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
Welcome to the Village pump

This page is used for discussions of the operations, technical issues, and policies of Wikimedia Commons. Recent sections with no replies for 7 days and sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=--~~~~}} may be archived; for old discussions, see the archives; the latest archive is Commons:Village pump/Archive/2025/01.

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 Greenland 16 6 MB-one 2025-01-25 17:11
2 Upload wizard issues? 15 7 Rhododendrites 2025-01-23 23:59
3 Dispute resolution on whether images are AI upscaled 11 7 Belbury 2025-01-21 10:15
4 FlickreviewR 2 user talk redirect 4 3 MGA73 2025-01-26 08:51
5 Line art 3 2 Pigsonthewing 2025-01-27 12:34
6 Template:Cities of Ukraine 9 6 Jmabel 2025-01-22 03:28
7 New photos of Donald Trump 4 2 Moxy 2025-01-21 05:18
8 video2commons 15 6 Omphalographer 2025-01-24 01:50
9 Odd CropTool behavior 3 1 Jmabel 2025-01-22 22:08
10 Personality rights tag for deceased people 4 2 Jeff G. 2025-01-22 16:02
11 Licensing different than Structured data 3 3 RoyZuo 2025-01-27 23:09
12 Need explanation of feature 5 3 Tvpuppy 2025-01-23 19:47
13 Permission to overwrite files not uploaded by me 5 3 Jmabel 2025-01-23 16:54
14 Preventing non-confirmed users from uploading files as "free" 1 1 George Ho 2025-01-23 11:11
15 Photo challenge November results 1 1 Jarekt 2025-01-23 19:33
16 Vector 2022 will be the default skin 1 1 SGrabarczuk (WMF) 2025-01-24 01:06
17 Universal Code of Conduct annual review: provide your comments on the UCoC and Enforcement Guidelines 1 1 Keegan (WMF) 2025-01-24 01:10
18 Notification of DMCA takedown demand — Polar Bear on Wrangel Island 1 1 JSutherland (WMF) 2025-01-24 01:17
19 That boot is stubborn 3 3 ReneeWrites 2025-01-24 11:09
20 Category Photographs taken on ۲۰۲۱-۱۰-۱۲ 4 3 Wouterhagens 2025-01-24 11:28
21 Feedback needed on our new proposed changes to UploadWizard 2 2 Sardaka 2025-01-27 10:48
22 Duration of playing MIDI-Files at Wikimedia Commons 1 1 Hogü-456 2025-01-24 20:02
23 Would like to start a new catagory 2 2 Jmabel 2025-01-26 03:13
24 Suggest cc-zero instead of PD-self 6 4 RoyZuo 2025-01-27 23:01
25 Uploads 5 3 RoyZuo 2025-01-27 22:52
26 DIY copystand design 4 4 RoyZuo 2025-01-27 22:47
27 Upcoming Commons conversation about impact and funding model on February 5 10 9 RoyZuo 2025-01-27 22:38
28 Now that the Taliban is back in power should Afghanistan still be considered part of Berne-World? 5 5 Abzeronow 2025-01-27 19:36
29 Best practices for adding civility to Commons policies? 2 2 Nosferattus 2025-01-27 22:26
30 Template search category by 1 1 RoyZuo 2025-01-28 02:29
Legend
  • In the last hour
  • In the last day
  • In the last week
  • In the last month
  • More than one month
Manual settings
When exceptions occur,
please check the setting first.
Thatched water pump at Aylsham, Norfolk [add]
Centralized discussion
See also: Village pump/Proposals   ■ Archive
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.

January 09

Greenland

The games have begun. In advance of the ground invasion, the softening up of the landscape is currently underway. By this I mean the de-legitimisation of Greenland as a constituent country of Denmark. The excuse is that Greenland is not a part of Denmark, it's a part of the Kingdom of Denmark. I noticed it first at Category:Churches in Greenland. No doubt further sapping is taking place elsewhere. Predictably, the discussion with the editor (@Hjart: ) got nowhere. Can someone say "Stop!" please? Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if I understand the reasoning here: Greenland being a constituent country in the larger Kingdom of Denmark and co-equal to metropolitan Denmark is more legitimate (or whatever) than Greenland just being a part of Denmark. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, you're correct. But practically speaking, it would be a nightmare to implement. Every category of Denmark would have to have a parallel category for Kingdom of Denmark. Massive duplication for no practical benefit. To most readers, they would not understand the difference. The same would then have to be done for the Kingdom of the Netherlands and others. At the very least, it merits a discussion, not unilateral action that smacks of vandalism or POV-pushing. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Denmark and Kingdom of Denmark definitely needs to be split. Another reason is that Faeroe and Greenland are no members of the EU but making them part of Denmark and not the Kingdom of Denmark makes them part of the EU. The category tree Category:Kingdom of Denmark already exists. GPSLeo (talk) 17:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's all true. But who's going to do the work of creating many thousands or near-duplicate categories? Simply unilaterally breaking the parentage by deleting Denmark from all Greenland categories is not a solution; it's closer to vandalism IMHO. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think that this affects many thousand categories? This change only affects the higher level categories which are at most 2000 for a depth of 3. GPSLeo (talk) 20:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to @MB-one: for fixing Category:Churches in the Kingdom of Denmark. One down, 1999 to go. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@@MB-one and Laurel Lodged: But is that really a fix? When Category:Churches in the Kingdom of Denmark is a subcategory of Category:Buildings in North America it means all buildings in Denmark (the part in Europe) is now a placed under North America. And if you want Category:Kingdom of Denmark to be a part of North America then perhaps start by fixing the category. And should Category:Buildings in the United Kingdom also not be a part of North America? --MGA73 (talk) 06:31, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What's the alternative? That Greenland should have neither Denmark nor the Kingdom of Denmark as its parent? Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:26, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The multiple continent problem occurs with many countries and we have many similar inaccuracies at many places. This is something our category system can not handle. GPSLeo (talk) 20:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If we really wanted to model this cleanly we'd have a hierarchy something like:
       Europe          Kingdom of Denmark     North America
           \                   |                   /
            \                  |                  /
             \                / \                /
              \______________/   \______________/
                     |                  |
                     |                  |
                  Denmark,           Greenland
                Faroe Islands
Then handle the Kingdom of Denmark would be treated as an institution rather than a geographical entity. This one is actually a lot easier than (for example) Russia, because there are uncontroversial names for the entities in question. - Jmabel ! talk 21:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, FWIW: many of our category inheritance relations are not simply "is-a" or "is part of" relationships. This is especially obvious when we go through metacats along the way, which are essentially a way to label the relationship between their parent category and their child category. - Jmabel ! talk 21:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@GPSLeo I agree that it will be almost impossible to fix all these inaccuracies with the current category system. But blatant errors like these can and should be fixed. Greenland is clearly a part of the Kingdom of Denmark and in North America but also Denmark (the country) is clearly not in North America. The solution IMO should be that "x in the Kingdom of Denmark wont be categorized neither as x in North America nor as x in Europe, as the continental categorization will be handled on the constituent country level. MB-one (talk) 09:20, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MGA73 Thank you for bringing that to my attention. Churches in the Kingdom of Denmark should clearly NOT be a subcategory of Buildings in North America. The problem seems to be {{Topic in country}}, which should be fixed asap. MB-one (talk) 09:06, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See also Template_talk:Topic_in_country#Kingdom_of_Denmark --MB-one (talk) 09:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MGA73 The problem has magically disappeared. MB-one (talk) 17:11, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Upload wizard issues?

