Commons:Village pump
Latest comment: 6 minutes ago by Adamant1 in topic SVG logos and city seals
|
This page is used for discussions of the operations 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/2025/09. 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. |
 The last town pump to be in use in Saint Helier, Jersey, until early 20th century [add] | |||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
 |
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 7 days. |
August 28
Monuments database in Russia, Redux
Prior discussions:
- Commons:Village pump/Archive/2024/09#Monuments database in Russia
- Commons:Bots/Work requests/Archive 17#Monuments database in Russia (January-June 2025)
- Template talk:Cultural Heritage Russia#Update on technical categories (current)
Some time ago I summarised discussion #1 in my opening post at #2, saying that:
There are >25K sub-categories of Category:Galleries of cultural heritage monuments in Russia (and about 275 in its subcategory, Category:Galleries of cultural heritage monuments in Crimea) named in the format (for example) Category:WLM/1010021052. That example duplicates Category:Threshing barn from Berezovaya Selga. The corresponding Wikidata item, Threshing barn from Berezovaya Selga (Q106488771), has a Wiki Loves Monuments ID (P2186) value of
RU-1010021052(note the "RU-" prefix). That Wikidata item is linked to the alphanumerically named, not numbered, category.
A bot was kindly run by User:Wikiwerner and most of the 25K categories were redirected, for example Category:WLM/1010021052 to Category:Threshing barn from Berezovaya Selga.
They have (it seems) all now been recreated, under new, but still duplicative, names, with many more besides. Category:Galleries of cultural heritage monuments in Russia now redirects to Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Russia by id, and that now has >41K entries, named in the format Category:Russian heritage ID 1010021052.
I note that these new categories have a header template which falsely claim that they do not "duplicate any of the existing Commons categories." That the example given clearly duplicates Category:Threshing barn from Berezovaya Selga, with images like File:Kizhi StafeevTreshingBarn 007 8510.jpg included in both, shows this to be a nonsense.
I also note that "kulturnoe-nasledie.ru ID: 1010021052" is included in the infobox on Category:Threshing barn from Berezovaya Selga.
We are going to need to run a bot again, to remove and redirect all these new superfluous categories. Do we also need administrative action to prevent this from happening again? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:22, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- I think it's a bit premature. As far as I understand this discussion (I was not part of it), there was a concern about the category names, and there was a concern that users may be misled by two categories with similar (but very often not identical) content. The former concern is being resolved by giving categories more understandable names. The latter concern will be resolved by adding links from 'categories by ID' to 'categories by object name'. This does, however, take time because of the large number of heritage monuments and the notorious problem of the slow cache updates at Commons. The Russian WLM team can take care of any further needed bot runs, but please bring your suggestions on the relevant talk page.
- Regarding the categories being or not being duplicates, there is a quite extensive explanation of the category system at Commons:Monuments database in Russia. It would be helpful if one starts from there. The Russian cultural heritage is certainly more involved that the single threshing barn in a remote village. -- Alexander 11:40, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- Your description does not mirror reality. Categories are not being given more understandable names; they are being created anew after a consensus was reached to redirect them.
- The concern was not "users may be misled by two categories with similar (but very often not identical) content", but that redundant, duplicate categories were being created in bulk. Adding links from 'categories by ID' to 'categories by object name' does not resolve this. Again, the consensus was to redirect one set of them to the other.
- I have already posted a link to this discussion, at Template talk:Cultural Heritage Russia, and included a link to it, above.
- Commons:Monuments database in Russia was linked to from the very first sentence of the original discussion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:50, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, but Commons:Monuments database in Russia has changed quite a bit since that time. -- Alexander 11:56, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- So? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:57, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, but Commons:Monuments database in Russia has changed quite a bit since that time. -- Alexander 11:56, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- Category «Threshing barn from Berezovaya Selga» may be divided in the future, for example, into «Interiors of Threshing barn from Berezovaya Selga» and «Exteriors of Threshing barn from Berezovaya Selga» upon accumulation of the corresponding photos, which may also be achieved through a competition WLM. In this case, the category «Russian heritage ID 1010021052» will always be unified, since both interiors and exteriors are a component of the subject of protection of the cultural heritage site. A similar example can be given for almost every number and physical category of the site. There is no permanent problem of duplication here, there is only a temporary one, which will be eliminated sooner or later. Никонико962 (talk) 12:22, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
"may be divided in the future"
Indeed. This is how Wikimedia Commons works. It does not justify duplicating the parent category. Nor does it justify dumping all the images from a set of subcategories into one meta category. That is not how Commons works. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:38, 28 August 2025 (UTC)That is not how Commons works.
But ruWikivoyage works with the ID numbers. They are used in the cultural heritage lists and to create galleries. Nakonana (talk) 16:12, 28 August 2025 (UTC)- As I said above, "I also note that 'kulturnoe-nasledie.ru ID: 1010021052' is included in the infobox on Category:Threshing barn from Berezovaya Selga.".
- These duplicate categories are not required to work with the ID numbers. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:47, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- These categories are not duplicates, they include only images which were loaded by WLM campaigne and are needed for campaigne scripts to work properly. This is the easiest way to get a plain list of images (not with subcategories) which were uploaded by WLM. Strongly oppose the deletion suggested above. Commons:Monuments database in Russia explains this situation. This is Andy (talk) 12:23, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- I assume every image of a particular monument contains the Monuments Database ID in structured data and/or a template. So can't you just get a list of images by eather doing a structured data search or one for the ID number in the template? --Adamant1 (talk) 12:29, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- We already have well working scripts for categories. The lists you suggested should be created massively, stored somewhere and updated too often (or generated dynamically thousands of times for an any watch of an any monuments list, which seems to be absolutely impossible), and now we have no scripts which work with such lists. There is absolutely unneeded complication. This is Andy (talk) 13:15, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- @This is Andy: I'm not suggesting lists or anything like them. If you do a search for "1010021052" (the monuments ID number for the threshing barn from Berezovaya Selga) in the search box above this it provides a list of all the images on here for the threshing barn. Your the ones creating needless complication here with the extra categories, scripts, Etc. Etc. when literally all it all takes to do what you want is putting the monuments ID number in a search box. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:24, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- No, scripts of ru-WLM do much more work than just providing a list of images. This is Andy (talk) 13:28, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- There is nothing that those scripts do that cannot be done using SDC or Wikidata; and nothing that requires the recreation of the redirected, duplicate categories. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:06, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- Can SDC or Wikidata link to/create such info pages[1][2]? Can you add the name of a rather non-notable sculptor to SDC/Wikidata for whom there's no page on any wiki project? For example, there's no project page on Андрей Николаевич Костромитин, but his name can still be included in this[3] monument data sheet. That particular monument also doesn't have a Wikidata item, nor a wiki article, nor a Commons category because there's only one image of it, but it has still an informative data sheet which is accessible through the ID-link in the Cultural Heritage Russia template. Nakonana (talk) 16:45, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Nakonana: Something like that can essentially be done on Wikidata assuming the information is there for it. Of course you can't do a query for something that doesn't exist, but the information for monuments and artist should be stored on Wikidata anyway. Not a third party database and they have had plenty of opportunity to transfer the information over. So I don't really think the lack of information about particular monuments or artists on Wikidata is a valid excuse not to do it that way. They can't go out of their way to not put the information on Wikidata and then use their own unwillingness to put the information on there as a reason to keep using their own external system. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:10, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Adamant1 in IT sphere is proverb "If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it."
Nothing was broken here until a Pigsonthewing began to “improve.”
You can think up (and even do) a lot of things. But the main thing is to first ask those who will have to use it. --Kaganer (talk) 17:19, 28 August 2025 (UTC)- @Kaganer: See my comment at the bottom. The only reason it "broke" (although I think your being hyperbolic) after the categories were redirected is because people from WLM Russia ignored the discussions about it and refused to transfer their external database to Wikidata. They had plenty of opportunity to do things in a way that wouldn't "break" anything though. They just weren't willing to. That's on them. Although again, I think your just being hyperbolic. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:27, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- But then again, who are you (general you) to impose your way on them? And in an area that is rather used by them than by you? Why do they have to implement a change that you have decided should be made? You are the one who wants the change, so why are they the ones who are supposed to do the work to make that change happen? Why are they supposed to
transfer their external database to Wikidata
when they already have a database that works for them just fine? And it's not even an "external" database. It's ruwikivoyage based database. Even if Commons has a policy that is rather in favor of deleting AI-generated images, Commons would still not delete an AI-generated image that is in use on another wiki project because Commons does not tell other projects how to run their projects. So why is Commons now imposing on ruwikivoyage and the Russian WML team how to run and maintain their database? Nakonana (talk) 17:51, 28 August 2025 (UTC)- @Nakonana: I browse and categorize images related to Russian monuments all the time, or at least I use to. I mostly stay away from the area now because their system makes both rather convoluted. If you read the top of any category for a Russian monument it says "Please read the guidelines before making any changes that can affect the monuments database!" Personally, I reject any system on here that requires reading a small group of users "guidelines" before moving an image or modifying a category.
- But then again, who are you (general you) to impose your way on them? And in an area that is rather used by them than by you? Why do they have to implement a change that you have decided should be made? You are the one who wants the change, so why are they the ones who are supposed to do the work to make that change happen? Why are they supposed to
- @Kaganer: See my comment at the bottom. The only reason it "broke" (although I think your being hyperbolic) after the categories were redirected is because people from WLM Russia ignored the discussions about it and refused to transfer their external database to Wikidata. They had plenty of opportunity to do things in a way that wouldn't "break" anything though. They just weren't willing to. That's on them. Although again, I think your just being hyperbolic. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:27, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Adamant1 in IT sphere is proverb "If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it."
