Commons:Village pump

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

Shortcut: COM:VP

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

This page is used for discussions of the operations, technical issues, and policies of Wikimedia Commons. Recent sections with no replies for 7 days and sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=--~~~~}} may be archived; for old discussions, see the archives; the latest archive is Commons:Village pump/Archive/2024/01.

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 Special:UncategorizedCategories 26 7 RZuo 2024-01-11 16:53
2 Flickr2Commons stalled? 6 3 Pigsonthewing 2024-01-06 20:42
3 Mass rename requests 56 13 Richardkiwi 2024-01-07 13:41
4 Long-term file warring regarding scope of Asia 9 6 Multichill 2024-01-06 11:54
5 Template:Taken with 6 4 Tuvalkin 2024-01-06 05:20
6 Do you use Wikidata in Wikimedia sibling projects? Tell us about your experiences 6 5 Prototyperspective 2024-01-10 14:55
7 How often have mp3 and mpeg-2 been used lately? 12 5 George Ho 2024-01-07 00:31
8 Asahel Curtis 4 4 PantheraLeo1359531 2024-01-06 21:11
9 References for map 2 2 Jmabel 2024-01-07 17:29
10 Photo of Bunsaku Arakatsu 2 2 Yann 2024-01-12 10:52
11 Selfies of "Wikipedians" 21 13 GPSLeo 2024-01-12 12:46
12 Add SVGZ support 5 4 RekishiEJ 2024-01-09 04:43
13 Expedite cfd 2 2 Jmabel 2024-01-09 19:27
14 Help with translation 3 3 From Hill To Shore 2024-01-09 17:13
15 Reusing references: Can we look over your shoulder? 0 0
16 Duplicate categories for Chinese characters 1 1 SebastianHelm 2024-01-10 13:00
17 Guideline for Student Online Participation 1 1 Jmabel 2024-01-10 19:37
18 Should files have "panoramio" in their names? 4 4 Bjh21 2024-01-11 13:32
19 Description of files 3 2 Lotje 2024-01-11 10:21
20 copyright whitelist 21 6 Adamant1 2024-01-13 16:53
21 Photo challenge November results 3 3 Pigsonthewing 2024-01-12 20:46
22 Something’s wrong with SteinsplitterBot 1 1 RodRabelo7 2024-01-12 15:53
23 Today's MotD 5 4 Yann 2024-01-12 21:58
24 DIY copy stands 1 1 Pigsonthewing 2024-01-12 16:40
25 Checkuserblock 8 4 Jeff G. 2024-01-13 12:15
26 Mass rename requests 4 3 Bjh21 2024-01-13 17:09
27 Proposal to globally ban Guido den Broeder 1 1 SHB2000 2024-01-13 05:44
28 Help with categorizing 5 2 GeorgHH 2024-01-13 17:16
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.
Broadwick St, Soho, London: a water pump with its handle removed commemorates Dr. John Snow's tracing of an 1854 cholera epidemic to the pump. [add]
Centralized discussion
See also: Village pump/Proposals   ■ Archive
Template: View   ■ Discuss    ■ Edit   ■ Watch
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 7 days.

November 26[edit]

Special:UncategorizedCategories[edit]

We now have 2,544 uncategorized (parentless) categories, down from about 8,000 in the beginning of September. At this point, most of the "low-hanging fruit" is taken care of. User:Billinghurst and I have done the bulk of the cleanup, although a few others have also helped in various degrees. We could definintely use more help, most of which does not require an admin as such.

  • Most of the remaining listings are legitimate categories, with content, but lacking parent categories. They need parent categories and they need incoming interwiki links from any relevant Wikidata item.
    • A disproportionate number of these would best be handled by someone who knows Hungarian or Estonian.
  • Some categories just need to be turned into cat redirects ({{Cat redirect}} and have their content moved accordingly.
  • A few categories listed here will prove to be fine as they stand; the tool messed up and put them in the list because it didn't correctly understand that a template had correctly given them parent categories. Many of these are right near the front of the (alphabetical) list, and involve dates.
  • Some categories probably either call for obvious renaming or should be nominated for COM:CFD discussions.
  • Some empty categories (not a lot of those left, but new ones happen all the time) need to be deleted.
  • At the end of the alphabetical listing (5th and 6th page) are about 75 categories that have names in non-Latin alphabets. It would be great if people who read the relevant writing systems could help with these. Probably most of these are candidates for renaming.

Thanks in advance for any help you can give. - Jmabel ! talk 03:21, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm a bit confused about something @Jmabel: I checked the page and some of the categories on there are for example Category:April 2016 in Bourgogne-Franche-Comté (through 2023), but these were created years ago in some instances and already had parent categories from the start. How do categories like that end up there? ReneeWrites (talk) 02:09, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ReneeWrites: Insufficient follow-through and patrolling, combined with out of control back end processes.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 02:48, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ReneeWrites: Actually, in this case this appears to be some sort of flaw in the software that creates the Special page. As I wrote a couple of days ago, "A few categories listed here will prove to be fine as they stand; the tool messed up and put them in the list because it didn't correctly understand that a template had correctly given them parent categories. Many of these are right near the front of the (alphabetical) list, and involve dates." It looks like today's run added a bunch of these false positives and that (unlike the previous bunch) they are more scattered through the list. I believe all of the 100+ files that use Template:Month by year in Bourgogne-Franche-Comté are on today's list; none of these were there three days earlier. That probably has something to do with User:Birdie's edits to yesterday to Template:Month by year in Bourgogne-Franche-Comté; those are complicated enough that I have no idea what in particular might have confused the software. The categories still look fine from a normal user point of view, but the software that creates Special:UncategorizedCategoriesn is somehow confused.
Other than that: we're a couple of hundred fixed or deleted categories closer to where we'd want to be, compared to a couple of days ago. - Jmabel ! talk 04:23, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Server-purges should fix this but apparently it doesn't. Some categories that didn't appear last time after purging the cache have disappeared now so I'm more confused as to what the problem could be since the iirc the refresh time was after some pages were updated (it has problems when pages get all their categories from a template). There should probably be a phrabricator issue about this, albeit it's possible things work fine once there are always just a small number of cats there which seems increasingly feasible. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:35, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jeff G., could you explain what "... out of control back end processes" means, so I can understand your comment? --Ooligan (talk) 16:54, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ooligan: As I understand it, there are processes that run on WMF servers that run too long or get caught up in race conditions or whatever, and that get terminated after running too long. I think updating this special page may be one such process, sometimes. Certainly, updating the read / not read status of stuff on my watchlist seems that way, especially when using this new reply tool. Turning off the big orange bar before displaying my user talk page would be helpful, too. <end rant>   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:26, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jeff G., thank you. --Ooligan (talk) 19:44, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ooligan: You're welcome.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:11, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Even with those 100 or so "Bourgogne-Franche-Comté" false positives, we are now down to 2079. Again, we could really use help from people who know languages with non-Latin scripts, all of which are grouped toward the end of the list. Also, Hungarian and Estonian, scattered throughout. - Jmabel ! talk 23:08, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Now down to 1905, again including 100+ false positives. Still really need help from people who read Estonian, Hungarian, or languages with non-Latin scripts. - Jmabel ! talk 21:58, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And now to 1701, again with the same number of false positives and still with the same need for help from people who read Estonian, Hungarian, or languages with non-Latin scripts. Those are probably now the languages for about half of the remaining categories. - Jmabel ! talk 00:23, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Now 1471, with the same provisos and the same needs for help. - Jmabel ! talk 18:42, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We are making major progress. As of today, we are down to 1031 (and seem to be rid of the false positives, so maybe the progress looks more dramatic than it is, but it's still nice). Only a few left in non-Latin alphabets. Still need a bunch of help with Estonian and Hungarian.

