Commons:Village pump
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
|
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/2023/06. Please note:
Purposes which do not meet the scope of this page:
Search archives: |
| Legend |
|---|
|
|
|
|
|
| Manual settings |
| When exceptions occur, please check the setting first. |
 Village pump in Diepenheim, Netherlands, being packed in straw to prevent freezing (1950) [add] | |||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
 |
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 7 days. |
May 24[edit]
License reviews[edit]
Hi, Manual license review obviously doesn't scale. We have files waiting reviewing for more than 2 years. Couldn't we have a bot reviewing licenses for files from YouTube and Vimeo, like we have for Flickr? Yann (talk) 19:26, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
- Actually there was a bot, supposed to be replaced by another bot, which stopped working more than one year ago. I could run it myself. The bot master is not active, but has anyone a copy of the code? Yann (talk) 20:04, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Yann I looked into this a while ago, and could not find the code. Eatcha did not reply to email either. I actually (just before seeing your comment) had requested a list of Toolforge tools for which Eatcha was owner phab:T337432, so one or both of us could hopefully adopt the tools per policy. Hopefully it was on Toolforge like some of their other tools! —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
- i've been wanting to reform the youtube bot review process for a long time. instead of letting a bot review files by itself, i think it should be done like this:
- the bot reviews a file (whose source=youtube) only to verify the given youtube link is youtube-cc-by. this puts the file into a category "files reviewed by youtubebot pending human reviews".
- a human would check if the commons file does actually come from that youtube link, and pass it. then the file is put into a category "files reviewed by youtubebot and reviewer".
- flickrbot can review files by itself because it verifies whether commons copy is identical to flickr copy, but it's obviously not feasible for youtubebot to do that.
- "files reviewed by youtubebot pending human reviews" is less urgent than the current "licence review needed", because at least the given youtube link would be verified to be ccby. it doesnt matter if the licence would be changed later. the only problem would be if the video disappears before a human reviews it. then we can review the files on a case-by-case basis to decide if evidence is sufficient to establish the authenticity of the files. RZuo (talk) 22:48, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
- In my experience of reviewing files from YouTube, reviewing could be tedious but we need to endure that. Not all freely-licensed YouTube videos are decent. They may look decent at first but later on one may find third-party content that the YouTube author incorporated in their video. That third-party content may come from unfree sources like screenshots from ABS-CBN newscasts or citizens' video shots that were not originally from the YouTube author but the author just included them in their video. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:37, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Yann: Last time we discussed this (Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2023/04#103,857_unreviewed_files) I did a suggestion on how to split up the work to make it more manageable. I was told this is a really bad idea and didn't feel like spending any energy on this anymore. I can just assume that user hasn't learned yet that the wiki way is to eat an elephant one bite at a time and for that the work needs to be bite sized so more people help out a little. Multichill (talk) 13:34, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
- Category:Files moved to Commons requiring review is split up by date. is that bite-sized enough for you? now is 2023, but the oldest subcat is Files moved to Commons requiring review as of 29 April 2008 (28 F) from 15 years ago. notably, that subcat was created at 20:11, 5 March 2009 by BotMultichillT.
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Arash_Arabasadi_-_.@VOANews_HalftimeShow_is_about_to_start_at_SuperBowlLII.webm&diff=prev&oldid=398248932 added the file to "Twitter videos review needed" (which is small enough with only 13 files), but 3 years after this edit and 5 years after upload it remains unreviewed.
- shifting files around in maintenance cats only make some users feel good, but doesnt actually help with shortening the queue. RZuo (talk) 15:17, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
- Category:Files requiring license review sorted by user name has 1k gallery pages, but the review process was obviously not sped up even with this aid. RZuo (talk) 16:14, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
- My guess is that WMF is waiting for AI to become intelligent enough to handle these reviewing tasks. Maybe 10 years later? If an AI-fortied bot can do all the tedious tasks, why humans do the same things spending their precious time? --トトト (talk) 14:57, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
- A video clip I uploaded from Youtube
havehas been deleted today. The author changed the license before it is to be reviewed here, I think. If the LicenseReviewerBot had been active, this must have been prevented. Sad to see a quality media being deleted, and I fear that people will become reluctant to upload medias from Youtube in the future. --トトト (talk) 15:53, 1 June 2023 (UTC) 〔tekst gecorrigeerd. --トトト (talk) 17:11, 1 June 2023 (UTC)〕- dont write shorts url. use this kind of link instead https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVf9IrVGHSo . RZuo (talk) 16:03, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- A video clip I uploaded from Youtube
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:ANA_LABORDETA_2008.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=766959842 took me quite some time to find the actual webpage. is this effort to find the source worthwhile? or should we just send this to DR and let the uploader fix it properly? RZuo (talk) 16:12, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Marian_Anderson_christens_the_liberty_ship_Booker_T._Washington.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=660337341
- reviewer User:Howcheng adding an empty LR template to a pd file. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ RZuo (talk) 18:49, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
- I was adding those because the point of license review is to have someone else double-check your work. I don't think it's proper for someone to review their own uploads. —holly {chat} 16:44, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- you're THE 2nd person handling that file. either you pass it yourself or dont add an empty template. it's pd anyway. have some consideration! RZuo (talk) 06:39, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- License review passed for File:Marian Anderson christens the liberty ship Booker T. Washington.jpg, this is a photo negative so it may have been unpublished until UCLA published it online under a free license as the inheritor of the photograph's copyright. The Daily News shows no issue renewals https://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/cinfo/dailynewscalosangeles but we have no proof it was published before 1964. Abzeronow (talk) 18:02, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- you're THE 2nd person handling that file. either you pass it yourself or dont add an empty template. it's pd anyway. have some consideration! RZuo (talk) 06:39, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- I was adding those because the point of license review is to have someone else double-check your work. I don't think it's proper for someone to review their own uploads. —holly {chat} 16:44, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
June 01[edit]
Flickr Foundation adopts Flickr2Commons[edit]
I've just received an email newsletter from the Flickr Foundation (aka Flickr.org; the non-profit arm of Flickr.com), which includes the paragraph (emboldening and links in original)):
We've partnered with the Wikimedia Foundation to adopt a tool called Flickr2Commons. We want to look after it and extend its features with the long term in mind. Keep your eyes open for "Flickypedia", which we plan to re-release towards the end of the year.