- @Nakonana: Something like that can essentially be done on Wikidata assuming the information is there for it. Of course you can't do a query for something that doesn't exist, but the information for monuments and artist should be stored on Wikidata anyway. Not a third party database and they have had plenty of opportunity to transfer the information over. So I don't really think the lack of information about particular monuments or artists on Wikidata is a valid excuse not to do it that way. They can't go out of their way to not put the information on Wikidata and then use their own unwillingness to put the information on there as a reason to keep using their own external system. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:10, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- Can SDC or Wikidata link to/create such info pages[1][2]? Can you add the name of a rather non-notable sculptor to SDC/Wikidata for whom there's no page on any wiki project? For example, there's no project page on Андрей Николаевич Костромитин, but his name can still be included in this[3] monument data sheet. That particular monument also doesn't have a Wikidata item, nor a wiki article, nor a Commons category because there's only one image of it, but it has still an informative data sheet which is accessible through the ID-link in the Cultural Heritage Russia template. Nakonana (talk) 16:45, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- There is nothing that those scripts do that cannot be done using SDC or Wikidata; and nothing that requires the recreation of the redirected, duplicate categories. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:06, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- No, scripts of ru-WLM do much more work than just providing a list of images. This is Andy (talk) 13:28, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- @This is Andy: I'm not suggesting lists or anything like them. If you do a search for "1010021052" (the monuments ID number for the threshing barn from Berezovaya Selga) in the search box above this it provides a list of all the images on here for the threshing barn. Your the ones creating needless complication here with the extra categories, scripts, Etc. Etc. when literally all it all takes to do what you want is putting the monuments ID number in a search box. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:24, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- We already have well working scripts for categories. The lists you suggested should be created massively, stored somewhere and updated too often (or generated dynamically thousands of times for an any watch of an any monuments list, which seems to be absolutely impossible), and now we have no scripts which work with such lists. There is absolutely unneeded complication. This is Andy (talk) 13:15, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- I assume every image of a particular monument contains the Monuments Database ID in structured data and/or a template. So can't you just get a list of images by eather doing a structured data search or one for the ID number in the template? --Adamant1 (talk) 12:29, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- I don't care if it "works just fine" for the two or three gatekeepers in WLM Russia. It's just anti-user and not how things should work on here. I certainly couldn't create an external database for objects local to me, write a faux "guideline," and then force everyone else on here to follow it and ask me for permission if they want to modify images or categories related to the objects. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:05, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
I browse and categorize images related to Russian monuments all the time, or at least I use to. I mostly stay away from the area now because their system makes both rather convoluted.
I don't understand at all! What do you mean? What exactly is stopping you from categorizing Russian monument related images? You just use HotCat or Cat-a-lot like everywhere else. What is the problem? I do it myself all the time and I've only been active since like February 2024, so if a newbie like me has no issues categorizing such images with HotCat and Cat-a-lot then what problems could an experienced user like you possibly run into that you'd decide to stay away from that area? All I'm aware of is that one should just not temper with the Cultural Heritage Russia template and that's all, and the database remains quite unaffected. (But the template uses the IDs for the database and the initial discussion claimed that those IDs were just made up by the Russian WML team even though they are actually official IDs from the Russian government, and then proceeded to change the ID-related categories, so that's why we're here right now, I guess.) Nakonana (talk) 18:19, 28 August 2025 (UTC)- @Nakonana: The template at the top of pages says "This template and pages using it are maintained by the Russian WLM team. Please read the guidelines before making any changes that can affect the monuments database!" Why would every category for a cultural heritage monument in Russia need a warning saying not to edit the template and pages using it when the template has nothing to do with the category or any of the files in it if that's all they care about?
- I don't care if it "works just fine" for the two or three gatekeepers in WLM Russia. It's just anti-user and not how things should work on here. I certainly couldn't create an external database for objects local to me, write a faux "guideline," and then force everyone else on here to follow it and ask me for permission if they want to modify images or categories related to the objects. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:05, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
the initial discussion claimed that those IDs were just made up by the Russian WML team even though they are actually official IDs from the Russian government
Maybe you aren't aware of it, but a lot of the IDs aren't actually based on official ones because the Russian government doesn't have a complete list of monuments in Russia. Some of them aren't 1/1 recreations of the official monument IDs either. So some of them are in fact "made up by the WML team." That's fine, but it's patently false that the IDs are official. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:36, 28 August 2025 (UTC)- Yeah, I guess the warning in the template would benefit from some rewording.
but a lot of the IDs aren't actually based on official ones
How many approximately? Because the statementit's patently false that the IDs are official
is also false as there are clearly at least two types of documents that assign those IDs (I have linked to such documents here). Nakonana (talk) 18:56, 28 August 2025 (UTC)- @Nakonana: I have zero idea how many aren't official. From what I understand it's not a trivial number though. A lot of the names for the monuments are made up by WLM Russia to BTW. I suspect if you were to get rid of the fake names and made up ID numbers the WLM database would be pretty small. It certainly would transferable to Wikidata. It is anyway, but all the more so if the "fake" entries and/or information was excluded from an import. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:09, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- I checked the wiki page. It says
[The registry] includes around 100,000 items while the local lists total in excess of 140,000.
But those numbers are from 2009 and they only refer to one of the two types of documents that assign official numbers. That doesn't look like the WLM database would be small if one would remove the made-up ones. It would still contain over 100,000 official entries. That's a lot of data to transfer to Wikidata. Nakonana (talk) 19:20, 28 August 2025 (UTC)- @Nakonana: I assume a good partition of the information could be transferred with a bot. Assuming not though, four or five participants of WLM Russia could do it in a couple of months. A couple of hundred thousands entries isn't really that much if people put a concerted, group effort into it. It's not like they didn't create the database in the first place. So I'm sure they could transfer it to Wikidata if they actually wanted to. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:36, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- Are you going to create the bot for the transfer since you are the one who wants that change to be done? Nakonana (talk) 19:45, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Nakonana: I assume a good partition of the information could be transferred with a bot. Assuming not though, four or five participants of WLM Russia could do it in a couple of months. A couple of hundred thousands entries isn't really that much if people put a concerted, group effort into it. It's not like they didn't create the database in the first place. So I'm sure they could transfer it to Wikidata if they actually wanted to. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:36, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- I checked the wiki page. It says
- @Nakonana: I have zero idea how many aren't official. From what I understand it's not a trivial number though. A lot of the names for the monuments are made up by WLM Russia to BTW. I suspect if you were to get rid of the fake names and made up ID numbers the WLM database would be pretty small. It certainly would transferable to Wikidata. It is anyway, but all the more so if the "fake" entries and/or information was excluded from an import. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:09, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, I guess the warning in the template would benefit from some rewording.
- Называть памятники "фальшивыми" (fake) и "выдуманными" (made up) — это уже чересчур... Olksolo (talk) 19:16, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- The names and IDs are made up, not the actual monuments. I'm sure you get the difference. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:31, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- I think we've cleared up by now that at least more than 2/3 of the IDs and names are based on official documents and thus aren't made-up, so please stop making that claim. Nakonana (talk) 19:47, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- The names and IDs are made up, not the actual monuments. I'm sure you get the difference. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:31, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
but the information for monuments and artist should be stored on Wikidata anyway
But what if we don't know anything about the artist other than their last name? We can't create a Wikidata item on them with just that. And we can't add their name to the Wikidata item of the monument because Wikidata doesn't permit adding artists for whom there's no Wikidata item. For example, the sculptor of this[4] is Е.А. Рудаков and I was unable to find anything on this guy, as in we don't even know what his given name is, we only know the first letters of his given name and patronyme ("Е.А."). If I'd create a Wikidata item on him, it would be deleted instantly, so there's no way to document his authorship via Wikidata. And SDC is based on Wikidata so that also can't be used to document authorship. Nakonana (talk) 17:31, 28 August 2025 (UTC)- That's a fundamental misrepresentation of how Wikidata works
- Wikidata has many items created for people with one name, or only a surname and initials. It even has specific properties to cater for such cases.
- No items would be deleted on that basis. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:37, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- Even if there's no chance that anything other than the family name will ever be added to the Wikidata item? Nakonana (talk) 17:53, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- If there is a given name and a family name, and no chance that anything other than those names will ever be added to the Wikidata item, it would be deleted anyway.
- But since that scenario is hypothetical, and does not apply to anyone affected by these categories, the matter is irrelevant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:01, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- This is not a hypothetical scenario, I quite literally gave you a real example with that Е.А. Рудаков case. Е.А. Рудаков is the sculptor of several cultural heritage monuments located at the Novodevichy Cemetery, and all we know about him are the initials of his given name and patronyme, and we know his family name. So, you yourself are confirming that creating a Wikidata item on him is unrealistic because it would get deleted if it's all the info we have on him? Then how do we document his authorship through SDC or Wikidata? Nakonana (talk) 18:27, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- I have confirmed no such thing, and "no chance that anything other than the family name will ever be added to the Wikidata item" is very much a hypothetical scenario; as you yourself have demonstrated. His family name is not the only thing that can be added to his Wikidata item.
- Not only can you add the initial of his given name, you can say his occupation is sculptor. You can say when he flourished, even if only to a century. His work location was whatever region the cemetery sits in.
- And if you have pictures of "several" of his works, you can create a category about him and add a link to it to his Wikidata item.
- So please, if this is an indicator of the level of your understanding of Wikidata, stop claiming that it is not suitable for use for Russian monuments. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:37, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Nakonana: There's plenty of Wikidata items that just have initials. Really all that would be needed in this case is a category for the person on Commons or a link to an external identifier. Both of which I assume would exist for essentially every artist in the Monuments Database, since the database itself acts as an external identifier and nothing stopping anyone from creating a category for the people on Commons. But there's essentially zero chance an item for someone with a Commons category, or who's attached to one, would get deleted. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:41, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- We don't know the guy's death date so we have to assume his works are still copyright protected. If we'd create a Commons category on him, it would be empty (soon) due to copyright. Nakonana (talk) 20:06, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- So what? His item would still be valid due to serving a structured need (being connected to the items for the monuments) and having an external identifier (the WLM Russia database page for him). So his item wouldn't be deleted regardless. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:15, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- We don't know the guy's death date so we have to assume his works are still copyright protected. If we'd create a Commons category on him, it would be empty (soon) due to copyright. Nakonana (talk) 20:06, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- This is not a hypothetical scenario, I quite literally gave you a real example with that Е.А. Рудаков case. Е.А. Рудаков is the sculptor of several cultural heritage monuments located at the Novodevichy Cemetery, and all we know about him are the initials of his given name and patronyme, and we know his family name. So, you yourself are confirming that creating a Wikidata item on him is unrealistic because it would get deleted if it's all the info we have on him? Then how do we document his authorship through SDC or Wikidata? Nakonana (talk) 18:27, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- Even if there's no chance that anything other than the family name will ever be added to the Wikidata item? Nakonana (talk) 17:53, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- These categories are very much duplicates, as demonstrated by the example above and those in the previous discussions.
