Commons:Village pump/Archive/2024/03

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

Is "King Of Jazz" (1930) in the public domain?

Someone from archive.org says so but I can't find that information anywhere else. Do you know any databases where I can check this? Kazachstanski nygus (talk) 19:19, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Already answered at COM:VPC where you posted the same question. --Rosenzweig τ 19:33, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
@Rosenzweig Thanks. Kazachstanski nygus (talk) 19:41, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Rosenzweig τ 19:33, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

deletion of my all images

Why delete all my uploads from User:Shonyx 136.158.60.178 01:47, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Maybe because you are bringing a lot of unnecessary drama to the project? Maybe because you are violating copyrights? Just guessing. - Jmabel ! talk 05:33, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
What is going on with this user? Most of the DR's comes off as being rather unhinged Trade (talk) 13:02, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
@Trade: Both user and IP are now blocked.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:49, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by:   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:49, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Creator:Robert L. Knudsen

At the template Creator:Robert L. Knudsen "Storm Lake" appears twice, how do I get rid of the second one? RAN (talk) 20:17, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Creator templates normally only fetch data from wikidata, but this one is filled out. remove the sections you find unnecessary or redundant (if they are already recorded on wikidata). RZuo (talk) 20:25, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --RZuo (talk) 20:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Category for aquariums in restaurants？

  • example
    example
  • Aquarium Restaurant
    Aquarium Restaurant

not the ones for decoration but for keeping the seafood alive. commonly found in asian seafood restaurants. what should they be called? aquariums in restaurants? restaurant aquariums?

problem is there're also restaurants that use aquariums as a gimmick/theme of decoration. how to tell the two apart?--RZuo (talk) 22:27, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Category:Fish tanks in restaurants Broichmore (talk) 08:05, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --RZuo (talk) 20:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

File:Oswald the Lucky Rabbit ad.jpg

Hello, I noticed that the source for this image is wrong - that ad doesn't appear in "The Film Daily" in 1927 (Jan-Jun or Jul-Dec) and I can't find it anywhere else. The uploader, CokesBucks, has been blocked indefinitely for sockpuppeting and his main account is inactive since 2020. What should I do? Just nominate the image for deletion? Kazachstanski nygus (talk) 15:16, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

@Kazachstanski nygus: By its content, it must be around that time. You could nominate it for deletion if you want to force the issue of someone else doing the research to get the source right, but it is presumably legitimately public domain. - Jmabel ! talk 15:50, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
@Kazachstanski nygus: I found it in the linked source and updated our link to point to the page. From Hill To Shore (talk) 21:11, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --From Hill To Shore (talk) 21:11, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Commons Gazette 2024-03

Volunteer staff changes

In February 2024, 2 sysops were elected; 1 sysop was removed. Currently, there are 188 sysops.

Election:

Removal:

We thank him for his service.

Other news

Edited by RZuo (talk).

Commons Gazette is a monthly newsletter of the latest important news about Wikimedia Commons, edited by volunteers. You can also help with editing!

--RZuo (talk) 20:36, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Mixture of photographs / pictures from different eras / different buildings

Hi. I was viewing pictures from the UK House of Commons. The category mixes photographs from the current House of Commons, as it was rebuilt under Churchill's premiership, with those of pre-WWII, and even those from the early XIXth century before the fire that destroyed most of the Palace of Westminster. Shouldn't these eras be separated? David.Monniaux (talk) 12:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

@David.Monniaux: This is a sort of thing we sometimes do, and sometimes don't. Feel free to break it down into subcategories, but if you do then please provide enough description for each cat so that it should be moderately straightforward for editors to find the correct category and expect to put some time into category maintenance here over the course of years. - Jmabel ! talk 16:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
If it's a different room, I'd consider splitting it. What isn't really helpful in there are the crops of photos in that category where the chamber isn't visible (sample). Enhancing999 (talk) 14:37, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Suggestions on how to display a digital recreation of a statue?

I had a file that was deleted because some users believed it wasn't within scope because it only showed the digital recreation (thinking it was only fantasy). At least that's what I gather, since in the "Deletion Discussion" my questions were not answered.

How can I be able to present it in order to fall within scope and be accepted by Wikimedia guidelines?

I come here because my questions were NOT answered during the "Deletion Discussion". And I am not asking for the video to be undelete or reinstated.

The image in question is a digital recreation (a digital sculpture model if we want to be more technical) of what the indigenous statue Venus of Tamtoc would look like in real life. I made this work not only as an artist but also as an Anthropologist, so both expertise were used to show how this statue would realistically look.

The file was a seconds-long webm video, which showed a nude young woman moving.

What some users were quick to note were the following: 1) Nudity, 2) A fantasy woman, 3) A woman who would not resemble the statue, 4) lack of comparison, 5) not in scope or instructional.

One user noted that after consulting the statue it did resembled. So my first would be if I should upload a file which shows both the statue AND the recreation I did, both together. Perhaps even showing a comparison of sorts. And maybe even with text which explains the features and such (i.e. the scarifications shown by the original statue). If that's not instructional, I don't know what would be? But -- like I said -- I make this question so that I know if this type of file would fall within scope of Wikimedia.

My second question is... In case this did fall within scope, then would the image of the statue had to be free in Commons, or to what degree should it be in order for me to be able to include it in this file to be uploaded to Wikimedia? This particular part, to me, is a tricky one regarding Wikimedia guidelines. How would any of you proceed in such a case?

Perhaps I did not made the file instructional enough. Or more clearly showing the comparison in a visible manner. Although I did mention it in the description, some users still insisted in how a similarity would be hard to determine. And eventhough I am biased because it my own work, I also think there is also a bias from some users since it is not European art. For instance, I asked what if someone would upload a painted portrait of Joan of Arc. It would fall in scope because it is art and probably made by a specific artist using a specific tecnique during a specific time period. But how come this painted woman would not be considered a "fantasy woman". Again, during the "discussion" the user who requested the deletion (or other users for that matter) did NOT answered this and my other questions. This idea of a "fantasy woman" would be a dangerous precedent -- at least for non-European art that portrays non-European historical figures. No one knows how Joan of Arc looked like, or Emperor Charlemagne, and still we as a society accept art that portrays historical figures, like Christ or Moses, as being normal. But my file was deleted for being "fantasy woman".

I will not apply for undeletion. But if I keep uploading the digital recreation in a different manner (be that an image or a video) Wikimedia users may, again, delete it under the before mentioned premnices. So how to present this in a way that does fall in scope and be accepted by the Wiki community as a file that presents instructional or information. Is my idea of how to do it correct? And if there is absolutely no way the Wiki community will ever accept something like this, should we start nominating for deletion art that portrays historical figures?

For more information, the deletion "discussion" was made here Commons:Deletion requests/File:Venus de Tamtoc 2.webm

Thanks in advance. Miguel Angel Omaña Rojas (talk) 01:25, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Category:William Richardson

Category:William Richardson and the Wikidata entry appear to be a conflation of two or more people with the same name. An engraver from the 1700s and an author of books and a man from the 1860s. I will move the images of the 1860s man to Category:William Alexander Richardson, can someone look at the other entries and see if they are for the same person or split them into new categories and create a new Wikidata entry for them? RAN (talk) 17:16, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

  • I also removed "President of the Ashford Chamber of Commerce" from the entry for the illustrator. I fixed some of the errors by splitting off William Alexander Richardson, but I think what remains may still be a conflation. --RAN (talk) 00:35, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

License for Wikipedia

Is there a license that is used on Commons but may not be used in certain wikipedias?2A02:810D:4ABF:DBE4:997E:DB0E:63D3:1323 13:18, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome. Yes, we have many licenses backed by VRT permission that may not be copied except by a VRT Agent. Our well-known licenses should have analogs on the Wikipedias. Is there some license you want to use on certain Wikipedias that you can't find there? Wikidata should be able to help you look. Please be specific.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Your question is not clear, but you don't need a specific license for Wikipedia if a file is available on Commons. Except a few exceptions (see COM:VPC#Disney's early works are still protected by copyright in German-speaking countries), any file on Commons can be used on any Wikipedia. Yann (talk) 13:39, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
yes, some wikipedias do not accept some licenses on commons, but it is rare. for example, Wikipedia richtet sich nach DACH-Recht, so Template:PD-Italy ist verboten. --96.94.213.161 16:46, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Replacement of File: Flag of Mifune, Kumamoto.svg

I am OperationSakura6144. I need to replace File: Flag of Mifune, Kumamoto.svg with my rectified vector version[1]. I tried to do that via "Upload a new version of this file" method but it continuously warns me "If you do not provide suitable license and source information, your upload will be deleted without further notice. Thank you for your understanding.". What info should I give in the description, so that it would freely let me upload my desired version? I am waiting for your answers. OperationSakura6144 (talk) 07:38, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

