↓ Skip to table of contents ↓ ↓ Skip to discussions ↓ ↓ Skip to the last discussion ↓

Welcome to the Village pump

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

Please note:

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.
Have you read our FAQ?
For changing the name of a file, see Commons:File renaming.
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).
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:

Please do not make deletion requests here: use the relevant process for it instead.
For technical support and graphics talks (PNG, SVG, GIF, etc.), please post on the Graphics village pump.
To ask for image improvement, see:
- Graphic Lab/Photography workshop for photographs.
- Graphic Lab/Map workshop for maps.
- Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop for other illustrations.
To ask for video or audio improvement, see Commons:Graphic Lab/Video and sound workshop.
For translation requests, please post at Commons:Requests for translation.
For media requests, please post at Commons:File requests.

Search archives:

Start a new discussion

#	💭 Title	💬	👥	🙋 Last editor	🕒 (UTC)
1	Fæ's talk page	28	17	Yann	2023-09-11 18:47
2	Request for temporary ui-admin and sysop right for Adiutor integration	33	7	Vikipolimer	2023-09-13 10:19
3	File names	12	7	RZuo	2023-09-14 12:09
4	Check location	4	2	Smiley.toerist	2023-09-17 10:48
5	Thumb/rotation bug (error: Duplicate IFD0:Orientation tags were found)	6	3	Cl3phact0	2023-09-11 12:39
6	Help in cropping the image	2	2	Broichmore	2023-09-11 12:05
7	Largest file?	5	4	PantheraLeo1359531	2023-09-13 14:38
8	Are we sure podcasts are in scope?	4	3	Omphalographer	2023-09-13 23:32
9	Copyright question regarding set of images	7	3	Arnoseven	2023-09-14 19:58
10	Higgins	3	2	Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )	2023-09-12 12:46
11	GeoHack is out	2	2	GPSLeo	2023-09-12 18:23
12	User:CommonsDelinker/commands appears to be down	5	2	Mdaniels5757	2023-09-12 20:11
13	Add Wikipedia Screenshot to licenses	3	2	Aaron Liu	2023-09-13 13:21
14	A controversial issue	4	4	Grandmaster Huon	2023-09-14 20:31
15	Potential commons UTRS?	22	11	From Hill To Shore	2023-09-17 21:55
16	Your wiki will be in read-only soon (Wednesday 20 September 2023 for one hour)	2	2	Edelseider	2023-09-15 10:40
17	Location and Italian rail coach type	2	2	Smiley.toerist	2023-09-15 22:28
18	Regarding transfer from frwiki.	2	2	Thibaut120094	2023-09-15 18:13
19	Possible bug for the app of WLM Italy	14	3	Bjh21	2023-09-15 20:32
20	Russian copyright laws’ validity in occupied Ukraine	6	3	GPSLeo	2023-09-16 21:42
21	Tag for The Unlicense	9	6	Chamaemelum	2023-09-17 01:08
22	File:Allam Medical Building.jpg	1	1	Keith D	2023-09-16 22:23
23	Images based on purchased 3D assets	7	3	Hemiauchenia	2023-09-17 19:38
24	Translation of poetic works	2	2	Jmabel	2023-09-17 16:06
25	The 1ooed millionth file on Wikimedia Commons	2	2	Grandmaster Huon	2023-09-17 19:01
26	Since most of the files I have transferred from frwiki have been retained for pd-textlogo, why not delete the redundant files on frwiki?	8	5	Thibaut120094	2023-09-18 05:42

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.

Centralized discussion

See also: Village pump/Proposals ■ Archive
Does this image contain "love hearts"? (17 August 2023) Overhaul of categories by period (5 December 2022) Version of Saudi flag to use (11 July 2022) Concern regarding revocability of KOGL licenses (22 December 2021) Should deleting content from your own talk page be forbidden? (11 November 2021) Revise the COM:FOP Sweden section (1 February 2021)
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.

August 25[edit]

Fæ's talk page[edit]

This got much too far beyond its initial purpose. Let's not resurrect old disputes. If the shit hits the fan, everybody looses. Yann (talk) 18:47, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Fæ is long departed, and User talk:Fæ is breaking under the number of template transclusions. Can anyone see why a bot is not archiving it, as is supposed to happen? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:48, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's getting bot-archived just fine – last archive was a few hours ago, at 07:55, 25 August 2023‎ by User:ArchiverBot. The oldest thread there is only five days old. The problem is that ~ 270 different deletion notices have been served in the past week or two. Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 19:06, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wait what happened to him Trade (talk) 23:46, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Trade: After the Nth time that they (Fæ's preferred pronoun, though I'm sure I've also slipped and used "he" at times) were a target of what they, at least, perceived as homophobic remarks, they quit. Some of the remarks were definitely exactly that. Oddly, the one that put them over the edge was something I think they misconstrued, but I can see how they read it that way in the context of what had gone before. - Jmabel ! talk 02:11, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's really horrible! :( -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:41, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Too bad User:Fæ/Civility, Commons:Civility, Commons:Harassment, and Commons:No personal attacks never went anywhere. Nosferattus (talk) 06:20, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, all that went somewhere. It was used to get rid of other “undesirables”, such as AlexisJazz (blocked at 1st strike over a transparently bogus accusation), while it was pointedly not used in order to keep around someone’s darlings like INeverCry (finally blocked after their 3rd serious meltdown). Fæ had almost always managed to present a formidably thick skin against all those slings and arrows, but it eventually become too much. It’s a huge loss for Commons, but we know that both the WMF and even some of our admins have the goal of seeing the end of this project, or at least its transformation into something most of us would not want to be a part of. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 02:44, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To be exact, Fæ left the project so abruptly that at the time a batch of them was running, which was then cancelled. Fæ takes the view that the reasons for them departure are open for all to see, if only they wanted to see it. There has been doxxing and death threats and no active help or solidarity. Fæ would perhaps return if these problems were acknowledged and addressed by the community. C.Suthorn (@[email protected] - p7.ee/p) (talk) 22:38, 28 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@C.Suthorn, you wrote, "Fæ would perhaps return if these problems were acknowledged and addressed by the community."

Toward that purpose, in what form could action(s) be taken at this time? -- Ooligan (talk) 10:14, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For a start, the person who doxxed Fæ, could be repremanded. C.Suthorn (@[email protected] - p7.ee/p) (talk) 21:19, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jmabel and C.Suthorn: Could you point to a specific diff, please? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 01:39, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Tuvalkin: My remark wasn't related to any one diff, but it was this discussion that led to Fæ's departure. - Jmabel ! talk 04:47, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Tuvalkin: The lack of Admin action against Beeblebrox in Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 94#Beeblebrox appears to have contributed. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 07:09, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why did no one notice that the request was closed by a user with admin rights removed by community decision? This user is now also globally banned. We should not reopen the request, but something like this should definitely not happen. GPSLeo (talk) 07:27, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@GPSLeo: Please feel free to open a new request on Fæ's behalf. I don't have access to the source materials. Pinging @Beeblebrox as mentioned above. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 07:41, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As I wrote, I do not want to open a two year old case. I would only take this into account if there would be a new compliant on new problematic behavior. There are no deleted pages connected to this case and of course I do not have access to the information of the banning T&S team. GPSLeo (talk) 07:54, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Strange. So potentially T&S wasn't even aware of it?

Seemed to me that Fae was one of the most productive contributors to Commons. Enhancing999 (talk) 11:35, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, if not the most. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 13:06, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rodhullandemu’s closing note at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 94#Beeblebrox says «it should go where it belongs: WMF T&S. And it has.» -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 13:33, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don’t think this is a matter of nobody having noticed: Rodhullandemu (the globally banned former admin you mention) was sanctioned several months after their closing of Fæ complaint against Beeblebrox, and, if anything, their stance as the closing admin appeared to be sympathetic to Fæ. (To muddle the matters further, both Beeblebrox and I, who would sharply disagree about Fæ’s merits, did oppose sanctioning Rodhullandemu…: see User talk:Rodhullandemu/Archive 4/Block.)

Be as it may, I support any action that would cause Fæ to reconsider his leaving Commons.

-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 13:40, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

who wanna tackle an enwp checkuser and the gang on wikipediocracy? next thing we know would be those users evaporate from wikis and become the next victims... (if i disappear, you know who...)

keep in mind that wikis collect your ip etc. so not only your online presence but also your real life might be affected.