Was there a recent update to the Upload Wizard? Starting this morning or last night, when I try to upload a batch of files, it takes me through the upload and rights steps as expected, but the describe step only includes one file. I've tried this with different size batches and different photos. Mentioning this issue on Discord, it sounds like I may not be the only one affected? — Rhododendrites talk |  21:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I too am having difficulties with Upload Wizard. After filling out the first page (including adding a specific public-domain tag) the process does not continue to the next page. Instead a moving stripe pattern is added to the field I filled out to add a specific public-domain tag. It goes no further. This has happened today on both an iPhone and Windows computer, Safari and Chrome. Jacqke (talk) 02:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Sannita (WMF). - Jmabel ! talk 02:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I already mentioned it at Commons:Upload Wizard feedback --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 11:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rhododendrites @Jacqke Hi, thanks for reporting. No, AFAIK we didn't do any change to UploadWizard in the last three weeks, due to code freeze for the holidays. There is one patch incoming on the known bug about missing information about error, but again AFAIK it has not been merged yet, and should go up next week. Can you please open a bug on Phabricator and put me as a subscriber? Let me know. Sannita (WMF) (talk) 15:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have also encountered the same bug as @Rhododendrites, filed it as phab:T383508. And the custom license tags issue is already at phab:T383415 (although perhaps they have the same underlying cause). the wub "?!" 00:23, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am still unable to load using the Wizard, from Chrome on Windows and on iOS 17.5. Still having the "Add a specific public domain tag" field filled with stripe pattern. Jacqke (talk) 00:51, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When I switched to "author has been dead for 70 years", it advanced to the next page. Jacqke (talk) 00:55, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Found that removing the "Description" field from the Exif data allowed me to upload multiple files at once again. the wub "?!" 12:15, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rhododendrites @PantheraLeo1359531 @Jacqke @The wub @Jmabel A patch for this is incoming. It should be on the next deployment train, which means it will be up by Wednesday. Sannita (WMF) (talk) 16:07, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Thanks! — Rhododendrites talk |  16:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's good :) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 16:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Jacqke (talk) 21:52, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, -- Ooligan (talk) 21:55, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
Huzzah! — Rhododendrites talk |  23:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 14

January 15

Dispute resolution on whether images are AI upscaled

Paper9oll's 2,218 × 2,160 still
Per later comments in this thread, Paper9oll has now replaced this image with a lower-resolution version. Their original 2,218 × 2,160 still is here.
My 1,103 × 1,080 attempt to capture the same

(I raised a thread at the help desk for this last week, but only got a couple of short responses and realise that this may have been the wrong forum for it.)

I recently flagged many of User:Paper9oll's uploaded YouTube video stills as looking to me like obvious AI upscales, but in a subsequent discussion on their talk page they said that they were simply downloading the original videos and capturing frames from them, and don't believe the images to be upscaled, or agree with me that they even look upscaled, and don't know what else to say.

An example upload is shown. To the left is the image Paper9oll uploaded, to the right is my own attempt to capture the same still from the same video.

Paper9oll's image is twice the resolution (larger even than the highest resolution of the original video that YouTube will serve me) and does seem to show clear signs of AI upscaling which aren't discernable in the original. In general, the face has a much higher resolution than her hand and clothes, which are about the same in each image - this is typical of AI upscalers like MyHeritage that are designed for use on portrait photos. Across the subject's forehead, individual hairs are visible (with an unusual pinstripe pattern on the rest of the hair), but below the level of her chin the hair instantly drops to the same low resolution blur as in my image.