Thanks to whoever fixed the "false positives" thing. - Jmabel ! talk 21:36, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As of today, we are (amazingly) under 1000, with only two remaining in non-Latin alphabets. 947 as of today. I suspect that anyone who speaks languages from Central and Eastern Europe could still help out considerably here. - Jmabel ! talk 20:22, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BTW, we are still getting some false positives, e.g. Category:Letters with "e" as diacritic above and other similar categories. This makes me guess we are also getting some false negatives (parentless categories that don't show up in the report). - Jmabel ! talk 20:46, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for pointing this out. While many uncategorized categories are useless ones that should be deleted, there is indeed some low-hanging fruit in there, including ones that can be linked to an article on a Wikipedia. – b_jonas 18:49, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At this point, the remaining categories are probably about 80% or more either simply needing parents, or needing some sort of clarification or merge. Very few are outright deletions. - Jmabel ! talk 19:40, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Progress continues. We are at 777. - Jmabel ! talk 20:43, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

i think we could deploy a bot to monitor this page, send reminders to users who create uncategorised cat pages and add the uncat cats to a maintenance cat.--RZuo (talk) 11:16, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@RZuo: We have {{subst:Please link images}} for the reminder.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jeff G.: That's really about categories on images, though, not categories on categories. FWIW, a lot of these happen in one of two ways:
  1. a small number of users create a fair number of categories and, as far as I can tell, can't be bothered to learn to do it right, or don't care that they leave a ton of work for others. They are not unaware of the situation: they've been told, but they keep doing it. I could name some names, but I'd rather not.
  2. a lot of people seem to think the correct way to get rid of an unused empty category is just to blank it, which of course leaves a parentless category. This group is generally "educable", and for that purpose we have {{How to delete empty categories}}. - Jmabel ! talk 21:05, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As of the start of the year we are down to 680; probably 100 of these have been dealt with in the last couple of days but others have doubtless come into this state. The vast majority of these are appropriate categories (mostly for individual people) that just need appropriate parent categories and, in some cases, should be attached to a Wikidata item or have one created. You don't need to be an admin to help out, just good at categorization. - Jmabel ! talk 21:09, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wow! Down to 456, again leaning heavily toward Central East Europe, especially Hungarian. - Jmabel ! talk 21:38, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And down to 190, some of which are doubtless false positives or current CfDs. - Jmabel ! talk 01:33, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


more interesting cats for maintenance: Special:WantedCategories.--RZuo (talk) 16:53, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

January 01[edit]

Flickr2Commons stalled?[edit]

I just set up a batch of 100+ files to upload with Flickr2Commons, and hit the upload button. The first five files were highlighted blue, as expected... and then nothing. NO files have been uploaded, and no error message has been displayed. Anyone else having issues? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:56, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Flickr2Commons is now working again. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:42, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Glamorgan[edit]

Glamorgan is also not working. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:05, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

January 03[edit]

Mass rename requests[edit]

What to do with the 20,000 requests, a set (as far as I can see). I'm not going to rename that, it's weeks of work, or more. I don't even know if these requests are good. This is more for a bot, if it should be renamed, also if it should be declined. Grtz. - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 16:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • @Richardkiwi: care to provide a link to whatever you are talking about? - Jmabel ! talk 19:38, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Jmabel: there is an awfully large amount of rename requests according to Category:Rename, in particular in Category:Media requiring renaming - rationale 4. I think that also explains one of C.Suthorn's complaints in the preceding section, about hardly anything having been done about his requests after three days. There are just not enough filemovers to deal with this flood. --HyperGaruda (talk) 20:11, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I don't think anyone saw 20k rename requests coming when the requester got the advice in Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2023/12#staff situation. --HyperGaruda (talk) 20:20, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Ah, all that Sanborn stuff. Didn't we say that if that was to go forward it should be done by a bot? - Jmabel ! talk 20:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      If the rename requests are valid, I won't oppose a bot-action but it is really a tough job to discern what is good and what is bad for a bot. However, since these Sanborn stuff requests are coming from a single user, I guess a few requests should be weighed in manually? If that's a good sign, let's get any bot to do this tedious job. ─ The Aafī (talk) 20:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      There are 196870 files that need renaming from the old format.
      And then there are a few ten thousand that need renaming from new format 1 to new format 2. This is due to a mistake i made during the initial upload.
      User:Nowakki/test2 illustrates why the old format is inferior. For 1885 and 1888 the Library of Congress sequence number happens to be the same as the plate number, for later years this is not the case. Internally these maps only use plate numbers. One would have to click on a few files first to find what they are looking for. I don't think many people use these maps as they are now.
      This is not a big deal. the Library of Congress provides the plate number for all files. This requires little manual intervention.
      User:SanbornMapBot/teststate is a preview of the state index, to be prepended to the top level categories. SanbornMapBot (talk) 20:54, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Also I should note that the LoC metadata is very reliable. From my experience the error rate is less than 1% (haven't found one yet). The plate number, the year and the volume are also printed in big-ass letters on each plate. It is easy to verify that a random sample of new file names is correct. SanbornMapBot (talk) 21:05, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Not everything that is wrong or is in an old format, has to be renamed. Like 10k, for example, it must be really necessary. Big requests must be done carefully or declined when not really necessary. For small amounts, it's not a big deal. - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 21:11, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      I should have worked more slowly.
      On the other hand, i have dealt with 5 different bureaucrats already, who don't seem to talk to each other and you guys haven't even made up your mind whether you want any of this.
      The renames will be done in 2 or 3 days and they will eternally prevent headaches for each and every customer. SanbornMapBot (talk) 21:17, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      To summarize: sometimes requests have to be approved, sometimes they have to be declined. The number of files in general needs to be considered.
      At this point the above has to be applied to the present situation. SanbornMapBot (talk) 21:30, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
These renames are not in line with Commons:File renaming. Point 4 was always for files like File:BSicon BHF.svg. File:Sanborn Fire Insurance Map from Aberdeen, Monroe County, Mississippi. LOC sanborn04422 004-2.jpg is a fine file name, maybe not the best. We only rename files when something is wrong with the old name, not to improve it. The whole point of this option was old templates that relied on file names to function. With LUA these days that's no longer a valid point. We should probably remove it as a rename request reason. Multichill (talk) 17:43, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well I have an SQLite3 database that allows me easy mapping from plate number to the filename.
We can distribute the database, so people can install it on their laptops and phones.
Or we let them click on a few files when they have a plate name in hand and try to narrow down where the corresponding file is. Since commons doesn't do improvements, i guess that is inevitable then. SanbornMapBot (talk) 18:07, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If someone gives a green light, what Multichill already does a little, I want to help 'declining' them. As you can see, I already doubt if they should be renamed. Or let a bot do that, but I don't know how that works. If I see consensus, I can help. - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 18:12, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have read all this discussion. I would decline all per @Richardkiwi as well as @Multichill, but would keep rename reason #4.
My concern is the use of the word "plate" in each file name, instead of the word "sheet." Every Sanborn Fire Map file webpage at the Library of Congress uses the word "sheet" or "sheets" for a map set.
Here [1] is a typical example of a Library of Congress JSON manifest page, where this object (map) description contains the word "sheet(s)"- not "plate(s)." -- Ooligan (talk) 08:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are already more than 200,000 new file uploads that use the word plate.
I don't think you'll get much support for a mass rename addressing a minor technicality.
Plates are illustrated full page sheets and as far as i know the use of the word in map books is common. The json file also calls a sheet "Page" in one place, "Canvas" in another and "Image" in yet another. Nowakki (talk) 11:20, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We're not going to rename 200,000 files, I don't think Ooligan means that. - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 13:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On the other hand: How would you solve the problem with LUA? Maybe that would work. SanbornMapBot (talk) 19:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(common moved to below) Krok6kola (talk) 21:06, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sanborn Maps. Time to Vote.[edit]

The Problem:

User:Nowakki/test2 illustrates why the old format is inferior. For 1885 and 1888 the Library of Congress sequence number (the number after the minus sign in the filename) happens to be the same as the plate number, for later years this is not the case. Internally these maps only use plate numbers. One would have to click on a few files first to find what they are looking for. I don't think many people use these maps as they are now, without an index they fail basic usability standards (are ass-backwards for no good reason).