"Why did no one notice that the request was closed by a user with admin rights removed by community decision?" did you also notice that user's closure was actually reluctant? because the gang had quickly mobilised to derail the original complaint? RZuo (talk) 17:39, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm trying to parse out whatever it is this comment is supposed to mean, and as far as I can tell it is saying that I, in my capacity as a CU on en.wp, use that position to doxx people so I can destroy their lives. I'd like to suggest that this discussion be closed and that this inflammatory lie be stricken. This is nasty, unfounded personal attack. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:41, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

From what I can tell of the bot configuration on that page, it will all be swept away within a week. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:02, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure exactly what is being asked of me here? This is all very old news and I don't have anything to do with how Fae's talk page is archived. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:31, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Beeblebrox: I'm going to assume good faith and suggest you read the thread. You were not mentioned in terms of the original subject (the archiving of the talk page, which has been worked out) but in terms of what several people see as your role in hounding Fæ off of Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 17:37, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fae was trying to get me kicked off of Commons, by claiming I was directly encouraging people to doxx them or throw bricks at their house or some nonsense like that, which, if I had done, would certainly be something I should be kicked out for, but it simply was not true, and when it didn't work, they dramaquit. That isn't hounding someone off.

I admit I do not care for Fae, who, just like rodhullandemu, is quite skilled at playing the victim and the bully at the same time. That is not a trait I enjoy encountering. I'd ask again what it is anyone wants from me all this time later. I'm not stopping Fae from returning, that option is 100% open to them whenever they wish to do it. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:10, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
#MeToo. Actually a huge injustice that RHE is banned and Fæ is not. Either both or none, dear WMF... --A.Savin 09:07, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

September 01[edit]

Request for temporary ui-admin and sysop right for Adiutor integration[edit]

Hello everyone, I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to request temporary interface administrator and administrator rights for the purpose of integrating and deploying the Adiutor tool to Wikimedia Commons. I would like to have these privileges for a duration of one week. You can find comprehensive information about Adiutor through this link. I believe that having these privileges will greatly assist in the successful adaptation and deployment of Adiutor, and I am committed to ensuring a smooth and efficient process throughout the integration. Thank you for considering my request. I look forward to your positive response. Best regards. 𝗩𝗶𝗸𝗶𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗿 ℣ 17:56, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Warning: This is no longer a current request, it has already been done.

@Vikipolimer, Thanks for notifying us. Your contributions for Adiutor improved many Wikis. We can use this tool here also, it would be very beneficial because tagging and reporting process is hard in Commons. I am pinging bureaucrats in order to evaluate this request: @99of9, @Ellin Beltz, @EugeneZelenko, @Jameslwoodward, @Krd, and @Odder. Kadı Message 18:11, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Context for those who (like me) had no clue what Vikipolimer was talking about: meta:Adiutor. - Jmabel ! talk 21:02, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I notice that all existing rollouts are on Wikipedias, and that Commons is a bigger project than the existing venues. Are we confident that it is well suited to Commons? For example, has the list of speedy deletion reasons been customised to suit Commons deletion reasons? --99of9 (talk) 05:48, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@99of9, yes you can test the gadget. Commons:Adiutor I've already start the adapting process. If you want new features for commons, I can add lovely. 𝗩𝗶𝗸𝗶𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗿 ℣ 05:56, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. I have enabled the gadget and will try to test it out a bit (so far I've found that things like: "CopyVio check" means only checking some text on the page, nothing to do with the image, so does not hit 99.9% of Copyvios on Commons). If the gadget already works, what is it that you need to edit with interface administrator rights? --99of9 (talk) 06:12, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@99of9, I am currently in the process of adding templates and configuring settings that will be applied universally across the gadget files. Authorization for this task was granted a couple of hours ago, and I have just completed the initial setup. There are only a few minor tasks remaining, and once I finish those, my work will be complete. 𝗩𝗶𝗸𝗶𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗿 ℣ 06:17, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I tend to be very cautious with suggestions of this sort when it seems that whoever designed it doesn't really understand the Commons situation and the assurance "everything is fine" is how many major disasters have started. I would like to see a test period of several weeks rather than a speedy rollout. At present I do not have sufficient information to vote in favor of any rights for this deployment. I reviewed the page linked to us by Jmabel, since the proposor didn't. I see three things which are listed for Commons. All three things are currently quite automated and I fail to see any reason to implement a second layer of code on top of what is currently working well. Perhaps Vikipolimer would be so kind to explain what exactly the benefits are of a system which reproduces what we already have? I would ask that folks take a quick look at the amount of information provided by the devs for this, see https://gyazo.com/892670f648c5b03d0884e46a6adaaa77 for a screenshot. "Adiutor: a tool that assists users in various operations" is insufficient information when compared with other existing addons. Cheers. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:30, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello @Ellin Beltz, I believe there might be a misunderstanding. The features mentioned on the Meta page regarding Commons are actually additional enhancements specifically designed for Wikimedia Commons. Additionally, most of the features listed in the section above are already in operation on Wikimedia Commons. I must admit that I find the assertion that I lack an understanding of Wikimedia Commons a bit discouraging, if I may be candid. I kindly request that you take a moment to visit this page to gain a better understanding of what is actively available in this project. 𝗩𝗶𝗸𝗶𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗿 ℣ 01:04, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm also a bit concerned. Just for one example, the list says, "Editors can request page move". How will that differ from the current "Move" tab in our existing UI? - Jmabel ! talk 03:03, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jmabel, This gadget module (Page move request) serves the purpose of facilitating page transfers to new destinations. Typically, auto-approved users have the capability to execute page moves via the [move] tab on pages. Nevertheless, there are instances where the target page boasts a multi-version history and the source page is subject to move protection. In such scenarios, only administrators possess the authority to carry out the transfer. This tool is specifically designed for the submission of requests for these unique migrations that require administrative intervention, as well as requests from users and newcomers who lack the ability to execute page migrations independently. 𝗩𝗶𝗸𝗶𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗿 ℣ 03:12, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Vikipolimer: Which sounds like a description of exactly how Commons "Move" tab already works (possibly minus the existing "Move and Replace" option, I can't tell whether that was an oversight in your description or a difference in the behavior). How will this differ? I am concerned, looking at the list, that this is a solution to which there is no known problem. - Jmabel ! talk 03:39, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jmabel, It's just puts a template to the page. So than I have a question for you, why you need this template on Wikimedia Commons? 𝗩𝗶𝗸𝗶𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗿 ℣ 04:10, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Vikipolimer: Are you describing current behavior, or what your tool does? Because current behavior is:

If you have filemover capabilities, it offers "move and replace": on your own authority, you can move the file to a new name, and implicitly edit all instances where any other WMF wiki references the file to use the new filename instead.
- And, yes, there are some circumstances where the move will fail, mainly if you try to move to a blacklisted filename, or if the filename you want to move to already exists; in the latter case, if the move really is correct, and if you can't just move the interfering file, you need an admin to delete it; I'm not going to try to cover every edge case here.
If you don't have filemover capabilities, then it simply adds {{Move}} with the appropriate arguments. Among other things, this categorizes it to get the attention of an admin or filemover.

How does that compare to the behavior of your tool?