@OperationSakura6144: Hi, and welcome. I am sorry to inform you that you have triggered Special:AbuseFilter/290. The proposal to "Limit file overwriting to users with autopatrol rights" was accepted with many supports and one weak oppose 15:19, 23 September 2023 (UTC). After an implementation problem in phab:T345896 and testing, Special:AbuseFilter/290 went live with the Disallow action 09:35, 28 October 2023 (UTC). Please read MediaWiki:abusefilter-warning-file-overwriting. You may request COM:AP at COM:RFR when you think you are ready (once you have made more than 500 useful non-botlike edits); having that should allow you to overwrite. You may also request an exception for a particular file at COM:OWR. You may ask an Admin to merge your file into File: Flag of Mifune, Kumamoto.svg at COM:HMS.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 08:18, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Convenience links: File:Flag of Mifune, Kumamoto.svg, File:Flag of Mifune, Kumamoto (rectified version).svg. - Jmabel ! talk 15:49, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Replace File:Flag of Kuma Kumamoto.jpg with File:Flag of Kumamoto Prefecture.svg

File:Flag of Kuma Kumamoto.jpg[2] is being used in Vietnamese wikipedia page navboxes as a flag of Kumamoto Prefecture instead of File:Flag of Kumamoto. Prefecture.svg[3]. I would like you all to replace File:Flag of Kuma Kumamoto.jpg with File:Flag of Kumamoto. OperationSakura6144 (talk) 11:24, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Each Wikimedia project can choose for themselves which images to use. If they want to use the jpg instead of the svg, that is up to them. From Hill To Shore (talk) 11:29, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
I agree with you, but File:Flag of Kuma Kumamoto.jpg depicts the flag of Kuma village in Kumamoto, not the Kumamoto Prefecture. I want File:Flag of Kuma Kumamoto.jpg to be replaced with File:Flag of Kumamoto Prefecture or any vector image or symbols that represents Kumamoto Prefecture, I want nothing than that. OperationSakura6144 (talk) 11:37, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
If you want to change which image is used on the Vietnamese Wikipedia, you can edit there. Even if they are currently just plain wrong, that is not Commons' affair. - Jmabel ! talk 15:53, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Free speech to text tool?

i wanna put up some videos for com:motd, but i'm too lazy to transcribe them. is there a free stt tool for mandarin chinese that i can feed the commons videos in? RZuo (talk) 10:57, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Category for people moving / travelling

i'm looking for a parent category of Category:People crossing borders, supposedly a category for people travelling in general? does one already exist? if not, is Category:People moving good enough for this? RZuo (talk) 14:20, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Category:Travellers? - Jmabel ! talk 15:55, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
there will be problems similar to Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/06/Category:People swimming.
these "-ers" categories are often used for certain people, regardless of what the actual content is.
whereas "people doing something" is meant for people engaged in that activity.--RZuo (talk) 22:27, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I need to delete my files.

I need to delete these files: File:Flag of Mashiki, Kumamoto.png[4] File:Flag of Mifune, Kumamoto.png[5] File:Flag of Minamioguni, Kumamoto.png[6] File:Flag of Nankan, Kumamoto.png[7] File:Flag of Mifune, Kumamoto (rectified version).svg[8]

I have nominated for their deletions, but I don't think it can help me in this situation. Please, somebody delete those files for me or suggest a way so that I get free from this mess. OperationSakura6144 (talk) 02:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

@OperationSakura6144: Hi, and welcome. Please allow the DRs to run their course per COM:DR, and use internal links. If you are in a hurry to delete your own recent uploads, you may use {{G7}} per COM:CSD#G7.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 09:09, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
My preceding reply was rolled back by Orchi. Why?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:48, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Likely just an inadvertent misclick. Files have already been deleted. --Túrelio (talk) 11:24, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
.....thank you very much Túrelio for the explanation of my unintentional mistake. Excuse me please. Orchi (talk) 15:38, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I need to replace File:Flag of Nagomi, Kumamoto.svg.

I've just created File:Flag of Nagomi, Kumamoto.svg. It needs to be used in place of File:Flag of Nagomi Kumamoto.JPG. If you're reading this, please replace File:Flag of Nagomi Kumamoto.JPG with File:Flag of Nagomi, Kumamoto.svg in all Wikipedia pages.

Also, to mention, I'm gonna take a break from WikiComms after this for a while and start my business here after that. OperationSakura6144 (talk) 13:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

  • @OperationSakura6144: By "It needs to be used in place of", do you mean in one or more Wikipedia articles? Presumably, you can edit these as readily as anyone else (and take your own responsibility for edits that might be controversial rather than asking someone else to make them for you). - Jmabel ! talk 15:45, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Report of the U4C Charter ratification and U4C Call for Candidates now available

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to your language

Hello all,

I am writing to you today with two important pieces of information. First, the report of the comments from the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) Charter ratification is now available. Secondly, the call for candidates for the U4C is open now through April 1, 2024.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members are invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Per the charter, there are 16 seats on the U4C: eight community-at-large seats and eight regional seats to ensure the U4C represents the diversity of the movement.

Read more and submit your application on Meta-wiki.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 16:24, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

New team proposal

In the page Wikipedia/2.0, in the section “SVG logos” I noticed that the Wikipedia logos in various languages are a bit different each others, like blurry puzzle logo or not perfectly centered words, or different fonts usage, and tons of other minimal differencies. My proposal is to suggest to create a new team that rebuild all Wikipedia logos following the rules of the page https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal:Wikimedia_trademarks//Word_mark_creation and takes care of guarantee uniformity.

This new team could be named "Wikipedia logo uniformity protection team".

It is a good proposal? --93.47.37.244 10:13, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

This is a copy of a conversation from 7 March above. If you want to say something more on the subject, it is best to add it there rather than start again. In answer to your question, I have no interest in this. Also, even if I was interested, I wouldn't want to take on a long term project to help an unregistered user. Your choice not to make the small effort to register doesn't inspire confidence that you intend to stick around for a long term project. From Hill To Shore (talk) 10:27, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --From Hill To Shore (talk) 10:27, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

The Great Proof of Existence.

Off topic

I have developed a truly grand proof which proves why the universe exists unfortunately the character limit of this page is too small to write it all down. I do have the answer though. The answer is that the universe is an infinite recursion cycle of infinite universes. There is no start or end. Each universe generates more universes.(I leave this as an exercise to the reader to prove.). But what about the first universe? Thats the thing. Time does not move like it does outside of our universe. The space-time is not the same. And the properties are not the same. So. the first universe can also be the TREE(42)'th one since space-time beyond space-time is something called super-space-time. It is undefinable in any human interpretable way. So order is disorder and vice verca. But what caused the generation process of recursion to start? It is very simple. The being of nothing implies the generation of everything. Now this is a difficult proof I also leave as an exercise to the reader.

Regards, ZebraCancer99 — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZebraCancer99 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately the deadline for submission of Nobel Prize nominations has been 5 weeks ago. --Achim55 (talk) 21:13, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
@ZebraCancer99: How is this relevant to Wikimedia Commons? Whose cosmology are you espousing, Douglas Adams, Lowell Cunningham, DC Comics, or Marvel Comics?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 21:17, 6 March 2024 (UTC)


Wikimedia Canada survey

Hi! Wikimedia Canada invites contributors living in Canada to take part in our 2024 Community Survey. The survey takes approximately five minutes to complete and closes on March 31, 2024. It is available in both French and English. To learn more, please visit the survey project page on Meta. --Chelsea Chiovelli (WMCA) (talk) 23:59, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

New team proposal

In the page Wikipedia/2.0, in the section “SVG logos” I noticed that the Wikipedia logos in various languages are a bit different each others, like blurry puzzle logo or not perfectly centered words, or different fonts usage, and tons of other minimal differencies. My proposal is to suggest to create a new team that rebuild all Wikipedia logos following the rules of the page https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal:Wikimedia_trademarks//Word_mark_creation and takes care of guarantee uniformity.

This new team could be named "Wikipedia logo uniformity protection team".

It is a good proposal? --2001:B07:6442:8903:5E2:5AE6:8707:E742 10:55, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

See Commons:Village_pump#c-From_Hill_To_Shore-20240311102700-93.47.37.244-20240311101300 below. Enhancing999 (talk) 22:41, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
I have removed the "section resolved" from this thread. On the duplicated thread on 11 March, I advised them to continue this earlier discussion and marked the 11 March one as resolved. I am not comfortable with you citing my response there as the reason for closing this one too. If you have a separate reason for closing this thread, you are welcome to state it and restore the section resolved tag. From Hill To Shore (talk) 09:34, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Sorry about that, I was going to link the section, but as it has the same heading, it's not really possibly.
In any case, I agree with your point. I even think that - practically - IPs can't form teams. Besides, logos displayed on WP are handled by WMF staff, not Commons. Enhancing999 (talk) 11:06, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Enhancing999 (talk) 11:06, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Does a whole book belong here

@BahYajé e Y4guarEtã: This file contains the entire Portuguese translation (130 pages) of the 9th edition of the SI Brochure. Does such a file belong here, or should it be moved to Wikisource, but the cover page be kept in Commons? Martinvl (talk) 14:37, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

@Martinvl: We already have thousands of books on Commons. No problem for hosting books in the public domain or under a free license. Yann (talk) 14:59, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Some cleanup needed?