Old format: c:File:Sanborn Fire Insurance Map from Tacoma, Pierce County, Washington. LOC sanborn09345 003-4.jpg

(the 3 numbers are all Library of Congress - generated identifiers: town_id, volume_and_year_id, file_sequence_number) approximately 200,000 such files downloaded in 2018 currently exist

New format: c:File:Sanborn Fire Insurance Map from Gadsden, Etowah County, Alabama, 1951, Plate 0012.jpg

approximately 300,000 such files downloaded in 2023 currently exist

To reproduce the problem, try to find plate 13R of volume 1 of 1896 in c:Category:1896 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map from Tacoma, Pierce County, Washington. Record the number of seconds spent.

Then find plate 201 of 1943 here c:Category:Sanborn Fire Insurance Map from Gadsden, Etowah County, Alabama

Plate numbers are used to navigate the Sanborn maps as illustrated here:

There are approximately 550,000 files of which ca. 250,000 would be renamed. The rename would be entirely automatic, with the exception of workarounds for minor inconsistencies that i might fail to notice (and which exist in the data set regardless of this action). Verification is based on random censuses of the file structure.

A valid answer can be to oppose this proposal on the grounds that redirects can be created instead of files renamed. This solution is complicated: the redirects have to be in the categories the user clicks through. Where would the actual files reside? If files are renamed, the redirects left behind for legacy external linkage support don't have to be put into categories.

Poll ends Monday, January 8, 23:59 UTC

Should the Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps be renamed?

 Support SanbornMapBot (talk) 06:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you maybe summarize why you think the maps need to be renamed and the pros and cons of both option for us lay people who weren't involved in the original discussion? --Adamant1 (talk) 06:11, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
original post has been updated SanbornMapBot (talk) 06:24, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Nowakki: Please login as Nowakki when discussing.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 06:31, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jeff G. what would be a reasonable time frame for the poll? I have never done this before?
8 January 00:00 UTC? Nowakki (talk) 19:22, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Nowakki: "Poll ends Monday, January 8, 23:59 UTC" looks reasonable.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 08:30, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Nowakki: Above all, I would like a clear statement of the goals of this renaming project. "Uniformity" for its own sake is not enough. What is it that some user (including possibly editors) will want to do that you are trying to make easier? We cannot judge a proposal without understanding what it intends to accomplish by way of actual use cases. - Jmabel ! talk 21:33, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel You have been involved in this discussion for weeks. You still don't know what I am trying to do?
How much time have you spent working with Sanborn maps on commons? Nowakki (talk) 03:35, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Nowakki: I've been involved in several hundred discussions over the last few weeks. This one may be top of mind for you, but that does not mean it is top of mind for everyone.
I see you interspersed an edit above giving "new" and "old" formats. It would probably be useful to show what the same file would be in the two formats. It is not obvious (to me at least) how (or even whether) some of the numbers in each of the two examples relate to the other example. Also, is the "new" format the one you are trying to move toward, or is it just something more recent than the "old" format?
As for how much time I've spent working with Sanborn maps on Commons: probably in the range of 20 hours at one or another time, mostly the maps for Seattle. I found the naming scheme for them those particular maps to be a total clusterf**k. Among other things, it is almost impossible to determine what we do and don't have. I've also spent significant time over the years dealing with Sanborn maps elsewhere than Commons, including in physical form in libraries.
And, again, I don't think I've seen any clear statement of goals for this. What are we trying to accomplish for what use cases? I think the cart may be in front of the horse. I agree something needs to be done because the current state is a mess, but I'm not yet convinced of what needs to be done, or even that renaming is the correct solution. - 07:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
To me, User:Nowakki/test2 illustrates nothing. It is almost completely opaque as to what it represents, and what it is saying about it.
I agree from experience that many of the Sanborn map file names are a mess, and there are a wide variety of conventions. I'm not sure we need a single convention across all Sanborn maps, but it would probably be good if the ones from a given locale (and certainly a given locale + year) all followed the same convention.
Could some of this be achieved with gallery pages?
I don't understand this proposal in the slightest. "Should the Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps be renamed?" Renamed to what? Nosferattus (talk) 22:39, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Nosferattus: there has been some discussion over the last few weeks of Nowakki's proposal to impose a consistent file-naming scheme on the many Sanborn maps uploaded from the Library of Congress. - Jmabel ! talk 00:03, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Nosferattus @Krok6kola
I have explained it further in the original post. Nowakki (talk) 03:29, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Nosferattus: Where is the original post? User:Nowakki/test2 makes no sense to me. I am very familiar with the Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps, but I am confused by your format. It seems to assume those maps are useful only for their dates. Did you overwrite the files of Fæ? Also, you changed the descriptions. I can't tell from the file histories what happened. Where are the files Fæ uploaded? Krok6kola (talk) 04:28, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Krok6kola original post == first post in this thread ("the proposal").
I did not overwrite any files uploaded by Fæ. They are all still there. A few hundred have been haphazardly renamed some days ago.
I used a simpler metadata scheme than Fæ for new uploads.
Maybe the confusion clears up when you re-read the updated proposal. Nowakki (talk) 04:38, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Admittedly I'm not super involved in the area, but it doesn't make sense to me either. Even after reading the updated proposal. You say in the proposal that "I don't think many people use these maps as they are now" but what evidence do you have that no one uses the maps with how they are currently named or that your proposed solution will actually fix the problem if it even is one? Personally, I'm not a big fan of overly long and complicated file names either, but I fail to see how your proposal does anything in that regard except for superficially changing a few characters around. I highly doubt anyone is searching for maps based on their plate number to begin with though. And don't even get me started on the whole "map from" thing or including the town, county, and state (along with the year at the end of it) in the file name. Except to say it's convoluted either way regardless. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:59, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Adamant1: if you don't think anyone searches for maps based on their plate number, that probably means you don't work much with these. (1) When a map like this is referenced in an article or book, plate number is almost always part of the reference. If it's anything other than a Wikipedia article with a link to Commons, you are going to be looking for year + city + plate number. (2) There's an index map at the front of each volume or set, which shows the breakdown to plates. If you want to find the map for a particular place in the city, at least in the paper version by far the sanest way to do that is to start with the index map and go to the correct plate. It would be very convenient to easily do the same here on Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 07:32, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes. This is what i want. Nowakki (talk) 07:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel: I said I didn't ;) Anyway, I was mainly thinking about randos looking for maps of their local town or whatever. I image most people wouldn't know or care what the plate number is. Mainly just the date and location, both of which don't rely on the plate number. Although admittedly it's useful for multiple maps of the same area in order to find the "zone" the map covers, but you'd have to know that to begin with and how exactly it's relevant. That information isn't available in a file name though. Like if I as a lay person who just wants a map of Gadsden, Alabama how am I suppose to know what part of the town Plate 0012 corresponds to? I wouldn't. So it's not really usefull IMO. At least not in the file where there's a need to not be overly descriptive. The same goes for the county BTW. Regardless that information would be fine in the description or as part of a gallery page. But its just needless in the file name. But then so is the original "LOC sanborn09345." I'm not advocating for either one. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:09, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
c:File:Sanborn Fire Insurance Map from Gadsden, Etowah County, Alabama, 1943, Plate 0000a.jpg
c:File:Sanborn Fire Insurance Map from Gadsden, Etowah County, Alabama, 1943, Plate ind1.jpg
plate numbers are used to navigate these maps. Nowakki (talk) 08:26, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
the County names should be included to disambiguate town with the same name in different counties of one state. Nowakki (talk) 08:29, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Plate numbers are used to navigate these maps. No, really? I know they are there used to navigate the maps. But people can do the same thing with the current naming system. So the question is what makes this better then that, or at least better enough to justify renaming a couple of hundred thousands files, and I'm not really seeing the benefit. At least IMO if you going to do something on that scale it should have exponential benefit, or at least some.
Your proposal seems to be a wash at best though, if not a net negative since I'm sure there's people who are already finding and using the files with the current system. Like I asked you how you know that people aren't using them now and you've provided zero evidence for that. So this whole thing seems more like personal preference then an actual issue. Or at you said anything so far to prove it is was. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:42, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
how long did it take you to find plate 13R of volume 1 of 1896 in c:Category:1896 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map from Tacoma, Pierce County, Washington? Nowakki (talk) 12:22, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Like half a minute if even and I don't even browse maps that way to begin with. You see the plate numbers in the thumb nails though and it just makes sense that if your looking for plate number 13 it would be about 1/4th of the way down. Although I still don't think plate numbers are how must people search for maps to begin with. Your way over selling them. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:44, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wonder how you do it without the plate number. In the overview map and the index to streets and specials, that's what you HAVE to use. Nowakki (talk) 12:57, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Adamant1: I mean literally: how do you do it? Is there some alternative way to access the maps that I don't know about where the index is not needed?
My point here is that i wrote me a couple of scripts to work comfortably with the maps and make the translation, using the mapping in the LoC json files.
Without the index and overview pages the maps would be useless AFAIK. You'd have to search through all the plates to find a particular business or street address. Nowakki (talk) 15:04, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The last couple of digits in the file names already correspond to the plate numbers. They just don't say "plate" before them in the file name. Their also on the actual maps. I'm not saying the table or the numbers don't matter and aren't useful, but their just numbers. Its not like if you name a file "Town, county, state plate # X" that's any more helpful then the current system of "town, county, state # (which is still the plate number)." But my point here is that it's just a number. Most people don't call it a plate number or really anything else. They just look at the number in the index, look for it in the thumbnail or at the end of the file, and open the image. Its already pretty simple to do that with the current naming scheme. So adding "plate" to the file names doesn't change anything. Your acting like people can't figure it out on their own without big red signs screaming "plate number!!" everywhere though. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The LoC sequence number is different from the plate number for the majority of volumes.
see User:Nowakki/test2 for example (hover the link with the mouse). Only same for the first 2 volumes in the table. Nowakki (talk) 15:59, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Adamant1 Can you please clear this up before the poll closes. You voted "oppose", but your comment clearly indicates that you do not understand the main point of the proposal.
I am of course happy as a cucumber to answer any remaining questions. Nowakki (talk) 19:22, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, Town+County+State names need to be included in the naming scheme, and the year preferably as well.  Support for changes in the naming scheme, also on the category levels, as long as it gets more unified and makes more sense than the previous one. On another note on categorization, while I think it is great to have the Sanborn maps in the "Sanborn maps... of state/country" category tree (Category:Sanborn maps of Alabama etc), and to have them included in "Category:Maps of Etowah County, Alabama" (etc.), I beg that they are not to be included in "<year/decade> maps of <state>", because they are not showing the whole state or even larger areas of the state, and only clutter that category, like Category:1888_maps_of_Alabama: If don't think that people who search for Alabama state maps in the 1880s, will find Sanborn maps too helpful, they are too localized to be included on that level. Best, Enyavar (talk) 11:31, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose Per my previous comments. I'm not really seeing the benefit here. Especially considering the amount of files that have to be renamed and potential issues that come along with it. The main selling point seems be that plate numbers are used to navigate these maps, but so are the library codes. I've actually used to navigate the maps myself a couple of times. Although people don't really "navigate" using files names to begin with. Regardless though, what's the main selling point to this? Because all I see unfounded, vague assertions that no one is using the maps but that they will if the names have the plate numbers in them. I'm sure there's plenty of people who are using the files with the current system though. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:42, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose The current naming system is easy to use, in my experience. If you look in Category:Frankenmuth, Michigan, you will see an example of how the Sanborn maps (under the old naming system) are used. What will happen to these if the names are changed? I have seen many examples of this. Category:Tampa Bay Hotel is another. Krok6kola (talk) 20:49, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This is not even an issue. File moves leave behind redirects. Nothing will happen. Nowakki (talk) 20:53, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Nowakki: Your method requires three steps: #1. find the city/county, state #2. find the volume number (some states have 5 volumes) #3. Click on "See parent category for index". Also, your method requires the renaming thousands of files. Plus I agree with Envavari's comment above about not including "<year/decade>" maps of <state>" for the same reasons. Those Sanborn maps have been on the Commons for years and users are accustomed to the way they are now. They appear neatly in the category of the city/town. No effort is required to find them. I never would have known about them if not for that. Krok6kola (talk) 00:14, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    People here will use what they have been given.
    You can imagine an experiment. 2 categories
    • Sanborn maps (old format)
    • Sanborn maps (fixed format)
    what do you think is going to be used. Users do not oppose fixes. Natural part of any work in progress. Nowakki (talk) 11:53, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak oppose. There just doesn't seem to be a consensus here, for something that (unless I'm mistaken) will affect over a million files. Also, I still don't see exactly what the scope of this is. All Sanborn maps? Just those from LoC? Just JPEGs (because we also have many TIFFs)? And, above all, there has been no listing of likely use cases and how they will be affected. - Jmabel ! talk 01:30, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If only there was a place where those question could have been asked. Nowakki (talk) 11:50, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    •  Oppose - Some files are already being renamed, but I want them all to be declined. It gives a mess too, not all files get the right name, and you get things like "file is missing", etc.. See Multichill (above) - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 13:41, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Long-term file warring regarding scope of Asia[edit]

