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/2024/11. 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. |
 |
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 7 days. |
October 14
Google's semi-censorship of Wikimedia Commons must end
Please see meta:Community Wishlist/Wishes/Do something about Google & DuckDuckGo search not indexing media files and categories on Commons. I think we can and should do something about Google not indexing most files (including all videos) and category pages on Commons. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:42, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- It is a private company and if not violating the law, they can do whatever (...) they want. If they choose to ignore stuff on commons - that´s fine. Alexpl (talk) 20:02, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- I was not saying it's illegal. That may be fine according to law. I wonder if it's fine to Commons that users' contributions are just blacked out and not available to people. Prototyperspective (talk) 21:39, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Huge filesizes for photos are a cost factor when it comes to processing and are almost never worth it anyway. I dont blame them from not wanting photos with the megabytes in the three digits to show up, whenever somebody types in a generic searchterm. Alexpl (talk) 14:13, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- This seems offtopic. 1. Most files on WMC are not many MBs large and this is not about some particular few large files. 2. It only shows gstatic thumbnails in Google Search, not the whole image, and it's the same for DDG and other search engines.
It's absurd to argue that Google's storage or processing would have notable issues that out of the millions of indexed website makes WMC one whose media is not findable.
You can of course defend anti-WMC practices – despite that I don't understand why Commons contributors could be supportive of that – but this point does not make sense, partly because this isn't about the <0.1% of WMC files that are large image files to begin with. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)- This is not the first time I have seen you try to dismiss comments with which you disagree as "off topic", when they are not. Please do not so that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:46, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- I said it seems offtopic and I did notdismiss the comment but address it comprehensively. When I say it seems offtopic that is for example because I may have misunderstood it and/or the user may want to clarify how it would be ontopic. I do wonder why you're so super sensitive about me using the word offtopic. The user did say something but did not explain how it relates to this subject and clarifying that with clear language is I think more constructive than beating around the bush. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:41, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- This is not the first time I have seen you try to dismiss comments with which you disagree as "off topic", when they are not. Please do not so that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:46, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- There already is a thumbnail for every file here anyway so not even any need to create any anew. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:30, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- This seems offtopic. 1. Most files on WMC are not many MBs large and this is not about some particular few large files. 2. It only shows gstatic thumbnails in Google Search, not the whole image, and it's the same for DDG and other search engines.
- Huge filesizes for photos are a cost factor when it comes to processing and are almost never worth it anyway. I dont blame them from not wanting photos with the megabytes in the three digits to show up, whenever somebody types in a generic searchterm. Alexpl (talk) 14:13, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- I was not saying it's illegal. That may be fine according to law. I wonder if it's fine to Commons that users' contributions are just blacked out and not available to people. Prototyperspective (talk) 21:39, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- See also meta:Talk:Community Wishlist/Wishes/Do something about Google & DuckDuckGo search not indexing media files and categories on Commons. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:41, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- There is a commercial interest in steering the search results to commercial and social websites. These generate clicks, not the commons. I do have the impression that Google is much more interested in SDC of files than the Commons categories. Every effort should be made to fill in the P:P180. Google certainly uses the labels in Wikidata as datafeed for the search engines. Also used for educating the translation software.Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:12, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia itself is indexed rather highly on Google search results though. And it does index images that are used in Wikipedia articles, but this treatment isn't extended to the other Wikimedia projects. (I can't speak for other media files however). ReneeWrites (talk) 18:26, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Yes Wikipedia is, but not Commons, the second largest Wikimedia project with a type of content that lots of people are interested in, watch and search for (media of all kinds). It does not index any video on here (at least in my tests I could not find any so far even when searching for the exact title) and images I think are only indexed when they're used in Wikipedia articles and even then often missing from the main results. One part of the proposal is systematic tests/investigations so there is some data on this. I think overall the indexing is pretty bad even when one is searching for a subject that WMC has lots of high quality contents and other image results that are shown are fairly low-quality. One could also focus on the videos. Prototyperspective (talk) 20:32, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Google often indexes images that are not in a Wikipedia article. I find plenty if I do specifically an image search. But it doesn't tend to list pages that are mainly an image in its general results, so Commons image pages often don't show in the result if you do a general Google search. - Jmabel ! talk 05:11, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Rarely it does, but indexing a random tiny subset of files doesn't change anything about the issue and only makes it harder to notice this. I did not find plenty of images for prior searches I did where I then either used an image not from WMC despite that I know WMC has at least as good images well-organized or used the WMC search. Again, investigations are the first step of what is proposed so maybe you could share your searches. Images certainly shouldn't show up in the general search results (well nearly always) – I made it clear that this is about the Images and Videos tabs of these sites...only when it comes to category pages is this about the general search results. I currently don't have many good examples. Things I searched for (those may not be the best examples) I think included roughly
Rivers from spaceandAlgae blooms from spaceandSatellite picture of cities at night. This is not about Google&DDG not indexing any files on WMC. Please let me know if that should be clearer in the proposal. It is about them indexing only very few images (and those are not even the most relevant or best) when it should be many (e.g. in searches where WMC has lots of good-organized files), not showing nearly all categories in the results and not indexing any videos. Maybe it should be clearer that isn't necessarily all Google's fault – the investigations may reveal things Wikimedia community & tech could do to improve its inclusion in external search results – however such steps depend on investigations and don't mean step 2 & 3 are invalid, other things could follow up on that step in addition and shape these two. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:30, 16 October 2024 (UTC)- @Prototyperspective: Colourpicture Publishers. There isn't that many results to begin with, but maybe it's at the top because the category has a description that contains the companies name in it? --Adamant1 (talk) 01:21, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, that's the kind of investigations I'm proposing are done large scale and in systematic ways (and well visibly e.g. published in diff) so we can identify cases that are well indexed, find out why, and identify cases that should be well-indexed but aren't and so on.
- It could be that it's at the top because it contains a long descriptive category description – which most cats however don't really need because the category title is self-explanatory – as well as an infobox with all sorts of data. It's not unlikely also because there's few other websites with info on that subject, especially not recent ones that are linked from other pages. As a result of findings like your example, one could for example conduct tests (and/or check the theory via the dataset) whether it's the company's name in the description that caused the cat to show up this high or the description and consider things like adding category-descriptions (partly automatically via WP article leads and/or Wikidata item description). An open letter doesn't have to be as provocative and confrontational as the title of this thread, one could nicely ask Google & Co to improve their results by considering specific things or identified requested changes. Relevant to that is that Google & Co heavily make use of Wikimedia content in all sorts of ways but this isn't about fairly giving back (some media attention however could be due to that and reference that): it would be about them improving their search results for everyone so it shows media or pages that the person searching would likely find useful (e.g. via considering how many files and how many Wikipedia-used files are contained in the category). (When it comes to videos however it seems like purposeful exclusion.) Prototyperspective (talk) 08:24, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Prototyperspective: Colourpicture Publishers. There isn't that many results to begin with, but maybe it's at the top because the category has a description that contains the companies name in it? --Adamant1 (talk) 01:21, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- Rarely it does, but indexing a random tiny subset of files doesn't change anything about the issue and only makes it harder to notice this. I did not find plenty of images for prior searches I did where I then either used an image not from WMC despite that I know WMC has at least as good images well-organized or used the WMC search. Again, investigations are the first step of what is proposed so maybe you could share your searches. Images certainly shouldn't show up in the general search results (well nearly always) – I made it clear that this is about the Images and Videos tabs of these sites...only when it comes to category pages is this about the general search results. I currently don't have many good examples. Things I searched for (those may not be the best examples) I think included roughly
- Google often indexes images that are not in a Wikipedia article. I find plenty if I do specifically an image search. But it doesn't tend to list pages that are mainly an image in its general results, so Commons image pages often don't show in the result if you do a general Google search. - Jmabel ! talk 05:11, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Yes Wikipedia is, but not Commons, the second largest Wikimedia project with a type of content that lots of people are interested in, watch and search for (media of all kinds). It does not index any video on here (at least in my tests I could not find any so far even when searching for the exact title) and images I think are only indexed when they're used in Wikipedia articles and even then often missing from the main results. One part of the proposal is systematic tests/investigations so there is some data on this. I think overall the indexing is pretty bad even when one is searching for a subject that WMC has lots of high quality contents and other image results that are shown are fairly low-quality. One could also focus on the videos. Prototyperspective (talk) 20:32, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia itself is indexed rather highly on Google search results though. And it does index images that are used in Wikipedia articles, but this treatment isn't extended to the other Wikimedia projects. (I can't speak for other media files however). ReneeWrites (talk) 18:26, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Google clearly does take these images into account. I looked up a handful of terms:
| Google Images searches |
|---|
|
If you narrow your search to CC images, you get more from Flickr and Commons:
| Google Images searches - Narrowed to Creative Commons |
|---|
|
I don't believe there even is a problem. Sure, results from WMF projects are only 1 or 2 in many cases, but:
- it's not like there was any other site that did have a majority of the top results
- you can improve them by searching for CC content
- Wikipedia was almost always in the results, even if they didn't have a majority in the top images (which there's no reason it should, might I add). I can't say the same about other results I saw, like Britannica, NatGeo, Adobe Stock, etc.