A lot of images in Category:Green SVG padlock icons should belong to the Category:Page Protection Padlock Redesign - Green icons‎ subcategory, which perhaps should also be split into subcategories depending on the icon, but I digress. Any idea how one could automatically move-a-lot? Aaron Liu (talk) 17:40, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

@Aaron Liu: see Help:Gadget-HotCat. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 17:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
I have that. However, AFAIK that only works on one page at a time. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
@Aaron Liu: Help:Gadget-Cat-a-lot. - Jmabel ! talk 23:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Nice, thanks. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

No bot rotating images

some days ago User:SteinsplitterBot/Rotatebot malfunctioned and has been shut down since then. its source code https://github.com/toollabs/Rotatebot . :/ --RZuo (talk) 20:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Meanwhile, just one page section above, the WMF is very busy with “U4C” and other assorted makework. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:34, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Well clearly, U4C is much more important than the mundane problems we're facing here. (Or not ...) --Rosenzweig τ 09:47, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Special shapes categories

Sometimes there are some remarkable shapes in nature. Are there categories for it?

Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:59, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Maybe under category:Pareidolias? Or maybe (deep) under category:Unusual? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:10, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Category:Unusually shaped trees is perfect.Smiley.toerist (talk) 23:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
To whom it may concern, I think we should differ the trees on wether they are shaped like this naturally (as if this is taxon's speciality) or if such curves were man-made for easier shaping in ie. sled making process. A09 (talk) 22:43, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Flags of Japan

I am here to address that some Wikipedia articles and WikiComms pages still use old images depicting flags of Japanese municipalities that needs to be replaced globally. Those are:

File:Flag of Enzan Yamamashi.gif File:Flag of Himeshima Oita.JPG File:Flag of Iwai Ibaraki.png File:Flag of Kuroiso Tochigi.JPG File:Flag of Miharu Fukushima.JPG File:Flag of Nakoso, Fukushima.png

File:Flag of Nichinan Tottori.JPG File:Flag of Niitsu Niigata.png File:Flag of Former Nikko Tochigi.JPG File:Flag of Nishimera Miyazaki.JPG File:Flag of Shinjo Okayama.JPG File:Flag of Tenryu Shizuoka.JPG

File:Flag of Tochio, Niigata (1959–2006).jpg File:Flag of Tsuno Miyazaki.JPG File:Flag of Yamagata Nagano.JPG File:Flag of Koumi Nagano.JPG File:Flag of Yoshiokawa Gunma.JPG

I have globally replaced most of the files with my vectorized versions, both manually and using GlobalReplace tool. Even though, some of them remained unreplaced after the process. Therefore, I'm leaving this job to you to replace these obsolete flags with my vectorized versions. Here are they:

File:Flag of Enzan Yamamashi.gif → File:Flag of Enzan,Yamanashi (1954–2005).svg

File:Flag of Himeshima Oita.JPG → File:Flag of Himeshima, Oita.svg

File:Flag of Iwai Ibaraki.png → File:Flag of Iwai, Ibaraki (1971–2005).svg

File:Flag of Kuroiso Tochigi.JPG → File:Flag of Kuroiso, Tochigi (1958–2005).svg

File:Flag of Miharu Fukushima.JPG → File:Flag of Miharu, Fukushima.svg

File:Flag of Nakoso, Fukushima.png → File:Flag of Nakoso, Fukushima (1955–1966).svg

File:Flag of Nichinan Tottori.JPG → File:Flag of Nichinan, Tottori.svg

File:Flag of Niitsu Niigata.png → File:Flag of Niitsu, Niigata (1951–2005).svg

File:Flag of Former Nikko Tochigi.JPG → File:Flag of Nikko, Tochigi (1893–2006).svg

File:Flag of Nishimera Miyazaki.JPG → File:Flag of Nishimera. Miyazaki.svg

File:Flag of Shinjo Okayama.JPG → File:Flag of Shinjō, Okayama.svg

File:Flag of Tenryu Shizuoka.JPG → File:Flag of Tenryu, Shizuoka (1959–2005).svg

File:Flag of Tochio, Niigata (1959–2006).jpg → File:Flag of Tochio, Niigata (1955–2006).svg

File:Flag of Tsuno Miyazaki.JPG → File:Flag of Tsuno, Miyazaki.svg

File:Flag of Yamagata Nagano.JPG → File:Flag of Yamagata, Nagano.svg

File:Flag of Koumi Nagano.JPG → File:Flag of Koumi, Nagano.svg

File:Flag of Yoshiokawa Gunma.JPG → File:Flag of Yoshioka, Gunma.svg

To add, after all of this is done, I'm gonna take a break from WikiComms for a while, and after the break, I will start continuing my contributions on WikiComms. OperationSakura6144 (talk) 05:27, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Please use internal links when making lists like this. When people omit one or two, I add the convenience links as a courtesy, but I'm not taking 5-10 minutes to clean up after an experienced user who should know how to make links. - Jmabel ! talk 08:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I thought you would recognize the filenames and do the work for me. I've added the links to the mentioned files now. Please start the replacement. OperationSakura6144 (talk) 14:10, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
@OperationSakura6144: Those are external links. Jmabel meant internal links.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Which, not to put too fine a point on it, is how we normally write names of files here, and if you are going to go around trying to tell people how to do things you would do well to first learn the basics yourself. - Jmabel ! talk 18:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
I've added internal links now. It looks messy right now, but you gotta focus more on replacing the old flags with my vector versions, than to chitchat and find flaws and mistakes in my topic. Please, I don't want you angry now but you should start the replacement for me. OperationSakura6144 (talk) 01:23, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

REPOST: Replace the flags!!

I am here to address that some Wikipedia articles and WikiComms pages still use old images depicting flags of Japanese municipalities that needs to be replaced with their vectorized versions globally. I have globally replaced most of the files with my vectorized versions, both manually and using GlobalReplace tool. Even though, some of them remained unreplaced after the process. Therefore, I'm leaving this job to you to replace these obsolete flags with my vectorized versions. Here it follows:

File:Flag of Enzan Yamamashi.gif → File:Flag of Enzan,Yamanashi (1954–2005).svg

File:Flag of Himeshima Oita.JPG → File:Flag of Himeshima, Oita.svg

File:Flag of Iwai Ibaraki.png → File:Flag of Iwai, Ibaraki (1971–2005).svg

File:Flag of Kuroiso Tochigi.JPG → File:Flag of Kuroiso, Tochigi (1958–2005).svg

File:Flag of Miharu Fukushima.JPG → File:Flag of Miharu, Fukushima.svg

File:Flag of Nakoso, Fukushima.png → File:Flag of Nakoso, Fukushima (1955–1966).svg

File:Flag of Nichinan Tottori.JPG → File:Flag of Nichinan, Tottori.svg

File:Flag of Niitsu Niigata.png → File:Flag of Niitsu, Niigata (1951–2005).svg

File:Flag of Former Nikko Tochigi.JPG → File:Flag of Nikko, Tochigi (1893–2006).svg

File:Flag of Nishimera Miyazaki.JPG → File:Flag of Nishimera. Miyazaki.svg

File:Flag of Shinjo Okayama.JPG → File:Flag of Shinjō, Okayama.svg

File:Flag of Tenryu Shizuoka.JPG → File:Flag of Tenryu, Shizuoka (1959–2005).svg

File:Flag of Tochio, Niigata (1959–2006).jpg → File:Flag of Tochio, Niigata (1955–2006).svg

File:Flag of Tsuno Miyazaki.JPG → File:Flag of Tsuno, Miyazaki.svg

File:Flag of Yamagata Nagano.JPG → File:Flag of Yamagata, Nagano.svg

File:Flag of Koumi Nagano.JPG → File:Flag of Koumi, Nagano.svg

File:Flag of Yoshiokawa Gunma.JPG → File:Flag of Yoshioka, Gunma.svg

To add, after all of this is done, I'm gonna take a break from WikiComms for a while, and after the break, I will start continuing my contributions on WikiComms. OperationSakura6144 (talk) 12:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Please stop reposting the same discussion multiple times. The previous discussion is still open above. You have asked for help and it is up to other editors to choose whether to help or not. From Hill To Shore (talk) 12:11, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --From Hill To Shore (talk) 12:11, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Copyright question on image of exterior art work in Denmark

Hello Village Pump:

I am considering uploading an image that includes within the frame an exterior art installation - “Your rainbow panorama” by Ólafur Eliasson at the ARoS Aarhus Art Museum in Denmark. It is similar to a category of such images.

I have been reading about freedom of panorama for Denmark in Wikipedia and a statement on photography at the ARoS site.