Would other users agree that these look AI upscaled, and should be flagged as such? (Such a decision is significant because it means that the images couldn't be used on the English Wikipedia.) My best faith assumption is that Paper9oll is obliviously using some software that's automatically upscaling the extracted stills. Belbury (talk) 09:39, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is 100% upscaled with AI. If the image was an ultra-high resolution still of the original video, it would be consistently sharp across the board, but it isn't. The eyes, eye wrinkles. lips and strands of hair are incredibly sharp but details outside of that specific area turn wobbly. The right eye of the upscaled image looks in a slightly different direction, and has a slightly different color from the original. ReneeWrites (talk) 10:15, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not too thrilled with having the same discussion a second time, but since the OP is repeating everything they said before, I'll do the same, albeit more briefly. Looks AI to me: highlights on three fingers of her right hand made to look more like fingernails on the wrong side of the finger; skin looks like it has been through some sort of "cosmetic" filter; I could list more, but I think that is enough. - Jmabel ! talk 20:46, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's entirely possible that you're both right - that whatever tools they used to download the video and display it on their computer are doing some sort of "smart" upscaling without their knowledge. But if that's the case, the proper solution will be to use a video player which can capture a frame directly (like VLC - "Video" menu → "Snapshot") rather than going through the intermediate step of a screenshot. Omphalographer (talk) 21:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be AI. There is a waffle- like pattern around the lips and it also affects the margins of the lips. Also, the hair has artificially larger strands with a diffent color tone, roughly equally spaced. I think, this is what you call "an unusual pinstripe pattern." Please, flag this altered image appropriately. Also, the uploader stated that there was a higher quality video on YouTube that they originally had access to, but is no longer available. As with other files sources, it should be verifiable. -- Ooligan (talk) 23:46, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just to needlessly reiterate what other people have already said, these images are clearly AI. The main tell for me is how the hair is smoothed out in Paper9oll's image but not the second one. Just taking a screenshot of a video wouldn't do that. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The distortions are easily visible on images such as File:Jung Yoo-min at 2019 KBS Drama Awards on 311219 (1).png as well. CMD (talk) 09:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Paper9oll has now put the 68 images that I initially tagged as upscaled into a DR at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by User:Paper9oll, referencing this pump discussion. --Belbury (talk) 09:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to Paper9oll we're just en:WP:casting aspersions. Go figure. I've said it before, but the project really needs to stop pandering to uploaders so much. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:25, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Paper9oll has now said on their DR that they will reupload some of these images with "the current available resolution" (they have said that some of their images were taken from 4K versions of videos which no longer exist on YouTube), and is in the process of doing so "over the coming days". This includes the image at the top of this thread, which now looks the same as my version, without any of the issues discussed above. So fair enough, whatever their current export process is, it is not upscaling the images.

It's unclear whether they intend to do this to all of their upscaled-looking uploads: the strikethroughs on the DR suggest that where an image came from a 4K source they don't consider it to be upscaled, even though a still like File:Yoona at 2nd Blue Dragon Series Awards on 190723 (6).png very much appears to be (and does not match the detail of the 4K video, when I view it; it's twice the resolution, has the same wispy hair thing going on, and the background banner text is blobby).

I'll see where things are when Paper9oll has finished overwriting files. --Belbury (talk) 16:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given the clear consensus above (and only a mild "not obviously AI-y to me" on the original help desk thread), I've now reviewed this user's upload history and flagged 118 of their files as AI-upscaled under the discussed criteria above (eg. the pinstripe hair going blurry below the face again on File:Jessica Jung for Vogue Taiwan on 20032021 (4).png, compared to an unprocessed still File:Jessica Jung for Vogue Taiwan on 20032021 (6).png from the same video).
Paper9oll has asked not to be notified of further discussions about this issue, so I have not pinged them. Belbury (talk) 10:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 16

January 17

FlickreviewR 2 user talk redirect

User:FlickreviewR 2 is an essential service, but its developer has retired since 2020. I took the liberty to watch his user talk for over 4 years now and answer questions as much as i could, but now i stop. perhaps the bot user talk should redirect to a community page so that future questions posted will be noticed by more users? RoyZuo (talk) 16:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it will make sense to redirect to somewhere else. The question is where. And its great that you watched and answered questions. Thanks. --MGA73 (talk) 07:42, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe COM:HD? --Stefan2 (talk) 17:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. --MGA73 (talk) 08:51, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 18

January 19

Line art

drawing of a tree

The header of Category:Line art says "Line art is any image that consists of distinct straight and curved lines placed against a (usually plain) background, without gradations in shade (darkness) or hue (color) to represent two-dimensional or three-dimensional objects."

However, the category and its subcats include many images with gradations in shade (example above).

Which interpretation is correct?

If the example is correctly categorised, can someone show an example of a monochrome pencil drawing that would not be included? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:24, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the same user had identified File:CHE Hofstetten-Flüh Flag.svg as an instance of "line art" as well, though I cannot see how this image would qualify as such. The image consists principally of large regions of color not separated by lines. The only line surrounds the star shape near the top. I do not think this is sufficient to consider the image to be "line art". --EncycloPetey (talk) 12:24, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[restored from archive]

What is to be done about this? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:34, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 20

Template:Cities of Ukraine

I propose to leave in Template:Cities of Ukraine only cities that are regional centers and cities with a population of over 100 thousand people. In total, there are over 400 cities in Ukraine and adding all the cities of Ukraine is too expensive for the template. The criterion of importance of cities is too subjective and is not found in any other similar template on Wikimedia Commons or English Wikipedia (Template:Cities of Turkey, Template:Cities of North Macedonia, Template:US cities, Template:Cities in Slovenia, Template:Cities of Estonia, Template:Cities of Iraq). Mitte27 (talk) 23:04, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Микола Василечко. Well very well (talk) 11:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See also Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/05/Template:US cities#Template:US cities for a somewhat similar discussion. Well very well (talk) 11:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think there could be these types of criteria:
  1. Regional centers — we definitely include all of them in any case,
  2. Cities with population more than XX/YY most populous cities — the same but just with different cutoffs, currently "city with population more than 100 thousands/47 most populous cities". We could try a bit expanding it for "50 most populous cities" or even "100 most populous cities" as done in US template (but probably... there are significantly less categories on Commons for Ukraine cities than US ones).
  3. "Important"/notable cities. I'm not sure whether this is a good criterion — probably the template should include cities, for which there is a high probability of categories existing — and I doubt that for Chornobyl/Pripyat, despite how notable they are, there are many categories on Commons. Also, we have many categories for cities of Ternopil Oblast despite probably most of them aren't very notable — but probably be better on the template because of having many categories.
  4. Cities having more than XX categories on Commons. Probably there wouldn't be many problems with cutoff here (I think that for most cities there are either <5 categories or >10-15 of them). And probably every Ternopil Oblast city will satisfy this criterion.
We should discuss which of these criteria should be used for the template and with what cutoffs.
(Also I would like to suggest that after the discussion will be finished I will conduct a bot run "fixing" inclusions of Cities and Regions of Ukraine templates — i.e. placing them where they weren't placed and removing where they shouldn't be placed.) Well very well (talk) 11:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think navigation templates with something like cities as geographic objects are not a good idea. Such templates should better use administrative regions like districts or municipalities without splitting between urban and rural. GPSLeo (talk) 13:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
+1. There's a lot of situations where they are impossible to use as a navigational aid due to how their designed and they usually take up way to much room on the top of the page anyway. At the end of the day their just pointless extra noise. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
-1. No, they are used frequently. For example, in categories like Category:Sports clubs in Kharkiv. Well very well (talk) 16:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They're often a symptom of overwrought category structures. If a small set of closely related categories are so widely separated in the category tree that you need a template to navigate between them, that category tree might need to be redesigned. Omphalographer (talk) 21:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with that last. It's a much smoother navigation than the category tree, especially for people who are not particularly into Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 03:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New photos of Donald Trump