"This is the easiest way to get a plain list of images"
is untrue; and is not a justification for wilfully ignoring the previous consensus to redirect these categories. Commons:Monuments database in Russia equally offers no valid justification for so doing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:41, 28 August 2025 (UTC)- "very much duplicates" - AFAIK only exact duplicates should be deleted. "ignoring the previous consensus" - indeed this is untrue, there was (and is) no consensus at all, the bot runner just ignored all objections. This is Andy (talk) 13:09, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
there was (and is) no consensus at all
How come you guys created a whole new category system instead of just reverting the redirects if there was no consensus for them then? The fact that WLM Russia created a whole new system for this just makes it look like they were trying to get around the previous discussion under the radar by not editing or otherwise tampering with the exiting categories. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:30, 28 August 2025 (UTC)- Which objections? Diffs, please. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:57, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- Например, я возражал. То, что вы не захотели слушать мои возражения, не значит, что их нет. Olksolo (talk) 15:06, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- Google translates this as
"For example, I objected. The fact that you did not want to listen to my objections does not mean that they do not exist."
- I asked for diffs. The fact that your objection apparently did not sway consensus does not mean that it was not listened to. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:10, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- Commons:Village pump/Archive/2024/09#c-Olksolo-20240923154500-Pigsonthewing-20240922112300 and further comments. This is Andy (talk) 15:24, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- To which there was a lengthy reply; that is not "ignored". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:59, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Bots/Work_requests/Archive_17#c-Nakonana-20250615231800-Pigsonthewing-20250419162500. It also doesn't look like anyone of the people who are actually maintaining the Russian cultural heritage database had participated in the previous discussion, so basically, a decision was made without asking or informing the actual involved parties. Nakonana (talk) 16:23, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- Here's a timeline:
- Initial discussion on VP starts: 21 September 2024
- Bot request opened: 24 September 2024
- Bot operator submits proposal: 20:25, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Bot approved: 14 June 2025
- Your post (which was phrased as a question, not an objection): 15 June 2025
- The claim
"t also doesn't look like anyone of the people who are actually maintaining the Russian cultural heritage database had participated in the previous discussion"
is false. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:56, 28 August 2025 (UTC)- @Pigsonthewing just stop it. --Kaganer (talk) 17:04, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- Stop what? Do you think that you can persuade the Wikimedia Commons community of the correctness of your preferred method by silencing the voices of those who have identified flaws in it? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:32, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, but my question wasn't answered, so does that mean you aren't sure that the moves didn't break anything? Because if you aren't sure then nobody should be surprised that the categories got recreated.
The claim ""t also doesn't look like anyone of the people who are actually maintaining the Russian cultural heritage database had participated in the previous discussion"" is false
Where are you seeing anyone from the Russian WML team in the 21 September 2024 discussion? I'm not seeing anyone. Nakonana (talk) 17:11, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Pigsonthewing just stop it. --Kaganer (talk) 17:04, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- Here's a timeline:
- Commons:Village pump/Archive/2024/09#c-Olksolo-20240923154500-Pigsonthewing-20240922112300 and further comments. This is Andy (talk) 15:24, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- Google translates this as
- Например, я возражал. То, что вы не захотели слушать мои возражения, не значит, что их нет. Olksolo (talk) 15:06, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- ...and Commons:Bots/Work requests/Archive 17#c-Nakonana-20250615231800-Pigsonthewing-20250419162500. This is Andy (talk) 15:26, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- Addressed above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:22, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- "very much duplicates" - AFAIK only exact duplicates should be deleted. "ignoring the previous consensus" - indeed this is untrue, there was (and is) no consensus at all, the bot runner just ignored all objections. This is Andy (talk) 13:09, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
Convenience break
- As i seen, activity of Pigsonthewing in this topic initially was built in destructivity way. It's a bad experience for everyone and it's a shame it wasn't stopped from the start.This activity (including with the involvement of a bot) have already disrupted the rather complex coordinated process of maintaining a large array of images, several times for a long time. Before this intervention, all this did not cause any problems. User trying to "improve" something in a topic that apparently do not understand and have no connection to, and not involved in. While there is a team that has been successfully dealing with these issues for many years. Therefore, I join in the urgent advice expressed above to stop these attempts. I don't call this activity "vandalizing" only because such epithets rarely help and destroy a friendly space of cooperation. But I am already very close to this understanding.In my opinion (based on many years of involvement in supporting WLM processes), this category array should not be redirects under any circumstances. Nor should they be merged with the main category space.There are no good reasons why users who are working together on something and have organized the workflow process in a way that is convenient and understandable for them should adapt their activities to someone who does not understand, is not involved in, and does not competent in it.If any of the Commons' users need more detailed information - with templates, notices and documentations - this is may be requested in normal regular way without "common talks" like this. --Kaganer (talk) 17:01, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Kaganer: I wouldn't have much of a problem with it myself if there was at least an attempt to transfer the information from their external database to Wikidata. They have done the exact opposite though. Any suggestions or attempts to get them to use Wikidata instead has just been steamrolled. They were also aware of the original discussion but intentionally stayed out of it, probably because this was the game plan all along. A small group of users can't just intentionally ignore discussions about something at the time and then later revert or otherwise ignore changes that were made as part of those conversations. That's not how this works.
- They have had more then enough time and opportunities to discuss this and/or move their database to Wikidata though. It's not on Pigsonthewing or anyone else that they didn't. I really don't think it's acceptable to let them get away with it by maintaining their own off-site database or secondary category system just because they refused to do things the proper way. I certainly wouldn't be able to do something like that myself without having the edits reverted and/or being blocked if I did. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:23, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- Really? But it doesn't work the other way around either. You can't just open a discussion with ideas to somehow force other participants to change everything in their work, just so that everything looks "right" to you personally. And here there is no "right" at all. What is right is what allows participants to work together - and successfully - for many years. --Kaganer (talk) 17:30, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- No one was forced to do anything. They intentionally stayed out of the original discussion and didn't do anything to address people's concerns about the current system. All they had to do was acknowledge the issues and takes steps to transfer things to Wikidata. It doesn't have anything to do with "looking right." The categories based on the IDs are duplicates of exiting ones and don't do anything that can't be done through structured data. There's absolutely no reason they couldn't, or can't, slowly transfer the database over to Wikidata so the duplicate categories can be gotten rid of though. You know, the whole following the guidelines and working collaboratively with other users thing. It's not that difficult. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:46, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
They intentionally stayed out of the original discussion
,They were also aware of the original discussion but intentionally stayed out of it, probably because this was the game plan all along.
Those are some very bold statements. Can you read their minds that you know what their intention or game plan was? What happened to AGF anyway? And why would they stay out of the discussion? What would they achieve by that? And were they even informed about the initial discussion? I've not seen any pings to the people who maintain the database on ruwikivoyage or Commons. Nakonana (talk) 18:01, 28 August 2025 (UTC)- @Nakonana: They clearly knew about the original discussion since they have mentioned it several times now in multiple conversations related to this. Also, as I've said, they created a whole separate category system instead of just reverting the redirects. Even though by their own comments there was supposedly no consensus to redirect the categories. How about you tell me why they would do things that way if it's not intentional? Are you seriously going to tell me that they accidently recreated the whole thing without touching a single category that was redirected in process? Or maybe they did it that way on purpose so the edits wouldn't show up on the watchlists of anyone who participated in the previous discussion? --Adamant1 (talk) 18:15, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- All that tells us is that they are aware of the discussion now and/or ever since the changes were implemented. It doesn't says that they were aware of the discussion at the time that the discussion was happening. I might also note that per the time line that was posted here the discussion only lasted three days. Simple category discussions and even deletion requests receive more time than that, while the initial discussion to remodel a gigantic category system was decided in only three days.
Are you seriously going to tell me that they accidently recreated the whole thing without touching a single category that was redirected in process?
No, I'm not going to tell you that, because they obviously noticed that a change had happened and then they might have looked for a reason why that changed happened, and that's how they might have found the initial discussion which was already closed by then. So, them recreating the categories does not mean that they were aware of the initial discussion at the time that the discussion was happening. I still don't see why it would have been in their interest to intentionally ignore the initial discussion. It just doesn't make sense, there's nothing to achieve by ignoring it. The question is why nobody of those who have been maintaining the previous categories was pinged to the discussion of said categories. Nakonana (talk) 18:44, 28 August 2025 (UTC)- @Nakonana: Going by Pigsonthewing's timeline the initial discussion started in September of 2024. It took 9 months for the bot edit to be approved though and the conversation was open for a longtime before that. 9 months is certainly enough time for anyone from WLM Russia to become aware of, and participate in, the conversation or raise objections to the bot edit if they had any. On the one hand it's supposedly this extremely detrimental thing that caused a lot of problems. But then on the other hand (intentionally or not) they completely ignored the discussions for 9 months until they were closed and only raised objections to it on a random talk page just for participants of WLM Russia a year later. You can't have it both ways. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:02, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- The discussion still only took three days, and it's not like anyone pinged anyone to make them aware of the bot request. So how could they become aware of it unless they happened to be following the pages where the discussion and bot request happened? I for one wouldn't even know where to make bot requests. Nakonana (talk) 19:25, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Nakonana: Going by Pigsonthewing's timeline the initial discussion started in September of 2024. It took 9 months for the bot edit to be approved though and the conversation was open for a longtime before that. 9 months is certainly enough time for anyone from WLM Russia to become aware of, and participate in, the conversation or raise objections to the bot edit if they had any. On the one hand it's supposedly this extremely detrimental thing that caused a lot of problems. But then on the other hand (intentionally or not) they completely ignored the discussions for 9 months until they were closed and only raised objections to it on a random talk page just for participants of WLM Russia a year later. You can't have it both ways. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:02, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- All that tells us is that they are aware of the discussion now and/or ever since the changes were implemented. It doesn't says that they were aware of the discussion at the time that the discussion was happening. I might also note that per the time line that was posted here the discussion only lasted three days. Simple category discussions and even deletion requests receive more time than that, while the initial discussion to remodel a gigantic category system was decided in only three days.
