Commons:Village pump/Archive/2024/07

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hello, this is kind of urgent: The video File:Drone video of Keila waterfall and manor in Keila-Joa, Estonia.webm which is selected as Media of the Day for 8th of July, so in just 3 days (without the recent one I am writing this), does only display an all white preview image. Can do someone a fast repair? — Speravir – 23:07, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up, but there is a simple solution: we can choose a certain time as the frame that is the thumbnail. Input thumbtime= to make a different thumbnail. E.g. [[File:Drone video of Keila waterfall and manor in Keila-Joa, Estonia.webm|thumb|thumbtime=10]] looks like:

So we should be okay as long as someone chooses a good time for a thumbnail frame. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:34, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Justin, I know, but this does not work for Media of the Day. I have forgotten to link to it above, but added this just now, or take a look from here: {{Motd/2024-07-08}} – yes, it is a template. — Speravir – 23:44, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

What do you think of this: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AMotd%2F2024-07-08&diff=891850543&oldid=890322763 —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh, and ! I think, this should be documented somewhere, {{Motd}} or {{Motd filename}} or both. By the way: Strange enough, even thumbtime=0 seems to work. — Speravir – 00:07, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

So, I consider this fast resolved. — Speravir – 00:07, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

@Koavf: Unfortunately your change broke the template, it seems. Wouldn’t Template:Motd/2024-07-08_thumbtime be the right way to handle this? --Geohakkeri (talk) 07:32, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

It's only broken on the language-agnostic version, not the translations. Template:Motd/2024-07-08 thumbtime does not display the actual media. Whatever solution others think works is fine by me. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:35, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

At least now it displays a reasonable title, even if it has an extraneous bit. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:37, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

And now it just looks correct on the template. Great work. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:07, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Templates can be quite tricky sometimes. --Geohakkeri (talk) 08:21, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Geohakkeri for the custom fix. It should in general, though, be available as template parameter. I do not have just gone into the deep details of it yet. — Speravir – 00:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

@Speravir: No, it was Justin (koavf) who made the custom fix. I fixed it in general. --Geohakkeri (talk) 06:38, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

@Geohakkeri: I referred to your Special:Diff/891951137 and did not like this approach – I thought of a parameter {{{thumbtime}}} instead. But I’ve also said I hadn’t looked into details. I’ve meanwhile noticed that my idea could not work, and you’ve essentially just adapted some code from {{Motd}}. — Speravir – 23:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Speravir 23:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Everything, I sampled in Category:Disease-related deaths in Beijing, is complete bollocks.

Executions, airline crashes, and old age are not Disease-related. Looks like vandalism to me. What to do? Broichmore (talk) 18:14, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi. I have commented on the deletion nomination for an image of an Indonesian Government official. The original reason for the nomination was (in Spanish) "Who is it?". As far as I can figure out, simply not knowing who a person is, isn't a reason for a deletion nomination. So, I believe the nomination to be invalid, but can't find out how to get it reviewed and potentially shut down. In my opinion, it was possibly a bad faith nomination, because as soon as I categorised it (as it hadn't got any categories when uploaded), the nominator responded to say that he was "pleased to have drawn attention to the lack of categories" and would "thank me again when I added the correct ones". I'm not sure what to do with it. DaneGeld (talk) 12:38, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

@DaneGeld: Why haven't you linked it in the discussion here? If everyone is now in agreement that it should be kept, including the original nominator, then any experienced user (not just an admin) can close it as a speedy keep by clear consensus. - Jmabel ! talk 19:25, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

And ideally shouldn’t be closed by an involved user with the DR (other than the nominator). Bidgee (talk) 19:38, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

@Jmabel - I didn't link the discussion because I have fallen foul of being misconstrued as fishing for comments on discussions in the past, which is apparently frowned upon. I simply avoided it as I was asking for advice, rather than seeking others to comment on it. DaneGeld (talk) 21:48, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

@DaneGeld: in the future: state what you are wanting as neutrally as possible, and link the mention on VP or similar page from the discussion in question, so that you are clearly not doing anything surreptitious. - Jmabel ! talk 21:53, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I've closed this nomination. Omphalographer (talk) 20:18, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. DaneGeld (talk) 21:52, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Currently, there are 184 sysops.

Edited by RZuo (talk).

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

--RZuo (talk) 21:23, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello. Kindly visit Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/United Arab Emirates#‎UAE Copyright law before 1992 for the discussion. Regards, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Video game videos by name or Videos of video games by name--Trade (talk) 12:53, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

It seems like similar categories start with "videos", but "videos of video games" just sounds clunky. So who knows. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:58, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think you can get around repeating "video".

Also there is Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/04/Category:Video game videos. Enhancing999 (talk) 20:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Another existing option is "Videos related to video games", which seems to be what the main category actually contains. "Video game videos" sounds like cutscenes and "Videos of video games" sounds like gameplay. Why "by name" and not "by game"? Sinigh (talk) 10:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

We already use by name for "Indie video games by name‎" and similar others so i assumed we needed to be consistent? Trade (talk) 15:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but what I reckon is that "Indie video games by name‎" refers to the names of the indie games and, following the same logic, "Videos of video games by name" would then refer to the names of the videos rather than the names of the associated games. But I'm not sure, so take this with a grain of salt! Sinigh (talk) 16:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello, {{Web source}} is a template for providing links to the sources of files uploaded from other places on the web. It currently has two (undocumented) parameters which are set up to provide author information, |author= and |photographer=. This seems a little odd to me because usually in templates like {{Information}} author and source information is listed separately instead of on the same line. For this reason, I am wondering if the current set up with {{Web source}} is inline with general Commons best practices and if it would be worthwhile to deprecate the parameters. For reference, the |photographer= parameter is currently only used about a dozen times and I haven't been able to find any uses of |author=. Thanks for any feedback and take care. —The Editor's Apprentice (Talk) 00:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

That's probably why they aren't documented. - Jmabel ! talk 03:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

The template was apparently thought primarily for artworks and to be used within template:artwork and similar templates and situations (although it can certainly be used in other contexts also). The template:artwork has a line "source/photographer", on the same line (which is somewhat strange and impractical, but it's been like that forever and unlikely to be changed easily). Therefore, it makes sense that template:web_source is compatible and includes relevant related parameters. I suppose that, in the line source/photographer of template:artwork, users may find practical to place the photographer inside the same template:web_source rather than outside it. Also, it must be noted that template:web_source is embedded in other templates, such as template:From_Google_Art_Project. Not sure about the parameter "author", but it might have a potential use in some such other circumstances. I would hesitate to just remove stuff from templates like that. Did you think of consulting the creator of the template (who is still active on Commons)? -- Asclepias (talk) 05:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

You're right, the |photographer= parameter does indeed mirror the set up of {{Artwork}}, so its not a complete anomaly and it would make sense for them to be compatible since they are often used together. I indeed share your hesitation to outright remove functionality from templates which is in part why I started this discussion. You're also right to ask about my consulting Zolo as the creator of the template. Usually in similar circumstances that is something I do, but since I was thinking about general best practices/acceptability, in this case I ended up going to a public forum first. That said, I would be interested in hearing about @Zolo's intentions and thought process, both for {{Web source}} as a whole and the |author= and |photographer= parameters in particular. Thanks to you both and please take care. —The Editor's Apprentice (Talk) 20:06, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

The template:artwork displays at the front end, "source/photographer", but not within the code, presumably photographer intended there is the scanner, and not the original photographer. Scanners in that sense exist for any and all GLAM products we have. These days we enter the url there, only a few years ago that might have, had to be the GLAM or an individual by name.

Interestingly |photographer= can be added into the artwork template, so I'll use it from here. Before I was putting that name under artist.

I'm probably doing this the wrong way, but for author I sometimes put in the author of the book the photo came from, or the full name of the artist/ photographer, whereas in artist I might put in the shortened signed name from the piece in question. Then sometimes I want to use the author field to put in the full unabbreviated name.

In any event, if the photo came, from say, en:Life (magazine), I would have; Life under the author, after all, they probably commissioned it, the photographer being a staffer.

I'm sorry, I wouldn’t use this template for anything. It's far too glib. Most of the photographs I upload come from GLAM's, and I use the {{Artwork}} template for them. The GLAM collection information being important here, especially the accession number. I really don't see why we would want to encourage glib uploading of any item, ignoring attribution, and this template, by its brevity, does exactly that.