For some reason the software that catches the same file being uploaded multiple times isn't working in the specific case.

we can assume there's others and crop version of many of these

Moxy (talk) 23:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate detection only works for files which are completely identical. These images are all slightly different (different resolutions, file formats, adjusted colors, etc) - MediaWiki doesn't attempt to detect that kind of duplication. Omphalographer (talk) 23:34, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wow.... I guess there's a lot of manual cleanup for you guys.... I see two more just uploaded. Moxy (talk) 23:42, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They need proper guidelines at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Donald Trump 2025 inaugural potrait.png Moxy (talk) 05:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 22

video2commons

Why is being logged into YouTube suddenly a requirement now?--Trade (talk) 03:36, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Trade: What makes you ask?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 05:47, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to know what happened to warrant this Trade (talk) 05:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Trade: What are you seeing on your screen, exactly?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 05:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An exception occurred: TaskError: b"b'pywikibot.Error: APIError: titleblacklist-custom-space: \\xe2\\xa7\\xbctitleblacklist-custom-space\\xe2\\xa7\\xbd\\n[filekey: 1bitu27hsqjc.cbj298.6438344.webm;\\n sessionkey: 1bitu27hsqjc.cbj298.6438344.webm;\\n invalidparameter: filename;\\n servedby: mw-api-ext.codfw.main-6f9dc9ff74-kvkhq;\\n help: See https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/api.php for API usage. Subscribe to the mediawiki-api-announce mailing list at <https://lists.wikimedia.org/postorius/lists/mediawiki-api-announce.lists.wikimedia.org/> for notice of API deprecations and breaking changes.]'" Trade (talk) 11:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Trade: So what title / filename were you trying to use, in importing what Youtube file?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:05, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i forgot. not i just get Error: An exception occurred: DownloadError: b'ERROR: [youtube] D0dslTanUKc: Sign in to confirm you\xe2\x80\x99re not a bot. This helps protect our community. Learn more' Trade (talk) 16:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's an error being generated by YouTube itself, not by video2commons. Users of standalone video downloaders like yt-dlp have run into the same message, e.g. [1]. There's unlikely to be anything we can do about it. Omphalographer (talk) 19:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is it permanent_ Trade (talk) 22:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No official statement that I'm aware of, but probably. YouTube been hostile to video downloading tools for quite a while; this is the latest in a long series of moves they've made to obstruct the use of those tools. Omphalographer (talk) 01:50, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I got the same message as well when I tried uploading a video through Video2Commons. There error I got was, "Error: An exception occurred: DownloadError: b'ERROR: [youtube] X5gMiDnYEds: Sign in to confirm you\xe2\x80\x99re not a bot. This helps protect our community. Learn more'". RandomUserGuy1738 (talk) 16:30, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if this is the cause but it seems like YouTube recently blocked some VPN IP ranges. To use yt-dlp one may need to use --cookies-from-browser firefox or something similar. If that is now indeed required maybe a video2commons YouTube account could be used for the cookies. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:32, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
YouTube rate-limits downloads on an account-by-account basis, and will block accounts which download too many videos (with no prior warning). A shared account would almost certainly get blocked very quickly. Omphalographer (talk) 19:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh, time to activate the YT sockpuppets i guess Trade (talk) 22:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I got the same message before, but still after several tries it worked. But today it completely stopped working no matter how many tries and whatever videos I put. Same message as above again and again. Is it just me or is video2commons not working with YouTube videos for everyone? Tvpuppy (talk) 10:47, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Odd CropTool behavior

Lately (consistently, well over a dozen times today) each time I try to crop an image, when I click "Upload" the first time, the crop fails with the message, "Upload failed! undefined". If I click "Upload" again, it works fine. Jmabel ! talk 04:12, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just got much worse. Might be coincidence, but I just updated to the latest Firefox (134.0.2, 64-bit) and now it simply fails, no longer working on the second try. - Jmabel ! talk 22:05, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, it's much weirder than I thought: it actually worked (who knows on which of several sequential trial) but kept giving me an error message rather than a chance to click through to the cropped file. - Jmabel ! talk 22:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Personality rights tag for deceased people

Per previous discussion at Commons:Village pump/Proposals/Archive/2012/01#Adjustment proposals for Personality rights, what's the purpose for removing {{Personality rights}} for deceased people? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Absolutiva (talk • contribs) 04:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Absolutiva: In some jurisdictions, personality rights are extinguished by laws, various times after death, and we want to make sure that keeping files relating to those rights complies with those laws, and have them tagged (or not tagged) appropriately. In other jurisdictions, those rights may last forever, so the tagging should last forever too. The proper section link for that 13 year old discussion is the ugly Commons:Village pump/Proposals/Archive/2012/01#Adjustment_proposals_for_.7B.7BPersonality_rights.7D.7D, so George Ho please keep live templates out of section headings. Pinging @99of9 for input.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 05:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm here but I'm not sure there is much I can add to this. The template is unchanged since that edit in 2012 where I just implemented the new consensus. Yes it refers to the general situation (living or deceased), but guidelines on when to add or remove that template are a different question. 99of9 (talk) 09:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So what are the current guidelines on when to add or remove that template, who wants to change them, exactly how, and why?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:59, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We also want to undelete those files for which the abovementioned law is no longer applicable, on the appropriate day or COM:PDD.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 23

Licensing different than Structured data

Hi, I came across File:Abubakar Shehu Idris.jpg and the Licensing is different than the structured data. On the main tab, it says CC BY-SA 4.0 but in the Structured data tab it says public domain. How do I fix this, as there doesn't seem to be the option for CC BY-SA 4.0? Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 01:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Myrealnamm I have corrected the license in the structured data. Tvpuppy (talk) 03:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
licence was changed after @Multichill's bot added sdc. RoyZuo (talk) 23:09, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Need explanation of feature