- Google is showing results from Wikipedia, Commons, and even smaller projects like Wikispecies and Wikivoyage, at times .I wouldn't put it past them that they're prioritizing commercial and social sites that run Google Ads (purely speculation from my part, don't take my word for it), but I find it hard to believe that they're straight up censoring, shadowbanning, or otherwise limiting results from WMF projects. Rubýñ (Scold) 17:21, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- I haven't repeated all the searches to test this, but with the ones I did I only got 1 result from WMF, and it was the image in the infobox of the Wikipedia article about the subject. ReneeWrites (talk) 20:29, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- I personally use Ecosia to search things and I often just type in something in Ecosia rather than search it here because I am too lazy to use the convoluted Wikimedia internal search method (yes, using external websites to find something is oftentimes easy than the internal "search" engines on Wikimedia websites), but I noticed that in the past few months Ecosia has been suppressing non-Wikipedia Wikimedia websites more, now, this seems to coincide with the switch where Ecosia now mixes in Google Search search results with those from Microsoft Bing, before this change Ecosia exclusively used Microsoft Bing and while I've used Microsoft Bing as my main search enginge since 2011~2012'ish, I switched to Ecosia a couple of years ago (after I saw one of their advertisements on Google YouTube) and I occasionally compare it with Google Search and other search engines. Judging by the fact that Google Search suppresses Wikimedia Commons and Microsoft Bing does this to a lesser extent I assume that this likely is a deliberate choice by those companies. But it could probably also be something internal at Wikimedia websites as all non-article space pages at Wikipedia are also excluded from search engines (meaning that someone cannot find any Wikipedia policy pages unless someone looks for them within Wikipedia, which I've always found to be a rather odd choice).
- Now, we know that Google Search, Microsoft Bing, Ecosia, DuckDuckGo, Yahoo! Search, Etc. all heavily rely on Wikidata, perhaps linking all Wikimedia Commons category pages with Wikidata items might help integrate this website better with search engines, if you think about it, the exclusion of the Wikimedia Commons is exclusively the exclusion of the Wikimedia Commons, I have no trouble finding results from the Wiktionary or Wikivoyage, which probably means that the integration between Wikidata and other Wikimedia websites helps them. Now, I know that "SEO" is considered "a curse word among Wikimedians", but if we want the Wikimedia Commons to show up in search results we most likely do need to link to Wikidata and properly use redirects, alternative titles, translations, Etc. in a way that makes sense. For example, if you search for alternative titles on Wikipedia you get them, like "Communist Germany" in a search enginge you'll find the DDR because "Communist Germany" is a redirect at Wikipedia. Meanwhile, we tend to have highly specific titles and redirects are typically deleted. But my guess is that the main culprit is the lack of Wikidata integration at the Wikimedia Commons, I wonder if files with more optimised structured data also show up in search engine results more as these are dependent on Wikidata items. Alternatively, we could compare if categories with or without Wikidata integration show up more in internet search enginges. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 18:52, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for this interesting info contribution.
- Comparing indexing results between search engines like so and across time (especially after algorithms were reported to be changed albeit it's often probably not announced) could help identify causes and potential mitigation measures.
- I never noticed or thought about search engines not indexing policy and meta pages of Wikimedia sites (nonWMC), if so that's also I think something that would be good to be changed if possible. For example, new editors or readers may search for these with a search engine instead of the internal one. If they searched for a meta/help pages on Commons it's often quite possible they can't find it because they don't show up in the search results even when in the MediaSearch' Categories and Pages tab (issue #8 here).
- [Google & Co] all heavily rely on Wikidata that good integration with Wikidata is a cause for SE indexing or good indexing and that improving that integration are two hypotheses that could be tested. I do not think this is the case much because category pages that are linked to Wikidata items also do not show up and only a tiny sub < 0,01% of files are used in Wikidata items or usable there while most items are somewhere underneath a category that is linked to Wikidata item. I think 'it's not linked to a Wikidata item' or 'it doesn't have structured data depicts statements' would be not much more than false excuses (not necessarily deliberate) for not indexing and I don't see why it would rely on / require it / why it should be expected. Moreover, some categories should probably be well-indexed without being linked to a Wikidata item or linking such would be inappropriate or at least can't be done at scale(?) – e.g. Category:Drone videos with lots of organized content can't even be found in DuckDuckGo when searching for
drone videos wiki(btw I think it should also show up high for searches likefree drone videos). The linked proposal however is interesting but I have doubts this can be done both at scale and affects the SE much. Data suggesting such as has any significant effect is also missing. So I don't think it would solve this, e.g. videos on WMC still don't show up in the videos tab and many large categories are already linked. - and properly use redirects, alternative titles, translations, Etc. in a way that makes sense Agree. One option is to sync ENWP redirects of items to WMC so WMC has the same redirects [ie a tool for doing so]. Another is Adding machine translated category titles and this could also be implemented via redirects and be extended to category descriptions. This however is another case that I don't think should be required for the pages to show up in search results but only improve them. It's possible that this would solve this even if it shouldn't be that way due to how pages are ranked. Note that this may require that the category page is an actual url with an actual title and not not the same url with some Javascript dynamically changing the title depending on the user language. Another option of creating redirects of translated titles – Category:Tiere (de; only plural form not singular) currently redirects to Category:Animals – can't be done at scale and may cause issues (such as HotCat autocompletes).
- In any case such comparison data would be great even if it's just a small factor (I doubt it's the main culprit for the plural indexing issues).
- Prototyperspective (talk) 20:03, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- From everything I've been able to tell, Google does index pages in "Commons" space. For example, do a Google search on "structured data commons" (no quotes). - Jmabel ! talk 16:43, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, this is known, e.g. the intro already is about "most" files, not "all" files as well as results' ranking/findability. I've yet got to see a WMC video in the videos tab however. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:46, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry I misunderstood your comment Jmabel – it's addressing point #2 and you're right on that.
- Some examples of low-views useful major categories below. Please comment if anybody knows more in regards to why Videos on WMC are not showing in the Videos tab of Google, DuckDuckGo, etc. Maybe one could ask them or see if there's any other large websites whose videos are not shown there (and why).
- Yes, this is known, e.g. the intro already is about "most" files, not "all" files as well as results' ranking/findability. I've yet got to see a WMC video in the videos tab however. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:46, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- From everything I've been able to tell, Google does index pages in "Commons" space. For example, do a Google search on "structured data commons" (no quotes). - Jmabel ! talk 16:43, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for this interesting info contribution.