(I am very concerned that you are ready to go live with this when we don't even have a list of how its various capabilities compare to the tools we already have. I see nothing on the list for which we do not currently have a tool in our UI. And tools break, and tools need to be maintained, and I really don't want to see a bunch of dual maintenance. But first, please address my specific question about the comparison for this particular feature.)- Jmabel ! talk 04:22, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

maybe the tool duplicates other existing tools, but it's good to have something with better design, upkeep, and one-for-all functionality.

i enabled it as soon as i saw it was added in MediaWiki:Gadgets-definition and tested it. so far i'm mostly satisfied. it seems decent. but i continue using the existing old tools just because i'm more familiar with those and dont have the time to learn this new tool for now.--RZuo (talk) 17:16, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@RZuo: my concern isn't so much where it may duplicate other tools as where it may almost duplicate them, but with less functionality. Conversely, I'd be very interested if there is anything actually new here. - Jmabel ! talk 17:40, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I read this thread and also the linked pages (meta:Adiutor and Commons:Adiutor) and their talk pages — and I am, for now at least, not using this. Really fishy — someone from the developer team could at answer questions? And really was there a specific coverage of Commons and yet the main namespace considered was ns:0 (article/gallery)…? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 12:06, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Tuvalkin, @RZuo The Adiutor gadget has been successfully integrated into Wikimedia Commons gadgets, and as a result, this request can now be marked as complete. We're pleased to inform you that the gadget has been optimized specifically for Wikimedia Commons and comes with a host of new features tailored to enhance the Wikimedia Commons experience. 𝗩𝗶𝗸𝗶𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗿 ℣ 12:15, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That’s why you’re ignoring questions about it? Done deal, moving on? Yeah that’s the WMF shills’ style, but seldom this much on the nose. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 12:58, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Tuvalkin, I'm not ignoring the questions, I'm not a WMF employee, I'm just a volunteer like you, I've made a tool available to help people here as much as I can and this request is no longer relevant, in addition if you have any questions please ask them on the meta page. 𝗩𝗶𝗸𝗶𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗿 ℣ 13:50, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I appologize for my harsh tone — it was prompted by (what I interpreted as) your use of “corporate speech” but was not warranted. (You can still answer Jmabel’s questions, though.) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:22, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Tuvalkin, Also I already answered your question, how would the gadget be ready to use if we didn't adapt namespace etc. Have you ever tested it before asking this question? 𝗩𝗶𝗸𝗶𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗿 ℣ 13:59, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I continue to have the same question, and I don't see it addressed by Vikipolimer or anyone else. Is this functioning just as a different UI to existing Commons tools? If so, fine. If not, then what are the functional differences from our various tools for the various purposes? Is there anything actually new here by way of functionality? We need, and I mean that word need, a description of these differences and additions. Otherwise, we are being presented with a new tool with mystery behaviors that may or may not be desirable.

I'm not so concerned about functionality that merely gives information, but it is clear that this tool can execute actions. In particular, I still cannot tell if you get a different result in some scenarios if you use Adiutor to move a file, as against the existing "Move & Replace". - Jmabel ! talk 14:36, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jmabel, sorry I miss that question, I'm kinda busy but let me answer this question, Adiutor' does not move a file, it only helps the user who cannot move a file to request that it be moved, other than that, the operations that can be done with adiutor are listed on its page, if you have any questions or comments about the tool, please voice them on the tool's page. And here's the list what editors can do with Adiutor:

Features

Editors can create speedy deletion requests.
Editors can nominate files for deletion.
Editors can request page protections
Editors can request user blocks
Editors can request page moves
Editors can see the recent diff on a page.
Editors can check the copyright status
Editors can see the user widget on user's user page.
Editors can see recent changes of the page.
Editors can issue warnings to users.
Editors can report copyright violations.
Editors can create an investigation for sockpuppetry.
Editors can report sockpuppet or sockpuppet master.
Admins can block users by user blocking module.
Admins can perform speedy page deletion and batch page deletion.
Admins can finalize the nominated files for deletion.

𝗩𝗶𝗸𝗶𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗿 ℣ 14:46, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Vikipolimer: Yes, I've seen the list. I wasn't asking you to replicate it here. What I am asking is for each of these features where we already have a tool, how does the behavior of Adiutor differ from our existing tool?

So far you've effectively said that the "move" tool here duplicates part of what we already have, but is less functional. Can you understand why we would like to understand more of what this does and doesn't do? Not a "feature list", an actual description of how it is functionally different from our existing tools for many of these purposes. - Jmabel ! talk 14:53, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jmabel I apologize, but I believe I may not fully grasp the complete scope and logic of your question. These are some inherent features that can be removed if they are causing you any harm or kept if they are not problematic. These features in this gadget may already exist in another tool, which should not hinder you from using the other gadget. We aim to keep the gadget as versatile as possible and have consolidated various functionalities that users activate across different tools into a single centralized gadget. 𝗩𝗶𝗸𝗶𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗿 ℣ 15:00, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Vikipolimer: Let me try another concrete example. You say, "Admins can block users by user blocking module." Does the UI you provide either omit any of the capabilities we have at Special:Block/USERNAME or add capabilities that we do not have there?

And, at the opposite extreme, let me try the most general question: what existing problem or problems on Commons is this tool intended to solve? - Jmabel ! talk 18:33, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jmabel, I appreciate your perspective, which seems to differ from the current approach. It's important to note that the user blocking module within the MediaWiki interface serves as a practical tool designed to streamline processes. If your intention is to provide constructive criticism, please feel free to continue doing so. However, if you prefer not to use this tool, you have the option to disable it. Any discussions regarding the removal of this tool from Wikimedia Commons should be directed to the community for consideration. The tool's functions and additional information are well-documented on its dedicated page. It's crucial to clarify that your concerns seem to be centered around the tool's operations rather than its existence. It's worth noting that aside from your perspective, there are users who have provided positive feedback and find value in using this tool. I may not fully grasp the specific issue you are advocating for, but if you have any suggestions or advice for me as the developer of this tool, please feel free to share them in the discussion section of the meta page. Regrettably, it appears that I may not be able to provide further assistance on this matter at this time, as our discussion seems to have reached an impasse. 𝗩𝗶𝗸𝗶𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗿 ℣ 21:20, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Vikipolimer: on its dedicated page: can you please provide a link to the page you are talking about? And I'm not rejecting the tool: I'm saying that when we add a tool here, we normally discuss what it does, how it differs from existing capabilities, etc. and I've seen none of that, so I frankly have no informed opinion of your tool. Perhaps the answer to what I've asked is somewhere, but as far as I can see the only link you have provided is to meta:Adiutor, and all I see here is an assertion that a blocking capability exists, not what it can and cannot do. If it is less flexible in how blocks can be done, I think we need to know that. When we are bringing in new admins who are learning the admin tools for the first time, if we have two different blocking tools and one has less flexibility, we need to be able to tell them that rather than have them possibly start using the less capable tool and not know they are missing something. I'm not asking rhetorical questions here, and my intent is not hostile. I've been asking questions trying to get what to me seems the basic information about a newly introduced tool, and so far I do not believe you have been answering them, or if you have I certainly haven't understood your answers. - Jmabel ! talk 21:37, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jmabel Understanding a gadget doesn't solely come from asking questions; it's through hands-on experimentation that you truly grasp its capabilities. While this gadget boasts a myriad of features, it's easy to get fixated on one aspect and find yourself caught in an unending loop of inquiries. I've endeavored to provide comprehensive explanations, and you'll find a detailed list of what can be accomplished with this tool in its feature set. It's important to note that this gadget is still in active development, and I welcome any suggestions you may have for additional features. Please feel free to share your ideas; your input can help shape the future enhancements of the gadget. 𝗩𝗶𝗸𝗶𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗿 ℣ 22:10, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Vikipolimer: I am not rejecting the tool either. I am not asking you to replicate a list of words which do not provide understanding. I would like one concrete example of how this is supposed to be better, more helpful, more advanced or more useful than the system we have now. I would appreciate documentation on the tool, as I showed above in the gyazo link, it is the only tool without any documentation in any language. And while you might understand it - it's obvious that the admins here do not understand and the answers we are getting sound like advertising for something wonderful. Why would we not want to use something wonderful? Obviously we do. Slow down a little and read the words of what is being written to you. People are asking for examples, not platitudes, and certainly not expecting you to get upset. Specifically from the link page you keep linking, it reads "support from the Wikipedia community play a vital role in further developing Adiutor into a more functional and user-friendly tool." What I see here is that it's not functional without instructions and also without instructions it's not user-friendly. Since there is no documentation, there is no way to understand what it does. Cheerleading and boostering isn't educational. Because you think it's that great - of course we'd like to use it - but you have to explain how and why it's better or important not just that it exists. You have several administrators trying really hard to work with you "support of the community" and all that, but I do not see that you are trying to work with us. Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:42, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And I simply cannot find what you wrote above "The tool's functions and additional information are well-documented on its dedicated page" any documentation at all for Wikimedia Commons on the page which is linked here https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Adiutor. Thank you. Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:48, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello @Ellin Beltz, this tool is compatible with the current MediaWiki UI as it is coded using MediaWiki JS and OOUI. Additionally, it can be used in a modular fashion, making it easy to add new modules and edit existing ones. This tool can be easily customized by interface administrators, and its code structure is not complex. You can access the documentation through the following links.