Does anyone know more about this "adoption", or what Flickypedia is? Or why this community was apparently not informed directly? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:18, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- is f2c the first tool adopted by an established organisation?
- sounds like a positive development. flickr foundation seems way better than the lame WMF.--RZuo (talk) 19:36, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Is https://www.flickr.com/commons going to switch to https://www.flickr.org? --RAN (talk) 23:54, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- The email is available online (IA snapshot). — Sam Wilson ( Talk • Contribs ) … 04:56, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- Great news Captain America but the issue that they really need to fix is the updating of their current creative commons licences (still stuck on 2.0) and the addition of more licenses such as OGL and Crown Copyright and allowing users to create their own licences using their own choices as template, might be useful if WMF worked with Flickr in doing this, might also help us improve issues elating to Flickrwashing in the future.... Stemoc 05:44, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- The "allowing users to create their own licences" sounds problematic. We don't want a zillion of vague "free" licences that may not guarantee the freedoms we want. They should instead introduce a smooth process to add Commons-, Gnu- and CC-approved free licences (with caveats about the restricted CC ones). –LPfi (talk) 07:10, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- You could e-mail them at "[email protected]" (as is listed on their homepage) and then air your concerns there. Perhaps nobody who works with copyright ©️ there has really engaged with them outside of a small bubble. Perhaps you could suggest something as "Change allowing your own license to How do you want to be attributed? so re-users aren't confused and know how to credit the photographers in a way they find desirable". License fragmentation will only make the already complex intellectual property landscape 🌆 only more complex. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 07:41, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- The "allowing users to create their own licences" sounds problematic. We don't want a zillion of vague "free" licences that may not guarantee the freedoms we want. They should instead introduce a smooth process to add Commons-, Gnu- and CC-approved free licences (with caveats about the restricted CC ones). –LPfi (talk) 07:10, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- Great news Captain America but the issue that they really need to fix is the updating of their current creative commons licences (still stuck on 2.0) and the addition of more licenses such as OGL and Crown Copyright and allowing users to create their own licences using their own choices as template, might be useful if WMF worked with Flickr in doing this, might also help us improve issues elating to Flickrwashing in the future.... Stemoc 05:44, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- Kind of odd how they write "In collaboration with flickr.com, we launched the first redesign of the main Flickr Commons page since 2008." As if the Flickr Foundation is an entity completely separate from SmugMug, though I assume that they do this for legal reasons as they might be separate "legal persons" / "judicial persons" for legal reasons. What strikes me as odd is the entry "The groundbreaking Flickr Commons program will be sustained and supported by the Foundation. Our work will prioritise supporting smaller cultural organisations with tools, practice, and community to develop deeper public engagement with their photography collections." (Copyright: © 2023 Flickr Foundation Foundation, subject to a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.) which essentially acts as if they created a groundbreaking and innovative idea... In 2008, meanwhile the Wikimedia Commons was launched in 2004. But this further proves to me that in the eyes of most of the world "The Wikimedia Commons does not exist", I wrote before about how when people look for free image sources they rarely list this website and even a large amount of users here think that media files here only exist to serve Wikipedia and other Wikimedia websites rather than the world. I also noticed that a lot of government and GLAM institutions have accounts over at Flickr but I can't think of that many here, the Swiss National Library comes to mind an institution which has 32,100 contributions here as of writing this and a few German museums. Anyhow, the Flickr2Commons tool is in bad need of being adopted and the software needs regular maintenance (just like a lot of other tools here), I just find it sad that the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) isn't willing to bring this level of support to the Wikimedia Commons. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 07:57, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- “I just find it sad that the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) isn't willing to bring this level of support to the Wikimedia Commons.” +1. Seeing the number of bugs and technical issues, Commons really needs more maintenance and development time and manpower from the WMF. Yann (talk) 08:16, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- I read through issues Phabricator sometimes just for the heck of it and I'm always surprised by how much it's neglected even on there. I assume the comment above about how most people either don't know this site exists or if they do are under the false impression it's an extension of Wikipedia probably has a lot to do with it. I've definitely found that to be true the few times I've discussed Commons with people IRL. I don't think the WMF did or does a good job of clearly differentiating it from Wikipedia like they do with Wikidata. Since it's clearly a separate, unique product compared to Wikipedia and Commons even though it interacts with both of them. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:39, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- I've asked a member of Wikimedia Germany (WMDE), an organisation I think is technically as beneficial as the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) for a number of Wikimedia websites like Wikidata, and they've brought up that they will discuss adding more support, but I don't think that Wikimedia Germany (WMDE) will bring much support here until Wikidata is developed to a level where it doesn't need much maintenance and is easily useable by basically any website (which could take years), the Flickr Foundation stepping in here is actually a good thing, maybe it might be wise to ask if they could establish like some sort of "liaison office" or something at the Wikimedia Commons for communications between us and to them. Likewise, we're not aware of any discussions between the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) and the Flickr Foundation because the former doesn't really publish all of its external communications online (due to a lack of transparency).