It is still not clear to me if I can upload this image under CC 4.0. Can you advise? --GRDN711 (talk) 02:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

If you don't get a satisfactory answer here, you might do better to ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright. - Jmabel ! talk 09:21, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Your Rainbow Panorama considered such photos to be acceptable. --Rosenzweig τ 17:19, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

That cleared my concerns. Thank you both for your comments. --GRDN711 (talk) 23:02, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Inappropriate and explicit images

The policy states Photographs of nudity including male and female genitalia are sometimes uploaded for non-educational motives, and such images are not exempt from the requirement to comply with the rules of Commons' scope. If the images are of demonstrably inferior quality, or add nothing educationally distinct to the stock of such images we hold already, they may fail the test of being realistically useful for an educational purpose. Instead there is an enormous amount of such images and videos, as confirmed by this article. Is there something we can do so that this policy is correctly implementated? Kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14 novembre (talk • contribs) 18:38, 9 March 2024 (UTC) 14 novembre (talk) 18:38, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

an FYI: en:Special:Permalink/1212818666#Inappropriate_and_explicit_images_on_Commons ─ Aafī (talk) 18:47, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
@TheAafi Sorry I don't know, what does FYI mean? Thanks and kins reagards 14 novembre (talk) 18:50, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi @14 novembre. It means "For your information". I just left it here for others who may attempt to answer your question. Best regards, ─ Aafī (talk) 18:51, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
@TheAafi Ok, thanks and kind reagards again 14 novembre (talk) 18:53, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Yout article is 11 years old... Trade (talk) 19:17, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
And that article refers to a controversy long since resolved, with the images in question being deleted and (if I recall correctly) the user who commissioned the image that was clearly an implicit attack on Jimbo Wales banned.
If there are specific currently hosted images that you consider to be out of scope, please be more specific. - Jmabel ! talk 22:07, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
No, that controversy has not at all been solved and I don't know why you think it is.
It's an arbitrary example they picked in the article, equivalent images to the example are still here which is fine but they're also showing up in unexpected search results or children's games categories and so on. And I'd reject any suggestion that the latter is WMC culture, with whom the person is not familiar with, which could be how some people may interpret your below comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:26, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
@Prototyperspective: I was referring specifically to the Pricasso "paintings" and, in particular, the commissioned "portrait" of Jimbo. - Jmabel ! talk 10:49, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
I would note that User:14 novembre says they "mainly contribute on English Wikipedia," where they have less than 500 edits, all within the last eight days, with at least the vast majority being simple reverts of vandalism (and a fair number of others, e.g. at en:Sandro Tonali, being additions of rather useless links, such as linking years or repeating links to things already linked within the article). I'm not saying this to be dismissive—someone new here can have a perfectly valid opinion—but to indicate to anyone who engages here not to assume any "cultural familiarity" with Commons or even with WMF projects in general. - Jmabel ! talk 22:16, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel By the way, I have 1714 edits, (733 mainspace), on enwiki. Anyway yes, you're perfectly right when you say I'm not saying this to be dismissive—someone new here can have a perfectly valid opinion—but to indicate to anyone who engages here not to assume any "cultural familiarity" with Commons or even with WMF projects in general so thanks for your comments and kind regards 14 novembre (talk) 13:59, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
As usual. Category:Blackfriars Bridge has 341 images and six categories under it. It is one of 34 categories in Category:Bridges over the River Thames in London, which is one of 82 categories in Category:Bridges over the River Thames. Keep going up, and we get to Category:River Thames which has hundreds of subcategories with over 10,000 images in them. Ignoring the art categories (since it's a general practice to hold every piece of art by a notable artist if possible), Category:Nude people does not remotely have that many subcategories or images. I'm pretty sure that's not how I would rank the importance of the two subjects...--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:17, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Good point. Something like this has been said before which I interpreted to mean that for example, possibly mainly, the images are useful in showing human biological diversity in appearance. I noted for the same reason it would be good to have a large number of human faces if these are indeed CCBY.
Moreover, the subject is important but that doesn't justify everything, while the user seems to be concerned about the presence of these images at all, I'm only concerned about how they're part of WMC such as whether they show up directly in nudity-unrelated categories and searches. This is partly for ensuring the work of Commons contributors is useful and not for example not usable by children and not properly indexed by search engines which are given a plausible reason to do so while at the same time actually educational images are deleted because a few users voted so (if you try to be open and anti censorship then please for subjects where this is important not shallow mere nudity).
Moreover, there is an issue of tons of mundane low-quality photographs where the approach I'd propose would be making the good ones better discoverable rather than drowned in them as well as more encouraging more useful media such as illustrations and charts. There are over 600 nude photographs from just one photographer and I just checked with petscan just how many nude images we have...~240572, but I could only exclude "cat:Sex drawings" so it still includes statues and paintings (maybe somebody can rerun it with proper parameters).
And I disagree with Omaña Rojas that there is any bias against non-white nudity. If some images or videos like that were deleted it was probably due to file quality/resolution. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:50, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
I would argue more about Wikimedia bias towards nudity rather than an actual nudity issue in Wikimedia. For instance, I’ve argued in several opportunities that Wikimedia (and with proof) about a tendency to be more lenient to White nudity. Not without a fight (obviously), I’ve been able to show my case and in many cases (fortunately) being able to make a change in favor of a need for non-White nudity or non-White sex-related imagery (especially to be made available for other Wikis not just for English or Europe/US-based User). In some others I’ve been unsuccessful. There’s the vicious circle of “it’s not used in Wiki pages so we delete it Wikimedia” to “it’s not in Wikimedia so we use what there is for Wiki pages”. If this is the case, then yes, there is an issue in Wikimedia. Other than that, I do not see any issue as suggested in the decade-old article. Cheers. Miguel Angel Omaña Rojas (talk) 03:04, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
@Prototyperspective It's an arbitrary example they picked in the article, equivalent images to the example are still here Yes, I perfectly agree 14 novembre (talk) 13:53, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

There is a problem.

I uploaded SVG flags and emblems to replace possible files in "Top 200 symbols of municipalities in Japan images that should use vector graphics"[9]. Though I uploaded SVG symbols, I found that some Wikipedia pages still use old PNG/JPEG/GIF flags instead of replacing them with new vector ones I and my fellow contributors made, and, most of my SVG creations are left unused due to my foresaid worry. That's why I'm addressing those problems I encountered at the village pump. I would like you to fix these problems I've mentioned in my topic by urging Wikipedia editors to use SVG symbols we've made instead of obsolete PNG/JPEG/GIF ones, in the pages I've mentioned. I hope you understand me. OperationSakura6144 (talk) 11:06, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

@OperationSakura6144: no, I don't understand you. What do you want Commons to do about which images Wikipedias choose to use? Commons has no control of that. - Jmabel ! talk 17:24, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
I agree, there is no problem. What images, users on Wikipedia choose, is their own choice. Or you can change it yourself, but I think that's a lot of work (a lot) :-) - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 19:46, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
There is nothing stopping you from becoming a Wikipedia contributor, and replacing said images. Try it! - Broichmore (talk) 20:07, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Make links for my files.

Following the previous post yesterday, I'm here to call out my difficulties in replacing old PNG/JPEG/GIF Japanese municipality flags being used by Wikipedia pages with my new vectorized versions of them. I struggled to do that job but it can't help me in the long run. So, please, if you are reaading this topic, make links between old PNG/JPEG/GIF flags and my new vector flags, so that it easily replaces the former with the latter with no struggle. Please don't deny me. Please pay attention to this and simplify my job. OperationSakura6144 (talk) 05:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

@OperationSakura6144: No idea what you mean by "make links between" in this context, nor is it clear when you write "it easily replaces the former with the latter" what noun you mean to refer back to with "it". - Jmabel ! talk 08:19, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Maybe they refer to this type of edit diff adding {{Vector version available}} Enhancing999 (talk) 08:26, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Well, of course they are free to make such edits, and anyone else can choose to help, but I don't see why they think it would be a "struggle" for them and not for others. - Jmabel ! talk 16:33, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I need help to understand how to upload images on wikipedia.

I am a new member of wikipedia since 2 days, I made one post but I can't figure out how to upload an image. I've searched, did the official wiki tutorial but nothing works. It keeps saying that the image doesn't corresponde to the termes and conditions of wikipedia, even tho what I tried to post was normall images with nothing wrong on them. Not even text. I also have a bit of truble with tasks like naming the pages and basic things I have to do. Potassium12 (talk) 22:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