- @Nakonana: They clearly knew about the original discussion since they have mentioned it several times now in multiple conversations related to this. Also, as I've said, they created a whole separate category system instead of just reverting the redirects. Even though by their own comments there was supposedly no consensus to redirect the categories. How about you tell me why they would do things that way if it's not intentional? Are you seriously going to tell me that they accidently recreated the whole thing without touching a single category that was redirected in process? Or maybe they did it that way on purpose so the edits wouldn't show up on the watchlists of anyone who participated in the previous discussion? --Adamant1 (talk) 18:15, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- No one was forced to do anything. They intentionally stayed out of the original discussion and didn't do anything to address people's concerns about the current system. All they had to do was acknowledge the issues and takes steps to transfer things to Wikidata. It doesn't have anything to do with "looking right." The categories based on the IDs are duplicates of exiting ones and don't do anything that can't be done through structured data. There's absolutely no reason they couldn't, or can't, slowly transfer the database over to Wikidata so the duplicate categories can be gotten rid of though. You know, the whole following the guidelines and working collaboratively with other users thing. It's not that difficult. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:46, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- Really? But it doesn't work the other way around either. You can't just open a discussion with ideas to somehow force other participants to change everything in their work, just so that everything looks "right" to you personally. And here there is no "right" at all. What is right is what allows participants to work together - and successfully - for many years. --Kaganer (talk) 17:30, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- They have had more then enough time and opportunities to discuss this and/or move their database to Wikidata though. It's not on Pigsonthewing or anyone else that they didn't. I really don't think it's acceptable to let them get away with it by maintaining their own off-site database or secondary category system just because they refused to do things the proper way. I certainly wouldn't be able to do something like that myself without having the edits reverted and/or being blocked if I did. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:23, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
All they had to do was acknowledge the issues and takes steps to transfer things to Wikidata.
I don't know of any real problems with the current process. I also don't understand what exactly is being proposed to "move to Wikidata". In any case, working through Wikidata requires a completely different process organization than it currently is. Everything I know about all this tells me that this is unlikely for a number of reasons.Well, and the main thing - no matter what is "transferred to Wikidata", it will not eliminate the need to maintain the tracking categories on Wikimedia Commons, from which it all began. Because images are uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, and it is most convenient to look at them with the eyes in the category format. Therefore, we need to go back to the very beginning of the discussion, and clearly formulate - what is broken? What exactly is the problem, besides the fact that two or three participants "don't like it"? --Kaganer (talk) 18:24, 28 August 2025 (UTC)It will not eliminate the need to maintain the tracking categories on Wikimedia Commons
No other WLM project uses "tracking categories" (whatever those are). So I don't really buy that they are necessary. You certainly haven't articulated exactly why they are. You've just made a bunch of vague statements about how getting rid of them would cause "problems" without providing any evidence or saying exactly what those problems are. Be my guest and tell me why the "tracking categories" are necessary and what problems would be caused by getting rid of them though. As far as I know literally nothing happened when the previous categories for it were redirected. So I'm genuinely curious. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:52, 28 August 2025 (UTC)- Вот пример отзыва о результате работы бота: "Что делать - не знаю. Просто руки опускаются." (https://ru.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?diff=720497). Вот ещё — https://ru.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?diff=728761. Подобного рода сообщения приходят также организаторам на почту. Olksolo (talk) 19:14, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- Cool a random user said something about their personal feelings of how the bot edit was going. I was hoping for something more that though. Like an actual issue caused by the changes. Not just some random user saying they have a personal issue with it. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:31, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- They are saying that the change broke the bot that was maintaining the files and categories. And the change also broke some galleries and some images disappeared from the tables on Wikivoyage. Nakonana (talk) 19:39, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- Also why are you so dismissive of the problems that the change created? The previous system did not create any problems for Commons, and yet people found the need to change something that wasn't problematic. But now that there is an actual problem with bot operations and maintenance you just dismiss it? Nakonana (talk) 19:42, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- They linked to a comment by another user on wikivoyage were that user said "as I understand it, after the recategorization the display of WLM galleries broke and now they are practically empty." So it's a second hand account of a second hand account of something happening that doesn't even involve an actual example of the WLM galleries being broke. That's not evidence of anything. For all we know it had nothing to do with the categories being redirected and/or there was a simple fix to it besides recreating things. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:49, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- Did you miss the long post in the first link where the problems were detailed? Nakonana (talk) 19:56, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- Are you talking about "Турбулентность на Коммонс"? If so, I don't have time read the whole thing right now. But in the first comment on 22 September 2024 by Ymblanter they linked to the original Village Pump discussion that you've claimed they didn't know about. Then after that it's just a bunch of insults and vague comments about hypotheticals that know one actually linked to examples of.
- Did you miss the long post in the first link where the problems were detailed? Nakonana (talk) 19:56, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- They linked to a comment by another user on wikivoyage were that user said "as I understand it, after the recategorization the display of WLM galleries broke and now they are practically empty." So it's a second hand account of a second hand account of something happening that doesn't even involve an actual example of the WLM galleries being broke. That's not evidence of anything. For all we know it had nothing to do with the categories being redirected and/or there was a simple fix to it besides recreating things. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:49, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- Cool a random user said something about their personal feelings of how the bot edit was going. I was hoping for something more that though. Like an actual issue caused by the changes. Not just some random user saying they have a personal issue with it. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:31, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- Вот пример отзыва о результате работы бота: "Что делать - не знаю. Просто руки опускаются." (https://ru.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?diff=720497). Вот ещё — https://ru.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?diff=728761. Подобного рода сообщения приходят также организаторам на почту. Olksolo (talk) 19:14, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- Someone did say "it seems to me that the use of SDC should be tried to be worked out in any case, since the alternative has unclear chances of success." Which is has been my suggestion. To bad they were apparently ignored or this wouldn't be a thing right now. I do see that there's a section today involving more of the same. Like I said about the original discussion, a small group of users on a WLM Russia forum having their own discussion about it while ignoring the Village Pump discussion. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:12, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- It seems to me that I am - with my 126,375 edits in ru.wikivoyage.org - a somewhat less random user than you with your ideas about how we should work in this project. -- Екатерина Борисова (talk) 21:41, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Екатерина Борисова: No offense, but I don't really care about how many edits you have on Wikivoyage. Different projects and all. It looks like we're about equal in that department on here though. So I'm certainly as qualified as you are to have an opinion about it if that's going to be your metric. Why not answer my question below this about what's so hard about searching for the images instead of just being snarky though? --Adamant1 (talk) 21:48, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- This is a lot of progress, you started calling Wikivoyage a project. and not an external base. In addition, if you bothered to read my remark which was linked by my colleague, you understand that your innovations have disrupted not only our tracking galleries system, but also the categorization of cultural heritage monuments directly in the Commons, and that was my main complaint. And to answer your question: experienced users will always find a way to solve the problem somehow, but, firstly, this applies only to experienced users, and secondly, why create a problem at all? -- Екатерина Борисова (talk) 22:10, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- I still haven't seen any actual evidence that anything was screwed up. That said, I wasn't the one who started the original discussion, made the bot request, or redirected the categories. Nor did I start this. So how exactly am I disrupting anything or creating a problem by commenting on someone else's discussion? --Adamant1 (talk) 22:21, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- This is a lot of progress, you started calling Wikivoyage a project. and not an external base. In addition, if you bothered to read my remark which was linked by my colleague, you understand that your innovations have disrupted not only our tracking galleries system, but also the categorization of cultural heritage monuments directly in the Commons, and that was my main complaint. And to answer your question: experienced users will always find a way to solve the problem somehow, but, firstly, this applies only to experienced users, and secondly, why create a problem at all? -- Екатерина Борисова (talk) 22:10, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Екатерина Борисова: No offense, but I don't really care about how many edits you have on Wikivoyage. Different projects and all. It looks like we're about equal in that department on here though. So I'm certainly as qualified as you are to have an opinion about it if that's going to be your metric. Why not answer my question below this about what's so hard about searching for the images instead of just being snarky though? --Adamant1 (talk) 21:48, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- No other WLM project uses "tracking categories" and this creates a lot of problems for the organizers, editors and contest participants, so I would advise other countries to think about creating tracking categories. I'm a long-yime contributor and editor od Russian part of WLM, but also I participated in WLM and WLE competitions in Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan as a photographer, jury member and editor, and I can confidently say that it is extremely difficult to track exactly who uploaded what and where, especially if the object has not been photographed before and does not yet have its own category. For example there are 1,402 files in Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Tashkent, and each of them needs to be viewed manually in order to understand from the description which object is depicted in the photo. It seems that no one has a special desire to do this big job (maybe you have it, then welcome). While if there were tracking categories in the lists of monuments of Uzbekistan, these objects would be much easier to search and identify. -- Екатерина Борисова (talk) 19:47, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
While if there were tracking categories...These objects would be much easier to search and identify.
simple search for a monument (Seriously, what's so hard about that?) --Adamant1 (talk) 19:57, 28 August 2025 (UTC)- Well, try this for Tashkent now. -- Екатерина Борисова (talk) 22:12, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- It's not only in IT, it is in Wikipedia also as essay: «If it ain't broke, don't fix it». For ten years, the system of categorization by Russian cultural heritage numbers worked and fulfilled its functions without breaking the general categorization system of Wikimedia Commons. And if you leave this issue alone, it will continue to work and not break anything (Seriously, what's so hard to do that?). Никонико962 (talk) 11:08, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- >42K duplicate categories does "break the general categorization system of Wikimedia Commons". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:44, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- By what? Никонико962 (talk) 11:47, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- >42K duplicate categories does "break the general categorization system of Wikimedia Commons". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:44, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- No other WLM project uses "tracking categories" and this creates a lot of problems for the organizers, editors and contest participants, so I would advise other countries to think about creating tracking categories. I'm a long-yime contributor and editor od Russian part of WLM, but also I participated in WLM and WLE competitions in Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan as a photographer, jury member and editor, and I can confidently say that it is extremely difficult to track exactly who uploaded what and where, especially if the object has not been photographed before and does not yet have its own category. For example there are 1,402 files in Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Tashkent, and each of them needs to be viewed manually in order to understand from the description which object is depicted in the photo. It seems that no one has a special desire to do this big job (maybe you have it, then welcome). While if there were tracking categories in the lists of monuments of Uzbekistan, these objects would be much easier to search and identify. -- Екатерина Борисова (talk) 19:47, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
"activity of Pigsonthewing in this topic initially was built in destructivity way"
Please engage in good faith, and assume that I and others do also.- Nothing in your lengthy post makes a case why these duplicate categories are needed; much less a convincing one.
