Commons:Village pump/Archive/2024/07
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Urgent: As Media of the Day predestined video with all white preview image
Hello, this is kind of urgent: The video File:Drone video of Keila waterfall and manor in Keila-Joa, Estonia.webm which is selected as Media of the Day for 8th of July, so in just 3 days (without the recent one I am writing this), does only display an all white preview image. Can do someone a fast repair? — Speravir – 23:07, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for bringing this up, but there is a simple solution: we can choose a certain time as the frame that is the thumbnail. Input
thumbtime=
to make a different thumbnail. E.g. [[File:Drone video of Keila waterfall and manor in Keila-Joa, Estonia.webm|thumb|thumbtime=10]] looks like:
- So we should be okay as long as someone chooses a good time for a thumbnail frame. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:34, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- Justin, I know, but this does not work for Media of the Day. I have forgotten to link to it above, but added this just now, or take a look from here: {{Motd/2024-07-08}} – yes, it is a template. — Speravir – 23:44, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- What do you think of this: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AMotd%2F2024-07-08&diff=891850543&oldid=890322763 —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, and ! I think, this should be documented somewhere, {{Motd}} or {{Motd filename}} or both. By the way: Strange enough, even
thumbtime=0
seems to work. — Speravir – 00:07, 4 July 2024 (UTC) - So, I consider this fast resolved. — Speravir – 00:07, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Koavf: Unfortunately your change broke the template, it seems. Wouldn’t Template:Motd/2024-07-08_thumbtime be the right way to handle this? --Geohakkeri (talk) 07:32, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- It's only broken on the language-agnostic version, not the translations. Template:Motd/2024-07-08 thumbtime does not display the actual media. Whatever solution others think works is fine by me. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:35, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- At least now it displays a reasonable title, even if it has an extraneous bit. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:37, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- And now it just looks correct on the template. Great work. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:07, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. Templates can be quite tricky sometimes. --Geohakkeri (talk) 08:21, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you, Geohakkeri for the custom fix. It should in general, though, be available as template parameter. I do not have just gone into the deep details of it yet. — Speravir – 00:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Speravir: No, it was Justin (koavf) who made the custom fix. I fixed it in general. --Geohakkeri (talk) 06:38, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Geohakkeri: I referred to your Special:Diff/891951137 and did not like this approach – I thought of a parameter
{{{thumbtime}}}
instead. But I’ve also said I hadn’t looked into details. I’ve meanwhile noticed that my idea could not work, and you’ve essentially just adapted some code from {{Motd}}. — Speravir – 23:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Geohakkeri: I referred to your Special:Diff/891951137 and did not like this approach – I thought of a parameter
- @Speravir: No, it was Justin (koavf) who made the custom fix. I fixed it in general. --Geohakkeri (talk) 06:38, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you, Geohakkeri for the custom fix. It should in general, though, be available as template parameter. I do not have just gone into the deep details of it yet. — Speravir – 00:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. Templates can be quite tricky sometimes. --Geohakkeri (talk) 08:21, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- And now it just looks correct on the template. Great work. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:07, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, and ! I think, this should be documented somewhere, {{Motd}} or {{Motd filename}} or both. By the way: Strange enough, even
- What do you think of this: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AMotd%2F2024-07-08&diff=891850543&oldid=890322763 —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- Justin, I know, but this does not work for Media of the Day. I have forgotten to link to it above, but added this just now, or take a look from here: {{Motd/2024-07-08}} – yes, it is a template. — Speravir – 23:44, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: --Speravir 23:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Disease-related deaths in Beijing
Everything, I sampled in Category:Disease-related deaths in Beijing, is complete bollocks.
Executions, airline crashes, and old age are not Disease-related. Looks like vandalism to me. What to do? Broichmore (talk) 18:14, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
How do I request the speedy closure of a deletion nomination?
Hi. I have commented on the deletion nomination for an image of an Indonesian Government official. The original reason for the nomination was (in Spanish) "Who is it?". As far as I can figure out, simply not knowing who a person is, isn't a reason for a deletion nomination. So, I believe the nomination to be invalid, but can't find out how to get it reviewed and potentially shut down. In my opinion, it was possibly a bad faith nomination, because as soon as I categorised it (as it hadn't got any categories when uploaded), the nominator responded to say that he was "pleased to have drawn attention to the lack of categories" and would "thank me again when I added the correct ones". I'm not sure what to do with it. DaneGeld (talk) 12:38, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- @DaneGeld: Why haven't you linked it in the discussion here? If everyone is now in agreement that it should be kept, including the original nominator, then any experienced user (not just an admin) can close it as a speedy keep by clear consensus. - Jmabel ! talk 19:25, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- And ideally shouldn’t be closed by an involved user with the DR (other than the nominator). Bidgee (talk) 19:38, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Jmabel - I didn't link the discussion because I have fallen foul of being misconstrued as fishing for comments on discussions in the past, which is apparently frowned upon. I simply avoided it as I was asking for advice, rather than seeking others to comment on it. DaneGeld (talk) 21:48, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- @DaneGeld: in the future: state what you are wanting as neutrally as possible, and link the mention on VP or similar page from the discussion in question, so that you are clearly not doing anything surreptitious. - Jmabel ! talk 21:53, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- I've closed this nomination. Omphalographer (talk) 20:18, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you. DaneGeld (talk) 21:52, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Commons Gazette 2024-07
Currently, there are 184 sysops.
Commons Gazette is a monthly newsletter of the latest important news about Wikimedia Commons, edited by volunteers. You can also help with editing!