@Potassium12: I'm not sure exactly what you are asking, since you are talking about "Wikipedia" (whereas this is Wikimedia Commons where you are asking), but the normal tool for beginners to upload images here on Commons is Special:UploadWizard. You can also have a look at Commons:First steps. If you need further help, could you please say (1) is the image in question your own work? (2) If so, does it include any visible, copyrighted work by anyone else (e.g. a a painting on a wall)? (3) If it is not your own work, whose work is it and where did it come from? (4) Regardless of whether the work is your own or someone else's, what country is the work from? - Jmabel ! talk 22:29, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
@Potassium12: Hi, and welcome. I am sorry to inform you that you have triggered Special:AbuseFilter/153 by trying to cross-wiki upload png images as a new user, and Special:AbuseFilter/154 by trying to upload content that has appeared elsewhere as a new user. Such uploads of png images are not allowed at all. The following applies to each image. You indicated it's your own work. Usually when someone uploads a png image, it's a copyright violation taken from the web. Please upload the full-size original of it per COM:HR, including any metadata, but if you were not the original image designer or photographer, that person may need to post permission on their official website or social media, or send it via VRT with a carbon copy to you. Also, it will look fuzzy when scaled down (due to design decisions discussed in phab:T192744), so you may want to upload a jpg or svg version, too. If you can't get compliant licenses, the images may still be uploaded to English Wikipedia in compliance with en:WP:F because we don't allow Fair Use here. If you use our Upload Wizard instead, you should be able to avoid filter 153. Who is the copyright holder for the "mod named I HATE FLESH"? Once you have uploaded, you may follow en:H:PIC.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 22:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: «Usually when someone uploads a png image, it's a copyright violation taken from the web.» What!!??… -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:12, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
«You may want to upload a jpg» You gotta stop this nonsense, now, and go through Image File Formats 101 a bit more. You should start here. This is terrible, terrible advice. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:16, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
I just checked Special:AbuseFilter/153: It indeed favours JPEG images over PNG images of the same size. This its utter nonsense: Example: A new user sees this great map in a random webpage and it’s in PNG format because it was exported from SIG or was (gasp!) drawn by hand. So, if this user tries to upload it, it’s held back (and rightly so, but just because new users have no business uploading files, anyway), but if this user saves that PNG as a JPEG file, which completely distroys the reuse potential of said great map, then it’s all peachy and the copyright issue will be spotted much later. With the added issue that the PNG original and the JPEG in Commons will not be the same pixel pattern and therefore not able to be trapped by TinEye or similar tool.
Special:AbuseFilter/153 should be re-evaluated and suspended for now, and Commons should finally develop a culture that is less photography-centered.
-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:32, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Pinging @Steinsplitter as author of that filter, and png sensitivity in this change. I try to interpret the filter rules for the lay person (generally at COM:FILTERT), I can't edit them. See Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 58#AbuseFilter for cross-wiki uploads by Nemo for background.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
The lay person should have drilled in the notion that JPEGs are great for photos and photos alone, and that PNGs are not some demonspawn files only a hacker would use. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 22:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
@Tuvalkin: Pinging you, too. Sorry.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:01, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Scientists CT scanned thousands of natural history specimens, which you can access for free

https://www.floridamuseum.ufl.edu/science/scientists-ct-scanned-thousands-of-natural-history-specimens-which-you-can-access-for-free/ —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:23, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Poking around their site and uploads (e.g. https://sketchfab.com/3d-models/fossil-banana-uf-paleobotany-15072-bae63df2f35a447686719918b877ee1d and https://www.morphosource.org/concern/media/000606231?locale=en note that at the latter, commercial use is prohibited), it seems like they are not licensed in a way that is acceptable to rehost at Commons, but it's very possible that I'm just missing something. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
@Koavf: At least some of the oVert files are under Commons-compatible licences. For instance, this search finds 1,319 CC BY 4.0 files in The oVert Thematic Collections Network. --bjh21 (talk) 09:55, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for being much smarter than me. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
In case anyone else is playing along: File:Perca flavescens head-000158684.stl —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:06, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Feedback needed on proposed changes to Describe step

Hi all! As part of our work on improving UploadWizard, we are now collecting feedback on some proposed changes to its "Describe" step. Please, feel free to join our discussion in our project talk page, and share your feedback. We are looking for your opinion to improve further our suggested changes. Thanks in advance to those who will participate! Sannita (WMF) (talk) 11:16, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm happy that you've notified the people who browse the village pump as we'd get to see more feedback. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 01:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees 2024 Selection

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki.
More languages • Please help translate to your language

Dear all,

This year, the term of 4 (four) Community- and Affiliate-selected Trustees on the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees will come to an end [1]. The Board invites the whole movement to participate in this year’s selection process and vote to fill those seats.

The Elections Committee will oversee this process with support from Foundation staff [2]. The Board Governance Committee created a Board Selection Working Group from Trustees who cannot be candidates in the 2024 community- and affiliate-selected trustee selection process composed of Dariusz Jemielniak, Nataliia Tymkiv, Esra'a Al Shafei, Kathy Collins, and Shani Evenstein Sigalov [3]. The group is tasked with providing Board oversight for the 2024 trustee selection process, and for keeping the Board informed. More details on the roles of the Elections Committee, Board, and staff are here [4].

Here are the key planned dates:

  • May 2024: Call for candidates and call for questions
  • June 2024: Affiliates vote to shortlist 12 candidates (no shortlisting if 15 or less candidates apply) [5]
  • June-August 2024: Campaign period
  • End of August / beginning of September 2024: Two-week community voting period
  • October–November 2024: Background check of selected candidates
  • Board's Meeting in December 2024: New trustees seated

Learn more about the 2024 selection process - including the detailed timeline, the candidacy process, the campaign rules, and the voter eligibility criteria - on this Meta-wiki page, and make your plan.

Election Volunteers

Another way to be involved with the 2024 selection process is to be an Election Volunteer. Election Volunteers are a bridge between the Elections Committee and their respective community. They help ensure their community is represented and mobilize them to vote. Learn more about the program and how to join on this Meta-wiki page.

Best regards,

Dariusz Jemielniak (Governance Committee Chair, Board Selection Working Group)

[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2021/Results#Elected

[2] https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Committee:Elections_Committee_Charter

[3] https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Minutes:2023-08-15#Governance_Committee

[4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_committee/Roles

[5] Even though the ideal number is 12 candidates for 4 open seats, the shortlisting process will be triggered if there are more than 15 candidates because the 1-3 candidates that are removed might feel ostracized and it would be a lot of work for affiliates to carry out the shortlisting process to only eliminate 1-3 candidates from the candidate list.

MPossoupe_(WMF)19:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Category:Benjamin Franklin

Category:Benjamin Franklin has got 93 categories (24 of them red, some America-related, some United-States related). Wonder if this is the leading category in the Has-most-categories-competition? --Herzi Pinki (talk) 14:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

The categories seem to be taken from the English-language Wikipedia. This isn't a bad strategy as they tend to have generally more detailed category trees for people than the Wikimedia Commons, when making those red links blue it's probably also important to connect them with the right Wikidata item. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 15:28, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
A lot of those categories seem unlikely to be relevant to Commons, though. For instance, Category:84-year-old deaths, Category:English-language spelling reform advocates, and Category:Respiratory disease deaths in Pennsylvania are all focused on categorizing Franklin as a person, not categorizing the media files associated with him. Commons categories don't need to describe every property of an entity; that's what we have Wikidata and Wikipedia for. Omphalographer (talk) 22:57, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
+ 2 to that. Categories shouldn't take up a whole screen and a lot them should just be deleted. Especially the ones mentioned by Omphalographer. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:45, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Moving Category:Fort A.P. Hill

I'm working on moving Category:Fort A.P. Hill, somewhat belatedly after creating a discussion back in October. The subject of the category has been renamed Fort Walker, but currently Category:Fort Walker is a redirect to a smaller category. Is it appropriate to replace the redirect with this category via a move, and add a note to the category pointing people to the smaller category if they are looking for it? If so, what is the process for this? – OdinintheNorth (talk) 17:56, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Convenience links: Category:Fort A.P. Hill, Category:Fort Walker.
{{Distinguish}} will suffice. Make sure you do this by deleting the current Category:Fort Walker and doing a proper move of Category:Fort A.P. Hill. - Jmabel ! talk 23:00, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing me in the right direction! I believe I've completed all the steps and Category:Fort Walker is now moved and set correctly. – OdinintheNorth (talk) 18:33, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Russian symbols and flags

Similar that to letter "Z" used by the Russian Armed Forces during the invasion of Ukraine, but I recently tagged {{Russian militarism symbol}} as a symbol used by the Russian Federation and its Armed Forces, an organization closely associated to it, or another party advocating or glorifying wars of aggression or aggressive conduct, for files can affected:

Ferretivo (talk) 11:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

All kinds of symbols could be used for Russian aggression, so I would be inclined to say that the third file is reasonable to tag, but the first two are so general and broad that I find it hard to believe that in Czechia it would be illegal to even display a Russian flag. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:35, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
@Koavf: Including the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union flags and symbols as well? Ferretivo (talk) 11:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
I think it depends a lot more on how they are actually used than hypothetically used: is it common that someone displaying [image] is using it to say, "Russia trying to genocide Ukrainians is cool"? If so, then I agree with adding the template. If it's just one of a raft of images that a Russian war apologists is liable to use, then no. In other words, the question is "If you see this image, is it likely that it's being used for aggression apologia?" not "Would a Russian war apologist use this media?" because the latter would apply to File:Владимир Путин (18-06-2023) (cropped).jpg or a million other images. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:59, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 Comment Yes, as long as most of the mentioned countries still continue to recognize the Moscow regime and to maintain diplomatic relations with it, showcase of Russian flag is surely not illegal there and such a disclaimer is not in place (and if it was, then we had to tag all the images from Category:Photographs of the national flag of Russia and its numerous sub-(sub-...)cats with this; not just the one SVG flag). --A.Savin 12:07, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
@A.Savin: There is no single national symbol which would be banned all over the world, but current Russian and Communist Chinese symbols should be treated as banned symbols of Germany or Soviet Union. Eurohunter (talk) 22:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Symbols are also related to these branches of the Russian Armed Forces as a glorification of war in Ukraine. Ferretivo (talk) 04:38, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Maybe they are related, however we shouldn't just broadly tag every Russian flag from every century because of the tragic war that's happening. A09 (talk) 16:08, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Should be such symbols banned because you said so or because current legal situation prohibits them? This is an important difference and I think we should only follow the latter of the two situations I described. A09 (talk) 16:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 Oppose per Justin, unless proven otherwise. Also please refrain from tagging categories of affected files with this template as it's not the template's scope. A09 (talk) 22:46, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 Oppose as well. Non-copyright restriction templates are generally overused, IMO. They should only be used in situations where the media itself constitutes a specific and unusual legal risk to downstream users of the content, e.g. {{Indian boundaries}}, {{ΤΑΠ}}, {{United States emergency alert tones}}, etc. They shouldn't be used simply because a piece of media is simply associated with a legally prohibited expression (e.g. the Russian national flag vs. glorification of Russian military aggression). Omphalographer (talk) 20:07, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

PD US Expired 1903?