- No-one needs to adapt their activities to me; I personally am irrelevant in this matter. They need to be adapt their activities to the way in which Wikimedia Commons (and the wider Wikimedia movement) chooses to work,
"requested in normal regular way without 'common talks' like this"
I have no idea what this means. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:30, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Nothing in your lengthy post makes a case why these duplicate categories are needed; much less a convincing one.
As far as I know, this has been explained to you several times before. These are NOT "duplicate categories" (even if sometimes their content is duplicated in the main space). These are tracking categories, and this is normal practice for such tasks. --Kaganer (talk) 17:34, 28 August 2025 (UTC)- No, that has not been "explained", it has been claimed; and refuted.
- There are (AFAICT) no parallel categories in any other part of Wikimedia Commons; and especially not in any other country's WLM data.
- This is not normal. If it is, prove it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:41, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
no parallel categories
This is NO no "parallel categories", also.
And I don't understand how this discussion even started. Why are we discussing all this? What's broken? And why on earth did you decide that "it shouldn't"? Wikimedia Commons is big, and in this part it's set up like this. There's no reason why everything should be the same everywhere.
I don't think it's a absolutely perfect process, but it works that way without causing any real problems to anyone. Conversely, all your attempts to improve things have caused a lot of real problems to a lot of people involved. --Kaganer (talk) 17:50, 28 August 2025 (UTC)- On the one hand, we have automatically filled categories (a "flat" set, without complex hierarchical grouping). At the same time, in the setting of identifiers (and in inclusion in these categories) there are always many mistakes, and this is normal. It is for the analysis and elimination of these errors that such categories are useful. But not only for this.
And on the other hand - a complex hierarchy (principally unharmonized), filled manually, and included in the general structure of Wikimedia Commons categories. --Kaganer (talk) 17:56, 28 August 2025 (UTC) - Furthermore, the task of supporting the Russian monuments database is non-trivial in itself and requires solving many different problems. As far as I know, today this is the only team of wiki volunteers that independently supports such a database on a national scale. All the others rely on state-funded resources in one way or another.At the same time, the participants' resources are limited, and when proposing any change, you must immediately offer your resources for its implementation, and very carefully firstly find out what benefit it will bring and what harm it will cause. --Kaganer (talk) 18:06, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
Please engage in good faith, and assume that I and others do also.
I am speaking in the most friendly way possible. This is my evaluation of this entire discussion, starting from the first discussion. I don't evaluate intentions, only results. You approached this topic carelessly, and I am telling you this as your colleague with quite a lot of experience. --Kaganer (talk) 17:37, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
There is an awful lot above, and I didn't read it all, but shouldn't any categories that are only [for] images which were loaded by WLM campaign
(per This is Andy) be hidden categories? Those do not appear to me to be topical categories. - Jmabel ! talk 18:47, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- Exactly. Initially, these categories did not exist at all - they were "red" (and that was enough), until they were created by a bot for some reason.
Currently they are all hidden. See example: Category:Russian heritage ID 0110009000. --Kaganer (talk) 18:59, 28 August 2025 (UTC)- Even if you eschew Wikidata, what does that category give us, that an ordinary search does not? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:22, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- It's being used for database maintenance by bot, and it's used on Wikivoyage. Counter question: what does that category take away from you that you would have if it wouldn't exist? What would you gain from removing it? Nakonana (talk) 19:51, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- "It's being used for database maintenance by bot, and it's used on Wikivoyage" doesn't answer my question. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:01, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- It's being used for database maintenance by bot, and it's used on Wikivoyage. Counter question: what does that category take away from you that you would have if it wouldn't exist? What would you gain from removing it? Nakonana (talk) 19:51, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- Even if you eschew Wikidata, what does that category give us, that an ordinary search does not? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:22, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
Red links
It's worse than I thought. In addition to the >42K categories mentioned above, we have an unknown number of red-linked categories, like the one on File:Збарский би.jpg, Category:Russian heritage ID 7709146000, which are applied by a template and so cannot be removed from the file page. Furthermore, a search shows only one image using that ID. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:14, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- Most likely a caching problem. Will be resolved. -- Alexander 20:29, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:47, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
Russian WLM project was aware in September 2024
On ru:voy:Wikivoyage:Пивная путешественников; Here:
Кому-то снова не нравится система категорий и особенно красные ссылки. Вся история тут: commons:Commons:Village pump#Monuments database in Russia, плюс ссылки оттуда. Я не уверен, что сейчас требуется там что-то отвечать, но если кто-то захочет, пожалуйста, очень тщательно выстраивайте аргументацию и подвирате слова. Во-первых, не все участники обсуждения, скажем так, имеют репутацию адекватных, во-вторых, если занять радикальную позицию, то кто-нибудь решит удалить шаблоны ботом или что-то подобное, а нам потом разбираться. Ymblanter (обсуждение) 15:17, 22 сентября 2024 (MSK)
Google translates as:
Someone again doesn't like the category system and especially the red links. The whole story is here: commons:Commons:Village pump#Monuments database in Russia, plus links from there. I'm not sure that there is a need to respond there now, but if someone wants to, please build your arguments very carefully and twist your words. Firstly, not all participants in the discussion, let's say, have a reputation for being adequate, secondly, if you take a radical position, then someone will decide to delete templates with a bot or something like that, and then we'll sort it out. Ymblanter (talk) 15:17, September 22, 2024 (MSK)
...and subsequent discussion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:46, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
Russians doing it the Russian way
We're been running the Monuments database since 2011. It's still running for quite a few countries. One of the standard functions is automatic categorization and that needs one flat tracker category like for example Category:Rijksmonumenten with known IDs. Russians didn't really participate in the shared service, but instead did their own stuff like Commons:Monuments database in Russia. What they build with the automatic categorization in Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Russia by id is just an unneeded awful hack. It's ridiculous to say that we need both Category:Russian heritage ID 0210035000 and Category:Ust-Kanskaya cave. The key question is if the Russian folks want to work together with the Commons community or not? Multichill (talk) 20:34, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
- What a nice xenophobic comment. This is Andy (talk) 21:02, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
- Your personal attack is not appreciated and just confirms your unwillingness to work together with the Commons community. Multichill (talk) 22:41, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
- I will not discuss anything with a user who attacks my nation in such expressions. Just no need. This is Andy (talk) 10:51, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
- Apparently Russian users on Wikimedia are a nation now. Go figure. I strongly agree with Pigsonthewing that some kind of administrator action is needed here since I don't think kind of attitude should be supported and I really don't see it being dealt with otherwise. There's absolutely zero justification to accuse of Multichill being racist or xenophobic just because they used the word "Russian" though when that's literally all you guys have made this about. I had the same thing happen to me once where someone repeatedly went off about Italian users, Italy, and then accused me of being racist because I made one extremely milk toast comment about Italian users. It's an extremely ridiculous, bad faithed way to interact with people that shouldn't be supported. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:47, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
- I will not discuss anything with a user who attacks my nation in such expressions. Just no need. This is Andy (talk) 10:51, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
- Your personal attack is not appreciated and just confirms your unwillingness to work together with the Commons community. Multichill (talk) 22:41, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
- The whole Russian database is actually listed on the page you linked, and the reports by ErfgoedBot are actively used by our volunteers for adding images to the lists of monuments. As for the automatic categorization, can ErfgoedBot create a category with the English name for a Russian monument and properly assign its parent categories? I am not aware of this functionality. Likewise, I am not aware of the functionality to create information pages for individual monuments (they get information from the same database, though). -- Alexander 21:16, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
- Let me also mention that this level of automatic categorization is achieved for the Russian monuments by feeding the category name directly into the upload link if the suitable category already exists. Therefore, the shared service simply does not offer any additional benefit in our case.
- On the other hand, Commons:Monuments database in Russia mentions various gadgets that were created for editing monument lists and adding images therein. Such tools never existed as any shared service. They have been developed by our volunteers, and they do require suitable tracking categories. -- Alexander 21:30, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Atsirlin: you might have missed that the ID of a monument is already in the Commons database without the need for a category like Category:Russian heritage ID 0210035000. Take for example File:Ust-Kan. Ust-Kansk cave Parking lot.2.jpg, it has pageid 94684600. Based on that you can do a simple query to get the ID:
MariaDB [commonswiki_p]> select cl_sortkey_prefix FROM categorylinks WHERE cl_from=94684600 AND cl_to='Cultural_heritage_monuments_in_Russia_with_known_IDs'; +-------------------+ | cl_sortkey_prefix | +-------------------+ | 0210035000 | +-------------------+ 1 row in set (0,002 sec)
- That might remove your need to have the duplicate categories. Multichill (talk) 22:41, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for the hint, but I think that it does not solve our problem. The goal is getting the list of all photos with a given ID and have this list integrated into JS-gadgets for monument lists. -- Alexander 18:26, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
- There are multiple methods of obtaining a list of all photos with a given ID, already explained to you, and none of them require this duplicate and redundant set of categories. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:26, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
- Please, propose modifications to voy:ru:MediaWiki:Gadget-CulturalHeritageListingEditor.js that would use any of these methods. -- Alexander 21:34, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
- There are multiple methods of obtaining a list of all photos with a given ID, already explained to you, and none of them require this duplicate and redundant set of categories. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:26, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for the hint, but I think that it does not solve our problem. The goal is getting the list of all photos with a given ID and have this list integrated into JS-gadgets for monument lists. -- Alexander 18:26, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
Canvassing
There has been canvassing of this discussion, on ru.Wikivoyage, including ad hominem attacks.
