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. |
 Water pump next to the church in the town center of Doel. Doel, Beveren, East Flanders, Belgium. [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]
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]
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)
June 19[edit]
Potential underaged user with to much personal information on their user page[edit]
I have come across User:ProGamerYT1902Pup, a seemingly underaged user with potentially to much personal information and images on and of himself on their page. What is the commons policy on this and how does Commons protect such young users, if the information is indeed correct? Calistemon (talk) 05:58, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
- I do not see more information than on a standard social media page. The problem is that the page and the photos are personal and promotional content by a non contributor and violate our guidelines from that side. GPSLeo (talk) 06:16, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
merging 3 pages in "veterinary oncology"[edit]
These three pages have the same subject:
I think they should be merged.
--Lucyin (talk) 09:18, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
- They should not, just like their non-specific versions Category:Oncology, Category:Neoplasms, and Category:Cancers should not. To be precise: neoplasms can be any abnormal tissue growth, cancers are malignant neoplasms (thus a subcategory) and oncology is the study of cancer (thus also a subcategory), which involves other subjects than tissue, like diagnosis and treatment. --HyperGaruda (talk) 19:40, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Ability to block users only from uploading files[edit]
Hi, I created a feature request on phab:T339878 for this. We have had several users were this would have been useful, and I wanted to request this for a long time. Yann (talk) 19:22, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
- Cannot a en:Wikipedia:Partial block be used? Ruslik (talk) 19:32, 19 June 2023 (UTC)