_%e2%80%93_%27our_world_in_data%27.png)
_%e2%80%93_%27sustainable_transport%27.png)
_%e2%80%93_%27science%27.png)
_%e2%80%93_%27drone_videos%27.png)
_%e2%80%93_%27time-lapse_videos%27.png)
_%e2%80%93_%27audio_files_of_music%27.png)
- Prototyperspective (talk) 17:23, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- The 14th most viewed page and the second most viewed category on Commons [1] in also a video category [2]. Views on all Commons pages are quit low there is nothing special with videos on Commons. GPSLeo (talk) 19:13, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, even Commons pages with most view get few views which is consistent with the problem description in the proposal. I did not suggest there was something special with videos except that none of them are shown in and indexed in the videos tab of the search engines. Prototyperspective (talk) 19:29, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- The 14th most viewed page and the second most viewed category on Commons [1] in also a video category [2]. Views on all Commons pages are quit low there is nothing special with videos on Commons. GPSLeo (talk) 19:13, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- Prototyperspective (talk) 17:23, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- It's a good thing, if Google keeps us a relative secret. This is a databank for a select audience, that’s hopefully using items for creating content, or research. It's not a social media website for easy access to every airhead in creation, we don't need the level of vandalism, that would surely follow.
- As a matter of fact, we scavenge off commercial websites, without them, we would have limited access to new materiel. It would be detrimental, to attempt to replace them, no good would come of it. Broichmore (talk) 12:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- Even for "select audience" it's known, used and discoverable far too little. They also use the Videos tab for example. Moreover, I do not agree with this elitism. Free media and free knowledge is about society overall not some very small group. With increased use, there would also be increased contributors who watch pages and Wikipedia is used much more and is not overrun by vandalism, it probably doesn't increase linearly with increased public use and even if it would there can be and are technological means to detect vandalism. The site would not replace commercial websites even if far more popular. I do not agree that we scavenge off these either. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- So, to wrap this up: you want to upload stuff on Commons and have it shown in google´s services in a predictable way. This would only make sense for either advertising or some sort of campaigning and that is "no bueno". Alexpl (talk) 15:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
- No this doesn't wrap it up at all and it's entirely unrelated to advertising or some sort of ad-like campaigning. It's also not about a "predictable way". Prototyperspective (talk) 16:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
- Sure. Alexpl (talk) 18:30, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- Its to bad the Phabricator ticket is stalled out. It doesn't seem like anything else can be done about it outside of that though. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:15, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- I named three specific things in the linked proposal. These things can be done. Prototyperspective (talk) 21:11, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, but I was specifically referring to this discussion. Not suggestions you've made in other proposals. Can anything be done about it in this conversation? Probably not. Can things be done about in other conversations or places? Maybe. But I'm not replying to someone else in another conversation now am I? --Adamant1 (talk) 21:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- I named three specific things in the linked proposal. These things can be done. Prototyperspective (talk) 21:11, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- Its to bad the Phabricator ticket is stalled out. It doesn't seem like anything else can be done about it outside of that though. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:15, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- Sure. Alexpl (talk) 18:30, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think it's appropriate (let alone necessary) to make assumptions about why someone would support this initiative, especially if those assumptions are going to be bad ones. For my part I just like the information I add to these projects (whether this is Commons or Wikipedia itself) to be findable, but the difference between how the Google search engine treats these two projects is night and day. ReneeWrites (talk) 15:57, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- No this doesn't wrap it up at all and it's entirely unrelated to advertising or some sort of ad-like campaigning. It's also not about a "predictable way". Prototyperspective (talk) 16:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
- So, to wrap this up: you want to upload stuff on Commons and have it shown in google´s services in a predictable way. This would only make sense for either advertising or some sort of campaigning and that is "no bueno". Alexpl (talk) 15:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
- Even for "select audience" it's known, used and discoverable far too little. They also use the Videos tab for example. Moreover, I do not agree with this elitism. Free media and free knowledge is about society overall not some very small group. With increased use, there would also be increased contributors who watch pages and Wikipedia is used much more and is not overrun by vandalism, it probably doesn't increase linearly with increased public use and even if it would there can be and are technological means to detect vandalism. The site would not replace commercial websites even if far more popular. I do not agree that we scavenge off these either. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- Regardless of the effect size, I doubt we can do much about this directly. The search-engine market is far less competitive than it appears; almost all search engines have Google, Microsoft Bing, or the PRC government behind their backends (see Wikipedia:List of search engines). There are also serious obstacles to market entry, like Cloudflare prohibiting even medium-sized search engines from crawling and indexing the pages they host. So search engine backends wield a lot of oligopoly power, whether they want to or not.
- I'd suggest our most effective move would be to make Commons pages more visible through more specialized, non-oligopoly search tools. For instance, we could make all Commons videos available on PeerTube, a decentralized, ActivityPub-federating video platform. This would make them searchable through Sepia Search. It would also make it possible to download large videos from Commons (which fails often enough that I've given up on it) and make downloading videos faster. We could also reach out to new market entrants like Mojeek.
- We could also raise our profile directly, for instance by encouraging professional groups to use Commons (academics, journalists, people distributing public health information...). Explain that they can be contributors, users of existing content, and requesters of custom content at our graphics labs. Train librarians. Train students. That sort of thing.
- Oh, and we could urge regulatory action to increase competition in the market. HLHJ (talk) 16:16, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- And how much would that be? To handle that sort of traffic costs more money - for very little benefit to the average user. Alexpl (talk) 16:28, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- PeerTube is peer-to-peer, designed to keep bandwidth costs down. You can run a server on a desktop computer, like a torrent. Certainly the WMF can afford servers, their main expense is salaries. We could expect new users of our content, because it would make our media available on all ActivityPub-federating platforms, like Mastodon, Pixelfed, etc.. Making content available to new users benefits them and is our basic goal; making knowledge available, to everyone. HLHJ (talk) 02:47, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, not much but some things. I listed some of those things, I'll repeat two: 1. doing systematic research and compiling a dataset 2. writing an open letter with some publicity via WMF.
The obstacles to market entry are very interesting, did not know about that cloudflare thing, and things like this could be addressed by digital policy if it was known etc. PeerTube integration could be useful for scaling / reducing server load and large files but I don't think it's helpful here except maybe as an option of what could be done if search engines better index videos and that causes server loads. I never had any issues with downloading videos from WMC. I find Distributed search engines like YaCy interesting but things related to these is not really addressing this issue for probably the next 10 years. The suggestion about proactively reaching out to potential contributors is good but it also wouldn't address this issue – it doesn't improve the indexing and public use/awareness of the site, and how do you explain them why they should contribute here if their media nearly don't get any views? I think whatever reasons people have for contributing to Commons like public education or organizing free media drastically reduce in meaning if the site simply doesn't get used. Most files here are not used in Wikipedias and the file organization, searchability, descriptions, etc are all not relevant if this site is just for hosting files that Internet users can find and make use of when they happen to read the Wikipedia article it's used in. I think before reaching out to potential especially valuable contributors (PEVC?), we should work on solving the problem of the site's use/value/popularity/awareness. I think there's two approaches:- developments and digital policy activity to enable better (e.g. more neutrality and possibly less misinfo-spewing without any warning tags) alternatives (broader)
- all sorts of activity (including digital policy activity but this may not be key or needed here) to improve the few search engines used in the real world (Google, Bing, DuckDuckGo) toward better inclusion of Commons (more impactful, easier, and more immediate)
- If there was an open letter, I think it would probably be good to include some info about the first point but probably more as some sort of supporting context for why the few search engines should index the site & include its contents (eg in the Video tab) better. Maybe this could also boost some activity in regards to developing / helping the development of better alternatives but this is more (or better kept to be) about a real-world-pragmatic thing. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:26, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- The simplest regulatory method for increasing competition is to make crawl data public. Crawling the web takes massive amounts of time and energy, and there is no objective need for each search engine company to do its own crawl. But big crawls cost millions, so no-one wants to share their expensive asset. It's a huge waste.[3]
- "Contribute so I can use your images on Wikipedia" works. "Search because there are good images you can use here" also works. A copy-paste html code snippet for embedding an image in your website might help. I'd also like better video transcript-making tools, a semi-automated process like OCR on Wikisource, so I don't spend all my time typing out timings. We have an advantage in manual transcripts.