The discussion includes the advice (per Google translation) "It is probably possible to continue this discussion in circles so that it becomes endless, and it would be impossible to sum it up."
and "this whole story is no longer about arguments, but about psychology, strategy and persistence. -"
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:35, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
- Am I mistaken or is one of the users tacitly condoning canvasing and/or dissembling also an administrator on Commons? William Graham (talk) 22:52, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
Given the stated intention, quoted above: "It is probably possible to continue this discussion in circles so that it becomes endless, and it would be impossible to sum it up."
I have restored this from the archives. Haw shall we resolve the matter? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:42, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
September 02
Creating a searchable list of my Commons uploads
I have uploaded hundreds of photos during the past 15 years. Sometimes I want to check on one. Scrolling through pages of them to find the right one is a pain. Other than selecting a page, copying and pasting into, say, Microsoft Word, is there a solution that allows, at least, searching of the file names? Cheers, Simon – SCHolar44 🇦🇺 💬 at 02:30, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
- @SCHolar44: "Hundreds" should be pretty easy (says someone with about 70,000). You can easily create a user category, use Vfc or Cat-a-lot (once) on your uploads list to put them all in that category, and then use "incategory" in future searches to search within that category. - Jmabel ! talk 05:20, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
- Another option is to search for
InsertFileNameOrSearchTermsHere "Author SCHolar44". It however only works for files of which you indicated you are the author (it basically looks up the Author field of the Information/Summary box). --HyperGaruda (talk) 06:09, 2 September 2025 (UTC) - only filenames:
- with thumbnails
- RoyZuo (talk) 08:27, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
- And if you want to get just full list of files to copy paste you can use Quarry: https://quarry.wmcloud.org/query/96868 . If you need a thumbnails from filelist you can create user page with
<gallery> image1.jpg image2.jpg image3.jpg ... </gallery>
- It is manual work, but best i could figure out. --Zache (talk) 10:17, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
- Additionally, Commons:SPARQL query service is great for finding and organizing your images. For example, it's possible to make a list of the filenames of all your images to download and search with any editor. The queries I use the most are in User:Pere_prlpz#Consultes and those should be easy to adapt for anybody else.
- The only drawback is that the photographer needs to be identified in the metadata, but there are some bots doing that and they work fine most of the time - sometimes they miss a few files. Pere prlpz (talk) 14:06, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
- Many thanks for your advice, Jmabel, HyperGaruda, RoyZuo, Zache and Pere prlpz! They are very interesting alternatives. Zache's gave me precisely what I needed and already it's saving me much time. Brilliant! :-) SCHolar44 (talk) 23:32, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
Unidentified vs. unideintifiable locations
.jpg)
From time to time, I work my way through Category:Unidentified locations in the United Kingdom and its subcategories, and identify the locations of those I can.
However, some of the images, like the one above, are never going to be geo-located. Should the be recategorised to the highest knowable level (in this case, "Category:Edinburgh", or put into something like "Category:Unidentifiable locations in Edinburgh.
I'm sure the same issue occurs in other parts of the world, also. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:45, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
- @Pigsonthewing I've been working on the unidentified locations categories too, and this thought also crossed my mind. The trouble is, every image is possibly locatable. For example, I've just added coordinates to the thistles image you linked, which I managed to figure out through a combination of looking at the Flickr user's other images from the same day and dumb luck of plonking myself down on Street View right next to it (I was trying to get the same perspective as one of their other images and noticed the stonework was similar). Sam Walton (talk) 17:56, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
- The idea of categories for unidentified images has always seemed oxymoronic to me. Most of the time they are just used as dumps for images people can't be bothered to better categorize so the parent cat can be empty. The whole idea of the category system is nonsensical and half baked though. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:13, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
- For images like your example, I wouldn't hesitate to simply remove the "unidentified locations..." category, or replace it with a category for the approximate location. It's neat that Sam Walton was able to find an exact location for this one, but it isn't something we should expect to do for every image. Precise locations only really matter for photos which depict individually notable places, objects, or events. Omphalographer (talk) 05:08, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
- Here's the problem, though. You don't want to clog up Category:Edinburgh with the detritus of dozens (or hundreds) of images where all we know about their location is that they are in Edinburgh.
- I've dealt with this extensively for Category:Seattle. Over time I've been able to give at least approximate locations (e.g. neighborhood) to literally thousands of images that were in that category. At the same time, there have been a thousand or so where I couldn't do that. We don't want to lose the relationship to Seattle, but surely we do not want to throw all of what is in Category:Unidentified locations in Seattle, Washington directly into Category:Seattle. - Jmabel ! talk 20:04, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
- For larger cities and other geographic areas with a relatively complete category system, all images should be able to be categorized by subject, so we shouldn't have to flood the broader category even if the exact location within that city/area isn't known. That said, I think "unidentified locations in ..." categories can be useful for maintenance. Perhaps it would be worth retitling as something like "Images of XYZ needing more precise location" to emphasize the maintenance aspect and implicitly discourage images where an exact location is unlikely to be findable. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:34, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
- Precisely. I don't mean throwing images directly into location categories, but placing them into location-based categories appropriate to their content, e.g. "plants in Edinburgh" or what-have-you. And yes - distinguishing between files with unknown locations which are knowable and significant, and ones whose location is unknowable or irrelevant, is important. We don't need to locate every photo just for the sake of doing it. Omphalographer (talk) 20:40, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
- The issue I tried to raise here is the difference between "Images needing more precise location" and "Images that cannot be located more precisely". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:58, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
- I agree that it is a potentially useful distinction. Though as Samwalton9 evidences above, sometimes you can have the surprise of precisely locating something where you never would have imagined it was possible. I've certainly had that happen now and then. - Jmabel ! talk 03:39, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
images people can't be bothered to better categorize
- I do understand Adamant was targeting mostly the uploaders, in this quote from above. If a contributor adds regularly to Commons, they definitely should do this work by themselves. But there are still those who don't know how things are properly categorized in the first place. That is why it often falls to a voluntary user group, "categorizers", who sort images in the right category. However, in this line of work I often come across images that I feel I should really not "be bothered" about much. But I can still push them in the right direction, like "unidentified plants", "unidentified politicians of India", etc., based on the obvious image content.- There ARE experts among the categorizers who specialize in biology or who can read Hindi: Why should I spend 10-30 minutes to educate myself enough to "properly" categorize an image down to the final correct category, when I can easily push it in the right direction, by assigning an "unidentified" category, and continue with 10-30 more files in quick succession?
- So I say that "unidentified" categories are necessary for maintenance purposes. For truly unidentifiable locations, I would not object to a category like "unidentifiable locations", where the really tough nuts can be placed. With those thistles in Edinburgh, I think they are a good addition to "Nature of Edinburgh"... but if we had no clue where in the world they are, I also think it should be okay to just categorize them in the biological category and ignore the issue of location. --Enyavar (talk) 17:14, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
- @Enyavar: Uploaders sure. I was mainly thinking of something like Category:Unidentified logos where we know what 99% of the logos are of (because their logos obviously), a lot of them are already in other sub-categories of the parent, but people just dump images there because they don't want the main category to be filled with images (even though it is already). I'd 100% say in that case it's just pure laziness because people don't want to bother actually putting the images anywhere else. I'd say a category for "unidentified logos" is oxymoronic though because it's inherent to a logo to know what it's a logo of.
- For larger cities and other geographic areas with a relatively complete category system, all images should be able to be categorized by subject, so we shouldn't have to flood the broader category even if the exact location within that city/area isn't known. That said, I think "unidentified locations in ..." categories can be useful for maintenance. Perhaps it would be worth retitling as something like "Images of XYZ needing more precise location" to emphasize the maintenance aspect and implicitly discourage images where an exact location is unlikely to be findable. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:34, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
- Like the category contains File:A. Zerega's Sons, Inc. logo 01.png. We know that's a logo for A. Zerega's Sons. Yeah, maybe we don't know exactly what type of business it is, the country it's located in, or whatever. But so what? That doesn't make it "unidentified" and it would have taken 10 seconds to do a Google search and find out more information about the business so it could be put in a better category instead of just dumping it a meaningless category and calling it good there.
- You could maybe argue for the merits of a category for unidentified plants but it's infinitely reducible and what we are really talking about here is "uncategorized" not "unidentified" anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:28, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
- This was about geographic locations. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:58, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
"images people can't be bothered to better categorize"
—There are also:- Newbies who don't know how we categorise
- People with photos that they know will be of use to us, but they genuinely don't know where they took them (maybe it was thirty or more years ago...)
- People pulling in photos from Flickr, US Government sites, etc., where the location is not clearly identified.