We face an oncoming rush of AI derived images of epidemic proportions. The provenance and sourcing of where images come from, and their legitimacy is something we need to beef up, and I fear the project is asleep at the wheel on this issue. – Broichmore (talk) 11:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Must admit. I'm getting tired of these author templates that takes up half my screen for no good reason other than to look fancy--Trade (talk) 15:06, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I have a question regarding categories [Month] [Year] in [Place], e.g. Category:June 2024 in Kraków. If there's a subcategory belonging to it, does it mean:

• Photos are be taken on [Month] [Year], or,
• Photos of the event that occurred on [Month] [Year]?

For example:

• Category:2024 Jagiellonian University pro-Palestinian campus occupation‎

Category contains photos taken on June 2024, but the occupation event started on May 2024. Apart of the Category:June 2024 in Kraków, should it belong to Category:May 2024 in Kraków then?

Dwxn (talk) 11:16, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

If a category like this belongs as a parent category of Category:2024 Jagiellonian University pro-Palestinian campus occupation‎, yes, I'd also include Category:May 2024 in Kraków. But my own feeling is that it should simply use Category:2024 events in Kraków, and the month-specific categories should be on individual photos. - Jmabel ! talk 19:10, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Bonjour,

Il y a plus de 11 ans, une personne a posté une photo de moi prise dans un cadre privé. Aujourd'hui, je souhaite vraiment qu'elle soit supprimée car elle peut me porter préjudice au travail. J'ai proposé sa suppression à plusieurs mais elle n'est jamais supprimée. Je ne sais plus quoi faire. Merci de m'aider. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sayamelyay5 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

@Sayamelyay5:

1. Is the picture in use on one of our sister projects, such as one of the Wikipedias?
2. Have you requested deletion as a personal courtesy or on some other basis?
3. You say the picture was the picture was taken in a private place. Was it with or without your consent?
4. Also, could you say what country, because issues about this vary widely from country to country.

Jmabel ! talk 21:56, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Also, having looked slightly further into this: are you sure the picture in question has not already been deleted? Please check. - Jmabel ! talk 22:06, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sandrine Lefebvre-Reghay photo.png. I deleted the file in question as F10. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:11, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Mille mercis. Y a t il un délai de suppression dans Google ? Bien à vous Sayamelyay5 (talk) 22:20, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Bonsoir,

J'ai vérifié. Je la vois toujours sur Google en tapant mon nom.

Bien à vous Sayamelyay5 (talk) 22:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Google takes some time to update its cache.

Anyway, the photo is no longer in Commons. If what Google shows is a problem, it should be dealt with Google. Pere prlpz (talk) 08:17, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Could anyone proficient in German fix the dead link? --Trade (talk) 21:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I am not proficient at all but I guess the links should be https://www.admin.ch/gov/de/start/bundesrat/geschichte-des-bundesrats/bundesraete-und-ihre-wahl/alle-bundesraete-liste.html and https://www.admin.ch/gov/de/start/bundeskanzlei/bundeskanzlerin/alle-bundeskanzler-liste.html. --Geohakkeri (talk) 05:53, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Here’s what to expect, and how to prepare.

Hello everyone, the new Community Wishlist (formerly Community Wishlist Survey) opens on 15 July for piloting. I will jump straight into an FAQ to help with some questions you may have:

Q: How long do I have to submit wishes?

A: As part of the changes, Wishlist will remain open. There is no deadline for wish submission.

Q: What is this ‘Focus Area’ thing?

A: The Foundation will identify patterns with wishes that share a collective problem and group them into areas known as ‘Focus Areas’. The grouping of wishes will begin in August 2024.

Q: At what point do we vote? Are we even still voting?

A: Contributors are encouraged to discuss and vote on Focus Areas to highlight the areas.

Q: How will this new system move wishes forward for addressing?

A: The Foundation, affiliates, and volunteer developers can adopt Focus Areas. The Wikimedia Foundation is committed to integrating Focus Areas into our Annual Planning for 2025-26.

Focus Areas align to hypotheses (specific projects, typically taking up to one quarter) and/or Key Results (broader projects taking up to one year).

Q: How do I submit a wish? Has anything changed about submissions?

A: Yes there are some changes. Please have a look at the guide.

I hope the FAQ helped. You can read more about the launch.

You are encouraged to start drafting your wishes at your pace. Please consult the guide as you do so. Also if you have an earlier unfulfilled wish that you want to re-submit, we are happy to assist you draft.

You can start your draft (see an example) and don't hesitate to ask for support when drafting by sending me a link to your draft/sandbox via Meta email to help/review it. Alternatively you can leave the link in the Drafts List. –– STei (WMF) (talk) 14:36, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Is there a script/tool I can use to assist deletion sorting? I regularly come across DRs that should be categorized, or which were never updated with the result. There are a few such scripts on enwp, but deletion sorting works differently there. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  14:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Apparently not, so now there's User:Rhododendrites/drsort.js. Still a work in progress. Please leave feedback/advice on the talk page. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  13:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I've uploaded the below three DJVU files from the Internet Archive using the IA Upload tool and there are issues. There is a warning in the files saying "This file type may contain malicious code. By executing it, your system may be compromised." and the files' dimensions are 0 x 0. Any idea what is going on and how to fix this?

• File:Hannibal and the Crisis of the Struggle between Carthage and Rome.djvu
• File:Theodoric the Goth, the Barbarian Champion of Civilisation.djvu
• File:Oliver Cromwell and the Rule of the Puritans in England.djvu

Ciridae (talk) 06:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I purged the pages and the details came right up. This is something that has been happening for a while with PDFs and DJVUs. Likely the file page is sometimes rendered before the metadata is available (race condition). It then gets cached until you edit or purge it. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 08:33, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

@TheDJ: Thank you! What are the steps to purge a page? There is a similar issue with File:The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, 2010-2012 State Report.pdf. Ciridae (talk) 17:14, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Help:Purge is the solution. Ciridae (talk) 17:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Ciridae (talk) 17:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Dates that clarify or disambiguate categories, such as categories for individual sports matches, should they be written as 6 October 2021 or 2021-10-06?

I would assume that the all-numeric format is the better option, since it automatically sorts similarly named categories by date, and since categories for specific days use that format (e.g. Category:2021-10-06). But both formats are in use and I haven't been able to find any instructions as to which one should be used in these cases.

Sinigh (talk) 11:38, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

In the HTML script stick with 2021-10-06 format. Broichmore (talk) 18:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, definitely! But what about the name of the category? Sinigh (talk) 18:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

If it's down to an individual day, I'd strongly favor ISO notation (2021-10-06 in this case). If it was just the month, then June 2021. - Jmabel ! talk 19:12, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

 Agree. I think both of those choices make the most sense for category trees. Sinigh (talk) 20:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I've been using the format '2023-01 text' for categories where only the month matters (if not only the year). I think that is the most reasonable standard so that the cats are sorted chronologically on category pages. Prototyperspective (talk) 21:48, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

You can also solve that with a DEFAULTSORT. - Jmabel ! talk 22:45, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I know but they are (more) unreliable and why not simply use this format putting the verbatim month into the title isn't useful and just causes problems due to people not adding a sortkey and the title longer. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:40, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, there are defaultsorting navigational templates for month categories. Sinigh (talk) 13:19, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

"both formats are in use"

where is "6 October 2021" systematically in use?

in any case, prefer yyyy-mm-dd over other formats. RZuo (talk) 16:33, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Good question, I should have provided an example in my first post. I'm referring to categories like those you'll find in this one: Category:Women's association football matches in Sweden. In this particular case, there seems to be a preference for a comma followed by "M Month YYYY", but dates in brackets are not uncommon elsewhere. (This category also showcases the typically arbitrary mix of "vs", "v", and hyphens both with and without spaces, and not a single unspaced en dash to be seen.) Sinigh (talk) 18:39, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Tyresö FF-Umeå IK, 16 April 2013‎ should be the agreed format IMO. This is the date format used by Wikipedia too, in the main. The numerical date in reverse, can be hidden from view to force sorting. Broichmore (talk) 09:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

If so, please note that the first punctuation mark should be an en dash: Tyresö FF–Umeå IK. As for the date format, that soccer game is actually a very good example for this thread. The category for the date itself is numeric: Category:2013-04-16, which contains two sports games with Day-Month name-Year dates, but also 60+ categories, in and including Category:Photographs taken on 2013-04-16‎, that instead use the all-numeric format. At the same time, there is indeed a general preference for the Day-Mn-Year format across Wikimedia. So you understand why I saw the need to ask my initial question.