- I read through issues Phabricator sometimes just for the heck of it and I'm always surprised by how much it's neglected even on there. I assume the comment above about how most people either don't know this site exists or if they do are under the false impression it's an extension of Wikipedia probably has a lot to do with it. I've definitely found that to be true the few times I've discussed Commons with people IRL. I don't think the WMF did or does a good job of clearly differentiating it from Wikipedia like they do with Wikidata. Since it's clearly a separate, unique product compared to Wikipedia and Commons even though it interacts with both of them. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:39, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- Flickr has 60.000.000+ daily users, we have 40,779 active users (Users who have performed an action in the last 30 days). To me it makes sense that GLAM organisations and governments prefer to publish there, but I think that increased co-operation between us and the Flickr Foundation could be mutually beneficial and I'm glad that the Flickr Foundation acknowledges that (even if this website itself is largely neglected by the WMF).
- Unrelated, but I was thinking of organising some outreach to developer communities, perhaps there are people who'd love to contribute to the technical capabilities of Wikimedia websites but aren't even aware that they could contribute as volunteers. If we remain an insular community we won't see much growth beyond the capabilities of the current volunteers. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 11:33, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- Hi Donald - just to be clear, the Flickr Foundation is a separate formal, legal organization from Flickr Inc (and SmugMug) and does not share engineering resources. It is also not governed directly by either of those companies, though we do have a company representative on our board (which we are absolutely fine with and welcome). We worked the design and engineering group at the company to improve the Flickr Commons page that lives on flickr.com, as we are not able to change the core Flickr codebase directly. I hope that clears up why we called that work a collaboration?
- I also don't think it's unreasonable to claim that Flickr Commons was a groundbreaking program when it launched. In particular, its use of the "no known copyright restrictions" assertion borrowed from the Library of Congress allowed a lot of our cultural organizations around the world to release photographs they previously may have kept hidden due to unknown or undocumented provenance.
- I think the less we see WMC and Flickr Commons as competing, and the more we try to collaborate between the two platforms, as we hope to do by adopting the Flickr2Commons software, the better off we'll all be. Ukglo (talk) 14:34, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- Ukglo, thank you for your reply.
I very much agree with the idea that Flickr and the Wikimedia Commons aren't competitors, the goal of both websites is share visual information and make it shareable, though the Wikimedia Commons requires these media resources to have educational value and also allows for books and audio as well as other non-visual works to be uploaded.
But thank you for clearing up the difference between the Flickr Foundation and SmugMug, I mistakenly believed that the Flickr Foundation was just a subsidiary of SmugMug but now I know that it is a separate entity. And in light of what you wrote regarding the Flickr Commons I must agree with calling it groundbreaking, especially since Flickr has a better outreach to GLAM and government organisations than the Wikimedia Foundation has, so a lot of valuable archival materials found on Flickr aren't found anywhere else on the internet, my personal opinion regarding this is that the Wikimedia Commons should be "an extra back-up" for these valuable files to maximise the chances that future generations will have access to them. We had a wonderful user called "Fæ" (who is also active contributing to Flickr - Desktop) who did a lot of work in this area. I am looking forward to see a closer relationship between the Flickr Foundation and the Wikimedia Commons in the future.
— Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 21:42, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- Ukglo, thank you for your reply.
- Hello! I’m George, Executive Director at the Flickr Foundation. I’m really glad to see there’s interest in this work. The Flickr Foundation wants to adopt a tool that’s useful for both Flickr and WP communities and figure out how to care for it in the long term. I have met Magnus Manske and Frank Schulenberg to talk about it, and we’re looking forward to connecting with the wider community when our project kicks off. The WMF folks suggested we create an on-wiki page for the project so that’ll be a good spot to say hi if you’re interested. Ukglo (talk) 14:28, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- Ukglo, perhaps there could be a page like "Commons:Flickr Foundation" with subpages like "Commons:Flickr Foundation/Flickypedia" and the latter can also have subpages for documentation (of the software development), feedback / bug report, Etc. While another page named something like "Commons:Flickr Foundation/Outreach could be for direct communications to and from the Flickr Foundation with the Wikimedia Commons concerning its partnership with the community.
I'd also suggest creating specific "in role" Wikimedia SUL accounts for Flickr Foundation staff like "User:John Doe (Flickr Foundation)" and "User:Jane Doe (Flickr Foundation)" or using your on-wiki names like "User:Ukglo (Flickr Foundation)" and then work together with the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) to blacklist potential bad actors from registering names with such accounts unless they are certified staff, though I'm not sure to what extent this partnership will be, but such accounts could be easily identifiable as Flickr Foundation staff and I've seen some Wikipedian-in-residence accounts name themselves with the name of the institution they work for / with when acting in the role of a Wikipedian-in-residence.
I think that if such consensus exists the community here could create those pages and make it easy to maintain and interact with for your foundation. Lay out a red carpet, as you will.— Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 22:07, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Donald Trung That sounds really great! I know the WMF folks are keen to be involved in the project pages' config, so I'll make sure they've seen your suggestions here. Ukglo (talk) 09:28, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- Ukglo, perhaps there could be a page like "Commons:Flickr Foundation" with subpages like "Commons:Flickr Foundation/Flickypedia" and the latter can also have subpages for documentation (of the software development), feedback / bug report, Etc. While another page named something like "Commons:Flickr Foundation/Outreach could be for direct communications to and from the Flickr Foundation with the Wikimedia Commons concerning its partnership with the community.
oh good, I guess? at least it gets improved. SeichanGant (talk) 19:07, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
Response from the Wikimedia Foundation[edit]
Thanks for your candid discussions about the Flickr Foundation’s announcement of their partnership with the Wikimedia Foundation. The Flickr Foundation is a newly created 501(c)(3) dedicated to “preserving our shared visual commons for future generations.” It is exciting that they have prioritized collaboration with the Wikimedia movement for this mission.
As previewed in our 2023-24 annual plan, we’re supporting the Flickr Foundation to explore a simpler Wikimedia Commons contribution experience for their photographers and cultural institutions. One of their first proposals is to maintain the Flickr2Commons tool, originally developed by Magnus Manske. ('Flickypedia' is the name they have given to the re-release of this tool.) They consulted Magnus and he is supportive.