What is <code></code>> for? SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:09, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SergeWoodzing It is a text formatting tag, it makes the text within the tags to appear like computer code. For example, typing <code>Hello World!</code> in the source will make the text look like this Hello World!. Tvpuppy (talk) 11:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Straight HTML, by the way, and dating clear back to HTML 1.0. - Jmabel ! talk 16:49, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! So if there is no text between the two halves, the entry is useless? Found that at the very beginning of a gallery intro. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:45, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SergeWoodzing Yes, you are correct. Tvpuppy (talk) 19:47, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Permission to overwrite files not uploaded by me

I "currently do not have sufficient permissions to do this." How would I go about receiving such? Thank you for your advice. Oalexander (talk) 10:28, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Oalexander See COM:OWR, only users with autopatrol rights can overwrite these files. However, you can put a overwrite request in COM:OWR to overwrite a specific file. Tvpuppy (talk) 10:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. My issue is, that I do not want to spend a lot of time overwriting by going through processes, I might as well upload a separate file with the same, but higher quality content. How does one get "autopatrol rights". I have been around for more than one-and-a-half decades. Oalexander (talk) 13:24, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Oalexander You may request autopatrol rights at Commons:Requests for rights#Autopatrol, in your request you will have to explain your reason for autopatrol right, see COM:AP for more details. Tvpuppy (talk) 13:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But, really, if you've been around here for ages and are a user in good standing, all you'll really need to say is "I've been around here for ages & I want to be able to overwirte files with higher quality versions." The phrase "higher quality" does give me some pause, though. I hope you are completely familiar with COM:OVERWRITE. A very high percentage of what people think are "better versions" really ought to be uploaded under a different file name, because it is disputable whether they are improvements. - Jmabel ! talk 16:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Preventing non-confirmed users from uploading files as "free"

Have we already prevented or blocked non-confirmed users from uploading files as "free" to use and distribute? Based on the community favoring restrictions on crosswiki uploading, I created a Phabrication task (phab:T370598) and then attempted a Community Wish (page), which was then rejected (or "archived") by the WMF.

There have been suggestions on implementing this, seen at a Meta-wiki RFC I made (RFC discussion). Well, an abuse filter against crosswiki uploading was already made; so was hiding the "Export to Wikimedia Commons" button from certain users. One of suggestions there was hiding Upload dialogs (i.e. both old classic upload and Wizard) from new users or blocking certain users from using the dialogs. Any other suggestions? George Ho (talk) 11:11, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Photo challenge November results

Sidewalk: Entries • Votes • Scores
Rank 1 2 3
image
Title Rientro al tramonto Gently sloping sidewalk
in central Stockholm		 Sidewalk on Smolnaya Embankment
Author Repuli Slottsviken51 Inforested
Score 21 8 8
Intentional Camera Movement: Entries • Votes • Scores
Rank 1 2 3
image
Title Flying on the swing White Equinne 1961 Cooper T53
Author Vsatinet Herbertkikoy Julian Herzog
Score 18 11 11

Congratulations to Repuli, Slottsviken51, Inforested, Vsatinet, Herbertkikoy and Julian Herzog. -- Jarekt (talk) 19:33, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 24

Vector 2022 will be the default skin

A two-minute video about Vector 2022

Hello. We are the Wikimedia Foundation Web team. We are here to announce that the Vector 2022 skin will become the default desktop skin here on 10 February. We will gladly answer your questions, concerns, or additional thoughts! We will also help you adjust things which Vector 2022 may not be compatible with. Check out our FAQ – you will find many useful answers there.

If you are using Vector legacy skin, you may find yourself receiving the Vector 2022 skin. You may select Vector legacy as your global preference to avoid seeing the change. Logged-in users can at any time switch to any other available skins, or stay with Vector 2022 and enjoy choosing between its light and dark mode. Users of other skins will not see any changes.

Why are we changing the skin now

For technical reasons (listed below), we need to deploy the skin soon. After deployment, we will continue discussing issues and questions about the interface, and we'll be ready to work with you on various issues like gadget compatibility.

More details on why we need to deploy the skin now
  • Due to releases of new features only available in the Vector 2022 skin, our technical ability to support both skins as the default is coming to an end.  Keeping more than one skin as the default across different wikis indefinitely is impossible. This is about the architecture of our skins. As the Foundation or the movement in general, we don't have the capability to develop and maintain software working with different skins as default. This means that the longer we keep multiple skins as the default, the higher the likelihood of bugs, regressions, and other things breaking that we do not have the resources to support or fix.  
  • Vector 2022 has been the default on almost all wikis for more than a year. In this time, the skin was proven to provide improvements to readers while also evolving. After we built and deployed on most wikis, we added new features, such as the Appearance menu with the dark mode functionality. We will keep working on this skin, and deployment doesn't mean that existing issues will not be addressed. For example, as part of our work on the Accessibility for Reading project, we built out dark mode, changed the width of the main page back to full (T357706), and solved issues of wide tables overlapping the right-column menus (T330527).
  • Vector legacy's code is not compatible with some of the existing, coming, or future software. Keeping this skin as the default would exclude most users from these improvements. Important examples of features not supported by Vector legacy are: the enriched table of contents on talk pages, dark mode, and also temporary account holder experience which, due to legal reasons, we will have to enable. In other words, the only skin supporting features for temporary account holders (like banners informing "hey, you're using a temp account") is Vector 2022.

How to request changes to the skin

We are guessing that some of you may want to see some changes to the skin. We are still improving Vector 2022 and the overall reading experience. If you have a feature request or a bug report, we encourage you to comment here or open a ticket in Phabricator. We will decide on the priority of these requests alongside our regular processes after deployment. Some fixes may be done via gadgets or user scripts, too.

About the skin

Global preferences

We encourage you to try out Vector 2022 by going to the Appearance tab in your preferences and selecting it from the list of skins. Getting used to it may take a few days, and that's the standard for interface changes.