Documentation:

𝗩𝗶𝗸𝗶𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗿 ℣ 10:19, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

September 05[edit]

File names[edit]

I read the file naming page (and associated talk page) but cannot find any rule on naming files with the goal of having them at the top of each category. Maybe Titles of media files should be meaningful and helpful in the language chosen covers it, but not explicitly. Benespit takes great photos of Korean cars, but they start all of their file names with a zero and a blank space - presumably to get more eyes on them. To me, that violates the logic of the Commons. The File naming talk page doesn't appear to get much use, which is why I am raising the issue here. I raised this question on Benespit's talk page a minute ago, so it's not like there is any conflict. No matter what, I think this would be worth mentioning in the File naming guidelines. There are a lot of uploads, so renaming them all will take a while. Best, mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 15:05, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not against the rules, but kind of annoying.

Really, if there is a matter of picking more useful images out of a large category, the right (and much more collaborative) way to do that is a gallery page rather than competitive file-naming. - Jmabel ! talk 18:15, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

as long as files are sorted by default alphabetically, under whatever regulation you come up there will still be the first "char" allowed, and users can still exploit those "permitted" sequences of chars.--RZuo (talk) 20:08, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Having thought about it, I think that Titles of media files should be meaningful and helpful in the language chosen is actually all that's needed - adding a leading zero and a space is neither meaningful nor helpful. Car photos are usually named <year><manufacturer><model><submodel><color><view><numeral> (not all elements are always present), because it helps people find images. mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 20:36, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

i just have 2 ways here to add such numbers in a meaningful way. say i take 2 photos of the same car from different angles. i can just name it "01 beetle" and "02 beetle". serial numbers can be not only at the end but also at the start, right? or i change to a username that starts with a long string of "0 ", and then prefix all my uploads with my username. is that meaningful?--RZuo (talk) 17:16, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No. Competitive file naming goes against the purpose of the Commons. Pictures should be given descriptive names which help users find images - not your images, but the images they seek. mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 02:46, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

if you still dont understand, there is no rule prohibiting serial identifiers being at the start of filenames. in fact, there are plenty of them, e.g. Special:PrefixIndex/File:IMG.

here's a user whose name is exactly what i forecasted: User:0 0 0 zoome 0 0 0. there is also no rule prohibiting prefixing filenames with usernames.

therefore, such filenames are meaningful. RZuo (talk) 12:09, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

the way to get the pictures at the top of each category is not giving a bad name, it's using {{DEFAULTSORT}} in the description

Hsarrazin (talk) 07:42, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And conversely, if you want to remove a file from the top of a category, you can {{DEFAULTSORT}} it somewhere else. Please don't rename files just because you don't like where they fall in a category, except in the limited cases listed under COM:FR#FR4. --bjh21 (talk) 20:19, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can also add a sort key for selected categories -- it doesn't have to be via a DEFAULTSORT, which affects all categories. -- Auntof6 (talk) 05:33, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can also add sortkeys to individual images. And maybe just that should be done to move excellent, good and valued images to the top of the category for that they were voted as excellent. good or valued. C.Suthorn (@[email protected] - p7.ee/p) (talk) 11:20, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm completely opposed to the (potentially competitive) use of sort keys to bring particular images to the front of a category. If you want to select out the most useful images, that is pretty much the canonical purpose of a gallery page. Or, if there are a very small number and a good consensus, they can even be placed in a <gallery> element at the top of the category page itself. (And when there is a single clear best image, that should be the image for a corresponding Wikidata item, if such an item exists.) - Jmabel ! talk 19:14, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

September 10[edit]

Check location[edit]

I used the board on the train in

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

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

@Smiley.toerist: File:Ciano d'Enza station 2002 1.jpg and File:Ciano d'Enza station 2002 2.jpg are located at Guastalla station. You can see the shed with those colours in this older Streetview image. Here you can see your 2002 view from a bit higher up. --HyperGaruda (talk) 12:01, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks I renamed the files. I suspect I travelled from Parma File:Parma station 2002.jpg to Guastalla File:Your boiler advertising train 2002.jpg? to Reggio Emilla File:Reggio Emilia station 2002.jpg. I was put on the wrong track by the Ciano d'Enza sign (upside down on the train).Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:48, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

September 11[edit]

Thumb/rotation bug (error: Duplicate IFD0:Orientation tags were found)[edit]

c:File:Canada Permanent Trust Building Sept 2006.jpg displays incorrectly in the article w:Canada Permanent Trust Building. If this is something I could repair myself, please let me know how to so. Otherwise, if someone could fix the problem, it would be appreciated. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 10:08, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Cl3phact0: I used rotate template's parameter 'resetexif' (instead of degree number) to reset the EXIF orientation information of this file for you. Let's see how that works. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 10:15, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Jeff G., my tech-savvy here on Commons is limited (not sure if there's something that needs to be re-set or a cache than needs clearing). The enwiki article uses the thumbnail version of the file, which is still displaying rotated 90 degrees clockwise. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 10:26, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Cl3phact0: You're welcome. Steinsplitter's bot can run every 10 minutes, but it has not run in the 98 minutes since 09:31, 11 September 2023 (UTC). — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 11:09, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gravity defying photo now properly oriented. Thanks again. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 12:39, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help in cropping the image[edit]

Can someone crop this image File:Lipisingh.jpg. Basically, above her head the background shows people. I want to cut that portion. Bring it upto hat worn by her.-Admantine123 (talk) 11:40, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done Broichmore (talk) 12:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Largest file?[edit]

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

These are larger:

Disclosure: I used the search function to return any image bigger than 50000 by 50000 pixels ;)

--HyperGaruda (talk) 20:18, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah yes, computer-generated images can be created arbitrary of any size. It doesn't count. ;o) Yann (talk) 21:07, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:“Declaration of victory after the Battle of Leipzig on 18 October 1813”.jpg is slightly smaller (2.9 gigapixels) but it's a single image rather than several images stitched together. It's also quite a bit heavier at 1.49 GB vs 720.93 MB. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 16:04, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We can even take this to the extreme. My guess is that one video may be the largest file in data, but is uploaded as split file due to the file size limit of 4 GiB (this is equal to 3:20 minutes to 5 minutes of a 4K video from a full frame camera). But if we look at the aerial photographs of Bavaria (ca. 70500m²) by the Bayerische Vermessungsverwaltunghttps://geodaten.bayern.de/opengeodata/OpenDataDetail.html?pn=dop40 and combine them to a single image of the whole state of Bavaria, we get approx. an image of 650.000 x 915.000 Pixels (40cmx40cm equals 1 pixel), or approx. 600 Gigapixels with approx. 1 terabyte in file size. The common size limit (JPEG, PNG, etc.) is 65535x65535, so it is hard to realize such an image :) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 14:38, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are we sure podcasts are in scope?[edit]

I recently noticed that we have a lot of podcast audio files under Category:Podcasts and its subcategories. It's unclear to me whether most of these files are in scope, and I'm inclined to suspect that they are not. Some notable podcasts may be in scope as a topic (e.g. a Wikipedia article about "99% Invisible"), but this doesn't mean that every individual episode is in scope as well. Additionally, it's likely that some of these files contain excerpts of copyrighted content; the sheer volume of the podcasts makes them infeasible to review.

Is there any clear educational use case for this content, or should I start nominating some of it for deletion? Omphalographer (talk) 21:07, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Probably some of it -- maybe much of it -- is out of scope, but it would take a long time to work through. I'd say you'd want to give any of them at least a fair amount of sampling before nominating.

