Commons:Village pump/Archive/2023/11

Problematic MOTD of today (3 November)

Hello, the MOTD file of today (Template:Motd/2023-11-03), File:Naked News anchor Marina Valmont speaking about German ePetition 157928 to remove social media apps from app shops in Germany if the social media company does not remove anti semitic posts in a timely manner.webm, seems problematic to me. It concerns a call to action to sign a petition (about banning certain social media from German app stores if they don't act on anti-semitism, which in the light of the current Israel/Palestine conflict does unfortunately have a political connotation) and has been authored, uploaded and made MOTD by the same user, User:C.Suthorn. The current file replaced the previous file, File:National Anthem of Dominica by US Navy Band.ogg (made MOTD by User:Q28), in this template yesterday night, with as argumentation a link to Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_106#Q28, which indeed touches MOTD uploads, but, given the small time window between upload, template change and today, this seems more like an excuse to bring this petition to light on the homepage than anything else. I can't revert this change, as it is currently included on the main page, but I do find this problematic and needs attention as soon as possible, as I'm sure this isn't the way these things are supposed to go, and this file is along Commons also shown on many other wikis. Pennenetui3000 (talk) 00:41, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I've also just posted this on the Administrators' Noticeboard. Pennenetui3000 (talk) 00:48, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

And I responded there. Please don't scatter a discussion like this. In extreme cases (I don't even think it is one) it is appropriate to post on one project page like this pointing to discussion you have opened on another page. It is simply not appropriate to open the same discussion in two places. It almost guarantees unnecessary chaos. - Jmabel ! talk 04:50, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I am closing this as a duplicated discussion. Editors may wish to respond at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#MAIN PAGE: Problematic MOTD of today (3 November). From Hill To Shore (talk) 07:49, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --From Hill To Shore (talk) 07:49, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

blacklist sanity checking...

I just tried uploading an image from the flickr pages of the The GPA Photo Archive. Which asserts it "is maintained by the Bureau of Global Public Affairs of the United States Department of State, and comprises public-access photos intended for use by U.S. Missions overseas and other State Department entities."

How does a flickr user like this make the blacklist?

Here is the photo I tried to upload... https://www.flickr.com/photos/iip-photo-archive/49531802096/ Geo Swan (talk) 06:51, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Quoting completely for convenience:

The GPA Photo Archive is maintained by the Bureau of Global Public Affairs of the United States Department of State, and comprises public-access photos intended for use by U.S. Missions overseas and other State Department entities.

Photos may be used by staff of the Bureau of Global Public Affairs (GPA), U.S. embassies, consulates, American Spaces, and other U.S. mission offices, and distributed as warranted for use by non-USG organizations sanctioned by the embassy.

Only non-commercial use is permitted. Credit line should read: GPA Photo Archive / photographer's name / original source. Example: GPA Photo Archive / Carol M. Highsmith / Library of Congress

--Achim55 (talk) 07:05, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3AQuestionable_Flickr_images%2FUsers&diff=prev&oldid=388937558 added by User:Pi.1415926535. RZuo (talk) 07:16, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

"Only non-commercial use" would certainly qualify for the blacklist. - Jmabel ! talk 17:18, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

This account grabs (usually free) files from other sources and reuploads them. Very often the license on flickr is incorrect; I have seen some of my CC-BY-SA files on the account listed as PD. Any file on this account should be uploaded from the original source instead. For example, the file that Geo Swan linked above is actually from the State Department - and is already on Commons from the original source. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:55, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

13 of the MOTD of November and 18 of the MOTD of December are OGG files without description text of anthems of small countries

I am only mentioning that, because I nominated two of my own files as MOTD for november and only now found out, that i had made the entrys for November 2024 in error. When I tried to correct that, I stumbled about this crowd of anthems. I really would like to have at least my webm file early in November this year and it would also be fine to have the flac file sooner than 1st of january. --C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 09:42, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Commons Gazette 2023-11

• Currently, there are 186 sysops.
• Overwriting other users' uploads is now limited to autopatrollers.