- I have seen examples of all of these in recent weeks. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:58, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
- The categories should be called "uncategorized images of X" or whatever then. But there's always going to be a level, or multiple levels, of locations that any image hasn't been put in a category for. Country, state, city, street, exact address, interior versus exterior Etc. Etc. At some point you have to say it's categorized good enough and doesn't deserve to be in a category for "unidentified whatever" anymore. With geographical locations I'd say that should be at the country or regional level depending. But there's already people looking through regional level categories for images that haven't been better categorized. Everyone knows Category:Edinburgh (civil parish) has image in it that haven't been put in more specific categories and that's one of the reasons they are browsing it to begin with. Having Category:Unidentified locations in Edinburgh (civil parish) or whatever on top of it is just nonsensical and pointless. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:07, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
- But if files are sorted into categories such as “Uncategorized images from X,” aren't they technically already categorized, which means the category contradicts the images? --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 19:30, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
- @PantheraLeo1359531: No, that would basically be a maintenance category, even if it is not currently tagged as such. We don't consider an image categorized just because it has a maintenance category- Jmabel ! talk 19:42, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
- Ah I see, thanks for that :) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 19:46, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
- @PantheraLeo1359531: No, that would basically be a maintenance category, even if it is not currently tagged as such. We don't consider an image categorized just because it has a maintenance category- Jmabel ! talk 19:42, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
- But if files are sorted into categories such as “Uncategorized images from X,” aren't they technically already categorized, which means the category contradicts the images? --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 19:30, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
- The categories should be called "uncategorized images of X" or whatever then. But there's always going to be a level, or multiple levels, of locations that any image hasn't been put in a category for. Country, state, city, street, exact address, interior versus exterior Etc. Etc. At some point you have to say it's categorized good enough and doesn't deserve to be in a category for "unidentified whatever" anymore. With geographical locations I'd say that should be at the country or regional level depending. But there's already people looking through regional level categories for images that haven't been better categorized. Everyone knows Category:Edinburgh (civil parish) has image in it that haven't been put in more specific categories and that's one of the reasons they are browsing it to begin with. Having Category:Unidentified locations in Edinburgh (civil parish) or whatever on top of it is just nonsensical and pointless. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:07, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
- You could maybe argue for the merits of a category for unidentified plants but it's infinitely reducible and what we are really talking about here is "uncategorized" not "unidentified" anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:28, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
September 05
How to handle transitive image extractions?
It's a bit difficult to explain with words, so let me provide an example.
Suppose I want to have this portrait from the book File:Home life and reminiscences of Alexander Campbell (IA homelifereminisc00camp).pdf.
It comes from Page 9 of that PDF. Logically speaking, I would have to extract an image from that PDF first before cropping into the relevant parts.
My concern is, should I upload that extracted image to Commons before cropping (File:Page 9 of Home life and reminiscences of Alexander Campbell (IA homelifereminisc00camp).jpg) and if so, how should I handle using the Template:Extracted from and Template:Image extracted templates? Or does that overcomplicate things and I should just upload the cropped version?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnkinslow (talk • contribs) 06:12, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
- You certainly can upload just the cropped image, but other people might find the uncropped version useful so if you upload it as well it makes things easier for others later. MKFI (talk) 06:33, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
- If the uncropped image doesn't have additional value (such as this case), my usual method is to upload the uncropped version and then overwrite it with the cropped version. That way the uncropped version is available in the file history, but it doesn't have its own file page. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:38, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
- +1 to Pi.1415926535. That is also my usual approach when I'm uploading modified version of a photo I took, as well. - Jmabel ! talk 17:19, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
September 06
Check categories template
This doesnt seem to be working properly. If I change any other categories as well as clicking to check I get a message "You are editing a prior version of this page. If you save it, any changes made since this version will be removed." But that is not what happens. Rathfelder (talk) 09:57, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
- Have you by any chance edited the "captions" of the file before editing the categories? I always get the above message after editing the captions. Nakonana (talk) 10:35, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
- Actually, any structural data. I always reload the page and then add the category. Ymblanter (talk) 16:19, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
- No I'm just editting categories. Rathfelder (talk) 22:11, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
September 07
"AjaxMassDelete"
Is there still such a thing as AjaxMassDelete distinct from VisualFileChange (VFC)? - Jmabel ! talk 01:01, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
- I believe they are the same thing. Even the help page for VFC says "formerly sometimes known as AMD". DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 15:21, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
- @DoctorWhoFan91: You are quoting something I wrote, but I've been told I may be wrong. - Jmabel ! talk 16:59, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
- Oh, lol, sorry then. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 17:15, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
- @DoctorWhoFan91: You are quoting something I wrote, but I've been told I may be wrong. - Jmabel ! talk 16:59, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
- Digging through the page history, it seems AjaxMassDelete was originally created as a mass-deletion version of AjaxQuickDelete. Eventually, Rillke (the creator) added more features to the gadget, and renamed it to “VisualFileChange” (see diff [5]). So, I think it’s accurate to say “VisualFileChange, formerly sometimes known as AjaxMassDelete”, as it is the creator who rename the gadget. Tvpuppy (talk) 22:03, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
- Wonderful, then it is as I thought. In that case, we probably want to remove the mention of "AjaxQuickDelete" separate from "VisualFileChange" on the "Gadgets" page of user-account Preferences. - Jmabel ! talk 04:26, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
- Good work all. -- Ooligan (talk) 04:33, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
- Wonderful, then it is as I thought. In that case, we probably want to remove the mention of "AjaxQuickDelete" separate from "VisualFileChange" on the "Gadgets" page of user-account Preferences. - Jmabel ! talk 04:26, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
Commons 21st anniversary
Commons is 21 years old, so some sweets for the Occasion! EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:56, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
- Happy birthday to Commons! Tvpuppy (talk) 21:36, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
A user or a bot is deleting a category for mexican food
I don't know if this behavior is correct. It's erasing the Category:Cuisine of Mexico category from many images. It seems to me that having that category, or the food category from a state in Mexico, helps people find that image. But I don't know if what it's doing is correct.
this is the record of changes:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2806:2F0:9101:8232:2C72:EB:5C25:6C87
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Koffermejia (talk • contribs) 16:22, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
- One of the reasons I hate dealing with IP edits: no edit summaries and no way to discuss edits that may or may not have a reasonable rationale.
- If categories for specific foods are present, and those trace up the hierarchy to Category:Cuisine of Mexico, this may be fine. For example, File:Burrito Hermosillo.jpg => Category:Burritos => Category:Traditional food of Mexico => Category:Food of Mexico => Category:Cuisine of Mexico, so it's as reasonable to remove Category:Cuisine of Mexico from that file as it would be to remove Category:Food.
- Someone might want to look at these and see if some are problematic, but on the basis of the above, I suspect they won't be. - Jmabel ! talk 17:09, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
- These generally look like good changes - in some edits like Special:Diff/1082293476, the IP is replacing Category:Cuisine of Mexico with a more specific category; in others like Special:Diff/1082301758, they're removing the category when it's redundant. Omphalographer (talk) 23:49, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
Is it necessary to have both these categories?
Is it necessary to have both Category:Portland, Dorset and Category:Isle of Portland? The former is said to be a civil parish, and the latter a tied island, but in practice it is hard to know which category to use for any given image. If we look at, say, Category:Isle of Wight, this combines "island, county and unitary authority area", i.e. both geographical and administrative, into one category. Should the same be done with Portland? ITookSomePhotos (talk) 16:46, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
- Combine them No useful difference. Rathfelder (talk) 22:10, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
September 08
reverse Flickrwashing
Have a question about what's basically the opposite of "Flickrwashing". This image is an official U.S. Navy photo - and it says as much in the image description! - but it's also listed as "All rights reserved". Given this is a goverment image, and is stated as such, it's PD-Navy. Is there anything I should do when uploading it to indicate that the "All rights reserved" on Flickr is invalid due to this? - The Bushranger (talk) 01:33, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
- Media that is PD allows anybody to do whatever they want with it, even declaring that they own rights when it's not the case. Of course, other people are free to ignore such a statement... Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 01:42, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
- isnt fraud illegal? Trade (talk) 23:10, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
- Obviously, there are statutes that define a legal meaning of the term "fraud," but not every lie is a crime.
- In the U.S. (unlike France) there is no law against falsely claiming that a public domain work is your own. There is no law even against having someone pay you for the right to use it: in fact people sell good prints of PD photos all the time, often with no attribution to the known original photographer, but with the name of the individual or company (looking at you, Alamy) that is selling it. As far as I know, they could even put a © symbol on it without breaking any law. What would presumably be illegal is demanding payment from someone who used or reproduced the photo (e.g. in a book), basing your case on a false claim that you own the copyright, though even that would be a tough case to pursue without enough of a pattern of such shakedowns to show it was intentional. - Jmabel ! talk 04:24, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
- isnt fraud illegal? Trade (talk) 23:10, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
- @The Bushranger No, nothing special you need to do, just use an appropriate PD tag when uploading, and don't include a {{Flickrreview}} tag. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:44, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
- You could also rely upon the original publication: https://catalog.archives.gov/id/6400067 Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 01:48, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks all. Image now at File:CH-54A Tarhe sn 67-18430.png. - The Bushranger (talk) 01:55, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
- @The Bushranger: You should have gone for the original JPEG from the US archive... File:CH-54A Tarhe sn 67-18430 DF-SN-86-12133 1985-08-01.jpeg, it has a better resolution. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 02:06, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
- Good find, @Grand-Duc: , thanks. - The Bushranger (talk) 03:25, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
- @The Bushranger: if you happen to involve yourself again with imagery from the US military, I think taht you can safely assume that Flickr is only a secondary source for (older) images. They should most often be available through official archives, which will provide the most extensive description possible. In the past days, I used https://www.history.navy.mil/content/history/nhhc.html and https://catalog.archives.gov/ to search; there may be other addresses. In case you need it, I suggest asking on a EN-WP reference desk, there should be people more knowledgeable than me about these matters. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 04:11, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
- Good find, @Grand-Duc: , thanks. - The Bushranger (talk) 03:25, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
- @The Bushranger: You should have gone for the original JPEG from the US archive... File:CH-54A Tarhe sn 67-18430 DF-SN-86-12133 1985-08-01.jpeg, it has a better resolution. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 02:06, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks all. Image now at File:CH-54A Tarhe sn 67-18430.png. - The Bushranger (talk) 01:55, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
Category:Photographs by Studio Harcourt
At Category:Photographs by Studio Harcourt the following text was removed: "Per the permission ticket from the French Ministère de la Culture, these works have been released into the public domain by their current copyright holders, Studio Harcourt and the French government. This applies worldwide. In some countries this may not be legally possible; if so both Studio Harcourt and the French government grants anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law." can someone read the VRT permission ticket to confirm if this is true or not? See: File:AndreDeGelas-1942-Harcourt.png for instance, which references the VRT ticket. Some of the images also have {{Studio Harcourt / French government}} See: File:Anne-Marie-Peysson-1958.jpg. If the text is incorrect, what is the rationale for us keeping them? RAN (talk) 16:39, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
- @Rosenzweig: and/or @Yann: I think they were involved in previous discussions around the photographs? --Adamant1 (talk) 16:43, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
- There is so much debate already in the archives, one only needs to read it. There is no VRT ticket from any French ministry about the Harcourt photos. There is a ticket from a Harcourt employee (about something else) with an offhand remark claiming that the Harcourt photos which were bought by the French state are in the public domain for some reason. I gave a summary at Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2025/05#Photos in Édith Piaf article. tl;dr: The files were kept because a posse from fr.wp (sent there by canvassing at fr.wp) created so much ruckus in the deletion requests that no admin wanted to decide them, and Krd finally closed them when they were the oldest DRs still open. Not based on the merits of the case, but merely because “There appear a lot of votes for keep and no consensus for deletion. If this keep is wrong, please nominate again with summary of prevailing arguments.” --Rosenzweig τ 16:54, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
- BTW, said ticket is usually referenced with the {{VRT info}} template. So not a permission, but additional information documented in the ticket. User:Ruthven mass-added these templates to the files last year. Which was a bad idea I think because people keep confusing them with VRT permission templates. --Rosenzweig τ 16:59, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
- The passage in the category page was removed because it contained a falsehood. It has to be removed regularly because the same user keeps readding it. The VRT ticket from the new Harcourt Studio is public knowledge, it was quoted initially by the contributor who had requested it ((1), (2)) and in other discussions since then. It was written by someone who at that time was spokesperson for the collection of the new Harcourt Studio and who had previously worked in the French government service in charge of the government collection. Some Commons users insist that they know better than her. They might, or not. The file "Anne-Marie-Peysson-1958.jpg" currently has a VRT permission template apparently added mistakenly by the non-VRT uploader, who should probably have used a VRT info template. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:27, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
"It has to be removed regularly because the same user keeps readding it."