- I just think the chance of major search engines saying "Thank you for your open letter. We'd never thought to make Commons more visible! We should do that!" are nil. HLHJ (talk) 03:01, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for explaining and interesting link. What do you think of Common Crawl in that regard then, maybe what you proposed could be achieved by improving that existing project?
"Contribute so I can use your images on Wikipedia" works. "Search… what are you referring to there? I don't see how it relates to my prior comment and I don't really understand it. A copy-paste html code snippet for embedding an image in your website might help. if you mean images on Commons on other websites how images are embedded varies per website and there already is a button that shows "Embed this file" HTML when you click on "Use this file" (it just doesn't show on mobile). video transcript-making tools agree – please take a look at my proposal for that here. I just think the chance of major search engines saying "[…]" are nil. I don't think so – there is a chance they want to maintain good reputation, good standing with the community, or there is media reporting about this (media/public pressure) which is especially relevant as these search engines benefit heavily from Wikipedia (even more so with latest AI developments) so shouldn't be doing this. If nothing happens what is there to lose to at least try, and it would raise awareness of this issue and maybe boost some alternative approaches that address it (including novel search engines etc). Prototyperspective (talk) 20:03, 19 November 2024 (UTC)- Sorry, I was saying people do use Commons in response to learning that it has useful content; perhaps a bit off-topic. I hadn't seen that "Embed this file file". PeerTube was actually a suggestion for getting indexed by a novel search engine, because it has a native search engine. I like the transcription-tool proposal; I tried to transcribe this excellent series documenting the last economic European home weaving, but it took forever. I can't imagine an AI tool would correctly register the German dialect, but if it got the timings, that would save me maybe 3/4 of the time (actually, a way to play videos at double or triple speed would also be a great help). The proposal at Meta:Community Wishlist/Wishes/Do something about Google & DuckDuckGo search not indexing media files and categories on Commons seems to be a duplicate of Meta:Community Wishlist/Wishes/(Commons) file description pages should be indexable by (Google) search. I'd suggest collaborating with the other editor, TheDJ, to merge them; TheDJ has a good description of the problem, technically detailed and unarguably-phrased. I agree that mentioning both the major backends, Google and Bing (DuckduckGo uses Bing) is a good idea, and I'd suggest also making sure we get well-indexed by CommonCrawl (which I hadn't heard of, thank you); probably easier and possibly, long-term, higher-importance than Google and Bing. HLHJ (talk) 03:17, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- Those two proposals are very different and I hoped you would have looked into it more. For example, the second assumes to know what the cause of this is. If you don't try the method I showed you, you won't know how well it transcribes the documentary. PeerTube indexing is not really relevant as that is not what the subject of this thread is about (and also a very small userbase). CommonCrawl seems only relevant to the issue of alternative search engines but not indexing by Google & DuckDuckGo & Bing. No idea why you think getting indexed by CommonCrawl would be more important than Google. I'm not sure anymore if you understood what this thread is about. It's not about alternative search engines. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:30, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, I was saying people do use Commons in response to learning that it has useful content; perhaps a bit off-topic. I hadn't seen that "Embed this file file". PeerTube was actually a suggestion for getting indexed by a novel search engine, because it has a native search engine. I like the transcription-tool proposal; I tried to transcribe this excellent series documenting the last economic European home weaving, but it took forever. I can't imagine an AI tool would correctly register the German dialect, but if it got the timings, that would save me maybe 3/4 of the time (actually, a way to play videos at double or triple speed would also be a great help). The proposal at Meta:Community Wishlist/Wishes/Do something about Google & DuckDuckGo search not indexing media files and categories on Commons seems to be a duplicate of Meta:Community Wishlist/Wishes/(Commons) file description pages should be indexable by (Google) search. I'd suggest collaborating with the other editor, TheDJ, to merge them; TheDJ has a good description of the problem, technically detailed and unarguably-phrased. I agree that mentioning both the major backends, Google and Bing (DuckduckGo uses Bing) is a good idea, and I'd suggest also making sure we get well-indexed by CommonCrawl (which I hadn't heard of, thank you); probably easier and possibly, long-term, higher-importance than Google and Bing. HLHJ (talk) 03:17, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for explaining and interesting link. What do you think of Common Crawl in that regard then, maybe what you proposed could be achieved by improving that existing project?
- And how much would that be? To handle that sort of traffic costs more money - for very little benefit to the average user. Alexpl (talk) 16:28, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- "Should," yes. "Can," well that's a whole other task. The decline of Google search into surfacing spam and AI slop over legitimate content has been extensively reported on this year, and while it would be great if we could singlehandedly un-enshittify Google search it is a problem much bigger than Commons. Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- See also this phab ticket (also in margin, no inline template?). We mess up our end, too.
- Trying to make a search algorithm distinguish content written by a Large Language Model seems like an AI-hard problem. HLHJ (talk) 04:44, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
November 13
Long-term disputes on various wikis involving a cross-wiki IP author
There are numerous disputes involving an IP user indulging in cross-wiki spam, particularly articles on West Germanic varieties. I am hounded for a while.
The probable IP adresses indlude:
- 2003:de:3717:716f:e95b:e6c7:5bb:48f5
- 2003:DE:370C:38E4:4448:5249:EA82:E5FA
- 2003:DE:3717:718E:65C8:BEBB:58D6:1D36
- 2003:DE:3717:716F:5DCE:8967:6BA9:C376
- 2003:DE:3700:A013:B8D1:4127:BE29:FBC6
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2003:DE:370C:38E4:4448:5249:EA82:E5FA has a current block. This probably is the same person. A particular hobby of this user is to revert me on wiktionary, if I write that Hollandic isn't part of Low German. What shoukl — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarcelles (talk • contribs) 17:46, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Sarcelles: Is this some sort of request for administrative action? If so, it belongs on the appropriate Administrators' noticeboard, not on the Village pump. Conversely, if it is something you are just bringing up for general discussion, I don't know what you want discussed. - Jmabel ! talk 18:37, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- None of these accounts have edited in recent weeks, some not in as long as half a year, so it is hard to imagine what anyone can do about this at this point. - Jmabel ! talk 18:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- 2A01:599:30A:8340:4A39:F118:FF32:1257 is a recently used reincarnation. Sarcelles (talk) 18:45, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2003:DE:371A:22A6:78F9:E411:9550:9ED4
- the block log says:
- 8.11.2024, 21:12:36: Surjection blocked 2003:DE:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 (block log), expiring 8.12.2024, 21:12:36 (Abusing multiple accounts/block evasion: 2003:DE:371A:22A9:319A:E2C4:1B5A:C283)
- 5.11.2024, 06:03:47: Surjection blocked 2003:DE:3710:0:0:0:0:0/44 (block log), expiring 18.11.2024, 21:40:20 (Disruptive edits: xwiki povpushing: see w:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Naramaru) Sarcelles (talk) 20:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2003:DE:371A:22A9:319A:E2C4:1B5A:C283
- 8.11.2024, 21:12:36: Surjection blocked 2003:DE:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 (block log), expiring 8.12.2024, 21:12:36 (Abusing multiple accounts/block evasion: 2003:DE:371A:22A9:319A:E2C4:1B5A:C283)
- 5.11.2024, 06:03:47: Surjection blocked 2003:DE:3710:0:0:0:0:0/44 (block log), expiring 18.11.2024, 21:40:20 (Disruptive edits: xwiki povpushing: see w:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Naramaru) Sarcelles (talk) 20:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3ADeutsche_Mundarten.png&diff=948595578&oldid=946447257 was a removal of the deletion message, probably by the same IP. Sarcelles (talk) 20:22, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- 2A01:599:30A:8340:4A39:F118:FF32:1257 is a recently used reincarnation. Sarcelles (talk) 18:45, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- Someone being blocked on Wiktionary is neither here nor there if they haven't edited recently on Commons.