Maybe it's intentional that date formats vary depending on the subject on the category? Sinigh (talk) 13:31, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

sports matches is a topic that needs a standard the most, but it seems commons never had a standard?

i just made some considerations:

1. there're two kinds of matches: two sided matches and "first past the post" matches (like track and field, borrowing an election jargon).
2. i think for two sided matches it's easy. the category title should include both teams' names and the date, that's all.
3. in the rare case when on the same day there are more than one match between teams with the same names (e.g. both a football match and a handball match between both france and japan), then we can add the actual sport as the disambiguation, e.g. France vs Japan (2022-11-11, U17 women's football), France vs Japan (2022-11-11, women's football). in the rare case when two sides face each other more than once on the same day, titles can be John Doe vs John Smith (2022-11-11, 1st), John Doe vs John Smith (2022-11-11, 2nd)
4. vs, v., -, or something else, which symbol to use, is up to community to decide.
5. for matches that're not between exactly two sides, i guess titles can just be the name of the event, from big to small, e.g. 2024 summer olympics - women's 100m freestyle - qualifier - group b (2024-11-11).
6. absolutely no reason not to use yyyy-mm-dd. other formats are messy for everything -- appeareance, sorting, intelligibility for non-english speakers, problem of preference between en-gb and en-us...

RZuo (talk) 21:26, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

It would appear that CropTool is once again broken to the point of unusability. The person who got it working again in February 2024 did not take on responsibility to maintain it over time, which is of course their prerogative. We really need someone to maintain this quite valuable tool. - Jmabel ! talk 17:58, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I hope this comes across without any challenging or derisive tone, Jmabel, but I have no idea what you're talking about. I've used CropTool hundreds of times and very rarely had any problems. I've used it in the past 48 hours. What kinds of issues are you experiencing? Is this a browser thing? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:10, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

@Koavf: A variety of issues, ranging from not getting it to load the image at all to going all through the process and not having it saved. I literally cannot remember the last time it worked for a rotate-and-crop (not counting a multiple of 90°), but it's been months. After half a dozen times in a row that it didn't work for me a couple of weeks ago, I've just switched to download, use GIMP, upload. We keep getting reports here and the VP (etc.) that it isn't working, and you are actually the first I've heard from in a month saying that is not a 100% experience; I'm actually a bit surprised to hear it is sometimes working. - Jmabel ! talk 20:12, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't use it very often, but I've used CropTool a few hundred times in the last year and never noticed any issue. However, most times I don't rotate the image. Pere prlpz (talk) 20:34, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

For rotations, I just use a little tool to request User:Rotatebot make the change. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:13, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken, Rotatebot will only do multiples of 90°; it will not do (for example) a 1.27° rotation and corresponding crop, nor do I readily see how anyone could know that is exactly what they want without a visual tool. - Jmabel ! talk 22:25, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

It can do rotations down to 1 degree. From the tool I have:

If you request a rotation by 90, 180 or 270° Rotatebot will do this in a few hours. If you request a rotation by any other angle it will probably take longer.

So as long as you can translate whatever you want into 360 degrees, then you should be good. (I should also point out that I've never asked for a rotation other than 90/180/270.) Again, I don't want to downplay if you or anyone else is having problems, but between CropTool cropping and the RotateLink gadget, I don't see the immediate issues. Agreed that long-term maintenance is certainly highly important tho, as these tools will break somewhere down the line. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:36, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

For the record, I tried the CropTool again, since several people above said it was working. I started from a 4000 x 6000 px image already on Commons. The tool spent somewhere upwards of 30 seconds failing to fetch the image, then prompted me again for a URL. Repeated twice, at which point I'm comfortable in saying it is still broken for me. - Jmabel ! talk 03:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I just tried to crop and rotate and image and it worked: File:Edifici Catalana Occidente (cropped).jpg. Maybe I was just lucky or maybe there is a problem related with the image you tried, your configuration or your equipment. What file did you try to crop?--Pere prlpz (talk) 08:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I think mere corp is more likely to fail for larger file sizes and during busier hours. Other features are completely broken. Enhancing999 (talk) 09:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Recently I've been unable to overwrite using CropTool, getting the error "The overwrite option is disabled because this is a multipage file", for example when trying to crop File:Galerius Arch (Thessaloniki).jpg. I've never seen this error until recently. It seems to work correctly when saving a new file. Consigned (talk) 18:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Occasionally, I get that message (for single page files or files with a blank second page), but it still overwrites. Enhancing999 (talk) 18:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Now I got what I think may be the same error as you. When trying to rotate 270º (without cropping) file:Diagonal 441 - Muntaner 223-225 - 20240618 173626.jpg, I got "[Error] undefined". Cropping the same image without rotating seems to work fine.--Pere prlpz (talk) 22:06, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

See: File:Onorio Moretti (1881-1939) obituary in The Boston Globe of Boston, Massachusetts on October 24, 1939.jpg in the structured data. I want to allow Distributed_by to be used in structured_data. AP UPI news articles are distributed to news outlets. Recordings and movies have distribution companies involved. I tried to make a change at Distributed_by but it did not work. RAN (talk) 15:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• What I am looking for is to allow distributed_by in structured data. --RAN (talk) 20:00, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

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

Hello everyone,

This is a kind reminder that the voting period to ratify the Wikimedia Movement Charter will be closed on July 9, 2024, at 23:59 UTC.

If you have not voted yet, please vote on SecurePoll.

On behalf of the Charter Electoral Commission,

RamzyM (WMF) 03:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

This building is just outside de Category:Hakata Station main station. It has green plants and even a waterfall.

Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:37, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

It’s the Miyako Hotel, Hakata, at (33.58977,130.42283). Dogfennydd (talk) 17:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

@Dogfennydd@Smiley.toerist done categorizing! It is a very good thing that Japanese copyright law does allow commercial uses of images of their architecture. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

In relation to the point Long-term structured digital preservation of humanity's media that has been included here, I'd like to comment on a general idea. I know that it isn't feasible at the moment, but I think about it as a wish (or dream) for the future. There are new very promising storage technologies in development, that will be great for very long term data storage. Once they are available at an affordable cost, many people or institutions will use them to ensure their data is never lost. But what data deserves that more than... human knowledge put together? This goes beyond Commons: all Wikimedia text dumps should also be included there. Text dumps are currently "only" about 25 TB in size (even if including last 5 versions; each one of them covers full history for all Wiki pages). All media files in Commons are currently 543.48 TB in all. 5D optical data storage disks could store up to 360 TB of data, so 2 of them could store all Commons media files, plus full text history of all wiki pages from all Wikimedia sites (including Commons itself). I don't know when it will become affordable, but, once it is, I think is absolutely desirable that WMF produces, each year or each few years, those 2 (or 3 or 4, no more should be needed, even if total size grows a lot) disks of human knowledge. Each pair/group of disks could be stored in different places, so very long term preservation of all content is ensured. If cost ends up being really low, its use can also be very promising for Internet Archive, so the earthquake risk for its contents (that I have expressed several times, both here and in Wikipedia village pump, and even at their own forum) would be virtually eliminated. MGeog2022 (talk) 13:04, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

It is very important to think about how human knowledge and documents of it can outlast many Millennia. Right now, there are several researches going on, which media might be the best for storing many hundreds of terabytes of data like "Project Silica" or "Cerabyte". Researching takes a lot time until respective storage media is available for the market. For writing and using the said 5D medium, we need a machine with a femtosecond laser, which is very uncommon. We need storage media where writing and reading will also be possible in the far future. Preserving data amounts under 1 PB isn't that expensive and can be assured easily. Next to classic HDDs, files could also be stored on LTO tapes, which are rather cheap and are good for archiving. Apart from this, we need distributed archiving and redundancies, and storage media that is not exposed to (human) failures and errors, or malware, or other threats. But as storage medisa gets better from year to year, we already are to store many many Petabytes on small space (the Internet Archive has a high storage density with its petabox). And in theory, you would need only fourty 26 TB HDDs for one petabyte, which fit in any (smaller) room. :) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 14:21, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

But the biggest problems are errors made by human users, disasters, wars, and people who don't think about or don't care about archiving their works (photos or videos of events etc.) they created. --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 14:22, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Another problem is how organisations like Internet Archive or Google, or Meta or whoever cares about preservation. The Internet Archive stores very many petabytes that have to be managed and to be maintained. Companies like Meta or Google hold high relevant files (look at images contributed to Google Maps; many people use Instagram to post relevant scenes) alive. What happens after their liquidation? How are their files treated and how to handle issues like copyright and privacy? What about archives of administrations, of towns, of newspapers, etc. pp... Many questions, but unfortunately too few answers. --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 14:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

According to the Wikipedia article about 5D optical data storage, it was used in 2018 to store a copy of Isaac Asimov's Foundation trilogy. That made me think that it was a matter of time (let's say 15-20 years, for example) for it to be available at an affordable cost to WMF. Of course there are lots of storage technologies available; the point with 5D storage is that the same physical disc could last for (theoretically) billions of years, so, once a backup is created, it needs no further maintenance. Well, up until 2021, there were no true backups of Wikimedia Commons media files (only several production copies); now, there are backups in both 2 main WMF datacenters. Before 2013 or so, there was only 1 main WMF datacenter (no copies or backups outside of it). I've read about plans to also implement offline backups that can provide even bigger security. Being optimistic, if the vast majority of files survived for many years when there weren't even proper backups (and even when all copies were at the same datacenter), they are much more likely to survive now that they are backuped following established standards. When the day arrives that high capacity media with an indefinite lifetime is available, it would be great to also write those backups to such media, but probably it isn't strictly needed, since well-maintained, frequent backups would in fact get almost the same level of security.