It has been challenging for Wikimedia volunteers to maintain all of the essential tools for Commons and we’re happy that one of our open culture allies, the Flickr Foundation, would like to ‘adopt’ this important tool as part of their wider preservation effort.
Alongside this technical work, the Flickr Foundation will be researching the reuse impact of the images that have already traveled from Flickr to Wikimedia. They will also be reviewing their licenses and examining how they transfer to other platforms. The often-discussed issue of ‘license laundering’ or ‘Flickr washing’ is one of the central questions they plan to address. Consultation with the Wikimedia Commons community will be an important part of this process.
We want to reassure you that the Wikimedia Foundation remains committed to supporting and developing Wikimedia Commons. In 2023-24, our product teams will be developing more reliable and usable metrics for Commons and improved moderation workflows on Commons. You can follow that work on the WMF support for Commons page, where we’ll also post updates on the Flickr Foundation collaboration.
Please continue to share your ideas, concerns, and questions—we are here to listen, learn, and take action. We value your engagement and look forward to continued collaboration. Udehb-WMF (talk) 14:14, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Udehb-WMF @Ukglo: How about this: Flickr creates a way to import license templates from commons.wikimedia. If acflickr user wants them "own" license, the user can create a newicense template at commons.wikimedia and if it conforms to the standardscof a free license, it can be imported to Flickr.
- +: how about Flickr adopts not only flickr2commons, but also video2commons and croptool? C.Suthorn (@[email protected]) (talk) 15:41, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- Not sure if this is the right discussion to discuss this, but I actually have an idea for "Flickr2Commons Black" / "Flickypedia Black" where trusted users could override the Flickr license-washing blacklist for uploaders who use wrong licenses and add the proper licenses. For example Flickr user "Manhhai" has 141,005 photos on Flickr! of Vietnamese history but he's blacklisted here because he uploads files with wrong licenses, for example he lists them as freely licensed when they're not or "Copyright ©️ - All rights reserved" when they are in the public domain. Because of this literally tens of thousands of public domain images of Vietnamese history cannot be imported to the Wikimedia Commons, but if a "Flickr2Commons Black" / "Flickypedia Black" exists where Wikimedia Commons users with proven knowledge of copyright ©️ could add proper licenses (for example "{{PD-Vietnam}}" for photographs published before 1948 in the case of this uploader) then this could go through a separate process and a human would have to review them rather than a bot. This feature would only be exclusive to users who request access to it and explain which albums they want to import and why they are incorrectly licensed and which licenses they would add and then that specific user would be whitelisted for specific Flickr accounts / albums. Or should something like this be proposed at the proposals village pump? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 22:14, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Udehb-WMF: If you get to talk with the Flickr folks again, can you tell them that the nicest thing they could do for Wikimedia Commons would be to get Flickr to update their ancient Creative Commons 2.0 licenses to the current 4.0 licenses? The 2.0 licenses have lots of problems and are much easier to use for copyright trolling. The 4.0 licenses came out 10 years ago, so it's ridiculous that Flickr still doesn't use them. Nosferattus (talk) 05:03, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- Not sure if this is the right discussion to discuss this, but I actually have an idea for "Flickr2Commons Black" / "Flickypedia Black" where trusted users could override the Flickr license-washing blacklist for uploaders who use wrong licenses and add the proper licenses. For example Flickr user "Manhhai" has 141,005 photos on Flickr! of Vietnamese history but he's blacklisted here because he uploads files with wrong licenses, for example he lists them as freely licensed when they're not or "Copyright ©️ - All rights reserved" when they are in the public domain. Because of this literally tens of thousands of public domain images of Vietnamese history cannot be imported to the Wikimedia Commons, but if a "Flickr2Commons Black" / "Flickypedia Black" exists where Wikimedia Commons users with proven knowledge of copyright ©️ could add proper licenses (for example "{{PD-Vietnam}}" for photographs published before 1948 in the case of this uploader) then this could go through a separate process and a human would have to review them rather than a bot. This feature would only be exclusive to users who request access to it and explain which albums they want to import and why they are incorrectly licensed and which licenses they would add and then that specific user would be whitelisted for specific Flickr accounts / albums. Or should something like this be proposed at the proposals village pump? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 22:14, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for all these suggestions - let's make sure they're migrated to the project pages we're planning to set up as we build out the adoption project. (I am inexperienced with having detailed discussions in the Wikiverse UIs, so please excuse me as I get situated.) Ukglo (talk) 09:34, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Ukglo Commons.wikimedia is supposed to contain exactly one copy of each media file (defined by its message digest hash). But duplicates are uploaded (200 in the last 8 hours). Most duplicates come from flickr2commons. f2c duplicate check ist based on the filename, not the message digest. That is probably the most urgent issue with f2c. C.Suthorn (@[email protected]) (talk) 07:39, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks! That's helpful to know. Let's make sure it's noted in our project page once it's up. Do you know if/how it's possible for an external service to ping the message digest? Ukglo (talk) 11:22, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- There is an API function, that you can send a message digest to and it will answer withs the file names of all files with that message digest. If you compute the message digest of the local file, you can either use it to determine it the file already exists on commons, or after uploadd to check if the file was published and not corrupted. (Guide to API at the mediawiki.org webssite) C.Suthorn (@[email protected]) (talk) 12:43, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Ukglo Addition: http://adp.gg/R/P/ONCOMM is a small java-tool, that does check for the message digest. C.Suthorn (@[email protected]) (talk) 11:11, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- There is an API function, that you can send a message digest to and it will answer withs the file names of all files with that message digest. If you compute the message digest of the local file, you can either use it to determine it the file already exists on commons, or after uploadd to check if the file was published and not corrupted. (Guide to API at the mediawiki.org webssite) C.Suthorn (@[email protected]) (talk) 12:43, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks! That's helpful to know. Let's make sure it's noted in our project page once it's up. Do you know if/how it's possible for an external service to ping the message digest? Ukglo (talk) 11:22, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Ukglo Commons.wikimedia is supposed to contain exactly one copy of each media file (defined by its message digest hash). But duplicates are uploaded (200 in the last 8 hours). Most duplicates come from flickr2commons. f2c duplicate check ist based on the filename, not the message digest. That is probably the most urgent issue with f2c. C.Suthorn (@[email protected]) (talk) 07:39, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but there appear to be more than two things under discussion here, and some of the PR language isn't clear.