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Deutsche_Mundarten.png&diff=next&oldid=946447257 is problematic, but it's the only edit from that IP. Blocking an IP that was used once doesn't do anything except take up the time of the admin who blocks it. - Jmabel ! talk 21:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- It can be anticipated, that this author continues to be active on several wikis including Commons. I think this is a good place to discuss this cross-wiki spam. On en.wiktionary I have been removing numerous typical edits by this user. Sarcelles (talk) 14:29, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- Whatta bunch of nonsense … -- MicBy67 (talk) 00:14, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- File:Niederfränkisch.png is a file of this kind. It attempts to picture Low Franconian varieties in Europe. It has the following threefold-division:
- A minor transitional area to Low Saxon, in the Netherlands
- East Bergish running from near the city centre of Essen to Westphalia, also quite small#
- A somehow larger area cutting through all of the following: an arrondissement bordering to Brussels, Antwerp province, Dutch Limburg, Belgian Limburg, Duisburg, Düsseldorf, Wuppertal, German-speaking Belgium and French-speaking Belgium.
- Sarcelles (talk) 19:17, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
- I missed the part covering most of the area. Sarcelles (talk) 11:36, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- This is called Nordniederfränkisch (North Low Franconian) and running from France to Holland, Friesland province, Brussels and Westphalia. Sarcelles (talk) 11:45, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nederfrankisch.png is a typical example. It includes the concept of South Guelderish. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:South_Guelderish casts major doubt on the feasability of the concept. I have started to link this section on Wikipedia talk pages, the most recent example being https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Limburgish. Sarcelles (talk) 16:13, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- This is called Nordniederfränkisch (North Low Franconian) and running from France to Holland, Friesland province, Brussels and Westphalia. Sarcelles (talk) 11:45, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- I missed the part covering most of the area. Sarcelles (talk) 11:36, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- File:Niederfränkisch.png is a file of this kind. It attempts to picture Low Franconian varieties in Europe. It has the following threefold-division:
- Whatta bunch of nonsense … -- MicBy67 (talk) 00:14, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
November 21
Naming of people in historical photographs
The picture on the right was taken by me 35 years ago in Prague during a public uprising against the then communist government. I asked to photograph the organizers and was led up to this room in a building at Charles University.
I have a credible report that the woman in the middle is called Monika and I also have her surname. I am currently trying to get in contact with her.
Given my information is accurate, what is the protocol for recording such information on Wikimedia? Can such metadata be made public under certain circumstances? Can it be stored non‑publicly on Wikimedia for the historical record and made available only to accredited researchers?
Is there Wikimedia policy on these questions? For example, does inferred consent to publish include inferred consent to name? I suppose these kind of issues crop up regularly on genealogy websites?
TIA, RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 09:02, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
- Does Commons:Photographs of identifiable people answer your questions? Alexpl (talk) 09:31, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. That page on identifiable people provides context and boundaries and also covers any associated information (metadata if you like) made public or withheld on the basis of subjects' rights. My first response is to seek explicit consent when naming subjects. But my related question remains: is Wikimedia able to store such information privately? Or does that idea run counter to the concept of Wikipedia? RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 16:09, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
- We are technically capable of storing information in a manner where only admins or higher can see it (add it, immediately [soft-]delete the version, possibly note the date at which it could be made public by undeletion), but we don't have anything else that is visible to some without being visible to all. - Jmabel ! talk 00:41, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Jmabel: many thanks as always! RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 07:26, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- I have now decided that Wikimedia is not the appropriate place for this kind of background information which should remain private. My solution in this special case is to deposit the material with the National Archives of the Czech Republic and then submit any names and related details to them. The National Archives are in a much better position to retain and control access to this kind of private information than Wikimedia. My thanks to those who responded to my query. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 13:23, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Jmabel: many thanks as always! RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 07:26, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- We are technically capable of storing information in a manner where only admins or higher can see it (add it, immediately [soft-]delete the version, possibly note the date at which it could be made public by undeletion), but we don't have anything else that is visible to some without being visible to all. - Jmabel ! talk 00:41, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. That page on identifiable people provides context and boundaries and also covers any associated information (metadata if you like) made public or withheld on the basis of subjects' rights. My first response is to seek explicit consent when naming subjects. But my related question remains: is Wikimedia able to store such information privately? Or does that idea run counter to the concept of Wikipedia? RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 16:09, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Rename proposal for Rail vehicle inward slide doors and Tram inward slide doors
Using this source https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/advantages-and-disadvantages-of-different-types-of-train-doors.194447/, where Twin-leaf inward pivoting doors is used, I propose Rail vehicle inward pivoting doors and Tram inward pivoting doors for Category:Rail vehicle inward slide doors and Category:Tram inward slide doors. Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:54, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Done for bus, tram and train.Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:51, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
November 22
Ignoring edit requests
On 14 July 2024 I made an edit request for the Main page which is probably watched by many users including many admins. After a long time it has been partly implemented but now the wikilink is broken and my requests to fully implement it so that the wikilink works is being ignored as is the edit request by another user to fix another broken wikilink.
My edit request to fix this broken wikilink (especially problematic on mobile) has been ignored since 3 September 2024 which means it's approaching 3 months of no reply or implementation. The other user's edit request has been ignored since 29 September 2024 (UTC).
Please do something about it. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:34, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- I already got used to this. MediaWiki_talk:Gadget-GoogleImagesTineye.js#c-El_Grafo-20221118160700-El_Grafo-20220915091000 received community approval 2 years ago but is still waiting for ui admin.
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&limit=100&offset=0&ns0=1&ns1=1&ns2=1&ns3=1&ns4=1&ns5=1&ns6=1&ns7=1&ns8=1&ns9=1&ns10=1&ns11=1&ns12=1&ns13=1&ns15=1&ns100=1&ns101=1&ns102=1&ns103=1&ns104=1&ns105=1&ns106=1&ns107=1&ns460=1&ns461=1&ns486=1&ns487=1&ns828=1&ns829=1&ns1198=1&ns1199=1&search=deepcategory%3A%22Commons_protected_edit_requests%22&sort=last_edit_desc around 70 requests waiting. RoyZuo (talk) 12:07, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- Interesting link. Most (maybe all?) of those other edit requests are for pages/templates that are seen far less often. I think bugs on the very frontpage should be fixed quickly rather than edit requests be ignored for ca ½ year as it gets so many views. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:38, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
Preposition, the, proper noun
Where may i find authoritative explanation about whether "the" should be used between a preposition and a proper noun, e.g. "from (the?) Bank of England", "of (the?) European Union"...?