Seems to me that any appropriately licensed episode of a Wikipedia-notable podcast is probably in scope, just like almost any photo of a Wikipedia-notable person. - Jmabel ! talk 21:44, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please go ahead and start purging the podcast category Trade (talk) 22:09, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All right. I've started with two large groups of podcast files which are both out of scope and likely copyright issues:

Omphalographer (talk) 23:32, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright question regarding set of images[edit]

Would the images in this article be suitable to be uploaded onto the project? They were taken by an individual from the United States military and released by the FBI following a FOI request, so {{PD-USGov-Military}} might be applicable.--WMrapids (talk) 21:31, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@WMrapids: Probably OK for the ones that are, as you say, taken by an individual from the United States military, but do note that is not the case for some images there. - Jmabel ! talk 21:47, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel: The "Courtesy" and other copyright lingo is unclear to me, so which ones would be OK to upload? (There are 8 images in the article, so you can say image 1, 4, X of 8 if that is helpful) Thanks for the quick response! WMrapids (talk) 21:52, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- @WMrapids: 1-unclear because uncredited. Vice might be willing to clarify if you write to them. 2-unclear: came through FOIA, but they don't say whether the original photographer was known to be a federal gov't employee. Again, Vice might be willing to clarify if you write to them. 3,4: clearly no, non-gov't sources. 5-8: taken by an individual from the United States military, so {{PD-USGov-Military}} applies. - Jmabel ! talk 21:59, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  @Jmabel: Image 4 is was taken by Clarence Cooper, with the article saying "Many of these photos were later taken by a helicopter pilot with the US Army named Clarence Cooper". Would {{PD-USGov-Military}} apply for image 4? WMrapids (talk) 23:00, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  @WMrapids: Missed that. If it's clear that he took it in the line of duty, that would be fine. But it sounds like he might not have, and the credit suggests that they believe it is copyrighted. Note that the military/gov't is not the source. - Jmabel ! talk 00:08, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

the librarians at San Diego State University Special Collections explain it well here Guidelines for Photo Permissions. however, at the flickr feed, Peoples Temple / Jonestown Gallery they all have the default "all rights reserved". you might try emailing Rebecca Moore, per [1]. you should expect deletion nominations with a "personal photo, not a part of official duties"; good luck --Arnoseven (talk) 19:58, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

September 12[edit]

Higgins[edit]

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

James A. Higgins might be a possibility, but there're no other photos online to verify. found this thru https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=intitle%253AHiggins+-incategory%253A%22living+people%22+new+york .

https://news-navigator.labs.loc.gov/search doesnt seem to have relevant photos either. RZuo (talk) 09:44, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good clue! I looked to see if he had a US passport, but no, and his obituary has no image. No image at Ancestry either. There are still a dozen or so more from the Bain Collection unidentified, if you want to try. We are in a tranche from 1925 now, but some of the unknowns are from the a decade earlier. I will set up a page of the most prominent unidentified people later today. --RAN (talk) 12:46, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GeoHack is out[edit]

In the last several hours, https://geohack.toolforge.org/geohack.php doesn't work. The links return message "504 Gateway Time-out". Unfortunately, almost all links from the coordinate templates in the Commons go through this page, so all other map features and services are unavailable. ŠJů (talk) 18:08, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nearly hole Toolforge is currently down. There are multiple problems.

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T346130

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T346177

GPSLeo (talk) 18:23, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:CommonsDelinker/commands appears to be down[edit]

It looks like the queue at User:CommonsDelinker/commands has not been serviced at all in about 20 hours. Does anyone know if anything can be done about that? - Jmabel ! talk 18:38, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

looking into it —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jmabel A restart looks to have fixed it. Probably due to the toolforge/wmcs issues recently. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mdaniels5757: looks like that solved the file replacement queue, but not the category move queue. (Thank you, sincerely, for solving half the problem.) - Jmabel ! talk 20:09, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jmabel Yeah, that's SteinsplitterBot's thing (CommonsDelinker only removes them when they're done). I posted on Steinsplitter's page. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

September 13[edit]

Add Wikipedia Screenshot to licenses[edit]

Is it feasible to add {{Wikipedia-screenshot}} to the licenses dropdown/radio in both Special:Upload and the upload wizard? Aaron Liu (talk) 01:32, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is it really all that frequent a use case? - Jmabel ! talk 03:19, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think so, it has thousands of transclusions and probably more common than free software screenshots Aaron Liu (talk) 13:21, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

September 14[edit]

A controversial issue[edit]

Commons:Deletion requests/4 files uploaded by Cekli829 in 2013

Hello everybody. I am also writing here to draw your attention. I want to delete these 4 files that I uploaded 10 years ago. I think this issue needs a wide discussion. Thanks to all of you! --►Cekli 829 10:44, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see no "controversial issue" here. You appear to be alone in believing that ten years after the fact you should be able to revoke your irrevocable license. And, while I am trying to assume good faith, your argument that the background constitutes copyright infringement is either insincere or naive. Clearly that is de minimis, and if the concern were genuine it would be, at most, a reason to blur elements in the background, not to delete the photos outright.
Also, if you canvass (as you did here), you are supposed to mention that on the original discussion, which you did not do. (I see no mention in the original deletion discussion of you posting to the Village pump.

Jmabel ! talk 14:56, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The whole idea behind an irrevocable license is that it can't be revoked, if we let people arbitrarily revoke free licenses a decade after the fact we are setting bad precedent. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:16, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You also have no need to canvass, as people who are interested in your discussion will naturally come. There is no need to rush. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 20:31, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Potential commons UTRS?[edit]

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

No principled objection on my part, but a bit of an "is it worth it?" Do we have any idea how often this particular process results in someone being reinstated on en-wiki? - Jmabel ! talk 18:27, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Welp, we on ENWIKI use UTRS for people who have already lost talk page access (usually through further disruption) and people who have talk page access but who cannot follow the unblock instructions on their talk page. As you might imagine, suddenly being sent to a different venue does not improve their ability to understand the reasons for their block and make a convincing unblock request. But the goal should not be to unblock those incapable of being unblocked. The goal should be to provide a means of contact and education that reduces onwiki disruption and allows the appellant to come to grips better than if they were left in Limbo without a point of contact. And a few do come to understand how to address the reasons for their block well enough to be unblocked. Best, Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:50, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's telling that simply being able to navigate the ENWIKI unblock procedure is considered a noteworthy achievement Trade (talk) 19:57, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am curious if UTRS is merely a dumping ground for editors with whom we've lost patience and blocked their talk page, or if it's actually a means for someone to appeal a block successfully. Are there stats kept anywhere about the rate of successful appeals? ~Anachronist (talk) 00:11, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not sure whether this is really necessary on Commons, as the average profile of our blocks is likely different than on :en. Usually we do not revoke talkpage access with our blocks. Typical exception are persistant vandals who continue on their malicious activity on their talkpage after being blocked. IMO, there is little need for such accounts to be unblocked ever. --Túrelio (talk) 19:11, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What if these vandals change their ways to become constructive editors someday, how will they be able to contact commons to be unblocked? Since Commons has no UTRS and asking for unblock via email or talk page to other wikis may be considered block circumvention. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 19:22, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not directly related to Commons but UTRS is also available for Global Lock lifting, but there are few volunteers avaliable to process these requests, but other than Meta and enwiki, UTRS is not avaliable on other wikis, there should be a global UTRS and Standard Offer proceedure for all wikis.

Perhaps global arbcom to handle cross wiki disputes? Grandmaster Huon (talk) 19:23, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think the existing general [email protected] is sufficient for this very rare case. GPSLeo (talk) 19:44, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Enwiki info hotline doesn't respond to unblock requests. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 20:09, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So I doubt the commons version will too. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 20:10, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Edit conflict) The Wikimedia Commons should have a UTRS and I don't think that "there should be a global UTRS and Standard Offer proceedure for all wikis." because "WP:SO" is an essay and not policy and it is simply enforced as policy, waiting 6 (six) months doesn't magically change someone's behaviour and deliberately telling people to wait 6 (six) months before being able to even make an appeal actually goes against the Commonswiki blocking policy which states that blocks are a preventative measure and not a punitive one, the SO is a punitive measure. Talk page and e-mail access could be revoked for many reasons beyond just talk page access, some admins just default to this and sometimes after a user sufficiently doesn't understand what they have been blocked for then an admin can decide that continued unblock requests are "a waste of time" and revokes these venues. Let's say that someone has learned to be less disruptive but they don't have TPA and can't e-mail anyone how would they appeal their block? It is considered to be taboo (and even an indef blockable offense) to request this on any other wiki. A UTRS would definitely solve this problem.

My main issue with the UTRS is that it's all "behind closed doors", by default the bot that places the template on the blocked user's talk page should also include the entire message unless they themselves have selected to not want this to be publicly posted and the response should also be posted publicly on the talk page. The only exceptions should be in cases where privacy is indeed something to be protected.