There's been over a decade of slow edit warring as to whether western New Guinea should be included in File:Asia (orthographic projection).svg, with it currently being included. I feel there needs to be some kind of discussion to settle the matter. In my opinion, we shouldn't include it, because it's geographically not part of Asia (see [2]), and we're not including Western Thrace as part of Asia on the map, which nobody seems to have issue with. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:51, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just my opinion, but it is part of Asia due to part of the island being Indonesia. But other people would disagree with that. So it really depends on who's definition your going by. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:56, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But we're going off the geographical not geopolitical definition no? New Guinea forms part of the same landmass as Australia [3], and most sources I have seen do not consider it part of Asia. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would say, not neatly either geographical or geopolitical. The purpose of categories is to help people find stuff. If people are likely to look there, it should be there. Categories are about navigation, not ontology. - 22:31, 3 January 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmabel (talk • contribs)
This is not about categories, it's about whether a portion of a particular widely used orthographic map image should be coloured green or not. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:59, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is why COM:OVERWRITE was created. They should be separate files and each user should be able to choose which one they want to use.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:01, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, which is why I created File:Asia (orthographic projection) without New Guinea.svg by forking off a previous file version. The question is, should the title of the original file be changed? Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:20, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, they should be separate files and they should be clearly labeled to explain the difference (which means renaming the original file). However, unless you have a bot update all the transclusions, you'll need to have a redirect from the original name in order to not disrupt the numerous transclusions. Nosferattus (talk) 22:42, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, original file should not be renamed, see Commons:File renaming. You should of course clearly label it. It's up to the downstream users to decide which file to use. Multichill (talk) 11:54, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

January 05[edit]

Template:Taken with[edit]

I'm brining this template up because the File:Asian Highways 1 South Korea.jpg was using {{Taken with}} in the Author field of the Information template. This makes it impossible to retrieve reasonable information from those fields to present in other interfaces. As I was looking at this case, I wondered where it SHOULD go. It's documentation page says it should go into the "Source" parameter. That seems wrong to me. The template has nothing to do with where the uploader got the image from, it's plain metadata. Then the documentation page gives an example where it states that it should be in the "Other fields" of the Information template. That seems slightly better. Where do you all think this kind of metadata should go (other than in Commons Metadata). —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:41, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@TheDJ: That info was added in this edit 09:24, 9 April 2021 (UTC) by LERK. What would you do about the 140,570 transclusions?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:32, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For clarity, the information wasn't added in that edit. LERK removed "Category:Taken with..." and replaced it with the template. From Hill To Shore (talk) 14:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmm, according to the documentation, the template is also not to be used directly.. bit of a mess I'd say. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:17, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can see the logic behing having {{Taken with}} in the source field of {{Own}} photos. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 05:20, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you use Wikidata in Wikimedia sibling projects? Tell us about your experiences[edit]

Note: Apologies for cross-posting and sending in English.

Hello, the Wikidata for Wikimedia Projects team at Wikimedia Deutschland would like to hear about your experiences using Wikidata in the sibling projects. If you are interested in sharing your opinion and insights, please consider signing up for an interview with us in this Registration form.
Currently, we are only able to conduct interviews in English.