- The announcement is about a tool that WMF editors developed in-house to transfer Flickr photos to Wikimedia Commons. It shall be renamed "Flickypedia". So far so good?
- Flickr, or its Foundation, also runs a Commons with an exclusive membership, such as libraries and archives. While the Foundation has made this announcement, I can't discern any direct link to Flickr Commons, so far. Flickypedia, née Flickr2Commons, has been a tool to feed into Wikimedia Commons only, and not Flickr Commons.
- A few things are unclear at this point:
- the term "adoption" is not really defined, so since Flickr2Commons is GPL-2.0+, is it safe to assume that this means "we're taking over development, support and maintenance without a fork"?
- does Flickr intend to extend the software tool to transfer images from their partners to Flickr Commons as well? Judging from the move to remove "Commons" branding, that may be a "no".
- Elizium23 (talk) 20:44, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for these questions - it's really helpful to hear what's confusing so we can clarify our PR!
- Flickr Commons is a program that started in the flickr.com universe in 2008. The new Flickr Foundation (flickr.org) has taken over managing it now, even though the content published into it will still live on flickr.com. "Managing it" means looking after the members, encouraging growth. It's not directly connected into Flickypedia, or the concept of it, although we've heard again and again that it's difficult for Flickr Commons member institutions when their Flickr photos are hoovered into the Wikimedia Commons because they lose track of them and/or it's another place they have to watch/manage/maintain. As the Flickr Foundation, we're very interested in the concept of "content mobility" in general - as in, how can we know/watch/listen for activity that happens on digital copies of the same image, and report back?
- Adoption - good question! Honestly, I hadn't thought that far! I'd imagined that it would be a fork, as there will be some people out there who may be happy using Flickr2Commons and don't want to change(?). Or, perhaps we could do a "programmed retirement" of Flickr2Commons. Or, we could just fork, rename and be done with it. Which is better for the community, do you think?
- Extend to "transfer from their partners" - Sorry, I'm not 100% sure what you mean by this... but, for the first few iterations of Flickypedia, I have in mind that the transmission would only be from Flickr into WM Commons, so "partners" would need to publish to Flickr first... is that what you meant?
- Ukglo (talk) 11:30, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for these questions - it's really helpful to hear what's confusing so we can clarify our PR!
Next steps[edit]
Hi everyone! I will be working with @Ukglo, and several others, on this project and we just would like to let you know that soon, probably in the last week of June, we’ll launch a Diff blog post about the project and a project page with even more details, where you be able to find a proper space for community feedback, consultations, updates, and many other things. We will share the links here when they are ready and available. Hope to see you all there! -- GFontenelle (WMF) (talk) 18:43, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
June 08[edit]
Should we move the page onto the main space or let it stay as a work in progress for now? --Trade (talk) 22:15, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- I think that is looks quite good now, but as this is still developing I am not sure if it should be a guideline / policy yet. Perhaps we should wait for WikiLegal? Either way, it could probably already be tagged as an essay (provisionally) until we've had some direct answers from the Wikimedia Foundation's legal department.
- Are there still pending court cases concerning AI-generated art? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 13:40, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- We got a response from WikiLegal last month @Donald Trung: --Trade (talk) 14:52, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- For context: "If an AI model is trained on millions of images and used to generate new images, it may not constitute copyright infringement in the United States if the method of training rises to the level of fair use. However, considering the most recent USCO decision, if a human modifies an AI-generated work, it is possible that the human can have copyright in their modification of a public domain AI work. This would follow the standard rules for derivative works, with the primary question being whether the human modifications are adequately creative to qualify for their own copyright." Not really all possible use cases and that's mostly a rather vague and open ended letter directed towards Wikipedia's, but for the current legislation it would suffice.
- We got a response from WikiLegal last month @Donald Trung: --Trade (talk) 14:52, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- But as AI-generated works only just receive legal attention in the world I am not sure if it should immediately become a policy / guideline or if we should wait for more court cases to appear, does AI fall under the UK's "Sweat of the brow" doctrine? As I know that even very simple works or even full reproductions can be considered to be copyrighted in the United Kingdom. Because as usual, they in fact are copyrighted there Copyright protection for computer-generated works without a human author. These are currently protected in the UK for 50 years. (Source). And the page also states "For computer-generated works, we plan no changes to the law. There is no evidence at present that protection for CGWs is harmful...", So we probably need more information about where CGW's / AIGW's are copyrighted and where they aren't. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 15:30, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Can we at least agree that people marking AI works as own works should be considered copyfraud and a ban reason for repeat offenders? Trade (talk) 16:01, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Trade, That is already covered under "Commons:Copyfraud". — Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 17:28, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Ah, apparently that's a redirect. Anyhow, license laundering is always against the rules, with or without an AI policy license laundering is a blockeable offense. -- To make matters more complicated, in the United Kingdom these works are considered to be the works of the human director. -+ — Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 17:29, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Soft disagree on the use of the term "fraud", hard disagree on your proposed remedy. AI-generated works are still an emerging area in copyright law; it is entirely understandable if some uploaders don't fully align with the Commons consensus position on these works. Omphalographer (talk) 21:24, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Trade, That is already covered under "Commons:Copyfraud". — Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 17:28, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Can we at least agree that people marking AI works as own works should be considered copyfraud and a ban reason for repeat offenders? Trade (talk) 16:01, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- But as AI-generated works only just receive legal attention in the world I am not sure if it should immediately become a policy / guideline or if we should wait for more court cases to appear, does AI fall under the UK's "Sweat of the brow" doctrine? As I know that even very simple works or even full reproductions can be considered to be copyrighted in the United Kingdom. Because as usual, they in fact are copyrighted there Copyright protection for computer-generated works without a human author. These are currently protected in the UK for 50 years. (Source). And the page also states "For computer-generated works, we plan no changes to the law. There is no evidence at present that protection for CGWs is harmful...", So we probably need more information about where CGW's / AIGW's are copyrighted and where they aren't. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 15:30, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Hi all, I'm a lawyer from the Wikimedia Foundation and lurk here from time to time because one of my interests is in supporting Commons. Another interest is ensuring that everyone in the community has the tools to identify and deal with AI generated media under whatever policy achieves concensus. Just spitballing here, but question:
- A. Would the community find it valueable if a field was added to the upload wizard allowing a user to self report whether or not their image was generated?