Users are commonly blocked for persistently uploading copyright ©️ violations and if someone learns how to respect copyright laws in 2 (two) weeks or so they shouldn't have to wait 6 (six) arbitrarily selected months over some English-language Wikipedia essay. Once TPA is revoked a standard template with information about unblocking, what the user needs to understand, and at the very bottom a link to the UTRS should be provided, obviously UTRS agents can revoke UTRS access like they already can at the English-language Wikipedia, but I don't think that we should prevent appeals for 6 (six) months for no reason other than that an essay stated the number. I also don't think that information about unblocks and how to get unblocked should be directed to general OTRS / VRTS members. Today the Wikimedia Commons has a relatively small user base, but in the future many more people can join and it's better to have the options and not need it than to need it and not have it, UTRS agents will most likely just be admins willing to take on unblock requests and won't increase the workload for anyone, it will simply simplify an otherwise difficult process to navigate. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:14, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well all Wikimedia projects have a small userbase, the largest project, the english wikipedia has only 120,604 active users in the last 30 days. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 20:19, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, most indefinite blocks aren't for copyright violations, but for harassment, vandalism, socking, and other LTA. I don't have statistics, but that's my evaluation as longer-term admin here. I have been contacted by blocked users to other wikis, but the request is rarely in good faith. Yann (talk) 16:45, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What if such LTA's change, the idea that once an LTA, always an LTA is unconstructive. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 18:25, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Potential CU blocks with TPA removed are difficult to appeal as there are only 4 CUs in commons and they are mostly busy, so it is difficult to get the block resolved in a timely manner. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 19:10, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I haven't been super active on en.wp UTRS the last few years, but Deepfriedokra's description is right on. It should be, they are probably the most active UTRS admin we have over there. By the time someobody reaches the point of a UTRS request, there is a solid chance they are a lost cause, but sometimes the more private one-on-one nature of UTRS seems to really work for some people, and they get unblocked. The only final avenue of appeal after UTRS is the Arbitration Committee, and Commons doesn't have that, so I think this is an idea worth at least considering as a final appeal venue for Commons, but of course it only makes sense if the admins here at Commons are willing to do it. En.wp also used to have the ban appeals subcommittee], which was comprised of a subgroup of the arbitration committe. I accidentally got it disbanded, but that's another story. Commons could try something like that even without an ArbCom, by electing a block appeals committee of something like four or five trusted admins. I do think it is valuable to have a final, off-wiki avenue of appeal that is something more than "just email any random admin you think might be sympathetic" but I'm not sure which model is agood for Commons in particular. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:24, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
UTRS with block appeal subcommittee, best of both worlds. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 04:56, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Info The WMF is currently developing a new Private Incident Reporting System, maybe we could use this system for the purpose requested. --GPSLeo (talk) 07:06, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you!

Is this possible for all wikis? Grandmaster Huon (talk) 16:05, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's been in development for a year now and it hasn't been implemented yet?

Come on. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 19:11, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Info As a context note for current and future readers, the proposer of this change to Commons blocking policy/procedures has been indefinitely blocked on two language versions of Wikipedia in the last month. That doesn't invalidate the proposal to make changes on Commons but it may help editors understand the proposer's perspective. From Hill To Shore (talk) 21:55, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

September 15[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other effects:

Background jobs will be slower and some may be dropped. Red links might not be updated as quickly as normal. If you create an article that is already linked somewhere else, the link will stay red longer than usual. Some long-running scripts will have to be stopped.
We expect the code deployments to happen as any other week. However, some case-by-case code freezes could punctually happen if the operation require them afterwards.
GitLab will be unavailable for about 90 minutes.

This project may be postponed if necessary. You can read the schedule at wikitech.wikimedia.org. Any changes will be announced in the schedule. There will be more notifications about this. A banner will be displayed on all wikis 30 minutes before this operation happens. Please share this information with your community.

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

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

Location and Italian rail coach type[edit]

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

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

Regarding transfer from frwiki.[edit]

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

frwiki has its own sysops and its own policy regarding logos, stewards can’t delete files there.

A lot of the logos you imported here on Commons are clearly above COM:TOO.

I suggest you familiarise yourself with COM:TOO by reading previous deletion requests before doing a mass upload here.

The frwiki community doesn’t seem to think it’s a good idea. Thibaut (talk) 18:13, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Possible bug for the app of WLM Italy[edit]

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

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

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

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

According to the user, he used a different PC but a very similar or the same title so that could be the bug. The other file involved yesterdays was this one (sysop can see the deleted history), maybe he switched from Italian to English... i have to ask again. We will try again with a totally different title, a very long one, but it's clearly also something missing in the app interface that is not showing some warning.--Alexmar983 (talk) 16:27, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We can not simply keep this file. We have no information on what license the uploader wanted to upload the file. We have no guideline to use the license we have for the text as fallback in such cases. So the uploader needs to upload the file again. GPSLeo (talk) 16:42, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's what I siad he will do... the more important thing is the bug. There are 1000s of file uploaded already via this app and IF that warning is not active any newbie using a generic title is uploading new versions in random old files... that is more important now as an issue...--Alexmar983 (talk) 17:14, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I checked and found no possibility to prevent this as the app does not set any edit summary and checking for the oauth_consumer in AbuseFilters also seems to be broken. The general limitation of file overwrites that is planned anyway would also prevent this and could be turned on immediately. But I wanted to wait until the bug in the testing environment is fixed. GPSLeo (talk) 18:45, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am surprised this option is even possible...especially for an app targeted at newbies who statiscally use exisiting short recurring titles a lot...--Alexmar983 (talk) 18:59, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How on earth this was not noticed during the past two weeks? Most of Tuscan WLM users are trained and they usually avoid "simple" file names, this one was not one of the most active one but he informed me as soon as he noticed the bug. There must be other users who saw this after 1000s of files...Let's hope we were lucky and that was the first case...--Alexmar983 (talk) 19:02, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've reverted File:Before Sunrise.jpg since it's in use on several Wikipedias and it seems inappropriate to leave those pages broken while we hunt the bug. --bjh21 (talk) 18:49, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Of course it is, as we did with the other file which was not used... but we need focus on this bug... it could appear again in other apps...--Alexmar983 (talk) 18:57, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here's a Quarry query to find revisions tagged OAuth CID: 5309 that aren't the first revision of a page: quarry:query/76629. There are only ten, so I'll revert all the remaining ones. --bjh21 (talk) 19:35, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Great. Thanks.So my guess was correct, it couldn't have been the first occurence... I will check if there are some Tuscan one to inform the uploaders and when I have time inform other people, I have also left a post on Facebook of Toscana Wiki to avoid short string... I really don't have so much time but I'll do my best--Alexmar983 (talk) 19:47, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh. There aren't only ten: I'd forgotten there was a limit of ten results set on my query. There are actually 141 revisions affected. Many of them are files overwritten by their original uploader within a few minutes (e.g. File:Torricchio - Chiesa di San Michele Arcangelo - foto di Gianfranco Scagnetti.JPG), so probably don't need to be reverted. bjh21 (talk) 19:53, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes I see some are legit. Other ones even if uploaded after few minutes by the same user probably are not, in that case (I see one here) it's the uploader deleting a sequential number with the same one as part of a series, de facto hiding a file. In any case these users have to be informed and checked... I am sending already private messages...--Alexmar983 (talk) 19:59, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! I've reverted the ones where the previous uploader was a different user and left {{Dont overwrite}} on the appropriate talk pages. The query could probably be improved, but I don't have time today. --bjh21 (talk) 20:32, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

September 16[edit]

Russian copyright laws’ validity in occupied Ukraine[edit]

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

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

This would be a problem for other copyright questions. But in this case this was published by a Russian public institution so their copyright and licensing rules apply independently of the location where they publish something. I do not think that the logo was created by Ukrainian forced laborers captured by Russia. {{PD-USGov-NASA}} also applies to all photos taken by NASA employees, also if they are not in the US or space. GPSLeo (talk) 15:09, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, it was published by the “Luhansk People’s Republic,” in Ukraine, in 2018, while it denied being controlled by the Russian Federation. (In 2022 a Dutch court found that the LNR had been under overall control of the RF since May 2014.) Russian law has never had jurisdiction there.