The front page of the form has more details about what the conversation will be like, including how we would compensate you for your time.

For more information, visit our project issue page where you can also share your experiences in written form, without an interview.
We look forward to speaking with you, Danny Benjafield (WMDE) (talk) 08:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Danny Benjafield (WMDE): Are you monitoring this post for answers to your question? I ask because its phrasing suggests that you posted this same text in several venues. If you’re not, then I suggest that the section title should be something like “WMDE interview about Wikidata integration” or some such, instead this misleading, spammy title. If you are, then here’s my answer: I use it to create automated interwiki links, especially between Commons categories and Wikipedia articles (in any language) — and that’s a part of Wikidata I appreciate and consider useful and well developed. The rest of Wikidata? Nah. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 05:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Eh, all Wikis have their flaws Trade (talk) 23:59, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Tuvalkin Hello and thanks for your reply and comment. Indeed the announcement was posted to nearly all Wiki Community portals to get responses from a wide cross-section of Wikimedians. What, why and how you use Wikidata in other projects is of value to us, as are the reasons why you don't. Should you like to discuss this further, please reach out to me on my Meta Talk page or the WD4WMP Discussion page. Thank you, -- Danny Benjafield (WMDE) (talk) 09:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note that Wikidata is also used by non-WMF projects. There is the fundamental problem though with incorrect and/or incomplete Wikidata information. Guido den Broeder (talk) 13:20, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree to this. Often there is false or misleading info hidden in the structured data of false and nearly always is information missing, usually including information that could have been set automatically via the file's categories for example.
I think it would be better if people wouldn't spend so much time on duplicative efforts to add structured data to files when such is already set / implyable from the file's categories. It just makes things more difficult and laborious to maintain and takes up valuable time. Instead, it would be better if these things were set (synchronized) automatically via scripts based on file (and page) categories where they can be. Currently, a lot of things can't be set (or removed and changed) automatically this way (e.g. not every image in a person category also depicts that person) but in the future they could be by leveraging machine vision where users would then only (semi-automatically) review bulk changes or do slight modifications to automatic-synchronization-changes. Wikidata could improve the quality of AI training data, search engines, and semantic/reasoning AI systems among other things also outside of WMF projects but if it was currently used it would probably decrease quality due to lots of issues with data and missing/incomplete info. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:55, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How often have mp3 and mpeg-2 been used lately?[edit]

Ever since mp3 and mpeg-2 patents have expired in the US, I was hoping that mp3 and mpeg-2 would become more popular here than webM and ogg. Why hasn't it been the case yet? Why still use webM and ogg over mp3 and mpeg-2? George Ho (talk) 18:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC) (comment moved from above)Reply[reply]

Can you explain what you want? mp3 is an audio format. webm is used nearly only for video, ogg can be oga an audio format or ogv a video format. Both ogg and webm are younger formats than mp3 and therefore superior. For audio in really good quality on commons you can use wav, opus or flac. for video in really high quality you can use webm with AV1 encoding or at least VP9, but even VP8 is much better than ogv. MP3 is often used by new users for pirated content and therefore forbidden for new users. It would be good to completely phase out mp3, mpeg2, ogg, oga, ogv and webm with VP8 or VP9 with the only exception of imported media, where any of this formats is the original format in which the media has been published and other versions in other formats have been derived from that original. C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 19:25, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, outside Commons, I really thought mp3 files have been popular due to mass use. Actually, I've not uploaded audio and video files much in this project. I've uploaded short audio clips (i.e. samples) mostly in mp3 format as mp3 is more accessible especially on mobile and more compliant with Wikipedia's policy on unfree content. Also, I really want to use popular formats that are accessible and easy to use on desktop and mobile. I assumed mp3 and mpeg2 are popular due to mass production.
But then you discussed audio quality as more important than and topped it over convenience and popularity and familiarity. If you're very concerned about superior quality, then I'd love to use VP8 and VP9 formats. However, I really want to use formats that the masses can use especially to download or stream well without compatibility issues. George Ho (talk) 11:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: for this and other reasons it would be good if files could be converted to another format in a new version. That's also the problem had (and still have) at this broken file here. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:55, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Transcodes weren't done, I reset them. Yann (talk) 12:08, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Transcodes didn't change the issue, so I reuploaded it from YT, but File:Smartphone Becomes Microscope.webm isn't in Full HD, and I don't understand why. It works fine however. Yann (talk) 13:08, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, I figured that out. Yann (talk) 13:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
MP3s aren't super popular anymore to begin with. Even with pirating music since most people do it through YouTube or sharing their Spotify accounts now. I don't know when the last time I've seen or used an MP3 file for anything though. Mpeg-2 is about the same. Although I don't really watch videos outside of streaming them. So that could just be me, but I still feel like both are super outdated. At best they are just pointless and at worst MP3s encourage piracy. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:59, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"more accessible"? Every web browser will play webm, wav, opus, flac. What mobile device that can make use of wikipedia can handle mp3 and mpeg2, but not webm, wav, flac, opus? C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 12:06, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WebM is playable on Android version of Chrome (fully) and iOS version of Safari (partially), but that varies, depending on whichever browser app version you are using. (No word about Chrome on iOS or Firefox on iOS.) Same for opus; that varies as well. The rest can run well on mobile devices. George Ho (talk) 14:31, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe you overlooked what I did write "mobile device that can make use of wikipedia" (Website, App, Kiwix App). Wikipedia comes with its own MediaPlayer. That there is software available for Android and iOS that will not work with this or that format is a different issue. If I want to create derivative works from a video or audio from commons, I will use a software that can do the job. Maybe you overlooked that you do not get the uploaded Video or audio from wikipedia but a transcoded version (and for videos that is webm (VP9) or streamed VP9 at the moment) - audio also gets transcoded and played in the MediaPlayer. Example File:I-15bis.ogv is an ogg video, if you scoll down you can see it is transcoded to VP9. C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 18:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I tested out Mediawiki's media player on Safari with one device running iOS 15 and another running iOS 12. Somehow, the player is not loading properly, or its loading time has gotten very slow and won't load content. I also tried transcluded versions, but the content still won't appear. I even tried an older version and then newest/latest version of Chrome on iOS. Same issue persists. I guess the video player works on iOS/iPadOS 16 or 17 then. George Ho (talk) 00:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Asahel Curtis[edit]

It looks like tens of thousands of previously undigitized images by Asahel Curtis will be digitized and placed online over the next year or so. The bulk of these should be in the public domain. Would anyone like to form a plan to import these as they become available? - Jmabel ! talk 21:43, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fæ can do it. Oh, wait. Hm… -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 05:10, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Tuvalkin: yeah, but lacking a time machine I'd prefer having this done by someone who currently has some involvement with Commons. I figure they are a lot more likely to get around to it.
BMacZero, Dominic, is this something either of you could do, or could suggest who would? Does either of you have access to Washington State Historical Society content? - 07:37, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel: You may ask at Commons:Batch uploading --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 21:11, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@PantheraLeo1359531: a reasonable idea, but probably premature since these are just starting to be digitized. I was hoping that one of the people who is already working with archives in the region might already have a relevant connection. - 01:33, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

January 07[edit]

References for map[edit]

Is this possible to add references to description of map? Eurohunter (talk) 08:51, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Eurohunter: not only possible but desirable. But generally the <ref> mechanism is a mess on a file page. Just list your references and (ideally) indicate roughly what you got from each of them. Also, sometimes it's useful to use an ImageNote to indicate that a particular detail came from a particular source. Feel free to come back here for review afterward, if you like. - Jmabel ! talk 17:29, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

January 08[edit]

Photo of Bunsaku Arakatsu[edit]

Hello, this photo of Bunsaku Arakatsu (this one) was taken on 1 July, 1943 by Kyodo News. Is it public domain? Because 1. It was published before 1 January 1957. 2. It was photographed before 1 January 1947. There is more info here of a different version of the same photo. -Artanisen (talk) 04:37, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, this is most probably covered by {{PD-Japan-oldphoto}}. Yann (talk) 10:52, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Selfies of "Wikipedians"[edit]

Some people post selfies here without categorizing them. As a person who likes to give pictures some meaning, I and (some others, I noticed) categorized them as "Wikipedians." The logic is simpleː by uploading a selfie, people became contributors to the project, and therefore automatically can be categorized in the Wikipedian-category. But now I have my doubts.