many cat titles have this format of "preposition+proper noun". i wanna know once and for all whether i should use "the". RoyZuo (talk) 13:15, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- There is no definitive answer to this. It's different for different proper nouns, and for some it isn't even clear one way or the other. In the two cases you've given, I'd expect "the" but (for example):
- "of the United States"
- "of France"
- normal before Ukrainian independence "of the Ukraine"; normal now, because requested by the independent Ukrainian government "of Ukraine"
- (referring to the former Canal Zone in Panama) "of the Canal Zone"
- in New York City, "of the Bronx" or "of Bronx County", but never the other way around
- Plus, the matter is complicated by what used to be called "telegraphic style", a term that has faded along with the telegraph but remains commons as a style of writing headlines, and which allows that in a short phrase you can leave out "the" for compactness. Category names are a lot like headlines, and I've definitely seen users go this way; I've probably even done it myself. - Jmabel ! talk 20:51, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thx. I asked this question to decide on my preferred format for subcats of Category:Media by source. I decided to go without "the" in cases where it seems optional. To me a non native speaker, "media from Bank of England", "media of European Union" sound ok. There're also many things that sound odd with "the", e.g. website domain, foreign organisation names, acronyms (NASA, APEC, OECD...). RoyZuo (talk) 07:50, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- "The" ("the definitive article") is definitely required in each of the cases you have cited. To a native speaker, any of them, without it, sound clumsy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:45, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with Andy that both of those in quotes sound more natural with "the". Agree about website domains, but the other two vary with no real pattern I can see: the KGB, the FBI, the CIA; NASA, NOAA. Most foreign-language acronyms or initialisms take "the"; the only exception I can think of offhand is ONCE but I bet there are others. [Slightly later thought: a few other acronyms (not mere initialisms) from Spanish: {{w|FINCA International|FINCA]], for example. But the rule isn't just "acronym vs. initialism": the Template:Institutional Revolutionary Party, always treated as a proper acronym. - Jmabel ! talk 22:56, 23 November 2024 (UTC)] Foreign-named organization names also vary: Médecins Sans Frontières, La Croix-Rouge (or translate as "the French Red Cross"), Alliance française (which can probably go either with or without a "the"), the Goethe-Institut.
- It is really no more rational than (for example) the gender of German nouns. You just have to trust a native speaker to tell you if you have it wrong. - Jmabel ! talk 22:50, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
dvidshub tool or trick
for example https://www.dvidshub.net/image/8066972/vp-16-concludes-operations-papua-new-guinea there's an option to log in and download, but i'm reluctant to do so.
is https://d1ldvf68ux039x.cloudfront.net/thumbs/photos/2310/8066972/1000w_q95.jpg the highest resolution version? if not, can the url be constructed based on the catalog number?
is there a tool for dvidshub files? RoyZuo (talk) 17:55, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- @RoyZuo You do have to log in for the original resolution. The original resolution URLs contain required unique keys, so you won't be able to reconstruct them. I'm not aware of a tool or script for importing DVIDS files, I usually do a lot of manual copy-pasting into {{Milim}}. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 18:20, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- If consensus is clear, I suggest dropping a note on the admin noticeboard. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:41, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- If you have a nice subset of images, User:Don-vip might be able to help you out. Multichill (talk) 22:02, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @RoyZuo, I've launched an import of pictures taken in Papua New Guinea, let me know if this is what you are interested in. vip (talk) 23:38, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Don-vip thx for the effort. sorry to tell you, that was just a random example i found on its main page. i was just curious about whether a tool or trick exists.
- beware of Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Papua New Guinea. :) RoyZuo (talk) 23:42, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- Ok :) The trick is to use the API. I use it in my bot. vip (talk) 00:48, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @RoyZuo, I've launched an import of pictures taken in Papua New Guinea, let me know if this is what you are interested in. vip (talk) 23:38, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
November 23
Interesting article on a photog who allows use of his work, free, under a CC licence
http://priceonomics.com/how-a-college-student-used-creative-commons-to/
-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:51, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- Ah Gage Skidmore, good man. Weird to see a comment who complains that someone offers his(!) images for free. As it would be illegal to decide about his own copyright. No economic sector will work and exist forever, and demanding money for digital files might be a thing of the past sooner than many think. Anyway, people who make things differently and better than the mainstream will paint the appearance of the future, and so he is part of it :) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 17:07, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- The same could be said about some presidential photographers who widely distribute their work for free across the internet.
- If you look at pictures of politicians from before the internet, you will frequently see the same photos, generally not that great, but taken by a professional photographers. Maybe it's just that politicians aren't elected for their looks.
- Some photographers (with or without support of WMDE) once did photo sessions in a German regional parliament. I think that was actually a worthwhile exercise, even though I'm not interested in German politics.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 21:06, 24 November 2024 (UTC)- Yes, WMDE had a project for photo sessions in newly elected state parliaments. Different to the US congress, German paliaments have no tradition of "official photographs" that would by in the public domain automatically. (The project sadly died when the paid project manager was fired because of using it for a shady side business.) Anyway it seems easier to convince the politicians to publish their portraits under a free licence (i.e. make their own photographers release it). Some parties even started to do that, but it seems to me that this is on the decline, as politicians want to retain copyright as a means against unwanted use of their images. Rudolph Buch (talk) 23:40, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
November 24
Where to offer help with photos in Stockholm?
Hi, I live in Stockholm and enjoy photographing interesting subjects. If anyone has any requests for anything that needs a photo on Commons I'll gladly upload it. Is there anywhere on Commons where I can advertize this free service for the project for people to add requests?StarTrekker (talk) 08:46, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @StarTrekker, Commons:File requests is the starting point for this, officially speaking. Whether it gets enough attention to be useful is another question... One thing mentioned there and which could be relevant to you is the tool/list described at en:User:Flominator/Find Nearest Photographer. --HyperGaruda (talk) 10:01, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- With WikiShootMe you can look for Wikidata items they are missing photos. GPSLeo (talk) 11:34, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you @HyperGaruda and @GPSLeo.StarTrekker (talk) 18:22, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- With WikiShootMe you can look for Wikidata items they are missing photos. GPSLeo (talk) 11:34, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- Also, I see that individual Wikipedia often have photo requests, so you might check on English and Swedish Wikipedias as well. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:47, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- The German Wikipedia too, a good point of contact for your purpose would be Fragen zur Wikipedia ("Questions about Wikipedia", serving a similar purpose to the local Village pump). English can be used, of course. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 20:00, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- In particular, en:Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Sweden would definitely be of interest. Felix QW (talk) 20:09, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you all for your advice!StarTrekker (talk) 16:39, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
Seeking approval for batch cat moves
To move all "Panoramic views of/in <location>" to "Panoramas of <location>" https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=Category:intitle:%22Panoramic+views%22+-hastemplate:category_redirect . "Panoramic views..." will be kept as redirects. 700+ cats affected.
reason: the cat tree is established under cat:Panoramas. see also Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/02/Category:Panoramics. RoyZuo (talk) 20:55, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- I'm okay with that. What are your thoughts on the mix between the use of "Panoramas" and "Panoramics"? I think if the entire category tree is getting an overhaul, it's a good idea to straighten out all the other inconsistencies too. ReneeWrites (talk) 15:45, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- With regard to your (ReneeWrites) specific question: I need to find / develop a bot to do the cat moves. Right now I dont have much time for this, but I've marked this on my list for 2 years now.
- "Panoramic views" doesnt need the new tech i mentioned above. SteinsplitterBot can do them anytime now.--RoyZuo (talk) 18:45, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
November 25
Lokalbahn Linz
There seems to have been a Lokalbahn station in Linz. However I cant find a trace of it in Category:Linz Hauptbahnhof. The Linzer Lokalbahn has a separate electrification at 750 V DC, not the 15kV AC at the main station. So it would be logical that the Linzer Lokalbahn had a separate line and station. Only later where the Linzer Lokalbahn trains adapted for 15kV AC. Aother question is wich traintype is in the picture. Its looks like Westwaggon, but I am not certain.
--Smiley.toerist (talk) 15:11, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- This is the former Lokalbahn station in Coulinstraße: File:Ex LiLo-Bhf Linz.jpg. It has been demolished, today you will find "LUX tower" at this place (https://www.pih.at/portfolio/lux-tower/). German article de:Linzer Lokalbahn says that Lokalbahn has been stopping at main station since 18 November 2005 (after it had been rebuilt for 24 Mio €). --тнояsтеn ⇔ 15:37, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- I created: Category:Lokalbahn bahnhof Linz. Maybe not the correct local name.