It would appear that many works created in the United States before 1903 have expired copyright and thus are in the public domain [10]. English Wikipedia seems to agree. Shouldn't there be a usage tag for this case? The "PD US expired" tag does not cover this at it only deals with published works. This means some PD works (example) are left improperly tagged. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:25, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@Indy beetle: Hi, and welcome. We have one, {{PD-old-assumed}}.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 09:58, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Specifically for US works which remained unpublished before 2003 and were created at least 120 years ago there is also {{PD-US-unpublished}}. Though you should really know the specific works wasn't published before 2003 to use that tag. --Rosenzweig τ 10:20, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Rosenzweig is correct that the section of the chart you are looking at refers to unpublished works, which are {{PD-US-unpublished}}. We don't have a lot of actually old "unpublished" works on Commons, as it is rare for a Commons uploader to have some sort of exclusive/private access to an old work (usually an old work is available to a Commons uploader because someone else previously published it somewhere). By the way, your first link is an out of date reproduction of Peter B. Hirtle's Copyright Term and the Public Domain. I've linked to the location where Hirtle keeps his up-to-date version. Commons also maintains a copy of the Hirtle chart at Commons:Hirtle chart, modified to add the corresponding Commons copyright template for each entry in the chart. —RP88 (talk) 10:48, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Actually, we have a fair number of people with access to old family archives, etc., that contain previously unpublished work. When those are mid-20th-century, we often have a copyright muddle (a lot of orphaned works) but it is very important that 120-year-old works are OK in that context. Also, anything published in 2003 or later is subject to that rule about 120 years from creation (or 70 p.m.a. if the author is known). - Jmabel ! talk 18:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Bias?

A video I made with Anthropological rigour (I’m an Anthropologist) was deleted because according to some it was a deemed a “fantasy woman” just because she was nude (like the statue I was portraying). And yet there’s this image File:Aurignacian Woman.jpg and it is accepted by the Wikimedia community. Since during the deletion process no one answered me why it was considered “fantasy”. Can the community explain to me what would fall under the umbrella of being “fantasy”. And what is the red line, sort of speak, of scope in Wikimedia for history knowledge. Since an Anthropological work was deleted but an actual fantastic depictions remain in Wikimedia!Miguel Angel Omaña Rojas (talk) 06:58, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

You appear to be referring to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Venus de Tamtoc 2.webm. As the file is deleted, only administrators can look at it, so most readers of this page will have difficulty commenting. I'd suggest asking the people involved in the discussion to explain what they meant. From Hill To Shore (talk) 08:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
If you wish, you can appeal a deletion at Commons:Undeletion requests. —RP88 (talk) 11:11, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
could you please link to 2 of your publications so as to verify your status as an anthropologist? RZuo (talk) 15:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
I don't think this would be ethical or even legal in this scenario. See COM:PRIVACY. A09 (talk) 18:18, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
The Wikimedia privacy policy does not bar users from voluntarily identifying themselves. If a user makes a claim of authority like "I'm an Anthropologist", it isn't out of line for us to ask them to substantiate that claim. Omphalographer (talk) 19:08, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment If there is "bias" I presume it must have been mine, as I nominated the image for deletion discussion. Background: I am interested in anthropology, took graduate level courses in it, and but for rather random life events might have gone into that as a profession myself. I have a great interest in pre-Columbian Mesoamerica, and have long helped improve Wikimedia coverage of relevant topics. I was slightly familiar with the so called "Venus de Tamtoc" from coverage in online anthropology press articles. I don't recall how I first noticed the video on Commons, but my opinion of what I saw was rather different from what you describe and presumably intended (I had my say on the listing, I see no need to repeat). We apparently had a difference of opinion on how educationally useful the file was, and this particular deletion discussion went against the file. Nudity and anthropological credentials were not issues under consideration for me and don't think were relevant to the deletion discussion. As to the "Aurignacian Woman" file, I suggest you list it for deletion discussion, as an anthropologist perhaps you could do a good job of pointing out the problems - I would agree for deletion if I saw it listed. There are no doubt a great many files on Commons which are of dubious usefulness - describing such files as "accepted by the Wikimedia community" seems to me an inappropriate assumption, as I'd guess most such have generally not been widely noticed. Cheers, and with hopes in the future we can both find ways of improving coverage of Mesoamerican anthropology topics on Commons, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Template:Search own work

i dont know if something has existed, but i just created Template:Search own work, which you can put on any page to generate an inputbox that helps you search within all own works of a given user. RZuo (talk) 15:52, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I totally don't get this. I see it is intended to be used in all namespaces, so can you give an example right here of using it correctly? - Jmabel ! talk 18:10, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
RZuo (talk) 18:53, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
I guess I can use it as a tool to find where people have slapped {{Own}} on my files, which is against my wishes and which I have always reverted when I noticed it! - Jmabel ! talk 20:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Painting Copy of the British Attack on Bocachica by Luis Gordillo in 1994

Hello, this painting is a copy of a lithograph from "Episodios Marítimos" (Maritime Episodes), published in Madrid in 1849. This painting was made by Luis Fernández Gordillo in 1994 (see Google Arts & Culture). Did the copyright expire? -Artanisen (talk) 21:38, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

That is an interesting one. The copyright of the engraving will have expired. However, if this is the 1994 painting, a new derivative work with its own copyright will have been created. The copyright of the 1994 work would still be in place for several decades no matter where it was made/published. Technically, the 1994 painting might not have a new copyright if it is a slavish reproduction of the engraving, but I think the change of medium makes that unlikely. From Hill To Shore (talk) 22:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Particular location of sculpture

Is there a name for sculptures in this particular position in a room (at the juncture of wall and ceiling)? Are they considered a type of capital? Do we have a category? - Jmabel ! talk 22:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Got it. They are just considered corbels, or to be more precise "corbel figures" since they are representational. - Jmabel ! talk 06:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Jmabel ! talk 06:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Old bank notes: Bulk upload opportunity

Is anyone able to run a bot or script to upload all the images of OOC banknotes from this auction? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:11, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Global ban proposal for Slowking4

Hello. This is to notify the community that there is an ongoing global ban proposal for User:Slowking4 who has been active on this wiki. You are invited to participate at m:Requests for comment/Global ban for Slowking4 (2). Thank you. Seawolf35 (talk) 19:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Your wiki will be in read-only soon

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.

All traffic will switch on 20 March. 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 March 2024.
  • 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), 00:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Can I upload this image?

I want to upload one of the insignias from the right hand side of this page (https://web.archive.org/web/20130716085150/http://www.bro.gov.in/indexab.asp?projectid=9&lang=1) for the wikipedia article Project Shivalik. I believe it is allowed to be used under GODL-India. Can anyone guide me if it is allowed? Leoneix (talk) 05:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

@Leoneix: I would expect so, but I'm not certain. You might better ask copyright questions at Commons:Village pump/Copyright, more copyright knowledge among the regulars there. - Jmabel ! talk 08:06, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
A new discussion has started on the copyright board. I am marking this discussion as resolved to avoid any splits in the conversation. From Hill To Shore (talk) 08:31, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Sure! Leoneix (talk) 08:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --From Hill To Shore (talk) 08:31, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

OpenRefine question

I have a question about OpenRefine. Is there a better place to ask than Commons talk:OpenRefine#Adding files to a category? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:20, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Cross-posting photos to stock image sites?

I'm wondering if anyone here cross-posts photos they've uploaded here to stock image sites? I'm thinking about doing so for some of my photos, both to increase their usage (since I guess the sites have different audiences than Commons), and to recover some of the costs of my photography equipment and photo expeditions. I don't think there's any conflict with the CC licensing, provided that the stock image sites are non-exclusive ones (which excludes some sites). I'd be interested in any experience people have with this. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:33, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

If you do, please leave a note on the file pages so that the files aren't misidentified as copyvios of the stock photos in the future. Omphalographer (talk) 02:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Picture of building, file renaming 10 years later when owner changes (as "obvious error")

If the tenant or the owner of building changes after the photo was taken, this isn't an "obvious error" in the filename. So the rename at [11] doesn't meet our criteria for "obvious errors".

An obvious error would be be a typo in the name, but this isn't the case.

I brought this to the attention of the renaming user (User_talk:Mosbatho#Rewriting_history?), but they don't want to revert it, even they don't seem to check themselves if it is an "obvious error".

What is the suggested course of action?

  • Request a rename in the opposite direction and
  • ask file renaming rights to be removed from the user's account?

