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/2023/11.
Please note:
If you want to ask why unfree/non-commercial material is not allowed at Wikimedia Commons or if you want to suggest that allowing it would be a good thing, please do not comment here. It is probably pointless. One of Wikimedia Commons’ core principles is: "Only free content is allowed." This is a basic rule of the place, as inherent as the NPOV requirement on all Wikipedias.
Any answers you receive here are not legal advice and the responder cannot be held liable for them. If you have legal questions, we can try to help but our answers cannot replace those of a qualified professional (i.e. a lawyer).
Your question will be answered here; please check back regularly. Please do not leave your email address or other contact information, as this page is widely visible across the internet and you are liable to receive spam.
Purposes which do not meet the scope of this page:
This collection of found photos no doubt has much that cannot be used, but I'm sure there are some diamonds in there, if anyone familiar with US law around anonymous works has patience to sift for them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:41, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some of the pictures have comments that help with identification. Quite an interesting collection indeed, but COM:HIRTLE doesn't look too promising for such mostly relatively recent photos. Most look like personal snapshots that were probably never published previously; in this case, if the first publication was on flickr (that is, in "2003 or later" as per the chart), they have a US protection term for "95 years from publication OR 120 years from creation, whichever expires first" if the author isn't known, otherwise 70 years after the death of author. I'm afraid that this looks like very few of these photos are in the public domain. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:31, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
USA case law has sided with the concept that images found in the wild have been made public once they leave the custody of the creator. They do not need to appear in a magazine or a newspaper to be "made public". That would be up to 1989. After 1989 images no longer need to have a copyright symbol, and the year, and register a copy with the United States Copyright Office to be eligible for a copyright. --RAN (talk) 23:29, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can't imagine how this differs from "I found it on the Internet". We have no way to know the possible prior publication history of any of these photos. - Jmabel ! talk 00:38, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Interesting collection. My guess is that the person probably bought them on eBay, but "bought on eBay photos" just doesn't have the same ring to it as "found photos" does. Regardless, I have to agree with Jmabel about how it's no different then "I found it on the Internet." Although one could argue maybe RAN has a point about actually found photos. Who knows if that extends to images that were likely purchased on eBay though. Plus it's always possible there's a copyright on the back of the photograph that we just don't have a way of knowing about or accounting for. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:35, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Up until 1989 you still had to register for a copyright (you has 5 years, up until 1994 to register for a 1989 copyright), as well as put the copyright symbol on the image. If you look through the copyright registration database, there are very, very few images. Almost all the registrations are for newspapers, magazines, and books. No one taking personal pictures would hire a lawyer to register their copyright, unless they were going to publish them in a magazine or book. --RAN (talk) 17:07, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's more complicated than that. The owner of the Flickr account presumably does not own copyright on these, and probably has no real right to publish them. Presuming the Flickr posting is the first time they've been published, and regardless of whether this unauthorized publication on Flickr counts or not, I don't see why any of these would be PD. If it does count, then they are copyrighted until 95 years from publication OR 120 years from creation, whichever expires first. If it doesn't count, then they are still "unpublished" and would be copyrighted until 120 years from creation. So unless something here is from before 1903, I believe it would not be public domain. - 21:56, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
& "found in the wild" presumably would not cover one print, made by (and kept by) the photogrpapher, that recently changed hands once on eBay, a yard sale, etc. - Jmabel ! talk 21:58, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
RAN, I think that only holds if the images were published in some form previously; if the Flickr publication is the first, see Jmabel's comment - either copyrighted 95 years from publication (on flickr) or 120 years from creation. So I also think that Yann might have been over-enthusiastic by uploading images from the 1930's and 1950's, aren't these still protected if that is the case? The 1913 photo is probably fine, though. Gestumblindi (talk) 21:52, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The steam locomotive is this same 2-8-0 still standing in Idaho Springs as a monument. [1][2]Herbert Ortner (talk) 20:41, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is a very poor thought DR, for the reason I explain there. I am interested about arguments for specific images. Yann (talk) 12:51, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also I carefully choose what I upload, i.e. only images where a date can be ascertained, either from a mention, or from the picture content. Yann (talk) 14:21, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's lots of photographs on here that aren't dated more specifically then "early 20th century" or at least where the date is a best guess based on less then clear evidence. There's also zero evidence of prior publication for a lot of photographs on here. Let alone is there even a consistent guideline or practice when it comes to what makes something published to begin with. So what's the difference between those images and these ones where best guesses about the date or prior publication matter here but not with similar photographs? --Adamant1 (talk) 21:09, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Have you experienced rotated upload previews ?[edit]
I'm looking for some experiences with rotated images. In Special:Upload and Special:UploadWizard we have some code that displays thumbnails before the upload is completed. When an image has a non-standard orientation (as indicated by EXIF), we have some Javascript which flips the thumbnail you see in this preview, so that it will match the proper orientation that you will also see after you complete the upload.
This was needed, because by default, browsers would NOT apply the orientation of the image, but the thumbnail engine of Wikimedia WOULD apply the correct orientation after upload. It turns out that somewhere in mid 2020 however, all browsers allegedly FLIPPED their default. Since that time they DO apply the EXIF orientation. If I understand things correctly, this would have led to the rotation being applied TWICE in these previews. For instance, you would see an upside down image in the upload preview, and then when the upload completes it would be right side up, or vice versa.