- B. Assuming yes, would it be helpful or overkill for the person to also be able to specify whether they used a technical process that may complicate the copyright analysis: for example, "image2image" techniques, custom "embeddings," copied styles etc? SSpalding (WMF) (talk) 17:41, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Support; as AI-generated images will probably become less easily recognizable over time, any means easying to detect/identify them, is welcome. --
June 11[edit]
Use of Commons images for AI data?[edit]
Remarks here and there about the legal status of AI output in this recent official questionnaire re: adoptables on deviantArt are bringing me to wonder: To stave off further legal complications, how about AI firms look past fully copyrighted material for their datasets and turn more to Commons' catalogue--exclusively--for all it matters? (Pardon if I can't think of anywhere else on Wikimedia to discuss this idea other than at this pump. If I chose the right place, then so much the better.) --Slgrandson (talk) 16:15, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- What do you mean fully copyrighted material? Using "fully" in this context is just asking for confusion; most works on Commons are copyrighted material, even if they have open source licenses. Even something like the CC-BY license would be unusable if you use the 3 million files in Commons under that license and have to properly attribute all of them on everything that the AI produces. PD/CC-0 are really the only licenses that wouldn't have these legal complications.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:01, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi, Is there anyone willing to fix and run that bot? It was blocked in May 2020 for malfuntioning, and Rillke is not active since October 2022. Yann (talk) 18:21, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Another broken bot stats without a maintainer is [1]. Yann (talk) 21:19, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
While we're at it, User:Aconcagua/Alaska new was last updated seven months ago. Last I checked, Aconcagua hasn't edited in several years, which may explain why the interruptions and false positives had become more common.RadioKAOS (talk) 16:33, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Kami Hejazi[edit]
Error, edit not published.
You have to log in to create new pages. Please log in or sign up if you would like to create this page. If you can not or do not want to sign up, you can ask at the Village pump (community), the Help desk or the Administrators' noticeboard for help.
In case you were actually making an acceptable contribution, please report this error here. Thank you. 95.13.38.45 23:29, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- 95.13.38.45, this is not Wikipedia, please don't try to publish articles here. See "COM:SCOPE". -- — Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 23:34, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- Or are IP address users blocked from making gallery pages? As they might have gotten a notification while trying to create one, I commonly see IP editors make new categories and deletion requests (DR's), so I am sure that it's not one of those. -- — Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 23:37, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- This seems to be Special:AbuseFilter/105 "New page creation by anonymous users". It disallows creating galleries and pages in certain other namespaces, with some exceptions (e.g. deletion requests are handled by another filter). The warning is at MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-new-pages-by-anon-users. I suggest that the IP user either logs in (after creating an account if they have none) or explains what they are trying to do, so that somebody else might create a page for them to publish the gallery on. The "here" in the message refers to Commons:Abuse filter/Error reporting, which I know nothing about. –LPfi (talk) 14:55, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- If you can say what page you were trying to create, and it is within reason, someone will almost certainly create it for you. - Jmabel ! talk 15:26, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- Considering the section header and the hits I found upon googling it, I do not think a page about a (most likely) obscure singer would get much support here. --HyperGaruda (talk) 18:17, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- If you can say what page you were trying to create, and it is within reason, someone will almost certainly create it for you. - Jmabel ! talk 15:26, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- This seems to be Special:AbuseFilter/105 "New page creation by anonymous users". It disallows creating galleries and pages in certain other namespaces, with some exceptions (e.g. deletion requests are handled by another filter). The warning is at MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-new-pages-by-anon-users. I suggest that the IP user either logs in (after creating an account if they have none) or explains what they are trying to do, so that somebody else might create a page for them to publish the gallery on. The "here" in the message refers to Commons:Abuse filter/Error reporting, which I know nothing about. –LPfi (talk) 14:55, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- Or are IP address users blocked from making gallery pages? As they might have gotten a notification while trying to create one, I commonly see IP editors make new categories and deletion requests (DR's), so I am sure that it's not one of those. -- — Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 23:37, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
June 14[edit]
Picture wanted of Fyllingsdal tunnel[edit]
Hi,
I don't know if this is the right chapter for my request. If not please let me know where to ask.
I have written the article Fyllingsdal-Tunnel at de.wiki. Sadly I have not found images of this Tunnel opend in 15th April 2023 in Bergen/Norway. Maybe a norwegian Commons User can make some images of this great structure work? Thank you. Best regards --Alabasterstein (talk) 07:18, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- Maybe Peulle or Ximonic could go there and take some pictures. Regards --A.Savin 13:38, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
External urls[edit]
Hi,
There is one Commons user who adds external urls to category descriptions. The images are somewhat relevant to the category (imagine someone linking to a website with pictures of trees in the category for trees), but the images are not free, they're copyrighted by the site owner and cannot be used on any of the Wikiprojects.