Roughly, we can divide the selfie-uploaders in four categoriesː

  1. Those who upload one or more selfies, and are never seen again;
  2. Those who make a selfie, use it in a Wikipedia-user-profile and are never seen again;
  3. Those who make a selfie, use it in a Wikipedia-user-profile, make a few edits on the same day, and are never seen again;
  4. Those who make a selfie, use it in a Wikipedia-user-profile, and start editing.

I would propose to use the speedy-deletion-template "db-selfie|help=off" for the selfies in first two categories, since those are only self-promomotion. Meanwhile we can keep the selfies in the latter two. We could discuss the third category, but then we might get endless discussions on how many "a few"are. What do others think about this? Regards, Jeff5102 (talk) 08:15, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Per current policy the third type should be deleted as well. However, keep in mind that people may contribute to other projects than Wikipedia. For that same reason, this may also not be the best category. Guido den Broeder (talk) 08:23, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd support that. Including deleting selfies in the third category. A few edits could easily be defined as "X amount of edits over Y time" if anyone has an issue with it. But there's no reason someone who only makes 3 or 4 edits on the same day and then is never seen again should have a selfie on their profile. Otherwise people uploading for clearly promotional purposes could just it, make a few edits, and then someone couldn't have the image deleted. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:46, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In "Media_needing_categories" I regularly see low quality Category 1 selfies. Is it worth nominating the photo for deletion and then having someone else delete it? In my opinion, the effort would be better used for more important things. Wouter (talk) 15:27, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. I'd go for "Wikimedians" rather than the more specific "Wikipedians".
  2. perUser:Wouterhagens, if there are only a couple of images from a given person, I probably wouldn't bother with the hassle of deleting. If they are uploading a ton of useless personal images, and doing nothing else, that merits the process to delete. - Jmabel ! talk 20:06, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    For me it also depends on what they write on their user page. If the only contribution is to create the user page and introduce themself as "business men" or "famous rapper" I delete the photos and the user page. If they write something about photography or open knowledge I assume that they are really interested in contributing here and would not delete anything. GPSLeo (talk) 20:53, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @GPSLeo: yeah, I'm also a lot more likely to DR if their only other action is to start a category about themselves. - Jmabel ! talk 01:13, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To me it looks like what COM:F10 is already saying, so what exactly is being proposed? An amendment to COM:F10? Supplementary information? Instructions to be added to {{Db-selfie}}? In other words, how do you intend to process the results of this discussion? --HyperGaruda (talk) 20:43, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, There was a discussion some time back about how many contributions are needed for personal images (not just selfies) to be accepted. Then there was an agreement that around 300 useful contributions across all Wikimedia are needed to consider someone active, and to accept personal images. Yann (talk) 21:20, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think that actually adding a specific number is actually wise. A user who contributes 3 (three) or 4 (four) large high quality Wikipedia articles, each launched as a single edit will seem "less active" than a user who makes 300 (three-hundred) largely cosmetic edits. Then the question is, are selfies actually that largely of an issue that they require constant deletion? Obviously personal images without any educational value of non-contributors should be actively excluded, but placing an objective number on what makes someone "a contributor" as opposed to "a non-contributor" actively promotes the idea that quantity of edits are more important than quality of edits. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 00:27, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It depends on whether you define "that large of an issue" in terms of importance or of how many there are. Even using the most conservative definition here -- categories 1 and 2 -- there are thousands and probably tens of thousands. The main value of having a number here is doing less work -- going through 50 edits to various pages that may not be in English takes a lot more time than going through 20 edits to someone's userpage.
In terms of importance, that probably comes down to how much you personally relate to the Terrible Trivium scene. Gnomingstuff (talk) 08:08, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Selfies of the third type are not eligible for speedy deletion; COM:CSD#F10 is clear to specify "no constructive global contributions". However, they could be eligible for regular COM:DR. This is for good reason, as it is often controversial how many edits are required before considering that a "user is or was an active participant on that project" (COM:INUSE). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:43, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If we start defining things, we should also define how much time we give people to return for more edits. Do we delete after a week? A month? Several months? This all feels super bureaucratic and unnecessarily so. I'd rather leave things as they are and trust the existing processes. --Kritzolina (talk) 08:30, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's kind of basic maintenance isn't it? Like take this guy. He only had three edits in 2021. Uploading a selfie and two other images are probably COPYVIO. Maybe he'll come back eventually, but so what? At least IMO 2 years and no contributions other then uploading a selfie and COPYVIO should be enough to justify just deleting the selfie. Maybe it's not necessarily and could be construed as bureaucratic, but then there's also no reason to think the user will ever actually contribute to the project in any meaningful way either. So what's the issue with deleting the selfie in that case? --Adamant1 (talk) 08:48, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This semmes to be a pretty clear cut case. Like I said - we can deal with these cases without creating new rules. But if we start creating new rules, we would need to deal with the grey areas and everything would become complicated. Kritzolina (talk) 09:28, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Currently, if a new user creates an account and uploads a selfie a minute later, that selfie becomes immediately eligible for F10 (and I do in fact see taggers applying this criterion this way in practice). I think this is unnecessarily BITEy, and we should give them time to become a productive user. I suggest making F10 a "delayed" criteron similar to F5; the uploader will have 7 days to rectify the situation by either 1) using the image on a page that is not a user page or talk page; or 2) becoming a constructive contributor. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:28, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Would support this (and apologies if I've mistagged anything in this way) Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:23, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Types of files covered[edit]

I'd like to start a new thread on a different issue. Currently, it says "F10. Personal photos by non-contributors: Low-to-medium quality selfies and other personal images of or by users who have no constructive global contributions." I often see other types of files such as PDF resumes which ought to be speedily deletable but technically do not qualify. Also, if some notable person uploads a selfie and adds it to their Wikipedia article, we shouldn't speedily delete that. May I suggest a revision: "F10. Personal files by non-contributors: Low-to-medium quality selfies and other personal files of or by users who have no constructive global contributions, which are not legitimately in use." -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:37, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Support Yes, obvious out-of-scope files should be covered under F10. Yann (talk) 10:49, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Support.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:07, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Support --Adamant1 (talk) 12:14, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Comment I deleted such kind of files unter the G10 (advertisement) criterion. With the proposed change F10 and G10 would basically become the same. We could make this change and then use G10 for pages only and F10 for files. GPSLeo (talk) 12:46, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Support Makes sense. Signatures are another common offender here, as are professional photos that aren't "selfies" but out of scope. Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:24, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Add SVGZ support[edit]

As title, since this can make uploading and downloading an SVG file somewhat faster.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:49, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please file such requests on https://phabricator.wikimedia.org. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:37, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Downloads already use on the fly compression.. This isnt really needed and im pretty sure we already declined this request at some point in the past. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:03, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Second TheDJ.
I doubt this would make any difference in upload or download: the transfers are compressed using gzip.
Furthermore, I do not want Commons to save SVGZ files natively. They are XML files, so they should be saved in the (inflated) XML format.
Glrx (talk) 20:26, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, I see.--RekishiEJ (talk) 04:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

January 09[edit]

Expedite cfd[edit]

i'd like to draw your attention to Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/01/Category:Hua Guofeng era and expedite the deletion discussion, because these categories lead to overly broad cat trees under these persons' categories. RZuo (talk) 10:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just to be clear: RZuo made this request here four minutes after starting the discussion, so this is presumably a request for participation, not for closure. - Jmabel ! talk 19:27, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help with translation[edit]

I’ve taken a stab at translating the description of File:Veduta generale di Sydney.jpg but it’s not quite right. In particular, I do t know what “sai mesi” might mean, can anyone help? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 13:38, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Mesi" = "months", "sai" seems to mean something like "as you know, ". Guido den Broeder (talk) 15:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It may be a spelling error as "sei" means 6. So "sei mesi" is "6 months." From Hill To Shore (talk) 17:13, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

January 10[edit]

Reusing references: Can we look over your shoulder?[edit]

Apologies for writing in English.