Have people been experiencing this ? There has been a report in phab:T338086, but considering how many cameras use this whenever you have images on the side, and how few complaints there have been so far, for something that essentially has been broken for most people since 2021, I'm wondering if I'm overlooking something. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:49, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Definitely seen something like this in the crop tool, not sure I've seen it here. - Jmabel ! talk 19:53, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have seen this in the UploadWizard with the preview being wrong. Antti T. Leppänen (talk) 13:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Even though Nepal is an overcrowded and unhygienic country. It's not tiny Andorra.
However, apparently, I am off-topic, making a mountain out of a molehill, and acting against freedom of speech. I am still trying to work out how I tried to silence dissenters, though. I certainly don’t want to stop freedom of speech champions from spreading the truth, so I would welcome a few extra opinions.
@Huñvreüs: wording this in a passive aggressive manner does no one any favors.
I assume you are referring to User:Cyanmax. You should have notified them when making a complaint about them, either by pinging them or informing them on their talk page.
If you have similar complaints to make about someone's conduct in the future, please bring it to COM:ANU, not the Village pump.
I will warn them appropriately about their conduct. The substance of what you appear to be saying (minus the unnecessary ironic mode) seems to be on the mark.
Armenia as a Client State of the Roman Empire[edit]
Hello. You may know the, by now famous, map made by Tataryn of the Roman Empire at its maximal extent. Well.. I believe to have discovered a mistake, in said map. Armenia, if you look at the corresponding articles on en.wiki (and almost all other wikis), seems to have been a Roman province from 114 to 117. Well, no! All of the statements claiming this, at least those I could find, are unsourced, and all I read on the subject (not on websites, though), if it delved a little into detail, always told me that Trajan, after shortly making it a Roman province, made Armenia a client state under his lifetime. This means, that, while the map still (roughly) shows the Empire at its greatest extent, Mesopotamia wasn’t under Roman (military) Control, when Armenia was. Now of course Armenia was in all but name a Roman Province, the problem being that the map decides to show the Vassals in a different colour. And here comes the problem. If you show the Vassals in a different colour, then I bet there is a lot more to fix then just Armenia. But I do not have sources specifying that to me, so for now it’s just Armenia. I’ve contacted Tataryn, but I just think this is important enough to be mentioned here. I’m sorry if this isn’t where it belongs, but I’m just going to assume that the Village Pump here is no different to the Village Pump on en.wiki or fr.wiki. Cheers.
PS: There are a bunch of maps showing Armenia as Roman, which it was, the problem is that those maps also show the other Vassal states (those which on Tataryn’s map are shown as vassals) as roman, with no distinction made. Essentially, if your going to make the distinction between regions under direct roman control and vassals, Armenia needs to be shown as a Vassal, in the year of 117.
La pléiade 2eme degré (talk) 15:10, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please, discuss this on the talk page of that image. Ruslik (talk) 20:51, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did. Tataryn isn’t actif since December last year. Sooo… best go here, right? Anyway, I just wanted to raise awareness of the problem (plus: I could be wrong, so discussing it won’t be too bad of a choice). Cheers. La pléiade 2eme degré (talk) 23:14, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You can also address this on the corresponding talk pages where this map is used within the Wikipedia projects. A discussion at COM:VP is useless, in particular if not even a link to the map in question is provided. --AFBorchert (talk) 18:26, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. After searching a bit I already found out that it was Mesopotamia which was the (under full military control) client state. Il start a discussion there. Just please don’t move this. I do believe that maybe someone acknowledged of the subject could provide info, cheers. La pléiade 2eme degré (talk) 22:25, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A second "Deletion requests/Files uploaded by XYZ"[edit]
Several hours ago I noticed files uploaded by a certain user that, rightly or wrongly, I thought were problematic in terms of copyright. And therefore I clicked "Perform batch task" and thereby launched Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Roferbia. If there was a warning that Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Roferbia already existed (and was closed four years ago), then I sleepily failed to notice it. Anyone seeing the page Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Roferbia will be told "This deletion discussion is now closed" and is unlikely to scroll down in search of a possible sequel. Now I could rename the page Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Roferbia 2 or similar; but if I did, I'd then have to edit dozens of examples of "This media file has been nominated for deletion since 5 November 2023. To discuss it, please visit the nomination page" -- please no! Far easier would be to invert the order of Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Roferbia, simply switching its two halves around. But I suspect that there's an established way of fixing the page (and that unauthorized alternatives may trigger problems elsewhere). Comments? -- Hoary (talk) 23:30, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Hoary: From what I've seen, the normal thing is simply to leave the closed DRs at the top of the page and expect people to scroll down to the current one. That's probably not ideal, as you point out, but it seems to be tolerated. See Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Cloud Gate for a particularly large example. In one case (but apparently not the Cloud Gate one as I thought), I've made some effort at archiving closed requests on a page. I think I just wrapped them in {{Collapse top}}/{{Collapse bottom}} which seemed unlikely to affect any automated processes analysing DRs. --bjh21 (talk) 23:51, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello! Is this file really copyright-free? It seems to be a book cover from 1971, and I can barely imagine that there is no copyright on it? 80.71.142.166 04:49, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is no claim that it is copyright-free, but the uploader, User:Guldmann1, claimed to be the copyright-holder and to offer a free license. Since they have no other contributions to Commons, their only other contribution to a WMF project was to add this picture to an article on da-wiki, and they have never given any proper indication of who they are or even provided an email address where they can be reached, that seems quite unlikely and the image has now been nominated for deletion. - Jmabel ! talk 06:12, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rename requests that replace hyphen-minus with en dash[edit]
I do not think that this is a valid ground for a move if this is not coming from the uploader and if this is not an attempt to get uniform filenames within a specific group of related media (i.e. criteria 1 and 4). I do not see how this fulfills criterion 3 in the given example. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:00, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm a big fan of proper typography but in a file name that needs to be type-able, then I think it's fair to have hyphens in place of en dashes. At the very least, if they are moved, the hyphen redirect needs to remain. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:51, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For me that definitely does not fall under criterion 3. Indeed it's covered by COM:FRNOT #1 (Files should NOT be renamed only because the new name looks a bit better). I might accept a request under criterion 1 within 7 days of creation, or if technically necessary under criterion 4 (but most criterion 4 requests are invalid anyway). --bjh21 (talk) 09:41, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Best practices for large UAV (drone) image sets? And a couple of ideas to spitball on that front.[edit]
Hi all,
I searched Commons policies and the Village Pump about uploading large aerial image sets, particularly related to drone mapping, but haven't found clear guidelines. I'm wondering if there are general principles for handling such image sets, often consisting of hundreds or thousands of photos.