Parts of Ukraine have been subject to a coercive and lawless foreign regime since 2014. Ukrainian enterprises were looted and taken captive from 2014. Ukrainians have had Russian passports forcibly imposed, and now have been forcibly conscripted to die fighting in Russia’s war against Ukraine. It’s entirely reasonable to assume it was literally created by Ukrainian forced laborers captured by Russia. —Michael Z. 2023-09-16 15:29 z 15:29, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Michael, I understand the point you are trying to make, but I don't think it's relevant. You are effectively saying that a group in rebellion against the Ukrainian government are stuck with a copyright they don't claim and don't want because the laws of that government say they have it, and that therefore material that they consider themselves to have put in the public domain requires them to overtly release rights granted by an authority they don't recognize. The intent to follow Russian law and to place this in the public domain appears to me to be quite clear. - Jmabel ! talk 16:50, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, and I don’t quite understand that. What I am saying is the work in question appears to tagged with a licence that doesn’t apply in the country it was published in. I’m not expert enough to judge if this is acceptable for use, so I posted here. I suppose it shouldn’t be used unless we can clearly demonstrate that there is an acceptable applicable licence. —Michael Z. 2023-09-16 18:25 z 18:25, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is not a license compared to others. This “license” indicates that the author is an employee of the institution and that the work was published under the conditions of the institution. In this case the institution is the Russian federation, but every private company could have a similar license for their works. GPSLeo (talk) 21:42, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tag for The Unlicense[edit]

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

WTH is "The Unlicense"? Could you provide a link to some more information. --Túrelio (talk) 20:16, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Presumably en:Unlicense, "The Unlicense is a public domain equivalent license for software which provides a public domain waiver with a fall-back public-domain-like license, similar to the CC Zero for cultural works." Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:21, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Andy is correct. It is a license similar to CC0 with the following text:

"This is free and unencumbered software released into the public domain.

Anyone is free to copy, modify, publish, use, compile, sell, or

distribute this software, either in source code form or as a compiled

binary, for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial, and by any means.

In jurisdictions that recognize copyright laws, the author or authors

of this software dedicate any and all copyright interest in the

software to the public domain. We make this dedication for the benefit

of the public at large and to the detriment of our heirs and

successors. We intend this dedication to be an overt act of

relinquishment in perpetuity of all present and future rights to this

software under copyright law.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND,

EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF

MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT.

IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR

OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE,

ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR

OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.

For more information, please refer to <http://unlicense.org>" Chamaemelum (talk) 21:13, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Probably OK, though the specific reference to "software" gives me pause. Are people in fact using this for any type of file that we ever actually host on Commons? - Jmabel ! talk 22:11, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On the current evidence, I'd object to use of that licence on Commons. The licence is specifically for software, so any other media released under that licence may not be correctly licensed. The rights holder could later dispute the validity of a release for certain file types and take reusers to court. We wouldn't want to be enabling that sort of behaviour. The licence would be okay for software, but do we allow software uploads on Commons? I can't think of any examples. From Hill To Shore (talk) 22:36, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PDFs are written in a page description language based on PostScript. Fonts are legally considered software if they meet certain requirements. SVGs are XML-based. So, if such description languages constitute software, then I would say we do host software. Elizium23 (talk) 00:03, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Right. If a law talks about copyright of "print materials," but we host them digital scans or as text, or if a law talks about copyright of "photographs" but we host them as strings of 1s and 0s, it is understood that even though we are hosting an abstraction of the original thing, copyright law applies as if we did host the original thing itself. This makes me think that abstractions of software under The Unlicense, such as a screenshot of the program, still fall under The Unlicense. Chamaemelum (talk) 01:08, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It looks like the template people are using is "This work has been released into the public domain by its author, [author]."

Or: "This file is in the public domain because The creator of the game has expressly stated that it is Public Domain in it's entirety."

These examples seem to use The Unlicense, some more than others:

File:Youtube-dl downloading Big Buck Bunny.jpg

User:Pandakekok9/common.js

File:FC-SR-anotherwaytoscroll.jpg

MediaWiki:Gadget-jStorage.js

Category:Wikyrill-o-mat

File:FC-SR-nuts.gif

Category:Coming Out Simulator 2014

Images created directly by software seem to be an extension of the original software. I.e., someone releases a video game under The Unlicense, and all graphics are created by the video game's software. In this scenario, a simple screenshot of the 3d render of the world in the video game would fall under The Unlicense, in my opinion. A unique creative work seperate from the software, such as a drawing or logo made within the video game, or a book written in a text editor licensed under The Unlicense, would not fall under The Unlicense. That is: is the media a depiction of the software, or is the media its own standalone creative work? Chamaemelum (talk) 01:05, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Allam Medical Building.jpg[edit]

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

Images based on purchased 3D assets[edit]

I am currently in a dispute with @FrankHM: regarding this image: [2]. This image is based on a purchasable 3D asset on Renderosity by Raul Lunia (Dinoraul). [3]. FrankHM has asserted that he has purchased a standard license to use the model from Renderosity (stated here), and therefore per Renderosity's license agreement he can create images that are copyrightable to him. (Covered in the section "Allowed uses of the standard license" [4]). Would something like this require UTRS to show proof of license? I have concerns that this image is not acceptable under the license regardless, as the relevant section says that the render must satify these criteria: 1. The new work does not compete with the original Product. 2. The new work is uniquely different from the original Product. However, I don't see how a render of the 3d model on a white background could be considered not-compete or "uniquely different" from the original 3d model. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:54, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The license for the 3D model is:

"

The Buyer shall not redistribute the Product, in whole or in part, in any file format for sale or for free. The Buyer shall not store the Product any place where it could be used by another person or party (whether it is on a network or on the Internet). The Buyer shall not convert or recreate the Product to any other media format and re-distribute the files, regardless of whether it is for sale or free. The Buyer shall not use the Product in such a way that the original materials could be extracted. Products sold at Renderosity shall not be used for illegal purposes."

The PRODUCT I have bought is a 3D model (.OBJ file). This file is NOT present in the picture! The picture is a plain .JPG file wothout that do not contain any 3D information.

More:

"The Buyer may copyright any newly created rendered images using the purchased, original Product files, provided the original Product files remain protected from being extracted from the derivative work. The Buyer may use the Product in rendered images for any personal or commercial projects, as long as the Artist’s work is protected from extraction and the Buyer has not violated any other terms of the License."

That is: I can create ANY picture and I can claim copyright of these pictures as long as I do not include the 3D model (.OBJ file).

How I render MY image is not of your concern. If I choose to use a blank background that is MY choice.

Before YOU start claim copyright violation, YOU need to learn the rights (and probably learn to read). It do not state ANYWHERE in the LICENSE file that the render image have to be "considered not-compete or "uniquely different" from the original 3d model"; Rather the oposite. The Buyer are not allowed to change the 3D model!

.:. Frank .:. FrankHM (talk) 00:07, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A render of the 3D model clearly qualifies as a "newly created work" for the purpose of the license, and therefore the non-compete and "uniquely different" criteria clearly apply to it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:09, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Where imn the licese file do YOU read "non-compete and "uniquely different"

END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT

FOR RENDEROSITY MARKETPLACE ITEMS

GENERAL RESTRICTIONS AND TERMS OF USE:

It is the Buyer’s responsibility to read and understand this license (the “License”). If you are unsure about anything in this License, please send an email to [email protected] before using any Renderosity files.

This is a legal and binding agreement between you (the “Buyer”) and Renderosity MarketPlace, (“Renderosity”). By installing, downloading, copying, or otherwise using any Renderosity files (the “Product”), you have conclusively accepted all of the terms and conditions of this License.

Purchase of the Product from Renderosity grants the Buyer a limited, non-exclusive, non-transferable license to use the contents of the encapsulating zip file. The Buyer may use the Product commercially in the form of rendered images but may not distribute the Product or any of the Product’s files. The Artist (Author) retains all copyrights to the files. The Buyer shall not copy, modify, reverse compile, or reverse engineer the Product, or sell, sublicense, rent, or transfer the Product to any third party.

This License does not grant permission to produce a real, tangible replica of the 3D mesh/model/product acquired. An additional license for production rights may be purchased by contacting Renderosity and will be subject to negotiation and approval by the vendor. Renderosity will contact the vendor on the Buyer’s behalf.