The Technical Wishes team at Wikimedia Deutschland is planning to make reusing references easier. For our research, we are looking for wiki contributors willing to show us how they are interacting with references.

  • The format will be a 1-hour video call, where you would share your screen. More information here.
  • Interviews can be conducted in English, German or Dutch.
  • Compensation is available.
  • Sessions will be held in January and February.
  • Sign up here if you are interested.
  • Please note that we probably won’t be able to have sessions with everyone who is interested. Our UX researcher will try to create a good balance of wiki contributors, e.g. in terms of wiki experience, tech experience, editing preferences, gender, disability and more. If you’re a fit, she will reach out to you to schedule an appointment.

We’re looking forward to seeing you, Thereza Mengs (WMDE)

Duplicate categories for Chinese characters[edit]

Why do we have Category:八 (numeral) in addition to Category:八? The former contains such images as File:Emblem of Nagoya, Aichi.svg (which at least in en:Nagoya is not connected to the number, except maybe through the mention of 八寸名古屋帯), while the latter contains file:012 - ba1 - eight.svg and file:China Emblem PLA.svg, which obviously are. Most other images in the latter category appear to represent the number, too. See e.g. the description for File:ACC-b00933.svg. ◅ Sebastian Helm 🗨 13:00, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Guideline for Student Online Participation[edit]

Disagreements should be kept healthy: When a diverse group of students interact, some of the students may have different views. It is important to respect the views of all the participants. Refrain from personal issues and the use of inappropriate language during discussions. Express disagreements in a constructive manner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeldawildschut (talk • contribs) 19:20, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Zeldawildschut: and you are posting this on the Village pump because… - Jmabel ! talk 19:37, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should files have "panoramio" in their names?[edit]

I've seen a lot of files like File:白山神社（新潟市） Hakusan jinja - panoramio.jpg with panoramio in their names. I think this is related to the original image source.

With that in mind should they be moved as per criteria 2:

An example given is "File:Flickr - law keven - Anybody know a Good Dentist^......Happy Furry Friday Everybody...-O))).jpg (no relation to file content) -> File:Lion-tailed Macaque, Colchester Zoo, England.jpg" but that one is a lot longer than these ones. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 22:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wouldn't move them just to remove "panoramio" from the filename. However, if there is another reason to move the file (such as correcting errors), the "panoramio" should be removed from the filename during that move. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:06, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Concur with Pi.1415926535. It's an accurate indication of source, there's nothing terribly wrong with it, but it's not particularly a plus. - Jmabel ! talk 01:31, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Immanuelle: Agreeing with the above, I'd just mention that criterion 2 applies to the file name as a whole. In this case, "白山神社（新潟市） Hakusan jinja" adequately describes what the picture shows and so criterion 2 doesn't apply. The presence of spurious words in the name doesn't change that. --bjh21 (talk) 13:32, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

January 11[edit]

Description of files[edit]

Hello, anybody hanging around who might be able to clarify what to do with for example the text (describing the text in today's English)? Keeping the original text is not would make it easier to retrace texts, and on the other hand, the actualized English would make it more comprehensible. Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 09:28, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looking at the source text, it was written using en:Long s (ſ). The OCR capture of the scanned text has recorded those characters as "f" (as the computer couldn't distinguish between ſ and f) which is what was inserted into our description here. The text has now been updated to replace "f" with "s". Retaining "f" is clearly wrong as that wasn't correct English either then or now. The choice then is between using "ſ" to preserve the original text or "s" to reflect modern uses of font sets. I'd suggest using the "s" to be of more use to a modern audience - those interested in the original text can always refer to the source file. From Hill To Shore (talk) 10:17, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Y're a star From Hill To Shore I should have brought my question to the village pump earlier, but then again, I do not want to be too much of a hassle to all of you. Cheers. Lotje (talk) 10:21, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

copyright whitelist[edit]

I asked some weeks ago about the licenses status of archive.org magazine rack collections.

The answer I got was that it is up to me to do research on the license status.

This answer is not satisfactory. A project such as this here would do good to keep a list of collections that are ok to use. There are several compelling advantages:

1. Entries in the whitelist will be more competently researched. Such an entry will exist for years, while my own research for one image will last a couple of minutes or it will not be worth it.

2. It allows work to be done by users that don't want to invest into a crash course in copyright law. As I understand, commons expects its users to do just that, even though it would not be necessary.

3. An entry in the whitelist can be referenced by a file. If the entry is found to be in error, files that were uploaded in error can be tracked down. This list would then also serve as a service to license holders and it provides a place were they can go on record with their claim. Nowakki (talk) 09:44, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is not possible to produce a whitelist of the copyright status of magazines. A magazine is a collection of works all potentially subject to their own licensing and copyright situation. Because Commons policy is that we require files to be suitably licensed (or out of copyright) in both the country of first publication and the US, it is not possible to set a universal rule. Sure, you may find that the September 1940 edition of a US magazine didn't follow copyright registration correctly and therefore should be PD, but that same magazine could include copies of photographs first published in London and subject to UK copyright. You must examine the situation of each file individually and articulate a rationale for upload. It is not possible to create a shortcut process to absolve uploaders from having to think. From Hill To Shore (talk) 09:55, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
1. But it is possible to create a whitelist for the first step: determining the copyright status of the magazine itself.
2. If such a magazine follows the policy of tagging works under copyright protection where and when they are published, that could be mentioned in the whitelist and then the list would cover steps one and two. Also true for content that is clearly an own product of the magazine staff. Nowakki (talk) 10:11, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But then your suggestion is no longer a "white" list where everything is safe from copyright but a "grey" list where the answers are ambiguous and people will still need to conduct the same research. As uploaders will continue to require an understanding of copyright principles, I think Commons' approach on providing guidance on copyright principles is the right one. Feel free to work on your list if you want but it will be a herculean effort for limited benefit - it will all come back to the principles. From Hill To Shore (talk) 10:26, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If a magazine publishes images without a copyright notice and without stating the author, how am I supposed to determine the copyright status? Nowakki (talk) 13:32, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is the difficulty we all face as volunteers at this project. We find a file we think is useful to upload, we consider the circumstances and apply the copyright principles set out in our guidance. If we think we have a clear justification and can meet COM:PCP then we upload and include all relevant details in the file information. Many times we conclude that we don't have enough information to continue the upload and the file is never added to Commons. Sometimes we do upload but get things wrong; the consensus of a deletion discussion may decide that the file should be deleted. We can think of improvements to the guidance we offer but there are no easy answers here. From Hill To Shore (talk) 13:56, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What about: "The copyright owner can request the file be removed".
That's not on COM:PCP. The copyright holder has that legal obligation, does he not? Of course assuming good faith, which would amount to:
1. Magazine issue is not protected
2. no copyright tag or author next to the image or anywhere else in the issue.
I don't know how frequently commons received complaints, feel free to give me some insight into that end of the process. Nowakki (talk) 14:18, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Nowakki: I would suggest that rather than creating a list, a better approach is to document your research in the category page for the magazine in question. See Category:Time Magazine for an example. The category is naturally linked to and from the corresponding files, and is where people uploading new issues are likely to be looking anyway. The only thing this lacks from your proposal is bundling multiple magazines together into a list, but I don't think that's particularly useful. --bjh21 (talk) 12:52, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your recommendation is to do it informally and haphazardly. And for me as an amateur to do it myself.
I think the problem should be solved professionally and systematically. Until then i will just do something else than upload files. Nowakki (talk) 13:34, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Nowakki: "Your recommendation is to do it informally and haphazardly. And for me as an amateur to do it myself." Erm, yes. Welcome to Wikimedia Commons (and the wider Wikimedia community), where a bunch of amateurs do things informally and haphazardly. If you wanted formal professionalism, I fear you've come to the wrong place. --bjh21 (talk) 13:45, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The software we are using was not written by amateurs.
There are people who have been with the wiki projects for over 10 years.
Even if the above was not true, something approaching professionalism well enough can be created by a large enough number of amateurs. Nowakki (talk) 13:58, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nowakki people would have to add the information to a whitelist anyway. So it's not having one would be any less work. At least not in the short term. Although it would be good information to have and it makes me wonder anyone has created such a list before. Do you know of any examples? --Adamant1 (talk) 14:20, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do not and the list could have been started years ago and we would not be having this conversation. Nowakki (talk) 14:24, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is that something your interested in working on (maybe with other people) or are you mainly just here to criticize the project for not having one sooner? --Adamant1 (talk) 15:00, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just to criticize.
The project has to be efficient, no?
Think of me as a hobbyist auditor if you want. I am just asking questions. Nowakki (talk) 15:24, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I mean, sure. But it doesn't just magically become that way and there's a lot of different areas to work in on here. Anyway, I was going to suggest starting a Wikiproject for magazine, since it's an underserved area already, and going from there. It doesn't sound like that's something you'd be interested in though. I will say that it's a lot easier to find out what's copyrighted or not just by organizing images related to the topic. You can't really know what is or isn't copyrighted if you (or anyone else) isn't working in the area and keeping track to begin with. There is lot of ways to document and track those things just through editing in the area though. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:47, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If it's a magazine from the United States you can probably just look at one from a year in say the 60s and if there's no copyright notice then it's reasonable to assume issues before that one won't have a notice either. The same goes for in the other direction to. Like if an issue from 1954 has a notice then the ones after most likely will also. That can narrow it down some. It's not like you have check every page either. Just the first couple, which should be trivial if your manually uploading them anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:57, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You should check every page. For one, there's a long list of places where a copyright notice can be, including the last page of the main work. Secondly, individual works can have their own notices. Works without notice are pretty rare, and each work should be checked individually when uploading.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
https://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/cce/firstperiod.html offers a list of many periodicals and information about renewals in them. It's long and complex. Generally speaking, you can use US publications from before 1929, but after that it gets complex.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:53, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I mean, sure. There could be a copyright notice in the middle of the magazine, but realistically what's the possibility that there is one (at least for the magazine itself, which is what I was talking about)? I look at it like a "due diligence" thing. It's totally reasonable IMO to look at the first and last few pages of the magazine for a copyrighted and then upload it if there isn't one. That's at least better then nothing. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:53, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