Details about the skin

Vector 2022 is the modernized version of the currently default skin Vector legacy. It is the default on almost all Wikimedia wikis (there are about 10 left now). Most of the active editors use it and do not opt out of the skin at statistically noticeable rates despite easy access to the opt-out link. (Check the source here.)

[Our 2022 answer to why is a change necessary] When the current default skin was created, it reflected the needs of the readers and editors as these were in 2010. Since then, new users have begun using the Internet and Wikimedia projects in different ways. Although there were changes to features the skin supported, the structure, navigation, visual layout, and overall readability of the skin did not change. The old Vector does not meet the current users' needs.

[Objective] The objective for the Vector 2022 skin is to make the interface more welcoming and comfortable for readers and useful for advanced users. It introduces a series of changes that aim to improve problems new and existing readers and editors were having with the old skin. It draws inspiration from previous user requests, the Community Wishlist Surveys, and gadgets and scripts. The work helped our code follow the standards and improve all other skins. We reduced PHP code in the other available skins by 75%. The project has also focused on making it easier to support gadgets and use APIs.

[Changes in a nutshell] The skin introduces changes to the navigation and layout of the site. It adds persistent elements such as a sticky header and table of contents to make frequently-used actions easier to access. It also makes some changes to the overall styling of the page. The analysis of the data collected concluded that these changes improve readability and usability, and save time currently spent in scrolling, searching, and navigating – all of which can be interpreted to create an easier reading experience. The new skin does not remove any functionality currently available on the old Vector skin. On wikis with this skin as the default, there are no negative effects to page views, account creation, or edit rates. On our project pages you will find findings and results in a nutshell.

A summary of findings and results

  • On average, 87% of logged-in users on our early adopter wikis (incl. French Wikipedia) continue to use the new skin once they try it.
  • The sticky header makes it easier to find tools that editors use often. It decreases scrolling to the top of the page by 16%.
  • The new table of contents makes it easier to navigate to different sections. Readers and editors jumped to different sections of the page 50% more than with the old table of contents.
  • The new search bar is easier to find and makes it easier to find the correct search result from the list. This increased the amount of searches started by 30% on the wikis we tested on.
  • The skin does not negatively affect page views, edit rates, or account creation. In fact, there is observational evidence of increases in page views and account creation across partner communities.

How can editors change and customize this skin?

  • We make it possible to configure and personalize our changes. We are happy to work with volunteers with technical skills who would like to create new gadgets and user scripts. So far, many gadgets and user scripts have been built by volunteer developers. These aspects include making the background gray, turning off sticky elements, bringing back the old table of contents, and more. We encourage you to check out our repository for a list of currently available customizations and changes, or to add your own.
  • In Vector 2022, logged-in and logged-out users can change the font size and color scheme based on their individual needs. Dark mode is now available for logged-in users of Vector 2022, and we would like to make it available to logged-out users as soon as most articles are dark-mode friendly.

How will we go through the change

  • Wiki page: we would like to kindly suggest creating a page similar to English Wikipedia's w:WP:V22. It may explain the basics like how to opt-out or customize the skin.
  • CentralNotice banner for logged-in users: before and shortly after deployment, we will display a banner announcing the change. It will be linking to Commons:Vector 2022 if you decide to create such a page. Otherwise, it will be linking to this announcement. This should limit the confusion and the number of repetitive questions about the change.

If you think there are any significant technical issues, let us know – perhaps we've missed something. We're looking forward to your comments and reactions from readers after deployment. Thank you! OVasileva (WMF) and SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 01:06, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Code of Conduct annual review: provide your comments on the UCoC and Enforcement Guidelines

Please help translate to your language.

I am writing to you to let you know the annual review period for the Universal Code of Conduct and Enforcement Guidelines is open now. You can make suggestions for changes through 3 February 2025. This is the first step of several to be taken for the annual review. Read more information and find a conversation to join on the UCoC page on Meta.

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

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

-- In cooperation with the U4C, Keegan (WMF) (talk) 01:10, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of DMCA takedown demand — Polar Bear on Wrangel Island

In compliance with the provisions of the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), and at the instruction of the Wikimedia Foundation's legal counsel, one or more files have been deleted from Commons. Please note that this is an official action of the Wikimedia Foundation office which should not be undone. If you have valid grounds for a counter-claim under the DMCA, please contact me.

The takedown can be read here.

Affected file(s):

To discuss this DMCA takedown, please go to COM:DMCA#Polar Bear on Wrangel Island. Thank you! Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 01:17, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That boot is stubborn

Look what that boot is doing to File:Carte postale du cèdre du Liban planté à Torcy en 1834.JPG Why does it rotate it ? I wrote to User talk:Steinsplitter, he didn't reply. Io Herodotus (talk) 09:47, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's weird. Did someone request rotation or does the bot just randomly rotate images on it's own sometimes? --Adamant1 (talk) 11:00, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Io Herodotus: You had reverted the bot's edit (which re-added the order to rotate the image) before reverting the file. I reverted the file again, but right now it's not tagged with the template to rotate it again, so it should be fine. ReneeWrites (talk) 11:09, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category Photographs taken on ۲۰۲۱-۱۰-۱۲

What is the point of automatically creating categories such as “Photographs taken on ۲۰۲۱-۱۰-۱۲” as in File:Qopuz.jpg? This way, lots of such categories will be created. Wouter (talk) 11:02, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the category was automatically added by the "According to Exif data" template. I changed it to the correct category. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:05, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The template automatically adds photographs to the main category for the date these were taken in. Usually the date uses standard numerals, but in this case the author (or the system he uses, rather) had them written in the Arabic writing system. It also doesn't automatically create these categories, the old category was a red link because it hadn't been created yet. ReneeWrites (talk) 11:23, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info. Wouter (talk) 11:28, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback needed on our new proposed changes to UploadWizard

Hi everyone! As part of improving the way users can add metadata to uploaded media in UploadWizard, we are suggesting a way to improve the way users can select the appropriate category. You can look at the proposed mockups at the landing page.

In case a category has one or more subcategories, users will be able to click on an arrow that will open the subcategories in the form, and will let them choose the correct one. The parent category name will be always shown on top, and it will be possible at all times to come back to it.