---

Edited by RZuo (talk).

---

Commons Gazette is a monthly newsletter of the latest important news about Wikimedia Commons, edited by volunteers. You can also help with editing! --RZuo (talk) 10:25, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Woman on Spokane, Nov. 1929.jpg

Hi, Another detective work needed here. May be the geolocation can be added? It seems there is a "Heath Ave" in Spokane, but no "Hath Ave". Or is it an abbreviation for Hatheway? Yann (talk) 16:27, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

• What is the basis to say that what appears to be a family photo "was published in the United States between 1928 and 1977"? Is there any evidence it was ever published before the Flickr upload (if not, then it won't be in the public domain until 2050). - Jmabel ! talk 17:23, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  Fully agreed. Solid proof of actual publication is needed for these photos, and it is lacking so far. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:35, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  Seeing the written text, this was sent to someone, which constituted publication at the time. See also COM:L#Old orphan works. Practically, there is zero chance that this is still under a copyright. Yann (talk) 20:45, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

• Text is not Hath but 818 E 26th Ave, Spokane, WA. Looks like both houses are still there. Window pattern of next door seems to match. Glrx (talk) 18:44, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  Good. Thanks a lot! Yann (talk) 20:45, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  Maybe someone in WA could send the current residents a postcard with the short URL of the image? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:14, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Photographs prohibited - or not?

I found the following article, that illustrates a quite ominous case: https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/signs-banning-phones-cameras-public-8869080

In short, it is a report about signs that prohibit taking photographs at Temple Quay in Bristol. But the signs were erected by mistake. Only commercial photography shall be prohibited, they stated afterwards. The reason that this rather public area is owned by a private company. It also raises the question whether it is good that a private company owns that land, and can decide who can enter or not, and is a potential threat to the freedom of panorama in the UK, and limiting rights of the public. I wanted to share this, because it might be interesting for the readers here --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 15:36, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is a freedom of panorama issue. Freedom of panorama is about copyright. Even if the property owner can set rules which restrict people from taking photographs there (and even that seems to be in doubt), they don't gain any copyright in photos which get taken there in disregard of those rules. The situation is analogous to museums with house rules which prohibit photography; compare COM:CSM#MUSEUM. Omphalographer (talk) 20:35, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

See also Category:Photography prohibition signs. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:17, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I was prevented from photographing the fountain in Trafalgar Square in England because commercial photography was prohibited there. On the same day and at the same location, I took pictures of a demonstration demanding the release of "Tommy Robinson". These images have been used by many websites around the world because it was a spontaneous demo that was almost not photographed by journalists, but it was very important because it was about essential things with grooming gangs, Facebook and streaming in courts. My pictures almost didn't exist. The fact that this is not a problem with copyright and FoP is irrelevant if such bans mean that pictures can't be taken in the first place. C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 08:01, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Part of the problem is that places where people spend their time are moving into private possession. The photography could be made an inviolable right (at least in some circumstances), but the tendency has other consequences too, such as people not likely to do shopping not being allowed entrance to places where people meet. I don't know what to do about it, but there should be some more awareness. –LPfi (talk) 12:19, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Category:Files allowed to be overwritten by everyone

Can anyone explain; the use of this, on the face of it, spurious cat. Should it not be deleted along with its template? Broichmore (talk) 10:19, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

It's the result of a very recent development on Commons, whereby user rights for overwriting files that the user themselves haven't uploaded have been limited to autopatrollers and admins in an attempt to curb vandalism. It used to be that all (non-protected) files could be overwritten by anyone, but (at least for now) that's no longer the case. See this discussion at the Village Pump. ReneeWrites (talk) 16:15, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

What's so special about those files that they can be overwritten by anyone while other files can't be? --Adamant1 (talk) 16:20, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