January 12[edit]

Photo challenge November results[edit]

Congratulations to Debanutosh, Shougissime, Foeniz, Changku88 and Ibex73 Jarekt (talk) 03:25, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you Foeniz (talk) 10:12, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Commented out, as this is again forcing horizontal scrolling for the entire page. I thought that had been fixed, but apparently not. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:46, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Something’s wrong with SteinsplitterBot[edit]

See Special:Contributions/SteinsplitterBot, Special:ListFiles/SteinsplitterBot, and Category:Images requiring rotation by bot... --RodRabelo7 (talk) 15:53, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Today's MotD[edit]

This probably isn't the right place for this, but today's Media of the day File:A Case of Spring Fever (1940).webm, seems to be blatant copyright infringement of an episode of Mystery Science Theater 3000. While the original film (File:CaseofSp1940.ogv) is public domain, the MST3K content isn't and doesn't seem to be even mentioned in the files description. Am I missing something here? Many thanks. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 15:57, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agree, the MST3K commentary and additions would still be copyrighted. -- William Graham (talk) 19:26, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Yann: .--RZuo (talk) 20:42, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OOPS. I didn't realize that this is not part of the original. I will replace this by another version. Yann (talk) 21:15, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
✓ Done I will upload an even better version tomorrow. Yann (talk) 21:58, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DIY copy stands[edit]

I seem to recall one of our chapters (Wikimedia Indonesia?) published plans for a simple DIY copy stand. I can't find, them in Category:Copy stands or by searching. Can anyone oblige, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:40, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Checkuserblock[edit]

these blocks often have a summary of "Abusing multiple accounts: {{Checkuserblock}}".

i wonder if it might be better to actually link to a page that explains what it is. something like 

Abusing multiple accounts: Checkuserblock.

--RZuo (talk) 20:42, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Which, for anyone not looking at the source, is "Abusing multiple accounts: [[Template:Checkuserblock|Checkuserblock]]". - Jmabel ! talk 22:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, the template is used to display the detailed reason in the block notice. See this for an example. Hide on Rosé (talk) 04:04, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Hide on Rosé: The question wasn't about the block notice, it was about the summary given. Templates are not expanded in summaries. Presumably, RZuo's point was that he would prefer us to write the summary in a manner that would create a live link to the template. (I'm not sure if that's a good idea, but your remark seems orthogonal to that.) - Jmabel ! talk 07:44, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You mean like this? Hide on Rosé (talk) 07:52, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, that would actually be useful! - Jmabel ! talk 18:39, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

January 13[edit]

Mass rename requests[edit]

I have another 50,000+ to rename.

Prior advice i got was to state in the {{rename template that no redirect should be left behind.

I feel reluctant to go ahead and flood the queue again. People working on it are real troopers, over 10,000 requests have already been approved and the effort is ongoing (despite the action being voted against).

Or should I wait until they figure out how to write scripts?

FIles in question are recently uploaded with wrong filename. Sanborn maps using year, volume instead of volume, year. Whatever inconsistency exists in Sanborn file names, it is not necessary to keep this one. Nowakki (talk) 05:42, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm confused, and seem to get more confused rather than less as this proceeds.
  1. Is there any reason names of maps from this particular source all need to follow a single pattern? Not that it wouldn't be nice, but as you presumably know, there are all sorts of issues with mass renames.
  2. Unless there is a reason they all need to follow a single pattern, why would year, volume be any less useful than volume, year? - Jmabel ! talk 07:47, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You'd have to keep track which file uses which format when processing the files.
For example when generating an index, when writing an application that uses commons
as a data source. Nowakki (talk) 10:21, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you're processing files from Commons, you should avoid assuming any particular filename format. Much better to do something based on the description page or structured data. For instance, if I want to find the Commons file corresponding to a particular image from Geograph Britain and Ireland, I can look up the corresponding sort key in Category:Images from Geograph Britain and Ireland and I'll find it no matter what naming scheme the uploader has used. This isn't always possible (for instance if you're writing a MediaWiki template), but even then a redirect is usually good enough. --bjh21 (talk) 17:09, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If the filenames are strict and all that searching becomes unnecessary that would be better.
Imagine you upload one book as 500 images, one per page. Do you include the page number in the filename or do you put it into the description only? Finding a page only requires to search through 250 descriptions on average and users will be happy to put up with an extra layer of nonsense and be more likely to write the application or process the files automatically?
If somebody does the work to make it better, why not allow it to be made better? Nowakki (talk) 18:10, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposal to globally ban Guido den Broeder[edit]

Hi, this is to let you all know that there is a proposal to ban User:Guido den Broeder at m:Requests for comment/Global ban for Guido den Broeder. You are receiving this notification as Guido den Broeder has made at least one edit to this wiki as per the m:Global bans policy. Best, --SHB2000 (talk) 05:44, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help with categorizing[edit]

File:NO CAPTION LCCN2016891007.jpg
File:NO CAPTION LCCN2016891007.jpg

In what kind of device the person speaks on the right? GeorgHH • talk   13:42, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It may be a dictating machine similar to the Ediphone. From Hill To Shore (talk) 14:58, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looking through various images in Category:Phonographs it is definitely a cylinder-type phonograph. From Hill To Shore (talk) 15:12, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks good. thank you very much for your help. GeorgHH • talk   17:16, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And in this context it would certainly have been being used for dictation. - Jmabel ! talk 18:40, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --GeorgHH • talk   17:17, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Upload Wizard wording[edit]

In the section "Please select the option that best describes the purpose of this work" of the Upload Wizard, the options are

  • This work provides knowledge, instructions, or information to others.
  • This work is for my personal use e.g. photos of myself, my family or friends, or I am required to upload it for my job.

Neither of these, to my mind, seems to absolutely capture the idea of a "free media repository", as Wikimedia Commons is described. I suggest that some wording such as "a resource for others to use" is added to the first option. ITookSomePhotos (talk) 19:02, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump&oldid=841204676"