We think exposing more clearly the category structure can also help users understand the difference between “depicts” and “category” fields in UploadWizard. We also expect it would be easier for people to add the correct category, and so we expect a decrease in the amount of work for volunteers in fixing/creating new categories.

If you have comments or questions, please feel free to reply on the project's talk page.

Thank you in advance for your consideration! Sannita (WMF) (talk) 15:11, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The golden rule is: don't complicate things unnecessarily. Sardaka (talk) 10:48, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Duration of playing MIDI-Files at Wikimedia Commons

I found MIDI-Files at Wikimedia Commons like the following file with no duration mentioned. If I press on the play button in the embedded Mediaplayer I see how long it needs. From my point of view the informations needed to show the duration are included in the file. What is used to enable the Mediaplayer embededd at Pages in Wikimedia Commons to play MIDI-Files. I am interested in some technical background to understand why the duration is not shown at the page. Hogü-456 (talk) 20:02, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 25

Would like to start a new catagory

How do you start a new catagory here? i'd like to start one for topless male humans wearing waistcoats.

Thankks

OGWFP (talk) 22:15, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Categories#Creating a new category
I have to say, though, that does not sound to me like a particularly useful category. - Jmabel ! talk 03:13, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 26

Suggest cc-zero instead of PD-self

Hello everyone! Todays special offer is a link to Template talk:File license. It has a suggestion to change PD-self to cc-zero instead because PD-self is not acctually a formal license. Feel free to comment :-) MGA73 (talk) 08:55, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can well have both tags. Ruslik (talk) 19:57, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For many years we had two suggestions in the template. Why make it three? --MGA73 (talk) 13:27, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
{{self|cc-zero}} might be even clearer. - Jmabel ! talk 19:04, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes thats the plan. --MGA73 (talk) 19:14, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. should also do the same for many of these https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:PD-self&namespace=10&limit=500&hidetrans=1 . RoyZuo (talk) 23:01, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uploads

I just uploaded two images without complications, then I upload another image and get the message that I have to provide the date of creation of the image etc. Why do I get this message with the third upload but not the first two? Sardaka (talk) 09:53, 26 January 2025 (UTC) Sardaka (talk) 09:51, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sardaka I wonder if the date is in the metadata of the first two uploads but not on the third? It seems you only uploaded two photos today so I can't see the third photo. --MGA73 (talk) 10:38, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
if your photo went thru some apps (such as telegram, whatsapp, or any image editing app), which wiped all date info in exif, then uploadwizard wont have the date. RoyZuo (talk) 22:50, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
wizard wont know the date when you wiped File:Dead flying fox Kensington 001.jpg's exif. RoyZuo (talk) 22:52, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DIY copystand design

This may interest some of you:

"Open source plans for a motorized camera column [using] 3D Printed parts and other open source hardware. The 3D Printing and aluminum cutting can be outsourced. The assembly only requires the skills of a highly motivated 3D Printing hobbyist.

"The CAD designs, 3D printable files, Bill of Materials, and Assembly Instructions for how to build the Qirab Digitisation Column QDC100 are available on the Qirab Github."

https://qirab.org/en/docs/hardware/digitisationcolumn/

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:55, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I indeed need something like this :D --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 16:57, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did something similar a while back based on the DIY Book Scanner. Fun project but I never could get it to work. This looks a lot easier. I might have to give it a try sometime. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:38, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthewing thx a lot for sharing! very useful tech! RoyZuo (talk) 22:47, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 27

Upcoming Commons conversation about impact and funding model on February 5

Hello everyone! The Wikimedia Foundation will be hosting the fourth and last round of a series of community calls to help prioritize support efforts from Wikimedia Foundation for the 2025-2026 Fiscal Year.

The purpose of these calls is to support community members in hearing more from one another - across uploaders, moderators, GLAM enthusiasts, tool and bot makers, etc. - about the future of Commons. There is so much to discuss about the general direction of the project, and we hope that people from different perspectives can think through some of the tradeoffs that will shape Commons going forward.

Our fourth and last call will focus on impact and funding model. One vision of Wikimedia Commons is for it to be primarily a repository of images for use on Wikipedias. In this world, the Wikimedia Foundation might focus on building components in Wikipedia that bring images into articles and Commons, maybe assisted by machine learning tools for editors. Another vision for Wikimedia Commons is one in which the project is an offering in its own right, and users share, discover, and utilize media content for its own independent value. In this world, investments would be needed to make it easier to search and discover media on the Commons website itself, including through: structured data on images, machine assisted tagging, more storage capacity and scale, investing in APIs that reusers would want, and workflows for educators to discover visual materials for their class.

Each of these directions would likely involve bringing in new volunteers and partners aligned with that focus. A different revenue model would also need to be explored to support substantial new development work. We would not invest in both, but only in one of them. Does it make sense to invest in bringing content from Commons into Wikipedia or focus on developing Commons into an offering in its own right?

The call will take place at two different time slots:

If you cannot attend the meeting, you are invited to express your point of view at any time you want on the Commons community calls talk page. We will also post the notes of the meeting on the project page, to give the possibility to read what was discussed also to those who couldn’t attend it.

If you want, you are invited to share this invitation with all the people you think might be interested in this call.

We hope to see you and/or read you very soon! Sannita (WMF) (talk) 11:50, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating what I have just said in reply to this, on Telegram:
This is a false dichotomy. Commons has always been both, and - as we are a good way into our third decade - it is disappointing (indeed, alarming) that the Foundation do not realise this.
That said, "building components in Wikipedia that bring images into articles" would be an investment in Wikipedia, not in Commons.
Why do WMF suggest "focus on developing Commons into an offering in its own right", when Commons is already an offering in its own right?
And why is "machine assisted tagging" still being proposed, after previous experiments doing that have been shown to be damaging?
-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:19, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Yes, I mostly agree. The WMF does not take Commons seriously. It is a shame that, more than 20 years after Commons was created, there is still not a technical team dedicated to fix and improve issues pertaining to multimedia content (especially videos, sounds, DjVu and PDF for books, 3D, etc.). These are the things relevant for Commons. What are we invited to discuss otherwise? Yann (talk) 12:51, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
+1 — Rhododendrites talk |  18:23, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sannita (WMF)

We would not invest in both, but only in one of them.