By the way, I think it is worth publicly recognizing the work by Jaime Crespo of WMF, in backups, and particularly media backups. They were an absolute need, and it seems that almost all work was made by him; it's really great.

What about archives of administrations, of towns, of newspapers: this is a complex issue. Data that enters public domain can be uploaded to Internet Archive, or, if applicable, to Commons. Governments of all levels should take care of their historical data, and eventually, to have a kind of world central repository, most of it could also end up in Archive or, in some cases, Commons. Archives of important newspapers are usually well-kept, and, if they enter public domain, could also be centralized in Internet Archive or a similar site.

Internet Archive or Google, or Meta: Google and Meta have enough money to store an enormous size of data, but their purpose is to monetize it, not to preserve it indefinitely. On the other hand, Internet Archive's problem is the combination of its small budget with the really big amount of data that it stores, probably along with some wrong decisions they have made. MGeog2022 (talk) 20:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry if I am trying to go too far too soon: thinking more about reality and less about dreams :-), probably the suggestion I should make is to implement offline backups (for example, on tape), if there are no immediate plans for it just now. MGeog2022 (talk) 20:38, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

For me, talking about these topics and possible scenarios is interesting, and worth to discuss :) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 06:44, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

• Watch some of the videos on Iron Mountain, Boyers, Pennsylvania facility storing digital and physical media, and Granite Mountain Records Vault and compare to 2008 Universal Studios fire original master recordings; and w:Double Fold where archives discard/sell original material after microfilming. --RAN (talk) 15:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

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

Hello all,

A special election has been called to fill additional vacancies on the U4C. The call for candidates phase is open from now through July 19, 2024.

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

In this special election, according to chapter 2 of the U4C charter, there are 9 seats available on the U4C: four community-at-large seats and five regional seats to ensure the U4C represents the diversity of the movement. No more than two members of the U4C can be elected from the same home wiki. Therefore, candidates must not have English Wikipedia, German Wikipedia, or Italian Wikipedia as their home wiki.

Read more and submit your application on Meta-wiki.

In cooperation with the U4C,

-- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 00:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Should Template:Negative boosted template be added to Template:AI upscaled and Template:PD-algorithm? You could argue that most people who are using Commons would rather prefer to find non-AI images when using the search function.--Trade (talk) 21:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

It depends on the subject, for some subjects (and not only AI-specific ones) some AI images are the most relevant, especially when it comes to recent art genres. It's more the quality of the image that matters than how it was created. There may not be very many cases of such but I oppose it being added to PD-algorithm. I'd support it being added to items in Category:AI misgeneration. Prototyperspective (talk) 21:30, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

For actively bad images it would make sense to also include the supercategory of Category:Poor quality AI-generated images, which can look superficially useful as a thumbnail but have some fundamental error at full size. Belbury (talk) 13:22, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

(Wrt Template:AI upscaled) Overwriting images with upscaled versions (whether with AI or otherwise) is against Commons policy. Should these edits not be reverted? ReneeWrites (talk) 23:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Commons is chock full of improperly overwritten files. The way the regulars talk about it here on VP, you would think something's being done, but not really. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 00:04, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

In fairness that's why COM:RFR was created. I don't know how effective it is in curbing destructive overwritings but it's not like there have been no attempts. The issue is that judging by what pages the template links to, the vast majority of these upscalings were done by an experienced Commons user. I assume this was a blind spot for them and they're just not aware of this policy. ReneeWrites (talk) 07:10, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

@ReneeWrites: they absolutely should be reverted.

@RadioKAOS: I certainly revert these on sight, unless it is genuinely own work by the uploader and they make that decision themselves to overwrite. - Jmabel ! talk 02:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

The template is to flag that an image may contain speculative AI-hallucinated content, not that the Commons image has been overwritten. Most AI-upscaled images are uploaded as separate files (sometimes, frustratingly, instead of the original, where a user pulling historical photos from old newspapers thinks they look better with the AI treatment). Belbury (talk) 10:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

"You could argue that most people who are using Commons would rather prefer to find non-AI images" We can argue lots of things of course, but is this actually the case ... I'd avoid this kind of reasoning, we do not know why people look for the things they look for. Better to make actual judgements on proper arguments. The negative boosted template is a pretty aggressive downrank (similar to that which deletions get) which I would not advise using for anything but literal trash, and thus I would not advise in this case. If it should be downranked with a different value is something that I'd be open to (based on arguments), but we would have to define and add extra levels of derank templates for that to work. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Some Commons users won't mind being served AI images. A number of Wikipedia projects seem very relaxed about using AI-upscaled or entirely AI-generated images for biography articles, apparently preferring them to lower-quality historical images. If I myself was looking for a drawing or an icon I wouldn't dismiss an AI-generated image out of hand.

But there is definitely an issue where a user may find it hard to distinguish real photographs from artificial ones, when searching. Right now, a search for "astronaut" is okay for the early results being a mix of photos and cartoony artwork - the photos are all (I think!) genuine, the cartoons are either AI or hand-drawn. There's nothing misleading there. But a search for "london steam train" has a completely fake AI image in the first few results, which only becomes apparent if you click through or hover to read the filenames. Belbury (talk) 13:01, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Good points, in your second link the problem is mitigated to some extent by the good file naming so when hovering over the AI image one sees a tooltip over it and the URL in the bottom left with "AI-generated" in the title (even when at VP/Proposals many have opposed a policy guideline for descriptive file naming). I think the best approach would be to have a tag in a corner of the thumbnail image that clarifies the image is entirely/largely made using some AI tool, and so even when glancing over the search results. Prototyperspective (talk) 20:09, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Yesterday I have uploaded File:Brückner Vielflache Fig. 42.jpg using Pywikibot. After one image I have stopped the script, to fix a detail in the description. But since then I was not able to upload the other images. The main error messages are An error occurred for uri https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/api.php and The write operation timed out.

Uploading file to commons:commons...
Sleeping for 7.3 seconds, 2024-07-10 17:23:06
ERROR: An error occurred for uri https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/api.php
ERROR: Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/home/PATH/env/lib/python3.12/site-packages/pywikibot/data/api/_requests.py", line 684, in _http_request
    response = http.request(self.site, uri=uri,
               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  File "/home/PATH/env/lib/python3.12/site-packages/pywikibot/comms/http.py", line 283, in request
    r = fetch(baseuri, headers=headers, **kwargs)
        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  File "/home/PATH/env/lib/python3.12/site-packages/pywikibot/comms/http.py", line 457, in fetch
    callback(response)
  File "/home/PATH/env/lib/python3.12/site-packages/pywikibot/comms/http.py", line 343, in error_handling_callback
    raise response from None
  File "/home/PATH/env/lib/python3.12/site-packages/pywikibot/comms/http.py", line 448, in fetch
    response = session.request(method, uri,
               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  File "/home/PATH/env/lib/python3.12/site-packages/requests/sessions.py", line 589, in request
    resp = self.send(prep, **send_kwargs)
           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  File "/home/PATH/env/lib/python3.12/site-packages/requests/sessions.py", line 703, in send
    r = adapter.send(request, **kwargs)
        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  File "/home/PATH/env/lib/python3.12/site-packages/requests/adapters.py", line 501, in send
    raise ConnectionError(err, request=request)
requests.exceptions.ConnectionError: ('Connection aborted.', TimeoutError('The write operation timed out'))

WARNING: Waiting 5.0 seconds before retrying.