They're not really special, they're just files an autopatroller or admin has looked at and agreed to let a user overwrite it after filing a request at COM:OWR. ReneeWrites (talk) 16:51, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Hhhmm, maybe I'm misunderstanding something here but it sounds like a request is only meant to allow the person making it to overwrite the file, not everyone. So it seems like files from requests made on COM:OWR shouldn't be included in Category:Files allowed to be overwritten by everyone. Since again, the user making the request isn't "everyone" and their the one being given the permission. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:04, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I think the template should be removed from files after it's been overwritten, though I haven't seen other editors do that (yet?). I'll shoot GPSLeo a question about it on his talk page, since he files so many of those requests. I don't think it's currently possible to give permission to just one person for just one file, though. ReneeWrites (talk) 17:45, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

@ReneeWrites: You have seen the template removed from a file after it's been overwritten, right here where I over wrote the file, and you promptly put back the template. Why? If there is any file that should not carry this template, then it's the specific one we are talking about.

This template and category are completely useless, it's just not the way to do it. Are you now going to insert the template into 99,365,416 (and counting) files, or do the right thing and have the global rights changed, in line with our false pledge of Wikimedia Commons, a collection of 99,365,416 freely usable media files to which anyone can contribute.? Broichmore (talk) 11:21, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Vuccala requested to overwrite that file at COM:OWR, asked for permission, and GPSLeo granted it. I put the template back because I thought it was removed by mistake. ReneeWrites (talk) 11:32, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that I was not made privy to this conversation. I take it, that this is a temporary fix solution? Broichmore (talk) 11:40, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

If you mean the template itself, then yes. I asked GPSLeo about this yesterday and he thinks 2 weeks is a good time frame for the template to be applied to files before being removed (gives the requester ample time to do the overwriting and fix any mistakes they'd made in the process). If you mean the new way of doing things in general, then I honestly don't know. ReneeWrites (talk) 12:03, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

On the question why every user can overwrite these files despite only one user requested the right: This is simply because there is currently no possibility to do this in a different way. It might be possible to add the username to the template, but I think this is not needed as the person who did the requested overwrite would complain about and revert the bad overwrite done by other users. The template is also a workaround as there is no MediaWiki protection level for this. GPSLeo (talk) 19:13, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

@GPSLeo: That's a difficult statement to chew on. I doubt anyone has specifically requested overwrite of any one of the 97 files in this spuriuos category. Why have you singled them out for attention. Why the file, that's come to my attention? Who are these people requesting overwrite? As I said earlier, the fix required here is a global fix, not this!

Your the only person that seems to be assigning these values. Please tell me why, you took it upon yourself to create this template in the first place? This is a problem you have invented, in order for you to solve. Broichmore (talk) 11:21, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I have now read this conversation. Broichmore (talk) 11:44, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Every file there was requested here or though other channels. If we would wait for new MediaWiki features solving this problem we might have to wait many years. Until we have the new feature we would continue getting many hundred bad overwrites they would need to be cleaned up every week. GPSLeo (talk) 12:04, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your responses. This blew up in my mind, firstly because I was unaware of the change, and second because I failed to realize what was being protected here; which is the image as opposed to it's accompanying description.

Perhaps the statement in the cat header, that The files in this category have the 'Allow Overwriting' template allowing users without autopatrol to overwrite them. This template can be placed by every user with patrol rights. Should be changed to The files in this category have the 'Allow Overwriting' template allowing users without autopatrol to overwrite the images within them. This template can be placed by every user with patrol rights. or some such?

Overall, I actually support this strategy. Broichmore (talk) 12:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@Broichmore: I understand your intention with that rewording, but I think there's a problem of vocabulary. It already says "file", not "file page" (the latter would include the wikitext and structured data). The file is not necessarily an image (it could be audio or video). Also, even for an image file, one of the likely reasons to want to overwrite it is to correct EXIF data, etc., which is not part of the image. More likely, keep the wording as it is, but add a link to a page where the whole situation is explained, including why we need this workaround. - Jmabel ! talk 20:16, 4 November 2023 (UTC)