Many users generate and upload orthomosaics to OpenAerialMap, which is excellent. But making the original aerial photos available on Commons could bring additional benefits:
Users could download and process them for specific uses (generate meshes, height maps, point clouds, customize resolution, etc.).
Different batches could be combined for improved reconstructions. Images from different periods could generate separate point clouds to compare changes over time (e.g. Notre Dame before/after fire, environmental shifts).
WMF (or a third party) could develop a tool to continually generate updated orthomosaics or 3D models from uploaded aerial photos. This would enable 4D comparison of any surveyed area over time.
The tool could tag uploaded photos by location, allowing all photos of a spot to be easily found without the need of manual tagging.
It could add geolocation to non-geotagged photos, or improve precision on poorly geolocated photos.
It could highlight under-mapped areas needing more coverage.
After decades of accumulating aerial photos, we'd have an open, historical dataset showing morphological changes across the planet - extremely valuable culturally and environmentally.
All of this could encourage uploading aerial mapping photosets, and I have tens of thousands that I could contribute immediately. But some challenges exist:
Uploading thousands of images from one area is non-trivial. No one could reasonably title and tag each individually. If issues arose requiring deletion of some photos, it would be unrealistic to review hundreds of thousands of them manually each time.
Many similarly-titled photos could clutter Commons searches.
It could be useful to allow image set uploads as a single item, or grouping them to enable efficient processing. Maybe something along those lines already exists that I'm unaware of.
Copyright is complex and evolving for aerial imagery, even in FOP countries, so a cautious approach is warranted and the topic deserves an entire thread about it. But we can still explore processes and allow non-controversial uploads. In some cases, aerial photos could be accepted but not made publicly available while still being used for improving orthomosaics and geolocation. I welcome perspectives on these possibilities.
In summary, I'm very interested in approaches for handling large aerial photo sets on Commons. Please share any insights you may have on this topic.
I think uploading them and having the needed georeferencing data as structured data is no problem with the current tools. The problem is that we do not have tools to really use them. To make them available in a usable way it would need WMS and tile services. To set this up as a Wiki (in terms of a project where everyone can contribute) would basically mean to create a new Wikimedia project. I do not think this realistic in the near future as between the last two project Wikidata and Wikifunction there where ten years. But in the long term this might be possible also as cooperation with OSM. GPSLeo (talk) 15:58, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@GPSLeo: completely agree that ultimately this sounds like a new project (let's call it WikiEarth because... why not). Integration with OSM would definitely be a must. But while we look forward to that, maybe a few minor adjustments could be made here to allow for that kind of material to be uploaded without generating a mess, even though there's nothing stopping us from doing it now. I alone would bump up the total amount of images on the Commons by about 0.1%, and I'm not even a serious mapper. So with that in mind I'd probably think about implementing a new type of "object" called "aerial mapping set" or something similar. Images inside it wouldn't be found on searches unless taken out of the set manually, but they could still be found by location. Does that make sense? With that done, one could easily download sets, process them and upload them to OpenAerialMap with huge gains and little effort on the short term. Rkieferbaum (talk) 16:22, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do not think that we could get a new kind of file page type for this. Obviously this is nothing where edits or uploads are made manually this is a field for bots and scripts. Maybe store the information as a template that is added to all files of the set. The image sets should have a category for each and the files should not be categorized in other categories. To reduce the amount of files there should be a guideline on tile sizes where the file size is below the limit but the amount of tiles for an area is not to large. If you are interested in defining these guidelines I would propose to set up a page at Commons:Wikiproject Maps. GPSLeo (talk) 16:37, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"the files should not be categorized in other categories" Why on earth not? If one of the images shows, say, a football stadium, then it should be added to the category for that stadium, where it may well be the only such image, and thus very useful. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:52, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Pigsonthewing: I think he means, and I agree, all the images in the set as a batch process. Any images that are individually useful should definitely be adequately categorized.