Should I remove these urls? Does Commons have a policy on linking to external sites I can point to? —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.145.117.62 (talk) 23:12, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- Those sound pretty clearly inappropriate, especially on a broad category like "trees". I hesitate to say anything definitive without concrete examples, though. Certainly there are times when external links are valid on category pages, e.g. a category for a building linking a copyrighted historical-designation document with extensive information about a building. - Jmabel ! talk 01:31, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Jmabel: Every page here. Top result Category:Streets in Heuvel (Breda), has 8 external urls, the one below it Category:Streets in Princenhage has 15, etc. 192.145.117.81 13:16, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- 116 categories with such links: Category: "breda-en-omgeving.nl". @G.Lanting: Why are you adding external links instead of uploading the pictures? Cryptic-waveform (talk) 14:08, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Jmabel: Every page here. Top result Category:Streets in Heuvel (Breda), has 8 external urls, the one below it Category:Streets in Princenhage has 15, etc. 192.145.117.81 13:16, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
@G.Lanting: could you please explain what you are up to here? It looks like you are adding links in a way that is not usually how we do things here. This appears to be a combination of excessive external linking and providing bare URLs with no explanation of why someone would follow the link. Before I make this an administrative matter, I'd like to give you a chance to explain your intent. - Jmabel ! talk 17:54, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- Hi, I'm a different editor who adds external urls to category and media descriptions. I link to https://www.kozterkep.hu/ , a website whose main scope is to document outdoor sculptures in Hungary. They have mostly non-free images that can help identification, but that is not the main reason why I link. I give links because the website has a big collection of metadata about these sculptures. Its editors are going through all the newspapers and other sources to find out the history of the sculptures, and the site is quite comprehensive in its scope. This saves me a lot of work. Sometimes this metadata is just the date of erection and the identity of the sculptor, but even that is usually hard to find out from sculptures that I meet. But sometimes it's more information besides that, such as how a certain sculpture was moved three times and when the local government bought it, or that the sculpture is a smaller copy of an earlier statue. As I usually copy metadata from that website to the category or media descriptions, I also link the site. The link is there as courtesy to thank their hard work, as help to trace the sources for mistakes in the metadata if we find any, and to advertise a useful resource to other users.
- I am not familiar with the website in question here. It seems like it gives a lot of photos together with addresses, which can help identify the more precise location of the buildings depicted on photos in Commons, or it can point out interesting buildings of which Commons doesn't have a photo yet and would be worth to take one. So please be careful if you want to decide on whether to keep these links.
- – b_jonas 09:57, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
- Linking to a website once that contains comprehensive, well-researched information on a topic where information can be hard to come by is not comparable to linking to a website 15 times in a single category description with metadata that's more comprehensive, more verifiable, and easier to find on Google Maps. There is no way to tell from the links which streets or houses they cover and from what I can tell from the website there is no real structure to its presentation, which impacts its effectiveness as a resource considerably. 192.145.117.51 14:14, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
June 15[edit]
Animal identification requested[edit]
Category:Macropodidae at Kangaroo Creek Farm: with a couple of exceptions, I'm pretty uncertain exactly what species of Macropodidae are in these 23 photographs (and it wouldn't even astound me if some few of them don't qualify as Macropodidae). As a North American, I'm pretty out of my depth on marsupials other than opossums. - Jmabel ! talk 05:07, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Jmabel: My assessment is that they are all Macropodids. I'll try to identify the species but it won't be easy. 20 upper 07:09, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- Forwarded to w:en:Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science #Identify_species_in_photos_in_c:Category:Macropodidae_at_Kangaroo_Creek_Farm, look for potential replies there as well. – b_jonas 10:11, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Wikimedia Côte d'Ivoire || Wikiconvention francophone - Ouverture des appels à communication et candidatures de bourses jusqu'au 14/07/2023[edit]
Le rendez-vous est pris pour la WikiConvention Francophone 2023, à Abidjan en Côte d'Ivoire du 22 au 23 septembre 2023 !
Nous avons la joie de vous annoncer l’ouverture jusqu'au 14 juillet 2023 des différents appels à candidatures pour les bourses et les communications.
Pour postuler, vous êtes invités à visiter le portail metade la Wikiconvention Francophone 2023.
Au plaisir de vous voir toutes et tous à Abidjan ! Cordialement,
L’équipe d’organisation locale de WikiConvention Francophone Abiba Pauline (talk) 14:50, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Category:Media needing categories[edit]
I discovered this category and started working on it. I have found, maybe, up to 1000 images uncategorized by the same photographer. I created a sub -cat in Cat Photographers from Switzerland. Is there a Wiki App that I can use to bulk categorize all of his images or bulk move them into the new sub-Cat Images by Thomas Woodtli Zurich Switzerland? Doing it one image at a time is slow, but interesting. ̃— Preceding unsigned comment added by Photo Archives (talk • contribs) 15:06, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Photo Archives: I use VFC for this sort of thing. I gather some people do it with Cat-a-Lot, which I don't use. - Jmabel ! talk 15:20, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks, neither seemed to work moving files so will continue individualỹ Photo Archives (talk) 15:38, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Photo Archives: by "moving files", are you saying you need to change the file name? I thought this was about categorization. I'm pretty sure either of those tools will do it, and I'm willing to help, but I'd need to be clear on exactly what you are trying to do (e.g. "for all files with [string] in {{Information}} add [this category]). - Jmabel ! talk 17:13, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- No, not the file name. Moving the (improperly labelled) files from the Category:Media needing categories 2021 to the already existing Category:Photographs by Thomas Woodtli This is a typical file name there = File:-i---i- (24295389888).jpg I had not searched enough and was trying to move them to Cat Images by Thomas Woodtli Zurich Switzerland Photo Archives (talk) 17:23, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- Your problem should be the perfect use-case for Cat-A-Lot actually. Did you try Help:Gadget-Cat-a-lot ? -- Herbert Ortner (talk) 17:56, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- Yes i did and I put the new category name in the space at the top, chose the files and when i hit the add button it said original files not found??? Photo Archives (talk) 18:09, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Photo Archives if you want to move files from Category:All media needing categories as of 2021 to another category, after you select the files and enter the new cat name, you need to click the "+ sign", not the "right arrow".