Enhancing999 (talk) 13:47, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Namen sind Schall und Rauch. Names are quite meaningless. Edit wars on file names do not enhance the project. As long as the description and categorization and usage is correct, everything is fine. Just my 2 cents. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 14:44, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
That doesn't seem to tbe community POV, see Commons:File renaming. Obviously, file description has the same error. "InfraGO" didn't exist in 2012, but only in 2024. Enhancing999 (talk) 19:05, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Files names are very important. They should describe the file contents as well as make it findable and properly indexed in search engines, mainly the WMC search engine. I think this is too much a detailed issue to be discussed here. I don't know why you haven't proposed a file-title change with your rationale. I think it could stay as is if the file-title was correct at the time it was taken. The information about when it was taken should be well-visible in the file-description. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:58, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Ich halte das für ein ein sehr grundsätzliches Problem. In allen WMF-Projekten können alle Seiten von allen beliebig hin und her verschoben werden. Ausnahmen sind nur wenn ein Account noch sehr unerfahren ist, wenn ein Account dieses Recht individuell entzogen bekommen hat und wenn eine bestimmte Seite individuell gegen Verschieben geschützt ist. Nur Commons hat ein spezielles User-Recht für das Verschieben von Seiten, das der eine Teil der User hat und der andere nicht. Und das bezieht sich dann auch nicht auf alle Seiten, sondern einzig und allein auf den Namensraum "File:". Das ist eine bedeutende Abweichung vom gesamten sonstigen Brauch bei WMF-Projekten und ich gehe daher davon aus, dass das nicht so ist, weil mal ein Developer eine alberne Wette gegen einen anderen Developer verloren hat, oder weil einige hier glauben, das wäre sowas wie ein wirksamer Regentanz gegen die Dürre in der Sahara.
Ich gehe davon aus, dass es deshalb hier "Filemover" gibt und andere Accounts, die dieses Recht nicht haben, weil das Verschieben eines Files mit einer besonderen Verantwortung verbunden ist. Dass also die Filemover besonders verantwortungsvolle Leute sind, die in der Lage sind alle einschlägigen Regeln zu kennen und jederzeit zu beachten und die, wenn eine ihrer Entscheidungen in Frage gestellt wird, ohne weiteres diese Entscheidung selbst überprüfen, ggf overrulen und auf jeden Fall erklären. Das alles scheint hier nicht der Fall gewesen zu sein und es sollte eine Selbstverständlichkeit sein, dass in so einem Fall, der Filemover von Admins oder anderen Filemovern um eine Stellungnahme gebeten wird und wenn in einer vernünftigen Zeit keine plausible Erklärung erfolgt, das Filemover-Recht entzogen wird. C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 15:23, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Zufällig lese ich davon, dass es hierbei um einen Move geht, den ich vollzogen habe. Man hätte mich diesbzgl. informieren sollen, was allerdings nicht erfolgt ist. Lieber C.Suthorn, das stimmt so nicht. Sehr ausführlich habe ich den Filemove erklärt und auch der Antragsteller, welcher den Filemove initiierte und die Ursprungsbegründung geliefert hatte. Also, dass da irgendetwas ohne Erklärung erfolgt sei, ist falsch. Mosbatho (talk) 17:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Wo hast du den Antragsteller kontaktiert? Auf User talk:Mpns sehe ich keine Diskussion. Aus welchen Gründen siehst du den Grund Nummer 3 hier gegeben? GPSLeo (talk) 18:20, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Das stimmt so nicht. Auf meiner Diskussion erfolgte darüber ein ausgiebiger Austausch, auch User:Mpns hat sich dabei ausführlich geäußert. Das Verschieben von Dateien hat immer mit großer Sorgfalt zu tun, weshalb ich dem Antrag sehr wohl sehr detailliert vor dem Verschieben nachgegangen bin. Dabei gehört natürlich dazu, den Sachverhalt einzuordnen, diesen abzuwägen und natürlich zu überprüfen. Das Verschiebekriterium 3 ("misidentified objects") sah ich als erfüllt: das Unternehmen, das das Gebäude beherbergt, gibt es so nicht mehr, es heißt nun anders; das Gebäude selbst sieht heute genauso aus wie damals und davor - zumindest von diesem Blickwinkel aus. Dies kann einfach - wie vor dem Verschieben geschehen - mit Google Street View verifiziert werden. In der Fotobeschreibung wird diesem Umstand Rechnung getragen und auf DB InfraGO eingegangen. Dem Verschieben steht gemäß Commons:FRNOT nichts entgegen. Mosbatho (talk) 14:13, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Mir fehlt jedes Verständnis dafür, warum @Enhancing999 hier ein solches Fass aufmacht. Inhaltlich sehe ich hier auf seiner Seite keinerlei wirklichen Argumente. Was ich zu dem Fall zu sagen habe, habe ich auf der BD von @Mosbatho bereits dazu geäußert und werde mich hier nicht weiter durch diese Aktion von Enhancing belästigen lassen. Sorry, aber das geht mir eindeutig zu Weit! mfG - Martin (Rede gerne mit mir) 14:46, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
criterion 3 is, "To correct obvious errors..."
was there an error in the original filename "File:Frankfurt am Main- Betriebszentrale DB Netz des Regionalbereichs Mitte und Netzleitzentrale DB Netz- Haupteingang 9.1.2012.jpg"?
no.
so the move was improper.
on the contrary, is there an error in the current filename "File:Frankfurt am Main- Betriebszentrale DB InfraGO des Regionalbereichs Mitte und Netzleitzentrale DB InfraGO- Haupteingang 9.1.2012.jpg"?
yes. there's no "InfraGO" on "9.1.2012". RZuo (talk) 15:24, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
What's your Problems in here? Does the picture show an building of DB Netz? No, it shows a building of DB InfraGO!!!
Why should the filename containing DB Netz so should be right? Only, cause the picture was taken 2012? It couldn't be the correct name. ...
A filename containing DB Netz isn't correct scince the company never exists anymore. mfG - Martin (Rede gerne mit mir) 16:15, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Category:Deutsche Reichsbahn doesnt exist either. just redirect it to Category:Deutsche Bahn.
does File:01. Saalfeld Bahnhof - DR Deutsche Reichsbahn. (5993111605).jpg show a building of Reichsbahn? no, it shows Category:Bahnhof Saalfeld (Saale) operated by Category:DB Station&Service.
how about that? RZuo (talk) 16:26, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
At the age of 3 or 4 years my parents told me: you couldn't and mustn't excuse your mistakes by other people mistakes. Or, often used at german wikipedia: "Es gibt kein gleiches Recht im Unrecht".
Without looking at Saalfeld: If the station today looks similar like shown at the picture the name could be false.
But now i'm leaving this kindergarten. do what you want.... mfG - Martin (Rede gerne mit mir) 16:34, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Stahlschwelle Thyssen, 1927.jpg
there's no more "Firma Thyssen" but only ThyssenKrupp in 2022. why do you keep a mistake on your filename? RZuo (talk) 16:59, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Oha, jetzt fangen wir an, Äpfel mit Birnen zu vergleichen? Die besagte Stahlschwelle wurde ausschließlich von Thyssen Krupp produziert. Es gibt kein Nachfolgeunternehmen, welches genau diese Schwelle mit dieser Inschrift produziert hat. Also ist es auch heute noch eine Schwelle von ThyssenKrupp. Wenn jetzt die Firma Hösch die Schwelle überarbeitet hätte und aus der Aufschrift "Thyssen" eine neue Aufschrift "Hoesch" gemacht hätte, dann würde dein (in meinen Augen lächerlicher) Vergleich nicht so hinken, wie er es so macht.
Außerdem hatte @Mosbatho mit dieser Bearbeitung eine in meinen Augen sehr gute Lösung gefunden: Das Bild zeigt den heutigen Haupteingang der Betriebszentrale der DB InfraGO, zum Zeitpunkt der Erstellung des Bildes war dort noch die DB Netz AG untergebracht, wie man mittlerweile in der Bildbeschreibung lesen kann.
Alles in allem: Ich halte diese Diskussion hier für absolut lächerlich und an jedem sinnvollen Argument gegen eine Umbenennung vorbei geführt. Vor allem merkt hier scheinbar keiner, wie lächerlich eure Argumentation ist.
Aber ich sagte auch: Macht damit doch, was ihr wollt. Und, auch auf die Gefahr, hier auf Commons für solch eine Bemerkung sanktioniert zu werden: Ich komme mir vor, wie im Kindergarten und verliere durch solch lächerliche Aktionen immer mehr die Lust, mich hier konstruktiv zu beteiligen! mfG - Martin (Rede gerne mit mir) 17:58, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Nochmal dazu: Es IST (heute) der Haupteingang der DB InfraGO - gleichgültig, wann das Bild aufgenommen wurde. mfG - Martin (Rede gerne mit mir) 18:00, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Nach diesem Prinzip müssten wir auch alles in Category:Reichsluftfahrtministerium in Bundesministerium der Finanzen umbenennen. Fotos sollten das so benannt werden wie das was sie zeigen. Wurde etwas umbenannt wird das Foto nicht umbenannt, es zeigt ja einen historischen Stand von etwas. Wir schmeißen auch nicht das Bundeskanzlerin aus dem Titel von Fotos von Merkel aus der Zeit wo sie Bundeskanzlerin war weil sie jetzt keine Bundeskanzlerin mehr ist. GPSLeo (talk) 18:08, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Fotografiere ich heute den Haupteingang noch einmal, aus gleicher Perspektive und mit gleichem Ausschnitt und lade dann das neue Foto als "Haupteingang InfraGO" hoch, wäre demnach der richtige Weg - trotz der entstehenden bildlichen Redundanz?
Vielleicht haben wir hier alle den falschen Ansatz. Das Bild sollte vielleicht noch ein weiteres mal umbenannt werden in "Haupteingang Pfarrer-Perabo-Platz 4" mit der Bildbeschreibung "2012, bei Entstehen des Bildes, Betriebszentrale der DB Netz AG, heute Betriebszentrale der DB InfraGO"?
Dann wäre in meinen Augen alles Stimmig. Und das ich die Umbennenung nicht in genau dieser Form beantragt hatte, dass (!) lasse ich auch zu meinem ursprünglichen Antrag als angemessene Kritik gelten.
Wobei ich aber Bleibe: Das Bild als "Haupteingang der DB Netz AG" zu benennen, ist aus heutiger Sicht vollkommen falsch. Letztendlich stellt das Bild ja auch kein Unternehmen sondern ein Gebäude dar - insofern wäre ja (nach meiner vorstehenden Betrachtung) der ursprüngliche Dateiname ebenfalls falsch gewesen.
Um noch die Parallele zum Bahnhof Saalfeld (siehe oben) zu ziehen: Ein Bild aus der DR-Zeit stellt genauso den Bahnhof dar, wie ein Bild aus heutiger Zeit. Die Datei darf dann auch nur "Bahnhof Saalfeld im Jahr xyz" heißen, dann aber gerne in der Beschreibung darauf verweisen, dass es zur Zeit der DR aufgenommen wurde. Ein anderes Bild "Bahnhof Saalfeld im Jahr 2024" müsste dann in der Beschreibung als "Ein Bahnhof der zum Zeitpunkt der Aufnahme durch die DB InfraGO betrieben wurde" ausgewiesen werden. mfG - Martin (Rede gerne mit mir) 18:33, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Ob das obige Bild tatsächlich eine DR-Liegenschaft zeigt, sollte erst einmal geklärt werden. Oftmals waren Bahnhöfen der DR Gebäude anderer VEBs angegliedert, z.B. der Logistik, die nicht mit der DR in Verbindung standen. Msb (talk) 16:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk%3AFile_renaming&oldid=857801315#Revisionism
i had made a similar post about this. too many filemovers do not pay enough attention to these problems. RZuo (talk) 15:52, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Initially, I had assumed it was a mere error and the filemover would fix it fairly quickly when I first brought it up, but apparently the requestor's intent is shared. Anyways, I don't think it concerns the requestor much as it's really an issue of the filemover renaming other contributors uploads inappropriately. Enhancing999 (talk) 08:45, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
This is not true. I request you to stop your harrassment. Msb (talk) 16:07, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Enhancing999 is not harassing you. All discussion contributions of Enhancing999 are in an appropriate manor. GPSLeo (talk) 16:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Auch für mich sieht dies hier nach einer persönlichen Fehde aus, in die ich nur zufällig hineingeraten bin. Ich kann mir zwar den Hintergrund dazu nicht erklären, habe aber ganz klar genau diesen Eindruck. mfG - Martin (Rede gerne mit mir) 18:35, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Bis dato hatte ich keine Interaktionen mit diesem Benutzer - just for the records. Msb (talk) 18:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mosbatho&oldid=858485598#Rewriting_history?
User:Mosbatho should be removed as filemover. s/he's tone deaf about the wrong rename despite the long discussion on the user talk page and here, and is now accusing critics of harassment. RZuo (talk) 19:58, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Your tone is quite rude and you keep focussing on stating accusations instead of finding solutions and a clear Modus vivendi for such cases. Msb (talk) 15:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Please remain civil and avoid personal attacks such as "s/he's tone deaf". —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - contributions} 17:41, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
basically when db rebrands again or another company moves in to that building probably in less than 30 years (db netz was founded in 2007) i expect to see User:Mpns come and ask for a rename of his then erroneous filename again and User:Mosbatho will just do it again. who knows? maybe it's tomorrow. RZuo (talk) 20:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
I would not do that file move again due to this discussion. I now see that there is a broad consensus that name updates of older photographs of buildings are not obvious errors. Msb (talk) 15:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
I made a request at Commons:Requests_for_rights#Mosbatho_(remove_right). Enhancing999 (talk) 10:41, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