I haven't had the time these days, but I'll draft a WikiProject and ping you all to weigh in in the coming days. Maybe post it in Proposals as well. Rkieferbaum (talk) 14:05, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes I want to avoid that categories of for example municipalities become filled up with thousands of files for different aerial photos and maps. GPSLeo (talk) 14:28, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
and that's all you have from wikimedia foundation. a lot of even the most basic functionalities are actually realised by user-contributed scripts, e.g. Help:Gadget-GallerySlideshow.
all the uses of these photos you described are beautiful, but to make them happen, you can only hope that you yourself or other users (aka volunteers) code up the whole project, i'm afraid. RZuo (talk) 18:47, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think GPSLeo's pointers above are a very good short term solution. A workflow where sets are uploaded and kept with no categories except one specific to the set and all relevant data is populated by set through the use of scripts. That settles it for now, whatever else might come can be built around that. I'm not sure, technically, how to get that done, but hopefully people familiar with scripts and templates will come along and weigh in. I'll invite tech-savvy people over to see if they can help. Rkieferbaum (talk) 19:00, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
be cautious about setting the filename format. because changing thousands of filenames afterwards (if you change your mind or have made mistakes) is troublesome and will create a lot of com:move logs.
File talk:Mary White Ovington.jpg - I accidentally added Mary Jackson to the revisions of the file. Completely different image, completely different licensing (PD-USGov vs. Ovington's PD-US-expired). Help?
I am sorry. I suppose it's inevitable if you do enough work on here, and at least it's been a few years since last it happened. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:21, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am writing to ask about files from the US Office of Naval Intelligence, in particular the ship silhouettes in this guide that seem to be created by Office of Naval Intelligence. Can I upload them? Chenophile (talk) 02:35, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If it's from Office of Naval Intelligence, then it's almost certainly {{PD-USGov-Military-Navy}}. It's usually easier to tell for sure if we have the page that linked to the PDF, rather than just the PDF itself. - Jmabel ! talk 03:30, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here’s the link. Unfortunately I cannot access the website. Chenophile (talk) 03:41, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's just another link to the same PDF, at a different URL, so the only further thing that confirms is that it's on ONI's site. As I said above, almost certainly {{PD-USGov-Military-Navy}}. - Jmabel ! talk 04:16, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Once you log out of Commons, can you log back in? I can't, and I know of another user with the same issue (she was automatically logged out). The message I'm getting now is "There seems to be a problem with your login session; this action has been canceled as a precaution against session hijacking." —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.199.122.141 (talk) 08:24, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Probably the same issue a German user is experiencing at the moment? [3] -- Herbert Ortner (talk) 15:12, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
same. i had it this afternoon.
i was using firefox. i opened my history, viewed it "by site" and chose to "forget about this site" for commons.wikimedia.org. then i could log in again. RZuo (talk) 16:51, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In this revision, After categories, I see that wiki code has been added, which is not working. Can anyone take a look at this? --Saroj (talk) 17:50, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It looks like he's using some smartphone app and trying to add structured data, which is not at all working. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:01, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I investigated this further. This is a bug in the VisualEditor I created a ticket on this
I can't see any way an 1881 banknote could now have a copyright. There might be some non-copyright restrictions. - Jmabel ! talk 14:34, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just noticed nothing on this page has been approved since August. Any admins feel up to reviewing it? Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:21, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Last I looked, the bot that moves categories (and takes care of the various aspects of that) was not running. Unless it's been fixed, {{Move cat}} is moot. I've done some of this by hand, but there is way too much for any small number of people to handle that way. - Jmabel ! talk 02:58, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel: That is a problem, though there's also the image replacement requests section, where the bot does work, but hasn't been updated. I can try to help manually move a couple categories, though: There's some that are quite small. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:44, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, I did Amazon Studios to Amazon MGM Studios. That's one. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:50, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks to @Jmabel for flagging this to me, I found the bot on Toolforge and have re-enabled it. Me doing this is not sustainable, so I've filed T350953 for finding a new maintainer for these bots. Legoktm (talk) 16:20, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Legoktm: thank you so much! (yeah, I know I already thanked you in person, but I wanted to do so publicly.) - Jmabel ! talk 18:41, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here's hoping someone will take this over. Legoktm tells me he figures what he did will only hold us a few months. - Jmabel ! talk 18:41, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On November 8, 2023, a user started change the categories around Category:Roads and streets. The discussion Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/06/Category:Streets named after Kyiv was cited as a reference. Thematically, the two terms were previously separated (Roads for roads outside built-up areas, Streets for built-up areas - inside cities). However, this separation has far-reaching consequences and does not correspond to current practice. Wouldn't it make more sense to discuss such a separation beforehand? --XRay💬 09:53, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Admittedly, I had started to restore the original layout. However, I stopped the actions because I became aware of the somewhat hidden discussion. --XRay💬 10:00, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I had changed the categories around Roads and streets per the consensus I had evaluated in the CFD I have cited. Otherwise, my preference is to keep roads and streets separated, like roads for intercity road transport and streets for intracity road transport. In fact, terms like Stroads would not appear if streets were considered a subset of roads. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 10:05, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's when you realize how limited your own English is. I've never heard or read the term stroads. --XRay💬 10:09, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I had already suspected that. In the German language, there is no such separation in this form. I also had to read and understand the reference to the categories here. The linguistic diversity does cause some problems here. It reminds me of the term kindergarten, a foreign word in English, and the use of singular and plural. But not only is the word different, a kindergarten in Germany is different from a kindergarten in the USA.--XRay💬 10:36, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good to read: en:RoadUnlike streets, whose primary function is to serve as public spaces, the main function of roads is transportation. --XRay💬 10:50, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
IMHO roads and streets as category name is good for the summary category - as today. Roads and streets should be a subcategory - as today. Stroads should be a subcategory of roads and (!) streets. This would also correspond to the usual division of categories here. Streets as a subcategory of roads and vice versa should be re-sorted appropriately. --XRay💬 10:29, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If it were me I'd get rid of Stroads altogether since the term is just a pejorative slang word for a street with extra lanes (really, "stroads" are just boulevards without the trees, but that's beside the point). Plus it goes against the rule that "There should be one category per topic; multi-subject categories should be avoided. The category name should be unambiguous and not homonymous." What I'd do instead is create categories for roads and streets based on the number of lanes. Or really just move everything currently contained in Stroads to Boulevards since there's really difference except for the aforementioned trees or lack of them, but I don't think it matters as there's plenty of treeless boulevards out there. "Roads" and "streets" should be seperate categories though. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:03, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Stroads" is an obscure neologism that we should not use. "Streets and roads" is fine.