Was something changed yesterday? My script is the same that has worked for the one uploaded file. --Watchduck (quack) 15:42, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I have succesfully uploaded photo today. If you dont already do try to use asynchronous=True for upload. If that doesn't help try to set socket_timeout for wikibot. ie.

pywikibot.config.socket_timeout = 120
site = pywikibot.Site("commons", "commons")  # for Wikimedia Commons
site.login()
image_file_path='/tmp/example.jpg'
commons_file_name = "File:example.jpg"
file_page = pywikibot.FilePage(site, commons_file_name)
if file_page.exists():
        print(f"The file {commons_file_name} exists.")
        exit()
file_page.text = wikitext
summary = "Uploading example.jpg"
file_page.upload(image_file_path, comment=comment,asynchronous=True)

--Zache (talk) 16:48, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

pywikibot.config.socket_timeout = 120 worked. Thanks. --Watchduck (quack) 17:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi I don't seem to be able to use the file https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:M_F_Gervais_Holy_Roman_Empire.pdf It show up in Commons but in Wikipedia I'm not able to use it. Why? It happened for my last file and someone 'did' something... I don't know what was done but it worked. What should I do to fix it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by M F Gervais (talk • contribs) 18:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

@M F Gervais: It is there and it functional however due to how big and unwieldy it is as a pdf it takes a while to render, especially whern it has to develop the image cache first:

Now because PDFs are typically multipage document it can need extra formatting if you are trying to do it through standard wiki formatting. mw:help:images. PDFs should not be used if you want to display an image, please upload an image file per Com:File types — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billinghurst (talk • contribs) 07:59, 1 June 2024‎ (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Contributor2020^{Talk to me here!} 06:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Could someone create the license template Template:AGPLv3 only? We currently only have Template:AGPL, and that's not acceptable for files that don't use the "or any later version" clause.

We already have Template:GPLv3 only, which makes this distinguishment for Template:GPLv3.

I'd create the template myself, as I've recently uploaded an AGPLv3-only file, but I have zero experience with template creation and wouldn't even know where to start.

It also occurred to me that there might be some files incorrectly marked as AGPL, since the correct license tag doesn't exist and apparently never has, so the logical step for the lazy is to just use the AGPL template and be done with the upload (which I'll also do, though I'll change the license to the correct one once someone creates the template).

Dunno if this helps, but the Wikidata ID for AGPLv3 (ie. AGPLv3 only) is GNU Affero General Public License, version 3.0 (Q27017232) and AGPLv3 (containing the "any later version" clause) is GNU Affero General Public License, version 3.0 or later (Q27020062). --Veikk0.ma (talk) 01:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I've created Template:AGPLv3 only, but I'm waiting for a translation admin to mark Template:AGPLv3 only/i18n for translation. I might have done something wrong with the i18n stuff so if a more experienced user/translation admin can check that would be wonderful. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 10:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

@Veikk0.ma:  Done, see Template:AGPLv3 only, you can use/translate it now. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 17:11, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks! --Veikk0.ma (talk) 00:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Does anyone know the significance of "campaign323@ISA"? I am seeing a lot of bad "depicts" with that as an edit summary. - Jmabel ! talk 01:59, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

What is the position of Commons on the International Standard Content Code (ISCC - ISO 24138) https://iscc.io/ ?

As neither the english-languaae Wikipedia nor the german-language Wikipedia have an article on ISCC, don't mention it in the ISCC-disambiguation page and do not even mention it anywhere, I fear, that there is no postion about ISCC at Commons? @Legoktm: --C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 10:30, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of ISCC up until now. Was there a specific reason you pinged me? Legoktm (talk) 02:20, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, someone tagged you about ISCC on Mastodon a few days ago (in connection with an annocement about ISCC and the expressed hope that Commons would use it). C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 02:33, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

How about adding a SDC prop for ISCC? --C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 10:31, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

It seems like this is a fancy version of perceptual hashing. (More specifically, it is a combination of 4 hashes - a (similarity) hash of the metadata, a perceptual hash of content, a semantic hash of content, and a cryptographic hash of content). According to one of their press releases it will help track the profiliation of AI fakes, but i have no idea how that would work and sounds like trendy buzz word BS. I guess it might be useful to include it on commons if it becomes a widely used standard (The same way SHA1 hashes of images are useful) and it has some applications to finding similar images. I guess the intention is to easily compare the content on different repositories to find both duplicates and near-duplicate media. I imagine ideally such hashes would be generated automatically and not simply a prop in SDC that users fill out since its a hash and not subjective. Bawolff (talk) 07:34, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello everyone. Often, I have taken 15-20 minutes to close a single Most Valued Image Closure on COM:VIC since it doesn't have an existing template and we have to keep our eyes wide open as scope for mistakes are much wide open when we approach this type of closure. Hence, for a long period of time, I am trying to create a template which could do the work so. However, given I have not much expertise in template building, I couldn't be able to do so. However, what I think is I have created a very, very raw template which still cannot do things as expected, but is a start. If anybody can help, it will save much time for our fellow volunteers hoping to close MVRs. (feel free to express your criticisms about the template, I admit it is the trashiest draft ever made. It would be much highly appreciated if you can also create an entirely new template.)
I request you to refer to COM:VICL on what are the current conditions on closing a Most Valued Image Closure.
Thanks in advance, Contributor2020^{Talk to me here!} 16:10, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Category:Physics in the 2020s does not show the subcats for the recent years like Category:2023 in physics despite that these have been created long ago and that I tried ?action=purge on both pages. Templates are used for these categories. Why do they still not show up and how to get this problem fixed? I've also seen this problem elsewhere but usually it went away after purging the page or editing it or on its own a few days after the template categories/category has been changed. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:29, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

@Prototyperspective: It was a template issue. It's been fixed now and the categories show up again. ReneeWrites (talk) 17:34, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Prototyperspective (talk) 17:41, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Ok thanks, I don't know what the problem was (and this happened before) but it's solved now. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:41, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

We have both Commons:Primeiros passos and Commons:First steps/pt with the level-1 heading "Primeiros passos". This seems potentially very confusing. Any thoughts? - Jmabel ! talk 18:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Easy, like it or not, English is the default language for the project. It's a pragmatic decision, and obviously assists search. Other languages can be echoed by creating a companion page in Wikidata. Broichmore (talk) 19:10, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

@Broichmore: one of us is missing the other's point; I'm not sure which. For Portuguese-language users, this results in two rather different pages that effectively have the same title. Are you saying that's not at all a problem, or not one worth fixing, or something else? And I can't see what Wikidata has to do with the matter at all. - Jmabel ! talk 00:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I missed the point. The two pages should, could be, amalgamated TBH. Broichmore (talk) 10:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

On closer look, this seems to be a problem also for Commons:First_steps/de and Commons:Erste Schritte and around 20-30 more languages (everything in {{Header|Lang-FS}}) as a lot of these translations were created pre-2010 before we had mw:Extension:Translate. Ideally, they should be redirected to the correct version (Commons:First steps/xx) (the versions are so different there's little point merging). —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 10:34, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

But that seems to raise the question of whether Commons:Primeiros passos, Commons:Erste Schritte, etc. have some content worth preserving.

I'd suggest that some people whose native language is other than English might want to look into this for their respective native language. - Jmabel ! talk 16:54, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

There is also the question whether these pages should be translations from an original in English or edited freely by the community. Should the "content worth preserving" be translated and added to the English version or added to the translated page in pt/de/…? What about things that are especially relevant for many speakers of the other language, such as references to local law or clarifications generally not needed for the Anglosphere? –LPfi (talk) 19:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

(Discussion moved to right place) Any guidance appreciated. --Rlandmann (talk) 10:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Good luck with it, but this is the page you should be on, with this. Broichmore (talk) 19:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks; I'll move it. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

At File:Baron Moncheur, F.R. Coudert, W.D. Robbins LCCN2014719398.jpg I get the hidden category when I use {{taken on|August 21, 1917}} but I do not get it when I switch to {{taken on|1917-08-21|location=United States}}. I need the country because there are other countries in the August 21, 1917 category. How do I make the category hidden, like the others? --RAN (talk) 14:24, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

You can create the category page with the same content as the category for the day before. --Geohakkeri (talk) 15:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I've added a new response at the bottom of this talk page, maybe it can be worth reading and/or commenting on it if you want. MGeog2022 (talk) 17:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Pets: Entries • Votes • Scores

Rank	1	2	3
image
Title	Australian Shepherd Dog	Hachi and Boy	Cat enjoying the sun between daisies
Author	Ermell	HachiBoy	Lusi Lindwurm
Score	27	15	13

Waves: Entries • Votes • Scores

Rank	1	2	3
image
Title	This was shot in Kakinada Beach, shows struggle of fishermen in middle of sea	A wave painted with a white neon lamp in a flashlight, city beach in Płock, Poland.	Port Saint-Michel in Batz-sur-Mer
Author	Zahed.zk	Lightpainterplock	Ibex73
Score	28	19	11

Congratulations to Ermell, HachiBoy, Lusi Lindwurm, Zahed.zk, Lightpainterplock and Ibex73. -- Jarekt (talk) 01:19, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Does anyone know of a template or module which would allow me to give it two strings and simply return the one that comes first alphabetically (perhaps with a switch to choose between ascending or descending order)? Josh (talk) 22:24, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

