, so that it for example shows a big red warning "Please only use this template on file pages!!!" in category space. --HyperGaruda (talk) 19:47, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 12

"Winners of [Award]" vs "[Award] winners" categories

Which formatting should be used for these categories? I noticed that Blackcat has moved many of these categories from "[Award] winners" to "Winners of [Award]" over the years. Category:BAFTA Award winners to Category:Winners of the BAFTA Award, for example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Οἶδα (talk • contribs)

Should these categories exist at all? Having won an award is not typically a defining property of a person. Omphalographer (talk) 01:20, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly some should. A Nobel or Pritzker or for that matter a BAFTA or Oscar are sufficiently prominent that you routinely hear someone referred to as a "Nobel Laureate", a "Pritker prize-winning architect" or a BAFTA- or Oscar-winning actress. - Jmabel ! talk 02:11, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

software generated information

Screenshots are generaly treated as copyvio. However, there are cases the content, grafics, departure times, weather patterns, tracking information, etc, are automaticaly generated, with no human creative input. If company logo's and advertisements are avoided, I see no copyvio case. Excluded are maps extracts like Google maps, where the information and layout is protected. (database issue)

Example: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Schermafdruk treinpad test ECD naar Brussel.jpg Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:19, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot tell for this case, but we have to assume that more and more digital content will be generated by non-human actors (graphics and pictures, but also schemes and graphs or concepts) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 14:07, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What you see on your screen is only partially a computer-generated database query output. Someone had to program the thing, design how all the software elements had to be constructed, decide on the positioning, what color scheme to use, etc. As you can see at COM:SCREENSHOTS, unless the software is freely licensed (which it is not according section 7) or as simple as en:Command-line interfaces, this is rightly considered a copyvio. --HyperGaruda (talk) 20:06, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I agree with HyperGaruda. Test case: someone working for another railway created a screen that looked just like that except for the (obviously not copyrightable) information about what particular train was going where when. Could NS possibly sue them for a copyright violation? - Jmabel ! talk 02:15, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Undeletion