At least some of these changes have been rather strange, e.g. [4]. The streets in NY's Central Park are simply city streets that run through the park. Why would they be in a "roads" category rather than a "streets" category? - Jmabel ! talk 13:15, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The closed CFD discussion had a consensus that Streets is a subset of Roads. Especially Auntof6 said, "Why are these categories named "roads and streets"? Isn't a street a type of road? Isn't this like the argument we had a while back to change "Buildings and structures" to just one or the other? The argument was that saying "buildings and structures" (and in this case, "roads and streets") is like saying "carrots and vegetables"." All other CFD participants agreed with them. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 13:31, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
i guess the length of this discussion may mean a cfd for "roads" or "streets" may be necessary.
having lived in 3 different countries with their own languages, i understand why the definitions can be so murky.
my suggestion: keep roads and streets separate, keep streets as a subcat of roads. some countries might not have the streets cat because of linguistic preferences, so let them be.
Road: a long, narrow stretch with a smoothed or paved surface, made for traveling by motor vehicle, carriage, etc., between two or more points.
Street: a public thoroughfare, usually paved, in a village, town, or city, including the sidewalk or sidewalks.
Highway: a main road, especially one between towns or cities.
This means that streets might be a subset of roads, although some users may argue otherwise. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 16:03, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Another possibility would be to use a system like OpenStreetMap there they define "highway=* is the main key used for identifying any kind of road, street or path". We could make the general Category:Ways the root category for all kind of roads, streets, paths, ways, highways or tracks. GPSLeo (talk) 16:45, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes this might be a good solution. So we might should suggest to name all these categories "Thoroughfares of", "Thoroughfares named after" or similar. The only problem is that thoroughfares would also include rail or water based transport. Maybe highway is better as enwiki states "A highway is any public or private road or other public way on land." The dewiki also states that highway is in the US the legal term for all public traffic areas. Therefore highway would be the root category for all vehicle land not rail transport and would be in the Category:Thoroughfares. Paths, Trails and Tracks would not be highways as they are not included in the definition of public traffic areas. GPSLeo (talk) 21:43, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Thoroughfares" is a pretty obscure word. I bet even a lot of native speakers don't know that word, or would not be quite sure what it means. - Jmabel ! talk 22:22, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
road is the most generic word. for example, all land transport except railways is known as road transport.
i dont see why cat:roads cannot serve as the parent cat. any country doesnt have roads but something else that people in other countries would call roads? RZuo (talk) 07:17, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But I think roads only refers to vehicle based transport. Therefore transport by foot without a vehicle would not be covered by this term. GPSLeo (talk) 09:28, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We'd still call it a "road" or "street" if it is on that scale, but closed to vehicular traffic.