@Joshbaumgartner: you didn't mention an example application or your level of lua knowledge. {{Sort list}} will kind of do what you need, I am not sure how to only return the first element though. Commander Keane (talk) 12:31, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

@Commander Keane I am guessing from your response that this isn't something that already exists out there. My Lua knowledge is really nothing to be honest. I've dabbled in tweaking some but with meh results. en:Template:Min does exactly what I want, except that it only works for numbers, and I want to feed it strings. I'm developing a template that will determine a target category name based on various elements, but in some cases the order of the words in the category name are alphabetical. For example, if it has 'children' and 'adult humans', the correct target would be 'adult humans with children', not 'children with adult humans'. Thus, I want a function that allows the template to quickly know which of those two should come first when forming the phrase. Here is my ideal input and output for this case:

• {{Str min|1=children|2=adult humans}} --> adult humans

{{Sort list}} is not useful for this as it returns all of values in a list format. It also requires some unfortunate formatting on the input side as well. I could do a lot of pre-formatting to create the input it needs and then a lot of formatting on the back end to strip it back down to what I need, but that seems like a lot of code to shoehorn in a function that wasn't really intended for purpose. That said, I looked at that before posting here to see if I could maybe modify it, but unfortunately my lack of Lua skills made that effort a failure. I assume for an actual Lua user, it is probably child's play. Josh (talk) 15:29, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

@Joshbaumgartner I'm currently learning C++ and Python languages, and cannot focus on Lua. I will be writing a Python script on that alphabetical string function at Wikifunctions. Anyone can convert it into Lua if necessary. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 18:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Finally created the Python function at Z18069. Anyone with a skill in Lua can convert it into the desired language. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 18:44, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I have tried to do it myself at Module:Two strings to alphabetically first string but failed. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 19:04, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

{{#invoke:Two strings to alphabetically first string|main|children|adult humans}} —> adult humans --Geohakkeri (talk) 21:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for implementing the function in Lua. @Joshbaumgartner use this module. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 02:48, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, both of you. Those little things catch me when I try and dabble and I don't know enough to fix them. I'm not sure what 'main' does, but I know it works now. I was testing it while you posted this. Josh (talk) 02:53, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

@Commander Keane, @Sbb1413, @Geohakkeri: Thanks for all of the input, it looks like Geohakkeri got it working. I've created {{Str min}} which invokes the module Sbb1413 and Geohakkeri worked on. Josh (talk) 02:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 03:32, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Any protests if i move this to "2024 assassination attempt of Donald Trump"?--Trade (talk) 02:16, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Why is it necessary to specify the year? Were there previous assassination attempts on President Trump? Elizium23 (talk) 02:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

It's not necessary at all Trade (talk) 02:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps it is too soon, and things are changing rapidly enough. The category name, as it is, isn't inaccurate, so I'm in no hurry to change it. There is still significant variance in the article names in different languages, and there is certainly a large discussion on enwiki to change the name of the main article, as well. Elizium23 (talk) 02:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

It could be useful to see at one glance when an assassination attempt took place --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 10:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

It is now at Category:Attempted assassination of Donald Trump in case anyone was interested. Commander Keane (talk) 01:41, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

• Why was the redirect deleted, it appeared useful. --RAN (talk) 03:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

  Would support --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 07:24, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I took a CC-BY-SA photo from Commons File:Craignish Rainbow.jpg and cropped it to focus on the landscape rather than the sky which I uploaded as File:Craignish_Landscape,_2017.jpg. OK, there is no problem for me to do this given the original work was CC-BY-SA. But when I was in the licensing screen in the upload wizard, I was able to tick a box to say that I was uploading a work that contained the work of others and that it was a licence accepted on Commons, but nowhere on that screen did I get to say what/where the source was. Surely for both the purposes of licence checking and attribution, I needed to identify the original image. Previously there was a box called (I think) "source" where I would previously have written like "Crop of File:Craignish Rainbow.jpg" enabling the licence to be checked and attributing the original creator of the image. When I came to the next screen (where you name it, describe it, categorise it, etc), I added the "Crop of ..." into the "Other information" box. OK, I think I've done my best to do the right thing by the original creator of the work by doing this, but I feel that most people won't think about doing that without being prompting and, as it relates to licensing, I should it should form part of the previous screen. I think after ticking the box saying it contains the work of others, there should be question(s) to identify what works of others are involved and their licencing. Or am I missing something? Kerry Raymond (talk) 02:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @Sannita (WMF). - Jmabel ! talk 05:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

@Kerry Raymond Thanks for the thorough report. I'll open a Phab ticket about it, and see that we address it at the next meeting available. Sannita (WMF) (talk) 08:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

At Category:Charles Darwin we have a family tree. People with Commons Categories get a blue link. But, Josiah Wedgwood does not get a blue link even though he has a category. When I click on the Wikidata link to see why, it takes me to the Russian language version for Josiah Wedgwood at Wikidata. Can anyone figure out why one entry is doing this incorrectly but the others work fine. The template for the family tree was imported from the Russian Wikipedia a few years ago. --RAN (talk) 16:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

The Russian thing was an easy fix. --Geohakkeri (talk) 17:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

• What was the secret? And why still no blue link to the category? --RAN (talk) 03:31, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi all, for the past few weeks, I haven't been able to view STL files that are uploaded to Commons (for example these: Category:STL files from Museo di storia naturale dell'Università di Pisa). The thumbnail shows up fine, but when I click on the eye icon, I get an error message, that reads "Sorry, the file Undefined cannot be displayed since it is not present on the current page. Go to the corresponding file page". The last sentence is a link, but leads to a non-existent "Undefined" page. Up until a few weeks ago, a window would open with the 3D image, which I could rotate and view. Any idea what's going on? Thanks a lot! --Marta Arosio (WMIT) (talk) 12:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunately, the 3D functionality on Commons is not very well curated. A requested feature to be able to upload textured meshes is also stuck for years now. We as community hope that these issues will be adressed, but until now, nothing huge happened :( --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 14:05, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Created the issue a few weeks ago here

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T368301

Prototyperspective (talk) 14:46, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Prototyperspective: ; I am noting now that the 3d rotation is indeed still accessible, if you click on the miniature within a Wikipedia article. The page that opens then presents the image that can be rotated. This does not work clicking on the same miniature on Wikidata. For an example, see this file File:Panthera pardus 3d scan Natural History Museum University of Pisa C 1389.stl on this article w:Leopard. --Marta Arosio (WMIT) (talk) 09:34, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, didn't know STL files still work on Wikipedia. I'll add this info to the code issue. The file does open and rotate on Wikidata on my side so maybe that got fixed since your comment or there is some issue in your browser. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:12, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Example: Porta Susa old station building 2016 4 This is the old station of 1856, not the New one. So some explanation as to why this building is protected is needed. The same for the nummers 1 to 3. Smiley.toerist (talk) 07:23, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy links:

• File:Porta Susa old station building 2016 4.jpg, and
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Porta Susa old station building 2016 4.jpg.

Commander Keane (talk) 10:19, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

From the perspective of the deletion nominator, Template:NoFoP-Italy says This image features an architectural or artistic work, photographed from a public space in Italy, which is true for the deleted picture... Maybe it should make it clearer with something like This image features a recent architectural or artistic work, photographed from a public space in Italy. Maybe User:Mazbel can shed some light on the error. Commander Keane (talk) 10:35, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

@Commander Keane@Smiley.toerist anything in public domain is PD. Free to be licensed under commercial CC licensing. Italy is a Berne signatory, and current Berne Convention rules prohibit copyright renewals (reflected in the 1940s copyright law of Italy that is the law in force today), so it is unlikely the architect's grandchildren can claim copyright over a work that has fallen into PD. Those DRs must be closed as keep. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:45, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

@Commander Keane: Regarding what I was tagged, when it came to nominating it to DR, I relied on the template description as mentioned above, being a work of architecture. Thus, the error can be attributed to the unclear text you quoted at the beginning. On the other hand, (correct me if I misinterpreted), did the second quote correspond to a suggestion to change the text of the template? Finally, as JWilz12345 makes explicit, grandchildren are unlikely to claim copyright to a work that has already fallen into the category of PD.--Mazbel (Talk) 03:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

@Mazbel was that template tagged at those four images? If so, that tag should be removed from the said images. You may want to replace it with {{PD-old-architecture}} (only for PD buildings in no-FoP countries). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

@Mazbel, the second quote suggested adding "a recent" to the template description, possibly linking to PD-old may be good. Commander Keane (talk) 03:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

@JWilz12345: Hmm if you refer directly to the image file, the {{NoFoP-Italy}} template is not present, only in the DR. However, it is good to add the {{PD-old-architecture}} template to those photos, to avoid future mistakes. @Commander Keane: Yes, I think it would be good to open some discussion on that. Maybe with that small change, it would avoid inconveniences like the above. Greetings to both of you! --Mazbel (Talk) 03:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

@Mazbel When you make such DRs, could you also please add the relevant category? Otherwise nobody can check your claims and the images get deleted after a week unless somebody casually notice them. Friniate (talk) 16:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

There are stil two delete nominations active. File:Porta Susa old station building 2016 1.jpg and File:Porta Susa old station building 2016 3.jpg.Smiley.toerist (talk) 16:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello everyone.