- I found more about the train: https://www.bahnbilder.de/bild/oesterreich~unternehmen~lilo-linzer-lokalbahn/916066/et-22141-der-linzer-lokalbahn-ex.html
- Smiley.toerist (talk) 16:48, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
The precise location is a bit unclear as the tram seems to go beneath the building. The rail tracks would probably to the rigth.Smiley.toerist (talk) 13:19, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- In front of the old main station building. See for example File:USIS - Hauptbahnhof Linz 1.jpg. Should be somewhere around here. --тнояsтеn ⇔ 13:51, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Similar perspective: File:Linz-esg-sl-b-hauptbahnhof-573967.jpg
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 23:04, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Similar perspective: File:Linz-esg-sl-b-hauptbahnhof-573967.jpg
Standardizing categories for films
Hi, Please see my proposal here: Commons:Village pump/Proposals#Standardizing categories for films. Thanks, Yann (talk) 16:50, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
Flag of France
Moved from Commons:Administrators' noticeboard Hi. France had changed its flag since 2020. However, the names of the files are incorrect, making the flag cannot be updated in all wiki pages. I suggest moving File:Flag of France.svg to File:Flag of France (1976-2020).svg while moving File:Flag of France (1794–1815, 1830–1974, 2020–present).svg to File:Flag of France.svg. These should be moved at same time to prevent the change by the bot. Пусть от победы☆к победе ведёт! 10:26, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
- Done —Matrix(!) ping onewhen replying {user - talk? -
uselesscontributions} 12:25, 23 November 2024 (UTC)- (note: moved to [4] instead) —Matrix(!) ping onewhen replying {user - talk? -
uselesscontributions} 12:32, 23 November 2024 (UTC)- @Matrix: have you checked this RfC? M.Bitton (talk) 11:41, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- @M.Bitton: There's precedent to move files to new names when the flag is updated, e.g. File:Flag of Kyrgyzstan.svg, File:Flag of Mauritania.svg, File:Flag of Malawi.svg, File:Air Force Ensign of India.svg etc. The discussion (not RfC) you linked also has 5 1/2 agree votes vs 3 oppose votes, and 5.5 > 3 so seems like a rough consensus to me. —Matrix(!) ping onewhen replying {user - talk? -
uselesscontributions} 19:57, 24 November 2024 (UTC)- @Matrix: my bad for linking to the discussion when I actually meant the RfC that the discussion was based on. I didn't know that there was such a rule as "precedent" on Commons, but since there is one, we might as well make full use of it and change the colours of the flag according to this official source (which would make it closer to the one that was replaced). Please let me know what you think. M.Bitton (talk) 02:31, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- @M.Bitton: You seem to have misunderstood the source you linked. It looks to be defining a colour palette for French government websites rather than talking about the flag. Indeed there is no mention of a flag on the page. Pinging @Jean-Frédéric and Christian Ferrer: who can verify this as French speakers. A good source that agrees the current version is the official Ggvernment flag is Britannica.
- Also, about your point "I didn't know that there was such a rule as "precedent" on Commons", what I mean is that usually flags are moved to new names when updated, so it wouldn't make sense to not do it in this scenario. RfCs at enwiki don't really affect Commons, also noting that enwiki decided to upload their own locally hosted file for the French flag. Even if we ignore precedent, the Commons discussion you linked has 5.5 people who want to have the new flag under this file name, and 3 people against. This is similar to consensus found at Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2024/06#Renaming of File:Air Force Ensign of India (2023).svg. —Matrix(!) ping onewhen replying {user - talk? -
uselesscontributions} 17:25, 25 November 2024 (UTC)- @Matrix: it's true that those colours are not specifically about the flag, but being part of the symbols of the French republic, they are the closest thing we have to the official colours of the flag (French blue, white and Marian red), which is also shown here (and described as the flag). Most of those who supported the change where in fact supporting what they perceived as the official flag, whose precise colours were/are unknown. M.Bitton (talk) 17:57, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- @M.Bitton: The current file is at least close to the official/default flag, per [5] and other sources. The other flag is an alternate official flag. Whilst the exact shades of dark can be debated due to varying digital interpretations, it's clear the URL here has shades that are definitely not close to the current official flag's shades. —Matrix(!) ping onewhen replying {user - talk? -
uselesscontributions} 18:49, 25 November 2024 (UTC)- @Matrix: since the other sources don't mention the exact colours, all we're left with is guesswork (depending on the light, the camera angle, etc). The flag that is used on the government website is as official as it can get and in line with the official colours. M.Bitton (talk) 18:57, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- @M.Bitton: moving this to village pump rather than AN FYI. —Matrix(!) ping onewhen replying {user - talk? -
uselesscontributions} 18:59, 25 November 2024 (UTC) - I don't think it's guesswork to say the colours here are very much lighter than those displayed on the background here. This is clearly a variant of the non-default official flag than the current default one. —Matrix(!) ping onewhen replying {user - talk? -
uselesscontributions} 19:02, 25 November 2024 (UTC)- I personally don't see the point in guessing the colours when we have the official ones. Also, Britannica (cited above) hasn't changed the flag since at least 2020. M.Bitton (talk) 19:06, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Fair point about Britannica. I still think that whilst we don't have official colours, we know the new flag has a dark navy blue shade, which is not shown on the government website. Again, the government website link is just a colour scheme, presumably because the navy blue would clash with black elements. —Matrix(!) ping onewhen replying {user - talk? -
uselesscontributions} 19:18, 25 November 2024 (UTC)- It's more than a simple colour scheme, it's part of the symbols of the French Republic. They also have a flag on their website that uses the same colours.
- For what it's worth, they also look similar to what is displayed on the background here (photo from 2024). M.Bitton (talk) 19:22, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Fair point about Britannica. I still think that whilst we don't have official colours, we know the new flag has a dark navy blue shade, which is not shown on the government website. Again, the government website link is just a colour scheme, presumably because the navy blue would clash with black elements. —Matrix(!) ping onewhen replying {user - talk? -
- I personally don't see the point in guessing the colours when we have the official ones. Also, Britannica (cited above) hasn't changed the flag since at least 2020. M.Bitton (talk) 19:06, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- @M.Bitton: moving this to village pump rather than AN FYI. —Matrix(!) ping onewhen replying {user - talk? -
- @Matrix: since the other sources don't mention the exact colours, all we're left with is guesswork (depending on the light, the camera angle, etc). The flag that is used on the government website is as official as it can get and in line with the official colours. M.Bitton (talk) 18:57, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- @M.Bitton: The current file is at least close to the official/default flag, per [5] and other sources. The other flag is an alternate official flag. Whilst the exact shades of dark can be debated due to varying digital interpretations, it's clear the URL here has shades that are definitely not close to the current official flag's shades. —Matrix(!) ping onewhen replying {user - talk? -
- @Matrix: it's true that those colours are not specifically about the flag, but being part of the symbols of the French republic, they are the closest thing we have to the official colours of the flag (French blue, white and Marian red), which is also shown here (and described as the flag). Most of those who supported the change where in fact supporting what they perceived as the official flag, whose precise colours were/are unknown. M.Bitton (talk) 17:57, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Matrix: my bad for linking to the discussion when I actually meant the RfC that the discussion was based on. I didn't know that there was such a rule as "precedent" on Commons, but since there is one, we might as well make full use of it and change the colours of the flag according to this official source (which would make it closer to the one that was replaced). Please let me know what you think. M.Bitton (talk) 02:31, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- @M.Bitton: There's precedent to move files to new names when the flag is updated, e.g. File:Flag of Kyrgyzstan.svg, File:Flag of Mauritania.svg, File:Flag of Malawi.svg, File:Air Force Ensign of India.svg etc. The discussion (not RfC) you linked also has 5 1/2 agree votes vs 3 oppose votes, and 5.5 > 3 so seems like a rough consensus to me. —Matrix(!) ping onewhen replying {user - talk? -
- @Matrix: have you checked this RfC? M.Bitton (talk) 11:41, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- (note: moved to [4] instead) —Matrix(!) ping onewhen replying {user - talk? -
.svg){kind=link}
- *
.svg.png)
Comment I was pinged above as a french speaker, 1/ actually the French Flag is definited by the 2nd article of the French Constitution "L'emblème national est le drapeau tricolore, bleu, blanc, rouge.", litteraly traduced by "The national emblem is the tricolor flag, blue, white, red". Neither more nor less. The French Constitution is above all the other "common" laws, decrees, orders, circulars, ect... of the country, and 2/ it is also therefore of course above this page which is a graphic charter for government communication and public action. That don't mean that this charter is not relevant, it just mean that it can change tomorrow, next year or never. Now, if you ask me if we must update our French Flags here, or create new ones, or renames them... clearly I don't know. Hopes I helped. [this is a copy of my comment in the Adm. noticeboard] Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:44, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
November 26
We don't seem to have a Category:Signed books or any equivalent. Is it there and I'm just not finding it? We have Category:Signed objects. - Jmabel ! talk 00:03, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
audios made by User:Flame, not lame (again)
Something else I noticed about her audios is that thay don't have all the structured data a regular Lingua Libre audio has (especially the ID unique to every audio made with that page). Rodrigo5260 (talk) 16:39, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
New calendar templates
I made 2 new templates Template:Monthly archive table Template:Monthly calendar which can be customised to automatically make calendar-like tables of contents. Monthly archive table is partly inspired by https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Village_pump_archives&oldid=908053133 .