The only vocabulary trickiness here I can think of is that alleys (not to be confused with the German Allee, quite different) are often not considered streets and possibly not roads. You'll definitely often here reference to the "streets and alleys" of a city. - Jmabel ! talk 12:04, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is interesting to see the effects of linguistic differences and national circumstances. My impression is that any interpretation of "road" or "street" ultimately does not create a universally valid solution. Ultimately, we can only decide on one solution, which will then (hopefully) be accepted, but will also contain errors. I was already confused in the USA with interstate, highway and freeway, I am not very surprised about the explanations for the situation in India and here in Germany I see things just as inconsistently. In Germany, we mainly have street names in urban areas. "Mainly" means that there are also such roads outside towns, there are entire settlements that have a street-like name, etc. Out-of-town roads (district roads, state roads, federal roads, highways, motorways) also run through villages. It would at least be great if we could find one (!) common generic term. --XRay💬 12:47, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also like the "thoroughfares" idea. I'm sure you can find many different definitions for streets and roads, and you can find as many different examples of things called "street" or "road" that don't match those definitions. That's true in any one country, let alone around the whole world. Moreover, not too many things are named "X thoroughfare" so we'll avoid much confusion on that level. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:23, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was just about to make the same suggestion: thoroughfare (Q83620). This includes walkways, bikeways, paths, roundabouts, streets, roads, interchanges, and so on. --XRay💬 08:46, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In US areas I have been in, I have also seen ways, "Boulevard" names, boulevards, avenues, places, squares, an "Esplanade" name, esplanades, circles, drives, courts, walks, rights of way, ramps, entrances, exits, piers, wharves, crossings, landings, expressways, extensions, centers, plazas, skyways, terraces, tunnels, overpasses, underpasses, and even an "Ocean" name (One Atlantic Ocean is a pier in Atlantic City, NJ). These are overlaid with designations and alignments such as county roads, highways, parkways, pikes, turnpikes, thruways or throughways, state routes, US routes (part of the en:United States Numbered Highway System), Interstates (part of the en:Interstate Highway System), bus routes, train routes. The United States Postal Service maintains a list of their abbreviations here. Then there are the rues in Montreal, Quebec, Canada (and probably other places in Quebec). Many of them descended from paths made by horse-drawn buggies, and before them by livestock. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:22, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thoroughfares already exists, but it's not complete. (See above, RZuo.) There is a lot of works to rename/remove all the "roads and streets" categories, but it's a good solution. --XRay💬 08:52, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I found 71 categories with "roads and streets" (Search: Category: intitle:/roads and streets/). --XRay💬 08:54, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think most categories are just named streets but also contain images of roads or other transportation infrastructure. GPSLeo (talk) 09:00, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Excluding category redirects, I found over 1,000 categories with "roads and streets" (search query: Category: intitle:/Roads and streets/ -hastemplate:"Category redirect"). --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 18:00, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
IMO it is not necessary to change the categories with "named after". Next step of search: Category: intitle:/roads and streets/i -intitle:/Roads and streets (in .*? )?named after/ -hastemplate:"Category redirect". --XRay💬 19:15, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not sure "thoroughfare" works. At least in the United States it insinuates a main road going through a town that forms a route between two places. Well there are many back (or country) roads that don't fit that. Including agricultural and forest service roads. I don't think it's necessarily workable to sort categories for roads based on if they are "main" roads, back roads, country roads, serve agricultural or forest service purposes, Etc. Etc. either. OpenStreetMap's highway tag barely manages to organize most types of roads into the same schema and it only really works in a small a portion of Europe. That's even to account for how roads are classified outside of the United States and Europe either. Really everything should be a sub-category of "roads" and just call it good there. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:16, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So you would be fine if for example this would be categorized as "road"? I would also not categorize this as "thoroughfare" as the dewiki article linked on Wikidata refers to "Verkehrsweg" as the term for official public transportation infrastructure what this trail is not. It is an official trail but not in terms of the road law. GPSLeo (talk) 20:59, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd consider that a path and images of paths would probably best in their own category scheme separate from roads. Roads usually have an "improved surface" though. Whatever that means, but it wouldn't include what's essentially an improvised primitive trail. You might say whatever this is would qualify as a road. But then I don't think places with wood slats above a surface to make it more easily crossable counts as an "improved surface" or therefore a "road." Anymore then you'd call some branches laid across a creek so it can be crossed more easily a road or even call some stepping stones one. Again maybe a path, probably a trail, but a road? No. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:30, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, paths are no subclass of roads. But how to name the common category of roads and paths? GPSLeo (talk) 21:42, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Don't. Just keep them separate. Confine roads to "improved surfaces" for vehicle traffic (I.E. compacted surfaces like gravel and paved roads) and anything below that to paths and/trails. There's some more fuzzy classifications there for sure, like compacted dirt track roads, but that's the simplest way to do it IMO regardless. Realistically I don't think any IRL outside of OpenStreetMap would classify that as a road anyway. I know where I live it would just be a path. Although we don't really have "track roads" to begin with, but that's besides the point. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:57, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So you would be fine if for example this would be categorized as "road"? In northwestern Montana it would probably have a state highway number. But, more seriously, that looks more like a trail or footpath than anything I'd want to call a road, thoroughfare, or whatever.