I recently decided to change the license of all the photographs taken by me that I have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, which are located in this category, to the Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication license. Would there be a way to change the licenses for these files globally, or is it only possible individually?

Thank you in advance. P4K1T0 (talk) 20:43, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Though it is technically relatively easy with VFC or with a bot, read Commons:License revocation, please. What you could do as the creator is adding the license tag {{cc-zero}} or as you did before {{self|cc-zero}}. I or someone else could even do it for you referring to your request here. It would be in my opinion better, though, if you’d write some lines on your user page which could then be linked in the edit comment. — Speravir – 00:20, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I just wrote this comment on my user page. Would it be valid like that? Thank you. — P4K1T0 (talk) 09:25, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that will do.

@Speravir: if you are following up on this, please make sure things like File:1927, La Asamblea Nacional, Alfonso Torres López.jpg are left alone. - Jmabel ! talk 15:58, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the pointer, Jmabel, but I intentionally wanted to edit only files with {{self|$cc license tag$}}. Also, this image is not in the category for own created photographs, but for uploaded ones. Nonetheless, there are several probably wrongly categorized images, see answer to PaKiTo. — Speravir – 01:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

@P4K1T0:  Done for all images containing {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0}} or {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} as license tag, confer as example Special:Diff/901418349. Because Presentación de «La marina cantonal» (20221019 210856).jpg is your work I’ve also edited its two extracts you’ve created, as well. But there are some images I did not edit. I think they are wrongly categorized and you should move them into Category:Photographs uploaded by P4K1T0:

• File:Altar Salud Augusteum.jpg
• File:Carlos Romero Galiana.jpg
• File:CVINK-Colonia Urbs Julia Nova Karthago.jpg
• File:Placa del busto de Asdrúbal.jpg
• File:Termas romanas Cartagena.jpg

— Speravir – 01:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

You shouldn't be using {{Self}} more than once on a page. The note is redundant as it is in the comment history. It should just be merged.

Couple left to be checked. Multichill (talk) 10:16, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Multichill for information and edits. Actually, I intended in adding a visible link to P4K1T0’s text regarding the license decision. This is not possible, now. (Edit: I solved it otherwise, e.g. Special:Diff/902262412.) I also updated the last two files that hadn’t been edited so far (but VFC had them highlighted and therefore processed, hmm). — Speravir – 22:26, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Your request is resolved, P4K1T0, isn’t it? — Speravir – 23:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I have only later noticed that Multichill did not have changed all the files, but only one as example. So I made the necessary changes just a couple of minutes ago. — Speravir – 23:47, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes Speravir, my request has been satisfactorily resolved. Thank you very much for your help.--P4K1T0 (talk) 10:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Speravir 23:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Hopefully a super-simple issue, there's a creature - a fly species which the name spelling changed slightly from "Psilota decessa" to "Psilota decessum"

It has two wikidata files now, i think that's what's desirable on there even for such minor name differences - here the last letters of the species name only changes due to some taxonomy mumbo-jumbo [explained on wikispecies]. https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q21325248 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q14518044

I'm unfamiliar with wikimedia commons. I think that i've changed it to revised Category:Psilota decessum, but where i think it's calling to "Wikidata Infobox" that's still reflecting the (older, wrong) Psilota decessa from it's wrong wikidata. I've tried changing some links that wikidata end, but what am i missing? In other words, I want that "Wikidata Infobox" to instead be reflecting Q14518044 Sjl197 (talk) 01:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Heh-heh, "super-simple" heh-heh, famous last words!

Yes, that is indeed arcane mumbo-jumbo about a Latin language declension issue. If I'm understanding this correctly, and this is really a case of "old/deprecated/incorrect" spelling, then I'm not sure we can justify separate Wikidata items. I think we should go over there and propose a merger. It is, however, notable that they carry different taxon IDs at various sites, but hopefully those can be kept in a unified/merged item with appropriate documentation.

If we can't merge them on Wikidata then that may complicate the representation on Commons and other projects. I'd prefer a simple and straightforward process instead. Elizium23 (talk) 01:24, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I had Latin as subject in school, and to me, it seems like the Psilota decessa looks better, as the second word complies the concord in "Kasus", "Numerus" and "Genus" --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 11:08, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I simply assumed that for any specialized field, be it bio-taxonomy or pharmaceuticals, the Latin language has progressed and specialized beyond its actual linguistic roots, and clearly in this case, they're applying extremely arcane and specific rules to it. (The dictionary link indeed went to wikt:decessuum, which indicates that all derivatives use macrons as well, so there are liberties taken.) Elizium23 (talk) 16:31, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

and yes, when i started looking into the issue a couple of days ago i had the view that "Psilota decessa" seemed a tolerable formation, i.e. per gender agreement between two parts, the genus as feminine and adjectival species name, but yes, biological latin is indeed a derivative, with many extra issues as due any specialist field, even worse this has several hundreds of years of baggage about all that! Sjl197 (talk) 05:07, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@Sjl197: The correct name is P. decessa, not P. decessum. When Hutton described it in 1901, he assigned it to the genus Melanostoma. Melanostoma is neuter, so he used the neuter form of the adjective, decessum. When the species was later moved to the genus Psilota, it changed from neuter to feminine (because Psilota is feminine), and the adjective changed with it, to decessa. The invalid form Psilota decessum is a solecism used only by those who do not understand Latin. (The comment on Wikispecies, that decessum is a noun, is wrong: there is no noun with the nominative form decessum. The link there points instead to the form decessuum with two U's, which is the genitive plural form of the noun decessus. All of the changes to P. decessum should be reverted back to P. decessa. Crawdad Blues (talk) 21:24, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Editing to add that ICZN 31.2.2, cited on the Wikispecies page, is irrelevant here, because there is no noun with the nominative form decessum that Hutton could have intended. The word must therefore be treated as an adjective. You assert in your rename requests that this word is now treated as an "invariant noun" (on whose authority? no source is cited), but if that were the case, it would be decessus, not decessum. I fear you have expended a lot of effort on a misunderstanding. Crawdad Blues (talk) 22:20, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I think Crawdad Blues is entirely correct here. - Jmabel ! talk 04:26, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Was @Sjl197 involved in GBIF or iNaturalist changes in some way? Because those sites are both convinced about the decessa -> decessum deprecation. GBIF deleted the taxon in 2016. iNaturalist site bears the same GBIF citation mentioned here. opentreeoflife.org doesn't seem to differentiate them too much. So other than applying a knowledge of Latin declensions (which seems sort like Original Research to me?) does anyone have a reliable secondary source, other than this GBIF thing we're looking at, which clearly documents that decessa is the preferred and modern name? Elizium23 (talk) 04:40, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@Crawdad Blues: etc. Well, going back to start, my "super-simple" were apparently indeed famous last words! There's a lot said above Crawdad Blues to indicate good knowledge of "Biological latin" so i'm grateful, but many bold statements which i'm wary about. We agree on the early formation by Hutton, where his Melanostoma decessum does seem perfectly formed as a neuter adjective. That's how I was viewing it a couple of days ago, if so, then recombined with the feminine Psilota would indeed 'simply' give Psilota decessa. To briefly answer @Elizium23, then indeed i'm on iNat also, so involved with changes there. That was my starting point to the whole issue. To my view, there is nothing on iNat that is "convinced about the "decessa -> decessum deprecation", it's got both versions active, which cannot be, i'd only setup so decessum would be preferred, but thats on hold [1]. I wasn't involved in GBIF (where decessa was deleted in 2016), but from other things they do, then i'd say that deletion is not necessarily linked to any informed change, but may be a change in usage on one of their sources, hence I direct you to Systema Dipterorium [2] which GBIF largely takes as the authoritative catalog for that group, and their view feeds into several databases. Point is, there's a bunch of resources that seems to have shifted from "decessa" to "decessum", several done long before i've tried unifying iNaturalist to a single active name, then various Wikis - leading to this discussion.