This entire discussion has led me to realize that both the original filename "Frankfurt am Main- Betriebszentrale DB Netz des Regionalbereichs Mitte und Netzleitzentrale DB Netz- Haupteingang 9.1.2012.jpg" and the filename that emerged from my renaming request "Frankfurt am Main- Betriebszentrale DB InfraGO des Regionalbereichs Mitte und Netzleitzentrale DB InfraGO- Haupteingang 9.1.2012.jpg" are incorrect.

Essentially, in my view, the file should be renamed once again to "Frankfurt am Main - Pfarrer-Perabo-Platz 4 - Haupteingang - 9.1.2012.jpg," and the file properties should indicate that until December 27, 2023, it housed the "Betriebszentrale DB Netz des Regionalbereichs Mitte und Netzleitzentrale DB Netz," and since the rebranding, it has been home to the "Betriebszentrale DB InfraGO des Regionalbereichs Mitte und Netzleitzentrale DB InfraGO."

This, in my eyes, would be the only correct naming, as it does justice to both states, i.e., the historical condition (DB Netz) and the current situation (DB InfraGO). Furthermore, the filename would still be applicable even if a company named "Welcome-2-World" were housed there the day after tomorrow.

The insistence on adhering to rulesets while accepting content errors, as is the case here, is, to me, in no way understandable, nor is it constructive or beneficial to Wikipedia as a whole. (Translation by ChatGPT). --mfG - Martin (Rede gerne mit mir) 13:43, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

@Mpns:
  1. you are probably right (now) about what the best name would be, but…
  2. the original name was fine, and should not have been changed.
  3. the current name is fine, and should not be changed.
We should keep filenames stable when possible. We should not be changing good names to get better names. It should not have been moved before, but it also should not be moved now. - Jmabel ! talk 14:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel: so you think the images in the category mentioned above could have been named "German Finance ministry building"? Enhancing999 (talk) 16:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
@Enhancing999:
  1. It would be odd to capitalize "Finance" but not "Minstry".
  2. I think that given that we have subcats for Category:Detlev-Rohwedder-Haus that would be a bit odd.
  3. I don't see anything in the case currently at hand rising to the level of difference between a use of the building by the Nazis and by the Bundesrepublik. - Jmabel ! talk 17:50, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
It's a ministry of the same country. I don't recall categorization having an impact on filenames. Did you just make that up?
Similar to the name for the file you supported, if you look in google streetview, it may still look the same. In both cases, the filename wouldn't be appropriate given the time the photos were taken. Enhancing999 (talk) 08:47, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Works named after protagonists

When it comes to works named after their protagonist which should have priority when it comes to category titles? Should the category name "Duke Nukem" be reserved for the protagonist of the video game series or the video game series itself? Same with Harry Potter, Johnny Bravo, Serious Sam and similar. --Trade (talk) 19:35, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I think that when someone hears "Harry Potter" that person is thinking of the media franchise at large more than the specific character. I'd be inclined to make the media franchise the standard and have a category of "[x] (character)" for the fictional character. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:42, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
What about Duke Nukem and Johnny Bravo? Trade (talk) 20:20, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Reckon the same. Particularly since in those cases, there is an actual piece of media called that thing. (I don't think there is a thing that is called "Harry Potter", but I could be wrong.) I think if you say "I like Johnny Bravo", someone will think you mean that you like the program, not the character nine times out of 10. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:37, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
I'll wager if someone were search for "cosplay of Harry Potter/Duke Nukem/Johnny Bravo" they would be looking for the character itself, not just any character from the work Trade (talk) 10:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
It depends. Harry Potter is such a broad category with so many items that its main category on Commons refers to the Harry Potter franchise (and it'll redirect to that). Duke Nukem and Johnny Bravo on the other hand are tiny categories where this distinction isn't needed yet. ReneeWrites (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

To what extent am I required to leave in place talk-page comments on my images?

To what extent am I required to leave in place talk-page comments on my images? For example, I find this inappropriate. If it were on my user talk page, probably I would simply delete it, but I realize I don't "own" the talk page of the image. - Jmabel ! talk 18:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Looking at their edits, they are just looking for a reaction. I have reverted them and I don't think it is worth wasting any more time on them. From Hill To Shore (talk) 18:28, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. From Hill To Shore (talk) 18:28, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Sock tagging prior to blocking

Hello, your input is welcome at Template talk:Sockpuppet#Tagging suspected accounts prior to blocking. Best regards, ─ Aafī (talk) 14:14, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2024/03&oldid=863488671"