I hope these templates are more mobile friendly than text based TOC, which often is not auto adjusted to page width. The TOC should also be new on top and old on bottom, since more recent archives are more relevant for current users.
You can see their effect on com:motd (as long as the new design is kept).--RoyZuo (talk) 17:22, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
Media of the day, new look
Using Template:Monthly archive table Template:Monthly calendar I made a new layout for com:motd, primarily to improve mobile user experience. The old one greets users with the TOC (oldest year 2009 on top), which is a big chunk of text, before the actual motd snippets of the month.
1 more thing i have in mind is missing though. currently users can tap the TOC and jump to a certain day, but then they have to scroll all the way back to reach the TOC. i will add a button so that users can jump back from day snippet to the top.
What do you think of the new layout?--RoyZuo (talk) 17:22, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
Moving inclines
Personaly I always find it takes to long, certainly when people are only standing still.Smiley.toerist (talk) 22:58, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- I doubt we have a category. I call it a "ramp escalator," but I'm not sure how standard that is. - Jmabel ! talk 23:03, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
November 27
Defective old files
What to do with defective files like Special:Redirect/page/22745428? it was surely once used, but it's not used anymore and maybe became defective because of svg code incompatibility? RoyZuo (talk) 16:36, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Keep it as an archive. It's the vector source for File:Guangzhou west.png and File:Guangzhou east.png, so if anyone ever wants to update those, they'll need this file. It's not actually defective either. It's not rendering properly on Commons, but it was never meant to in the first place. El Grafo (talk) 11:17, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- But it doesnt render well in firefox or chrome either? RoyZuo (talk) 12:51, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
Odd categorisation by user
I'm not sure where to report it, but my watchlist is flooded by a user who obsessively moves photographs I took from normal categories, then removes these categories, and then tags these categories as "Unuseful empty categories" (another example here). They tend to have a very idiosyncratic way of organising and I wanted to ask in the village pump regarding a different matter, but I just find this behaviour quite weird. As far as I know, I follow the same category system as already existed at the Wikimedia Commons and nobody had any issue with it until I photographed parts of Rotterdam, which this person seems to see as "his city" or something. Emptying categories like this seems like a form of vandalism. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 18:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
_07.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=962407502){kind=link}
The original issue I wanted to bring up was their odd categorisation where they ascribe their own definitions to the boundaries of neighbourhoods, despite official sources disagreeing and when I pointed this out they just appealed to Wikipedia as authority, despite Wikipedia not even backing up what they claimed. Though I still wanted to bring this up at a later point as I'm both too busy IRL and with other projects for these kinds of unproductive drama, so I'll discuss that in detail when I'll nominate the category for a CfD. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 18:17, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Donald Trung: Hi, Did you talk to this user? Yann (talk) 18:19, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yann, I've tried in the past but they rarely respond and often seem hostile. A recent example is here where they claim that the name they chose is "gangbare taalgebruik" (how people call it) despite the website of the government of Rotterdam itself disagreeing with these terms being synonymous and they claiming that Wikipedia is correct, but the map Wikipedia uses doesn't even mark it under the same name and the website of the municipality notes that it's only a part of it. But that isn't the issue, the issue is them removing categories simply because they don't want my works to show up in any of the main categories. This is odd, imagine if someone would remove all categories of a work you published and simply replace it with "photographs by Yann" which would normally even be a hidden category. I've just never seen a user act like this. -- — Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 18:26, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Another example, this category had dozens of files before it was nominated as "The given reason is: CSD C2 (unuseful empty category)". The files weren't placed in any other sign categories, just completely removed. This category itself had a number of sub-categories, all emptied and tagged as "Unuseful empty categories". --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 18:33, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. I requested Mdd to come here to discuss this. Yann (talk) 18:43, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing your concern. I uploaded a screenshot of the current state of the Category Delfshaven. I brought it back to the basics to start expanding it again on lower levels. -- Mdd (talk) 18:54, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Mdd, and how are signs, for example, not a good category for Delfshaven? Why are street signs in Delfshaven not a sub+category of street signs in Rotterdam? — Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 18:56, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Also, I fail to see how "Symbols of Delfshaven" fits into "Views of Delfshaven". Symbols of a place are an important top level category as it includes things like coats of arms, emblems, logos, Etc. while a "view" sounds more like a photograph. -- Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:10, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I reverted some speedy deletion requests by Mdd. Such issues require a discussion, and cannot be speedy deleted. Yann (talk) 19:38, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Mdd: Please stop replacing topical categories such as Category:Bus stop signs in Delfshaven with user categories you created on behalf of the user such as Category:Photographs in Delfshaven in 2023 by Donald Trung.
- when creating users categories, please ensure the user is ok with that. Also, don't mix them with topical categories.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 09:35, 28 November 2024 (UTC)- Comment To add to this, user categories are treated as separate from mainspace categories. So files in Category:Photographs in Delfshaven in 2023 by Donald Trung should still be in Category:2023 in Delfshaven - this is not considered overcategorization. And like Enhancing999 said, user categories shouldn't be mixed with mainspace categories, Category:Photographs in Delfshaven in 2023 by Donald Trung isn't a subcat of Category:2023 in Delfshaven, see COM:USERCAT for a more detailed explanation. ReneeWrites (talk) 16:43, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
November 28
iOS Commons app is no more
Dear ALL it seems that since few days ago (independent) iOS Commons app Wiki Uploader is no more (has not been maintained since a while, but now gone from Apple's App Store).
As F/L/OSS advocate I am always favoring open hardware/software/services/standards (understand communal preference to focus on Android as platform), but this is second time that we do not have any mobile app for iPhone (in the time when iPhone is literary celebrated by professionals for its lens quality and software).
Is there a way to do something about cross-plaform portability of the Commons App code so that iOS can have at least basic app supported by WMF or establish a minimal support for indy developers to have one maintained in sustainable way?
--Zblace (talk) 16:52, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
Is it the same and should be merged? To me (and my dictionary) both expressions are synonyms. Or if there are differences, they should be defined/explained. And the categories should be somehow linked or in the same category tree. --тнояsтеn ⇔ 18:04, 28 November 2024 (UTC)