I notice someone has started changing things to "thoroughfare". I really don't think that's a good choice, especially because (like "road") it connotes something with a lot of traffic. I personally would be fine with "streets and roads" even though it's not the way we usually do things. The vocabulary is complicated here, including as you move around the English-speaking world. I could also live with just "roads", because technically a street is a type of road, but it "feels weird": at least in the U.S., in any thickly settled area, "road" suggests something major. I can't imagine asking an urban dweller in the U.S., "what road to you live on?" - Jmabel ! talk 04:11, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That means, Roads and streets would act better as an umbrella category than Thoroughfares. However, I had subscribed to the "thoroughfare" idea because both roads and streets can be defined as thoroughfares. I had previously cited the Dictionary.com definition of a street ("a public thoroughfare, usually paved, in a village, town, or city, including the sidewalk or sidewalks"). You can exclude walking infrastructure like Paths and Walkways from thoroughfares, as they are not subjects of vehicular traffic. I have included them mainly for convenient purposes. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 04:22, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The probably with that, I.E. making "thoroughfare" as the top level category for both streets and roads, is the whole "including the sidewalk or sidewalks" part of your definition since not all roads have a sidewalk, obviously. So you can't make Category:Roads as a child of Category:Throughfares. I guess we could just ignore that, but then there's other problems with "throughfare" being the top level category as well. For instance like I think I've already pointed out it insinuates a main road that goes from one place to another. Again as I think I've pointed out already, along the lines boulevard. Yet many roads and streets are not main throughfares. Plus they often have end points. If you want to argue a "throughfare" can end, cool. But I'd point out the word "through" in throughfare, as in "moving in one side and out of the other side." So roads or streets that end inherently can't be throughfares. And yes I'm aware that the word is technically "thorough" but it has the same connotation as "through" lol. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:36, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I just added two colons to your contribution because you added two wrong categories to the village pump page by their omission. -- Robert Flogaus-Faust 10:27, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Thoroughfares" is not a solution for everything. But it is a better alternative to many categories with "roads and streets" (such as "Quality images of roads and streets") and a much better alternative than "roads" as an umbrella category. --XRay💬 08:54, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At the end of the day I could probably live with it as a parent category for roads, but it really doesn't fit with streets. There's no reason roads and streets have to be in the same parent category either. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:02, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, "thoroughfares" may not fit well with streets, but both Dictionary.com and Merriam-Webster define a street as a thoroughfare. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 09:09, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I could easily find other places that don't define streets using the word thoroughfare and I've already pointed out the word insinuates a through road. So I don't think just defaulting to dictionary.com's definition is a good or valid way to do this. Otherwise what makes it more legitimate then other sources except that the definition fits your personal opinion? I don't think that's how we usually choose category names either BTW. There's no reason we can't come up with something that is widely used, fits for both roads and streets, and satisfies most (if not all) people in the conversation though. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:26, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please have a look to en:Thoroughfare. IMO it fits well for roads, streets and a lot of more. But you're right, there are differences. It's more road than street. (In German it's easier, it's all "Straße". Or more common "Weg". ;-) ) --XRay💬 10:24, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The more I look into the subject, the more difficult it becomes. There are so many differences between the linguistic and national situation in German-speaking and English-speaking countries alone that a sensible, uniform solution for commons seems impossible. The best uniform solution currently seems to me to be "transportation network" - which will hopefully also include the dead ends. --XRay💬 10:34, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
... or "transport infrastructure". --XRay💬 10:41, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Because of the problems with the use of the term Thoroughfares, I am no longer subscribing to its idea. Instead, I would like to restore the Roads and streets category, which would include all the non-rail land structures used by land vehicles or pedestrians (roads, streets, stroads, alleys, paths, walkways etc.). Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 15:14, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One other thing I want to remind everyone of, and not just for this particular set of categories: Categories are about helping people find stuff, using terms they are likely to use and understand. It is not intended to be ontologically pure, though it's nice when it can be. - Jmabel ! talk 22:00, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Blockers to automated import of structured data[edit]
I recently came across the AC/DC gadget (maintained by @Lucas Werkmeister, I think?), which helps with adding structured data. A lot of the work it does seems like it could almost be automated. For instance, I could go to Category:The Wharf (Washington, D.C.) and add P180 (depicts) > The Wharf (Q99344305) for all the images, but that information is basically already established, because the category is already linked to the Wikidata item. It'd be neat if the gadget suggested the linked item as the entity depicted. It'd be even neater if we could find a way to import depict statements for all categories linked to a Wikidata item.
Naturally, an action at that massive scale would require careful consideration. It also seems like, ultimately, the way we'd get more comprehensive structured data for our collection. I'm wondering if it was considered when structured data was first implemented, or if there has been any other discussion about it.
I'm also interested in discussing potential blockers (i.e. situations we'd have to account for in which automatically adding the statement would not be appropriate. One big one that occurs is set categories vs. topic categories (I linked to the Wikipedia guideline, which explains it more clearly, but the Commons analogue is here). Set categories are straightforward, but for topic categories, we might have e.g. an image of a document written by Jane Smith in Smith's category, and we wouldn't really say that it depicts Smith.
Are there other potential issues that I'm not thinking of? And do folks have any other general thoughts about importing structured data from Wikipedia? Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk 21:43, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
FWIW for many categories few (if any) of the images in the category could usefully be said to "depict" the item for the category. We are constantly having problems with people adding things like "depicts Seattle" or "depicts Chiquita Brands International". - Jmabel ! talk 22:27, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed with Jmabel here. At the mass scale you're suggesting, error rate would need to be extremely low to allow them to be reliably fixed by humans. Even with careful design of the tool, it won't be able to account for all the subtle complications in categories. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:35, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah. It's somewhat w:garbage in, garbage out, so we wouldn't need to get the error rate to zero. But certainly lower than what it'd be if we went ahead at the moment. Maybe better establishing/tagging which categories are set categories vs. topic categories would be an interim step here. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 06:58, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Every time I use Depictor I have the same idea: that so many of these associations are already established by the fact that the file is in the category! But the thing is that definitely not all of them are, and for some categories I'm surprised at the large number that aren't. So I'd be wary of automating anything. I do think a quicker way of selecting for depicts (e.g. something like Cat-a-lot) would be great though. SamWilson 01:41, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Samwilson, @Jmabel: FWIW, if you open cat-a-lot and select some images and then open AC/DC, it’ll prefill the files to edit with your selection. (I also created PagePile Visual Filter to similarly filter other sets of pages in a similar way, e.g. categories that are too big to fit in one screen; you can use the resulting PagePile with AC/DC.) Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 14:45, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Lucas Werkmeister: so if you already know what tool to use, this lets you know that the tool does this.