What does "invest" mean here? No new development, or also cutting ongoing things (like Charts) or even stopping fixing bugs? Ainali (talk) 13:43, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sannita (WMF)

A different revenue model would also need to be explored to support substantial new development work.

Is this a new thing, that individual projects now should come up with a revenue model? I have never heard of any revenue model for individual projects at the WMF other than general fundraiser. Perhaps just add a link to background info about this new direction? Ainali (talk) 13:45, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I understood that this is not only about funding the basic software development but also funding some content generation. Unlike at Wikipedia and Wikidata contributing to Commons can come with very high costs for camera equipment and sometimes travel costs. In rich regions like Europe and Nord America that is not a huge problem as there are many people able to use their personal money but in many regions this is not the case. I would really like if we could fund people to get better hardware. I would also like if we could pay professionals to make photos for Commons in cases where volunteers can not generate such content like photos from war areas. Currently we totally depend on government sources in this field. GPSLeo (talk) 18:55, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to put something very simply: if Commons is reduced to a role in supporting Wikipedia, I will almost certainly leave the project and probably Wikimedia projects in general. I've put nearly 20 years of my life into this project, treating it as something like an unpaid full-time job, and certainly not as building just a tool for Wikipedia. If that is being terminated, I'm done. - Jmabel ! talk 19:07, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the points that GPSLeo and Jmabel make, Commons is a media repository, we do support other Wikimedia projects in this, but our primary role is to be a repository. Reducing Commons to an appendage of Wikipedia would be a mistake. My uploads are intended to help Commons as a repository, most of them are not intended to be used for Wikipedia articles but can supplement them if needed. And we definitely should look into paying professionals for media where volunteers might not be able to go. Also in my opinion, Commons should also be able to do EDPs for public artworks and architecture since FoP (and secondarily URAA) is such a big challenge for retaining media in some countries. Abzeronow (talk) 20:35, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is it Wikimedia Foundation or Wikipedia Foundation?
"One vision of Wikimedia Commons is for it to be primarily a repository of images for use on Wikipedias." Does that mean WMF is gonna downplay not only Commons but also wiktionary, wikisource, etc.? RoyZuo (talk) 22:38, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the Taliban is back in power should Afghanistan still be considered part of Berne-World?

When I first started contributing here there were about half a dozen countries that, because they weren't part of the international agreements on copyright, images taken there weren't protected by copyright.

At least that is how I understood it at the time.

War-torn Afghanistan was one of those countries. And, for many years, images taken in Afghanistan were considered public domain here. At least that is how I remembered it.

Then someone noticed a press release, from the office of the President of Afghanistan, saying there were plans to get Afghanistan on-board Berne-World. That press release was more than six months old. It was argued that all WMF projects should anticipate Afghanistan joining Berne-World, and immediately treat images from Afghanistan as if they were protected by International Intellectual Property Agreements.

My understanding was this was premature. My understanding was two of the three steps Afghanistan would have to take were legislative steps:

  1. The Afghan legislature had to pass a law providing intellectual property rights to creators, within Afghanistan, that was consistent with the intellectual property rights in all other nations that were part of Berne-World.
  2. The Afghan legislature had to pass another law indicating it agreed to abide by those international property rights agreements, so that all the intellectual property rights of content creators from other nations were protected by Afghan law.
  3. And finally, Afghan officials would have to enforce the rights of intellectual property rights holders, including foreigners. Afghan newspapers would no longer be allowed to use any old international images they wanted with bothering with licensing, credit and payments to rights holder.

It took about five years, but the legislature did, eventually, pass those laws. My personal opinion was that we should not have started treating Afghan images as if they were protected by copyright until the legislature passed those laws.

Well, what about the status of Afghan images in 2025?

The Afghan legislature did pass those laws, about fifteen years ago.

IANAL, but I think that, legally, Afghan images are no longer protected by copyright if Afghan law enforcement officials are ignoring those laws.

I thought the policy to treat Afghan images as if they were protected by copyright as soon as there was an indication Afghanistan might join Berne-World was, frankly, disrespectful.

The Taliban would never have signed on to Berne-World, as they did not believe in Progress.

But there are other groups who don't believe in Progress. Old order Mennonites, Amish and Hutterites, for instance. Old order Mennonites and Amish wear the same kind of clothing people wore when their churches were founded. If they had their own country there would be no copyright protection there, either. Geo Swan (talk) 12:41, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Afghanistan is currently a member of the convention [2]. GPSLeo (talk) 12:50, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not conflate irrelevant things: Mennonites and Amish, peaceful out of modern society cultures with violent Taliban repression. Also what is the law, and how it is applied are two different things. There are a lot of places where copyright laws are seldom or poorly applied. Should we start hosting content from these places because the culture and the judiciary system do not work as in the Western world? Yann (talk) 12:58, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rules are rules. But maybe the Berne convention will be repealed within the next 20 years. Things become discarded so fast these days --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 16:40, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Until Afghanistan takes steps to withdraw from Berne, it should be considered as under that treaty. URAA date would not be changed regardless. Abzeronow (talk) 19:36, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Best practices for adding civility to Commons policies?

Based on this comment from an ongoing U4C discussion on meta: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Coordinating_Committee/Cases/A.Savin#c-Ghilt-20250125175900-Barkeep49-20250124161800, what would be the best way to incorporate civility and other aspects of the UCoC locally here? Should Commons have its own civility policy? I figured Village Pump would be the best place for a more general discussion on UcoC incorporation. Abzeronow (talk) 19:34, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One helpful step would be getting Commons:Civility and Commons:Harassment made into policies. I think part of the hold up was that those pages need to be more tailored for Commons. Nosferattus (talk) 22:26, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 28

Template search category by

I just made some templates which integrate into Template:Category search by. They let users search a category by month, filetype or filemime. Try it out at a large category Category:CC-BY-SA-4.0.

"Search by month" actually renders most by month cats redundant. RoyZuo (talk) 02:29, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump&oldid=989043509"