—Why not get it (semi-)protected? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:46, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
September 09
If-then categorization in by-year template
Looking at Template:USA-churchphotoyear, it looks like (a year ago) somebody tried to add an if-then parameter to the categories it adds when used, so that if there's a "Category:Religious buildings in the United States photographed in year" category for that year, it sorts "Category:Churches in the United States photographed in year" under it, but if there is not, it categorizes in "Category:Buidings in the United States photographed in year". The thing is, this isn't working; it's categorizing categories using the template into both parent categories (see for instance Category:Buildings in the United States photographed in 2025, which has Category:Churches in the United States photographed in 2025 both as a direct subcategory and as a subcategory of Category:Religious buildings in the United States photographed in 2025). I'm not sure what's causing this to not work (or if this sort of thing can even work at all?) so if somebody with more knowledge can take a look at this? - The Bushranger (talk) 00:45, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
- @Kreuz und quer: Since their the one who added the code (personally, I'd just delete it if they don't respond). --Adamant1 (talk) 02:11, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
- @The Bushranger I fixed the template, the template was checking if "Religious buildings in the United States photographed in year" exist, when it supposed to check if "Category:Religious buildings in the United States photographed in year". This means the template always categorize the pages into "Category:Buidings in the United States photographed in year" no matter what.
- The reason the church category also has the religious building category as a parent category is because it was added manually (not through the template, see edit where I removed it [6]). Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 02:36, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
- ...and I feel silly for not having noticed that now. Thanks for the fix! - The Bushranger (talk) 03:58, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
- Everyone -- good catch and thanks for the fix! Kreuz und quer (talk) 10:39, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
Finally resolving this cfd
This cfd Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2024/01/Category:Setsumatsusha has been going for 20 months. I really want to try to resolve it. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 13:27, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
September 10
Desysop of A.Savin for 1 year
A.Savin has been desysopped for 1 year after the passed U4C Motion. After 1 year, they may reapply by an election/RfA on Commons. We thank A.Savin for their service. On behalf of the U4C, --Ghilt (talk) 15:42, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
Videos of Recent murders/ violence
So the recent stabbing on the charlotte light rail has been posted to commons as cctv footage I don’t know what it contains but i do know it does show the woman being murdered unsure if it was blurred or not. I could see blood in thumbnails. I get it within policy but the video being posted of a woman’s death is cruel and i think its not really uh aligning with the purpose of commons im just wondering if others have an opinion Cyberwolf (talk) 17:56, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
- I've watched at least one of the videos and it didn't show the actual murder. It only showed the build up (both people entering the train and sitting down) and the situation afterwards (the guy walking through the train with blood dripping from the knife as he was walking). Does this address your concerns? There's also another thread regarding those videos that is particularly asking whether the editing of the videos would make them copyright protected: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#c-Rjjiii-20250909071500-CCTV_and_Iryna_Zarutska_footage_(public_domain_question). Nakonana (talk) 18:30, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah thanks i just didnt want to absolutely ruin my day by watching it. I was unsure if it was a “liveleak” type where its leaked footage Cyberwolf (talk) 19:50, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
- There are other versions of the CCTV here that is uncensored and pretty much showed the whole thing. So, I don’t advise anyone to watch it. Tvpuppy (talk) 20:07, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah thanks i just didnt want to absolutely ruin my day by watching it. I was unsure if it was a “liveleak” type where its leaked footage Cyberwolf (talk) 19:50, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
- As a general opinnion, i think that w:Snuff films and likes should be out-of-scope even though they could be stored to commons by copyright. If we need some visualisations for articles still images are enough. --Zache (talk) 06:45, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
- You might not wanna look up the photos that Commons have of the Gaza genocide if the CCTV videos hurts to watch Trade (talk) 14:36, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
- What is the educational value of this video? Ciell (talk) 16:52, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
- I guess its proof Cyberwolf (talk) 16:54, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
- @Ciell et al.: the answer where the educational value of this documentary footage lies is not really far away. Let's use File:CCTV footage of the killing of Iryna Zarutska (1757445615Qu7sNX2vPea1Fw).webm as example. It shows the actual slashing at 00:06-00:07, the area of the body targetted (the neck near the collarbone in an upward motion, I think parallel to the en:Sternocleidomastoid muscle) and the aftermath - her collapse into unconsciousness and death beginning at 00:22, I think due to a beginning en:Hypovolemic shock. It's hard to tell whether a carotid got injured, though (IIRC, actual forensic experts said on true-crime documentaries that a wounded carotid would show for a rhythmic spray following the heartbeat in the first seconds, before the organ goes into en:arrythmia). The timeframe of the event alone is educational, as objective facts of a sad real-life example that may differ from artistic depictions of slashings, of which fictionalised representations in CSI or movies like James Bond, Kill Bill and others are widespread. Such imagery may be a counter to the en:CSI effect. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 17:25, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
- I guess its proof Cyberwolf (talk) 16:54, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
- What is the educational value of this video? Ciell (talk) 16:52, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
- You might not wanna look up the photos that Commons have of the Gaza genocide if the CCTV videos hurts to watch Trade (talk) 14:36, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
- Anything that's even slightly covered in the news is de facto educational on here purely because of the stories about it. That even goes for extremely mundane things like AI generated slop memes that are posted on Twitter, as long as they are mentioned in a news story. So there's almost zero chance these videos won't be considered in scope if someone tries to nominated them for deletion. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:39, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
- Depends how much people is gonna canvass Trade (talk) 20:26, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
- Your not wrong. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:58, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
- Depends how much people is gonna canvass Trade (talk) 20:26, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
- Anything that's even slightly covered in the news is de facto educational on here purely because of the stories about it. That even goes for extremely mundane things like AI generated slop memes that are posted on Twitter, as long as they are mentioned in a news story. So there's almost zero chance these videos won't be considered in scope if someone tries to nominated them for deletion. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:39, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
How do i block my myselg
im self deteriorating right now can i please be blocked Cyberwolf (talk) 23:47, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
- Calm down, we all do mistakes. Just tell me what the issue is, ok? Trade (talk) 14:34, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
- @Cyberwolf: you can't block yourself, but if you like I can put a 6-month (or whatever) block on your account. If you change your mind, then like any block, you can appeal it and in the circumstances the appeal would readily be granted. - Jmabel ! talk 21:12, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
- I’m calm i apolize Cyberwolf (talk) 02:57, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
September 11
How do I request a category move?
A few days ago I've requested that category:Sao Chingcha be moved by adding a template but nothing happened so I wanna know if I'm doing it correctly. [Also this page (Commons:Village pump) is Wikimedia Common's version of en:WP:Teahouse right? I'm not very familiar with Commons] 🐲Jothefiredragon🔥talk🧨contributions✨log🐉 07:46, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
- Your template was correct.
- But giant swing can quite often refer to other things (try google images), so i dont agree that the category for the thai structure should be moved. RoyZuo (talk) 12:38, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
- Commons doesn't have an exact equivalent of the Teahouse. - Jmabel ! talk 21:15, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
September 12
SVG logos and city seals
Hello everyone! I'm new to vector graphics and I've recently been reintroduced to the threshold of originality in this deletion discussion. I've been on quite a spree making these and want to make sure I'm doing things correctly. Some of my uploads seem to be ok, but a file like File:Logo of Muskegon.svg might be an issue? If some of these files are an issue, would we be able to move them to English Wikipedia? Thank you!--WMrapids (talk) 03:26, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
- @WMrapids: If you scroll a little more then half way down Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United States there's some examples of logos and whatnot that are PD in the United States. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:47, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you Adamant1. I just wish there were a more objective way of determining other than examples, which is why I'm asking for some opinions. Again, I don't want to do anything incorrectly, so thanks for your advice! WMrapids (talk) 03:53, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
- Usually the only way to tell if something is above the threshold of originality or not if you aren't sure is to nominate it for deletion since it largely depends on what other users think. Not to say you should upload images that are clearly copyrighted, but no one cares if people upload ones they aren't sure about and then nominates them for deletion. Worst case, they just get deleted and then you'll know better where the line is. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:25, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you Adamant1. I just wish there were a more objective way of determining other than examples, which is why I'm asking for some opinions. Again, I don't want to do anything incorrectly, so thanks for your advice! WMrapids (talk) 03:53, 12 September 2025 (UTC)