- this is a tricky thing about using cat-a-lot on files using {{Uncategorized}}. for other normal categories, if you want to "move files between cats", you hit "right arrow"; if you want to "copy files from one to another", you hit "+ sign".
- (the reason behind this is, Category:All media needing categories as of 2021 is set by the template instead of wikitext, so cat-a-lot cannot find the code " [[:Category:All media needing categories as of 2021]] " on the page.) RZuo (talk) 18:46, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- That solved the problem - Thanks ̃ Photo Archives (talk) 19:38, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Photo Archives what are you doing right now? why are you moving them to Category:Media needing categories? RZuo (talk) 19:45, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
- Whatǃ No. I put the Cat Category:Photographs by Thomas Woodtli at the top where it asked for it and clicked the ̟ symbol? What should I had ̟ clicked. Apologies. Tell me and I will redo it all. Photo Archives (talk) 19:50, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Photo Archives now you should move them from Category:Media needing categories to your destination by clicking right arrow. do it slow to familiarise yourself with the tool. RZuo (talk) 19:57, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
- OK I highlighted 7 images, placed the Cat name and under, or next to Media needing categories there is only a - symbol, no arrow or ̟ symbol?? Photo Archives (talk) 20:01, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
- select files by clicking them. they become highlighted.
- input the destination in the catalot popup. it will suggest to you categories that match. choose the correct one and press ↵ Enter.
- the yellow popup will show you new info. now press the right arrow appearing next to your destination.
- if you cannot get it right, keep reading Help:Gadget-Cat-a-lot carefully. RZuo (talk) 20:09, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Photo Archives clean up your mess at Category:Media needing categories. move them to the intended categories. also categorise them by topic. RZuo (talk) 17:47, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
- I tried to move them individually but each file came up with no Cat listed? There is a listing at the bottom for Hidden Categories. I will try again. Thanks for the reminder. It's frustrating when I add the photographers Cat but because it is also listed as a hidden Cat, nothing shows up. I will keep trying Photo Archives (talk) 17:53, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
- OK I finally figured it out. I created a Photographs by Thomas Woodtli page 2 in Photographers from Switzerland and deleted the Cat needing Cat from each file. The page should be empty now. Photo Archives (talk) 18:09, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
- OK all done and hopefully correct. Photo Archives (talk) 18:32, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Photo Archives what were you doing? did you not listen to the advice that you should do it slow to familiarise yourself with the tool?
- is there a reason why those images are not added to Category:Photographs by Thomas Woodtli?
- this is close to a en:Wikipedia:Competence is required behavioural problem. RZuo (talk) 20:34, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
- OK all done and hopefully correct. Photo Archives (talk) 18:32, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
- OK I finally figured it out. I created a Photographs by Thomas Woodtli page 2 in Photographers from Switzerland and deleted the Cat needing Cat from each file. The page should be empty now. Photo Archives (talk) 18:09, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
- I tried to move them individually but each file came up with no Cat listed? There is a listing at the bottom for Hidden Categories. I will try again. Thanks for the reminder. It's frustrating when I add the photographers Cat but because it is also listed as a hidden Cat, nothing shows up. I will keep trying Photo Archives (talk) 17:53, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
- OK I highlighted 7 images, placed the Cat name and under, or next to Media needing categories there is only a - symbol, no arrow or ̟ symbol?? Photo Archives (talk) 20:01, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Photo Archives now you should move them from Category:Media needing categories to your destination by clicking right arrow. do it slow to familiarise yourself with the tool. RZuo (talk) 19:57, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
- Whatǃ No. I put the Cat Category:Photographs by Thomas Woodtli at the top where it asked for it and clicked the ̟ symbol? What should I had ̟ clicked. Apologies. Tell me and I will redo it all. Photo Archives (talk) 19:50, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Photo Archives what are you doing right now? why are you moving them to Category:Media needing categories? RZuo (talk) 19:45, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
- That solved the problem - Thanks ̃ Photo Archives (talk) 19:38, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
- Yes i did and I put the new category name in the space at the top, chose the files and when i hit the add button it said original files not found??? Photo Archives (talk) 18:09, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- Your problem should be the perfect use-case for Cat-A-Lot actually. Did you try Help:Gadget-Cat-a-lot ? -- Herbert Ortner (talk) 17:56, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- No, not the file name. Moving the (improperly labelled) files from the Category:Media needing categories 2021 to the already existing Category:Photographs by Thomas Woodtli This is a typical file name there = File:-i---i- (24295389888).jpg I had not searched enough and was trying to move them to Cat Images by Thomas Woodtli Zurich Switzerland Photo Archives (talk) 17:23, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Photo Archives: by "moving files", are you saying you need to change the file name? I thought this was about categorization. I'm pretty sure either of those tools will do it, and I'm willing to help, but I'd need to be clear on exactly what you are trying to do (e.g. "for all files with [string] in {{Information}} add [this category]). - Jmabel ! talk 17:13, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks, neither seemed to work moving files so will continue individualỹ Photo Archives (talk) 15:38, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
June 16[edit]
Is there any Symbol or Logo for "Self-Published"?[edit]
Is there any universal logo for self-published books? Such as creative commons logo.
Many thank you very much in advanced. 2409:4088:AE04:EB58:0:0:B048:440D 15:09, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Bts_v —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 115.97.47.197 (talk) 15:16, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
- As answered elsewhere, no, there is not, and please don't ask the same question in multiple places, it wastes people's time. - Jmabel ! talk 15:29, 16 June 2023 (UTC)