The Buyer shall not redistribute the Product, in whole or in part, in any file format for sale or for free. The Buyer shall not store the Product any place where it could be used by another person or party (whether it is on a network or on the Internet). The Buyer shall not convert or recreate the Product to any other media format and re-distribute the files, regardless of whether it is for sale or free. The Buyer shall not use the Product in such a way that the original materials could be extracted. Products sold at Renderosity shall not be used for illegal purposes.

The Buyer may copyright any newly created rendered images using the purchased, original Product files, provided the original Product files remain protected from being extracted from the derivative work. The Buyer may use the Product in rendered images for any personal or commercial projects, as long as the Artist’s work is protected from extraction and the Buyer has not violated any other terms of the License. The Buyer may backup copies on hard drives, CD or DVD of the zip file for personal archival purposes only. The Buyer may not store files online. For Merchant Resource Products, additional permissions or limitations of rights will be specified in of each Product’s readme file. Software programs and utilities may have an additional license from the company or vendor that developed it. The Buyer agrees to be bound by the additional permissions and limitations contained in the Merchant Resource Products and Software Programs or utilities. For any product to be considered a Merchant Resource, Software program or utility, it must be clearly stated as such.

The Buyer retains this License, even if the Artist stops selling the work at a later date, or decides to charge a different price.

OWNERSHIP:

The Artist has verified that all items in the zip file are his/her own original work. Any components of the Product containing work from third parties require documented proof of rights to use, and are on file at Renderosity. All Renderosity Artists represent and warrant that they legally possess the power to grant the Buyer this License for all enclosed materials.

REFUNDS AND REVOCATION OF LICENSE:

Renderosity or the Artist may revoke this License upon receipt of information that the Product is being used in violation of any copyright laws or it is shown that the Buyer has violated any of the terms and conditions above. Upon receipt of notice that the Buyer has violated any copyright laws or the terms or conditions of the License, the Buyer shall immediately delete all Product files, both in original and derivative form, contained in the notice.

If the Artist shows that any of the original material can be extracted from the Buyer's derivative work, the Artist may require both the original and derivative work, and all copies thereof, to be deleted. The buyer may be banned from the site, and downloads may no longer be available. Upon receipt of such a demand, the Buyer shall immediately delete all Product files, both in original and derivative form, contained in the notice.

In the event the Buyer is not satisfied with the Product, a refund may be issued based upon Renderosity’s refund policy. Issuing refunds is at the discretion of the Artist and/or the Renderosity MarketPlace staff. Refunds will be issued only after the Buyer has worked with the Artist to correct the problem. If a refund is issued, the Buyer must delete all copyright protected Product files on his/her computer and any creation that was made using the Product.

NO WARRANTY ON PRODUCT:

THE PRODUCT AND RELATED SERVICES ARE WARRANTED, IF AT ALL, ONLY ACCORDING TO THE EXPRESS TERMS HEREOF. EXCEPT AS WARRANTED HEREIN, RENDEROSITY HEREBY DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES AND CONDITIONS WITH REGARD TO THE PRODUCT. THE PRODUCT IS LICENSED “AS IS” WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND TO CUSTOMER OR ANY THIRD PARTY, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OF THE PRODUCT, FITNESS FOR THE BUYER'S PURPOSE OR SYSTEM INTEGRATION; INFORMATIONAL CONTENT OR ACCURACY; NON-INFRINGEMENT; AND TITLE. THE BUYER AGREES THAT ANY EFFORTS BY RENDEROSITY TO MODIFY ITS GOODS OR SERVICES SHALL NOT BE DEEMED A WAIVER OF THESE LIMITATIONS, AND THAT ANY RENDEROSITY WARRANTIES SHALL NOT BE DEEMED TO HAVE FAILED OF THEIR ESSENTIAL PURPOSE. THE BUYER FURTHER AGREES THAT RENDEROSITY SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO THE BUYER OR ANY THIRD PARTY FOR ANY LOSS OF PROFITS, LOSS OF USE, INTERRUPTION OF BUSINESS, OR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OF ANY KIND WHETHER UNDER THE LICENSE OR OTHERWISE, EVEN IF RENDEROSITY WAS ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES OR WAS GROSSLY NEGLIGENT. Some jurisdictions may not permit the exclusion or limitation of liability for consequential or incidental damages, and, as such, some portion of the above limitation may not be applicable. In such jurisdictions, Renderosity’s liability shall be limited to the greatest extent permitted by applicable law.

INDEMNIFICATION:

The Buyer hereby agrees to indemnify Renderosity and its directors, officers, agents, and employees and to hold each of them harmless in all respects, including costs and attorney’s fees, from and against any and all claims, demands, suits, or causes of action of whatever kind or nature and resulting settlements, awards, or judgments resulting from any breach by the Buyer of the License. This indemnity shall survive the termination of the License.

GOVERNING LAW:

The License shall be governed by the laws of the State of Tennessee. For the purposes of the License, each party hereby consents to the personal jurisdiction and exclusive venue of any court located in Rutherford County, Tennessee.

Force Majeure:

No party will be liable for and shall be excused from any failure to deliver or perform or for delay in delivery or performance due to causes beyond its reasonable control, including but not limited to, work stoppages, shortages, civil disturbances, terrorist actions, transportation problems, interruptions or power or communications, failure or suppliers or subcontractors, natural disasters or other acts of God.

SEVERABILITY:

The provisions of this License are severable. If any provision of the License is for any reason held to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable, the remaining provisions of this License shall be unimpaired and continue in full force and effect, and, to the maximum extent permitted by law, the invalid, illegal, or unenforceable provision shall be replaced by a mutually acceptable provision, which, being valid, legal, and enforceable, comes closest to the intention of the parties underlying the invalid, illegal, or unenforceable provision. FrankHM (talk) 00:16, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can find the section by pressing "ctrl f" and then searching for the phrase "uniquely different". It's clearly there in the standard license under the section "ALLOWED USES OF THE STANDARD LICENSE" as I previously stated. [5]. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:22, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Furthermore, it clearly states that "The Buyer shall not recreate the Product or convert to any other media format and re-distribute the files, regardless of whether it is for sale or free." in that. In the first place, I feel that the fact that the file is marked as "Frank Markussen's Own Work" is itself a problem. It would be best if we could contact Raul himself, but unfortunately he is no longer in this world. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 04:49, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I concur, I've opened a deletion discussion. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Cronopio_dentiacutus.jpg . Please participate if interested. Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:38, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

September 17[edit]

Translation of poetic works[edit]

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

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

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

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

The 1ooed millionth file on Wikimedia Commons[edit]

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

Flickr has a lot of free files that can be used for upload, so is youtube. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 19:01, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@MasterRus21thCentury: Can you please explain what you mean by, "regardless of copyright"? Commons has strict policies on copyright, so we need to be careful with phrasing your idea in a way that avoids confusion. From Hill To Shore (talk) 08:41, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

You should probably give a read to COM:TOO France and ponder if frwiki was correct in keeping those files local. Especially since you were blocked for your actions in regards to them. -- ferret (talk) 21:16, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We can all agree that this is below TOO. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 22:07, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

France doesn't use sweat of the brow, so most of the logos are too simple to be copyrighted. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 22:16, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While I would guess that the logo you give as an example is below TOO in France, it's probably close enough to the borderline that if fr-wiki is more comfortable retaining as locale, I can certainly imagine a fair rationale for them to do so. - Jmabel ! talk 22:21, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Still have plenty below TOO files left in frwiki. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 00:02, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For File:Logo-groupe-sos.webp you forgot to copy across the author and date information, which I have now inserted. If you are going to transfer files from any other wiki projects, make sure to do a manual check that all information has come across. In this case, the French wiki template seems to insert "inconnu" ("unknown") for any blank fields, while Commons does not. This means if you leave everything to the automated tool, you will lose a lot of valid information. I note that the French wikipedia users said you were relying on translation tools rather than knowing their language yourself; if you don't know the source language enough to replicate the valid information here, I would advise against attempting any more transfers from other languages. I have not checked any of your other transfers yet for any similar mistakes. From Hill To Shore (talk) 05:07, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Links: [6][7][8].

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

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

How can I be unblocked from frwiki? Grandmaster Huon (talk) 06:33, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

September 18[edit]

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

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

Commons:Village pump