On the actual nomenclature issue, i'm now seeing that i've misstepped on some editing of the Wikispecies. I had edited the Note: Under ICZN" etc, but i had not created that. It's the only justification i found anywhere about why "Psilota decessum" could be the form to use. Please see under the "Talk" page (same Wikispecies), for a response now from the user who created that text, which i'd modified. He also merged "Psilota decessa" -> "decessum" (also on wikispecies) back in 10 January 2023‎. I'll admit i was wrong about my edit to specify the genitive "decessuum (with two U's). He also points out same. I had misread the genitive in the wiktionary table. Before my very recent edit to that (in hindsight wrong) genitive, his previous wiktionary link was pointing instead to the accursative singular case which DOES read "decessum", i.e., spelt the same way as neuter adjective [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/decessum#Latin]. Above is said "(The comment on Wikispecies, that decessum is a noun, is wrong:". I don't agree it says that - it reads "the epithet "decessum" is treated as a noun". Unless you or someone well versed in linguistics can explain why not, to me any case of a noun such as "decessum" is still a noun. As for "You assert in your rename requests that this word is now treated as an "invariant noun (on whose authority? no source is cited)", the Wikispecies already states "Under ICZN Art. 31.2.2". So it's under the authority of that article of the ICZN, i felt that was clear. Here's what that article says: "31.2.2. Where the author of a species-group name did not indicate whether he or she regarded it as a noun or as an adjective, and where it may be regarded as either and the evidence of usage is not decisive, it is to be treated as a noun in apposition to the name of its genus (the original spelling is to be retained, with gender ending unchanged." Now, with that in hand (and admitting i was wrong on the genitive), the crux really is whether "decessum" in the accursative singular would fit with "31.2.2." or not. I'd wrongly switched the Wikispecies wording to specify the genitive plural as i felt other things said by ICZN allow for nouns of species epithets to be in nominative (as said repeatedly above by Crawdad Blues but also allows them as genitives. As the noun spelling is neither nominative nor genitive, i now feel things get murky. Firstly, does the text in "31.2.2" exclude nouns in accursative singular? I'd say that text is ambiguous about cases. Secondly, if for argument sake we accept decessum as a noun, and its accursative case as acceptable, then follow adoption that way, i can't agree when Crawdad Blues said "that would be decessus, not decessum". I'd say "31.2.2" clearly reads that "the original spelling is to be retained, with gender ending unchanged" ergo decessum. Ok, all that said, back to IF decessum were the genitive spelling, i'd hold strong on maintaining it can be treated as a noun and case closed. But now i've realised it's only in accurative singular, then we're into some arcane arguments about interpretation of ICZN wording if err towards decessum - which i'm increasingly seeing as quite tenuous. What's really problematic as a consequence is that decessum is widely adopted in many sources (databases, pulbications etc), and to try to 'kill that' is going to be painful compared to what initially seemed simple to just get a few more of the Wiki stuff inline! What's really awful though is that lawyers get paid vast sums of money to interpret arcane wording in ambiguously worded codes, yet taxonomists just get grief! Sjl197 (talk) 06:36, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm traveling now and am not very adept at writing on a mobile device (I am not part of the generation that grew up typing with my thumbs!), but I have three comments, which I will try to make as brief as possible:

(1) On the question of whether an accusative noun is permissible in a Latin name, the answer is no. Since Linnaeus Latin binomials have traditionally been given in the nominative form. The names of genera and all higher taxonomic divisions are always nominative. Specific names are almost always nominative, whether they are adjectives (nominative by agreement with the genus name) or nouns (nominative in apposition to the genus name). The only exception is that specific names can also be expressed as genitive modifiers; most of these are proper nouns, the names of places or people, used to describe the range or habitat of a species or the person in whose honor it was named. But as I think everyone here has now acknowledged, decessum is not genitive. And there is absolutely no way in which an accusative noun can be used in apposition to a nominative generic name like Psilota. See ICZN 11.8 and 11.9. This is a dead end.

(2) If, as Sjl197 says, the solecism P. decessum is "out there" in places like iNaturalist, this is probably due to the unfortunate typographical errors in Thompson 2008, which was poorly copyedited and proofread (full ref and link to this article on the Wikispecies page). Thompson writes decessa on pp. 3 and 16, but decessum on pp. 2, 6, and 7. Obviously, these are not both correct, but once the form Psilota decessum crept into the article (an easy slip since Hutton's original name was Melanostoma decessum), it's easy to understand why the error would make its way into user-generated databases like iNat, since most amateur natural historians, and indeed most professional biologists these days, don't have enough training in Latin to see at once that such a name is impossible. (This is not intended to be a dig at you, Sjl; it's just the way things are. Unlike you, I am not a professional biologist, and I'm sure you know way more about the biology of hoverflies than I do, but by your own admission Latin is not your strongest suit.) Is there any evidence that anyone at all used the form P. decessum before the publication of Thompson's article? If not, my guess is that that is where the confusion began. And of course this is a constant problem on the internet: once misinformation starts circulating online, more and more well-meaning people will say, well, it's "out there", so there must be a reason, and they will start trying to come up with possible explanations, as you did. But in this case all of your ingenuity was wasted in defense of a misprint.

(3) User:Elizium23 asks "does anyone have a reliable secondary source ... which clearly documents that decessa is the preferred and modern name?" This question is precisely backward. The real question is, is there any reliable source - by which I mean a peer-reviewed academic publication, not a user-generated online database - to suggest that the name has been officially changed to decessum? I haven't searched exhaustively (again, traveling, mobile, ugh) but I can't find one. But I'll answer Elizium's question anyway, with a strong affirmative. P. decessa is a New Zealand endemic; it appears nowhere else in the world. The principal taxonomic authority for New Zealand biota is the New Zealand Inventory of Biodiversity (NZIB), published beginning in 2009. For P. decessa, see Macfarlane et al., Phylum Arthropoda Subphylum Hexapoda: Protura, springtails, Diplura, and insects. Checklist of New Zealand Hexapoda, in volume 2 of NZIB, which appeared in 2010 (after Thompson's article, so plenty of time for them to take it into account if it needed to be). See also this page at NZOR (the New Zealand Organism Register) for more information. As far as the scientific community of NZ is concerned, the name of this fly is Psilota decessa. That the users of iNat and other such sites may be confused about the name is irrelevant, especially when error is easily explained by the typographical errors in Thompson.

If the malformed name P. decessum is circulating on the internet, the most useful thing that Wikipedia, Wikispecies, and the Commons can do is ignore it and continue to use the official name as published in peer-reviewed academic publications, most authoritatively in the NZIB. There is no benefit in muddying the waters further by perpetuating the confusion that appears in some online databases with user-generated content. I sympathize with Sjl's frustration; I know they made their changes in good faith, in an effort to reconcile the irreconcilable, and I'm sorry to see the effort wasted. But the category and the files that have been changed should be reverted.

Apologies to all if the tone of my earlier remarks was brusque and peremptory: I did not intend to sound as if I was pronouncing the truth ex cathedra. I'll be back home and able to respond to further questions on Friday. Best wishes to all, Crawdad Blues (talk) 16:06, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I found a number of images of graphs without sources, and I now wonder if this is permissible on Commons. Two of the files are in use on itwiki, and no sources have been provided there either; if anything, the images themselves appear to be used as sources. So I hope you understand why I feel the need to bring this up.

I've sorted them under Category:Matrimoni religosi e civili (image set) and initiated a discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/07/Category:Matrimoni religosi e civili (image set). Sinigh (talk) 12:30, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Commons is not Wikipedia, it doesn't have sourcing requirements (other than source of origin of the media for copyright reasons). See Project scope/Neutral point of view (mostly). —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Add this template to such files: Template:Datasource missing and see Category:Information graphics without data source.

Something really needs to be done (I'm not saying they all should be deleted). I'm most concerned about files without source prominently featured in Wikipedia articles like File:Fertility Map.png or File:Projected Total Births 2020 2025.png. One could start with a GLAMorgan scan for files in that category that are used (the scan should run faster in a month or so) and discuss this on Wikipedia talk pages because it seems like nothing can be done from WMC side. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:56, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! I should have been able to find that template myself. I agree with the current policy, but I think makes sense in cases like these to at least show users and readers that there's no source for the data presented. That too is educationally useful and informative, to say the least. Sinigh (talk) 15:33, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

That's why the template adds a red-colored infobox below the image. The Problem with that is people don't see it because Wikipedia shows images when clicking on them in a way that doesn't show much info from the WMC page. On Wikipedia, I think the respective image descriptions could be tagged with en:Template:Citation needed or similar templates and the WMC category could be a way to find them. Note that many of these use many different sources combined in one image but these should be specified in the file description and often also as refs where the image is used. Agree with you. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:38, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Sinigh (talk) 19:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)