I just noticed that there exists com:deletion policy but no undeletion policy. The entire page Commons:Undeletion requests misses out the most common kind of undeletion: copyright expiry undeletion, which doesnt happen because of "appeal". RoyZuo (talk) 11:13, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's kind of tangential, but back when I was doing DRs more there was at least a couple of people who didn't know images on are undeleted after the copyrights on them expires. I suspect that's one of the reasons DRs can be so contentious sometimes. So it would be good if there was an undeletion policy and people were made more aware that deletion usually isn't permanent. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:29, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If undeletion of an image is 60 years from now, I suspect that many people aren't much comforted by that. But, yes, it's something that needs to be present, in order to take into account the usefulness of Commons as a tool for long term preservation of files. I've even thought about the possibility to offer the option to intentionally upload non-free files, deleted from the very moment of upload, to be undeleted when they enter the public domain in the future, as a means to contribute content for future preservation (without it being considered a copyvio, and without penalizing the user as if something wrong had been done: the user clearly states that the file is not to be publicly viewable until many years in the future, when it enters public domain). Maybe this idea is a bit out of scope, since, without forgetting about the future, Commons is made for the present in the first place. MGeog2022 (talk) 14:09, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If ever implemented, it should be restricted to specially important content (very relevant and/or in high risk of total loss). Of course it's not a good idea that 90% of storage size used by Commons eventually becomes used for non-viewable media. MGeog2022 (talk) 14:15, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MGeog2022: I've actually done quite a bit of that, especially with works of major artists who died 50-70 years ago, or with endangered buildings that are still in copyright in countries with no FoP. As an admin, I've also arranged for others to do it on request.
I don't think that there is any likelihood that this becomes even 10% of content, given that most people want the gratification that their work is immediately available. - Jmabel ! talk 16:28, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MGeog2022: Some users already do this, compare Commons:Deletion requests/File:Akte im Freien (Max Pechstein)-WUS07217.jpg. I'm doing it myself as well, immediately deleting the uploaded files and adding them to the respective undeletion categories (like Category:Undelete in 2030). --Rosenzweig τ 17:13, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel and @Rosenzweig, thanks for the information. It's good to know that the option is available, even if the help of an administrator is needed. If people become aware of that, this option could be more widely used, and many copyrighted songs or even movies could be uploaded for posterity (especially, those that aren't among the most widely known). MGeog2022 (talk) 20:35, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is really a great idea. An idea that needs wider use. At a minimum, this would help me and other volunteers preload files for all future "Public Domain Days."
  • What would be the best process, to formally adopt a policy or to document the best method of upload, delete, future undelete this "Future Media?"
  • And then what is the best way the communicate this to the wider Commons community, Wikipedians in Residence and GLAMs?
Ooligan (talk) 20:55, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There're potential technical problems for the process yall mentioned above. (I'd name that process Commons:Upload, delete and undelete, which was why I started this thread in the first place.)
That is, it depends on successful undeletion of files.
That might be a big question. No one is actually certain, that WMF doesnt mess up the deleted (or say, hidden) files. Senior users will remember certain bugs in the past that prevented deletion or undeletion, or corrupted file revisions. On top of that, iirc, there're only 2 copies of commons. Incidents like Gitlab Dev Deletes Entire Production Database How GitHub's Database Self-Destructed in 43 Seconds could well happen given the lengthy future ahead. RoyZuo (talk) 18:04, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RoyZuo, Can you ask WMF the current and future likelyhood of a "Gitlab" type database deletion or destruction. It would be helpful for this discussion as well as general interest. Thanks, -- Ooligan (talk) 20:24, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just tried looking for ways to contact WMF. After skimming through
  1. https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Home
  2. https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/contact/
I dont seem to find any on-wiki feedback methods. I'm unwilling to email, because what happens in wiki stays in wiki; wiki things should be dealt with on wiki. RoyZuo (talk) 20:35, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reading about media backups, I remember that it was said that deleted files were considered in the same way that regular files. That is, even if lost from production copies, there would still be backups. 2 production copies and 2 backups, of all files (visible or deleted), all of them stored in RAID disk setups. With this in mind, it would seem unlikely that most deleted files are lost. Let's hope that they can recovered, and undeletion dates work as expected.
Senior users will remember certain bugs in the past that prevented deletion or undeletion, or corrupted file revisions: this was more likely to happen before 2021 or so, when there were no proper backups in place for Commons media files. MGeog2022 (talk) 20:42, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I have also uploaded, and then deleted, a number of files not yet in the public domain, setting a future date of undeletion. These were mostly movies. Also because video2commons only works for Commons, and I copied the files to the English Wikipedia, as they are already in the public domain in USA, but not in their country of origin.
I think there are probably quite a number of deleted files for which no future undeletion date was added. It is difficult to find them, as they are by definition, not publicly available. Yann (talk) 23:24, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would strongly recommend that if we do this more systematically:

  1. If at all possible, we should set up a special way to upload these so that they do not pass through the state of being temporarily visible to everyone. If we cannot avoid that, we come up with some particular tag which will give a very visible warning on the file page during their temporary visibility.
  2. We should limit this to users at a certain level of rights.
  3. We should probably have a place to post where anyone who is doing more than, say 20 of these in a given week is expected to post what they are up to, and there is a chance to judge the advisability of larger projects like that.

Also, I'm very wary of uploading content that has no known date when it will become available (e.g. in most countries, work of living authors, including buildings in countries with no FoP for architecture). It's hard to keep track of when they would be undeleted and in most cases that is 70 or more years in the future, a really pointless amount of time over which to make plans. Possibly some exception to that for content of likely importance that is unlikely still to be available when it would become legal to publish. - Jmabel ! talk 02:27, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mainspace dab pages

Although mainspace dab pages are usually not formatted as gallery pages, COM:GAL does not mention anything regarding such pages. So, I think all mainspace pages should be considered "gallery pages", and they should be formatted like gallery pages. Windows is an example of a mainspace dab page that is also a legit gallery page by itself. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 17:53, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 13

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump&oldid=1009056875"