I'd really like to see, for this and other tasks, some things where a user has a fair chance of starting from what they want to do and find a tool that does it. - Jmabel ! talk 12:31, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Aside: It irks me that so many of our tools do not share a common user interface, or common behaviours. This is barrier to entry for new users. A well as the difference between selection in ACDC and Cat-a-lot; category selection works differently in Cat-a-lot and HotCat, for example. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:41, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is there any way to load news articles under copyright, with a restoration date, without going through a speedy deletion process, so that they never actually appear and are restored at the appropriate date? Can we preload works expiring on January 1, 2024. RAN (talk) 04:19, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For that particular case, why bother? Wait 8 weeks. - Jmabel ! talk 12:05, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have some 2025 material too. --RAN (talk) 13:01, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Off the top of my head: slap a maintenance category on them, and we can delete the whole category with VFC. But unless you make a list of them in Category:Undelete in 2025, it may be difficult to find when the time comes. - Jmabel ! talk 18:47, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We had a a pretty long discussion here about the categorization of village names in the area once known as Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast (and later known interchangeably as the Republic of Karabakh/Artsakh) last month. Since Azerbaijan ethnically cleansed the area, there has been a lot of activity here in the sub to delete all of the Armenian category names of the settlements and replace them with Azeri names only. We have other areas where multiple names are used, and I think in this region it will be important to keep both names as well. In the case of many of the villages, they have (and continue) to be written about mainly using the Armenian names. We have examples of Catalon/Spanish names coexisting such as Category:Donostia-San Sebastián, old and new names coexisting, such as Constantinople and Istanbul (as totally separate categories), and I am okay with either solution, or with just having both an Armenian settlement name category and an Azeri one coexisting side by side for all the settlements of the former Nagorno-Karabakh region, and have them categorized into their regional categories as well. I know most of the users/world do not care so much about this region, but simply for the practical value of storing and finding information by users, both readers and uploaders of content, this solution is important, and considering there are alternate arrangements whenever it seems helpful, I see no reason why this solution wouldn't be quite helpful here. --RaffiKojian (talk) 04:44, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're rehashing the same argument. In the previous thread, several users, including an admin, explained why it's impractical to have two or more separate names in a category title. We were close to reaching a reasonable agreement until you went back to your old stance of using multiple names in a single category title. Please stop wasting the community's time. — Goldentalk 05:40, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's nice you consider this a waste of time, while spending so much of your time erasing all of the Armenian village names. But the fact is that here we have other solutions for special cases which accommodate multiple names, and others chimed into the conversation stating as much and sharing the opinion that they agree to keep the Armenian names, and you conveniently ignored that and then just dove back into the erasures. I believe there is a solution to be found that would help the majority of users working in these categories find things, which is the very reason for categorization, and I think it's to double-up on settlement name categories - one in Azerbaijani and one in Armenian transliteration. A simple, elegant solution that would serve users regardless which language they know the name of the settlement in. RaffiKojian (talk) 19:24, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd say that is above the U.S. TOO. Remember that TOO issues are all based on national law, so an example from a different country isn't worth much. - Jmabel ! talk 12:08, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
i just noticed that if you are not logged in and want to create a new page, you will see a message, which i think is produced by MediaWiki:Newarticletextanon. it seems the box (produced by Template:Anon-warning-no-edit?) only has english and a handful of other languages. we need to translate it, but i dont know how. RZuo (talk) 16:16, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@RZuo: Editing in the MediaWiki namespace is restricted to Interface Admins, but they don't have their own noticeboard yet, so use COM:AN. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 04:25, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
File:Seal of New Hampshire.svg The NH state seal is licensed on Wikimedia Commons as "public domain". However, there is a NH state law which states that No person shall manufacture, sell, expose for sale, or have in possession for sale any article or substance, being an article of merchandise or receptacle of merchandise or article or thing for carrying or transporting merchandise, or sell, expose for sale, give away, or have in possession for sale or to give away or for any purpose any article or thing to advertise or promote services, upon which shall have been printed, painted, attached, or otherwise placed a representation or likeness of the state seal
This is concerning because "Whoever violates the provisions of RSA 3:9-a shall be guilty of a misdemeanor if a natural person, or guilty of a felony if any other person" — Preceding unsigned comment added by A.FLOCK (talk • contribs) 06:35, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, I'm looking for the source (exact page) of this image of a St George knight. The image description says "Vies de Saints (BNF Richelieu Manuscrits Français 185)." I checked this manuscript« La Legende des Sains » [de JACQUES DE VORAGINE], traduction de « JEHAN BELET », but I can't find it. Does anyone know the exact source (page)? -Artanisen (talk) 01:35, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are invited to join the discussion at Commons:Village_pump/Technical#Bad changes to the upload wizard. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 04:57, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
.svg/15px-Pictogram_voting_comment_(orange).svg.png)
Comment I just added two colons to your contribution because you added two wrong categories to the village pump page by their omission. -- Robert Flogaus-Faust 10:27, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
.svg&diff=prev&oldid=818300992){kind=link}