--RZuo (talk) 21:23, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Discussion on UAE copyright law before 1992
Hello. Kindly visit Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/United Arab Emirates#UAE Copyright law before 1992 for the discussion. Regards, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
What's the best title for the category
Video game videos by name or Videos of video games by name--Trade (talk) 12:53, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- It seems like similar categories start with "videos", but "videos of video games" just sounds clunky. So who knows. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:58, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think you can get around repeating "video".
- Also there is Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/04/Category:Video game videos. Enhancing999 (talk) 20:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- Another existing option is "Videos related to video games", which seems to be what the main category actually contains. "Video game videos" sounds like cutscenes and "Videos of video games" sounds like gameplay. Why "by name" and not "by game"? Sinigh (talk) 10:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- We already use by name for "Indie video games by name" and similar others so i assumed we needed to be consistent? Trade (talk) 15:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, but what I reckon is that "Indie video games by name" refers to the names of the indie games and, following the same logic, "Videos of video games by name" would then refer to the names of the videos rather than the names of the associated games. But I'm not sure, so take this with a grain of salt! Sinigh (talk) 16:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- We already use by name for "Indie video games by name" and similar others so i assumed we needed to be consistent? Trade (talk) 15:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Acceptableness of having a source template also provide author information
Hello, {{Web source}} is a template for providing links to the sources of files uploaded from other places on the web. It currently has two (undocumented) parameters which are set up to provide author information, |author=
and |photographer=
. This seems a little odd to me because usually in templates like {{Information}} author and source information is listed separately instead of on the same line. For this reason, I am wondering if the current set up with {{Web source}} is inline with general Commons best practices and if it would be worthwhile to deprecate the parameters. For reference, the |photographer=
parameter is currently only used about a dozen times and I haven't been able to find any uses of |author=
. Thanks for any feedback and take care. —The Editor's Apprentice (Talk) 00:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- That's probably why they aren't documented. - Jmabel ! talk 03:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- The template was apparently thought primarily for artworks and to be used within template:artwork and similar templates and situations (although it can certainly be used in other contexts also). The template:artwork has a line "source/photographer", on the same line (which is somewhat strange and impractical, but it's been like that forever and unlikely to be changed easily). Therefore, it makes sense that template:web_source is compatible and includes relevant related parameters. I suppose that, in the line source/photographer of template:artwork, users may find practical to place the photographer inside the same template:web_source rather than outside it. Also, it must be noted that template:web_source is embedded in other templates, such as template:From_Google_Art_Project. Not sure about the parameter "author", but it might have a potential use in some such other circumstances. I would hesitate to just remove stuff from templates like that. Did you think of consulting the creator of the template (who is still active on Commons)? -- Asclepias (talk) 05:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- You're right, the
|photographer=
parameter does indeed mirror the set up of {{Artwork}}, so its not a complete anomaly and it would make sense for them to be compatible since they are often used together. I indeed share your hesitation to outright remove functionality from templates which is in part why I started this discussion. You're also right to ask about my consulting Zolo as the creator of the template. Usually in similar circumstances that is something I do, but since I was thinking about general best practices/acceptability, in this case I ended up going to a public forum first. That said, I would be interested in hearing about @Zolo's intentions and thought process, both for {{Web source}} as a whole and the|author=
and|photographer=
parameters in particular. Thanks to you both and please take care. —The Editor's Apprentice (Talk) 20:06, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- You're right, the
- The template:artwork displays at the front end, "source/photographer", but not within the code, presumably photographer intended there is the scanner, and not the original photographer. Scanners in that sense exist for any and all GLAM products we have. These days we enter the url there, only a few years ago that might have, had to be the GLAM or an individual by name.
- Interestingly |photographer= can be added into the artwork template, so I'll use it from here. Before I was putting that name under artist.
- I'm probably doing this the wrong way, but for author I sometimes put in the author of the book the photo came from, or the full name of the artist/ photographer, whereas in artist I might put in the shortened signed name from the piece in question. Then sometimes I want to use the author field to put in the full unabbreviated name.
- In any event, if the photo came, from say, en:Life (magazine), I would have; Life under the author, after all, they probably commissioned it, the photographer being a staffer.
- I'm sorry, I wouldn’t use this template for anything. It's far too glib. Most of the photographs I upload come from GLAM's, and I use the {{Artwork}} template for them. The GLAM collection information being important here, especially the accession number. I really don't see why we would want to encourage glib uploading of any item, ignoring attribution, and this template, by its brevity, does exactly that.
- We face an oncoming rush of AI derived images of epidemic proportions. The provenance and sourcing of where images come from, and their legitimacy is something we need to beef up, and I fear the project is asleep at the wheel on this issue. – Broichmore (talk) 11:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Must admit. I'm getting tired of these author templates that takes up half my screen for no good reason other than to look fancy--Trade (talk) 15:06, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
[Month] [Year] in [Place] - photos taken on, or photos of events that occurred
I have a question regarding categories [Month] [Year] in [Place], e.g. Category:June 2024 in Kraków. If there's a subcategory belonging to it, does it mean:
- Photos are be taken on [Month] [Year], or,
- Photos of the event that occurred on [Month] [Year]?
For example:
Category contains photos taken on June 2024, but the occupation event started on May 2024. Apart of the Category:June 2024 in Kraków, should it belong to Category:May 2024 in Kraków then?
Dwxn (talk) 11:16, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- If a category like this belongs as a parent category of Category:2024 Jagiellonian University pro-Palestinian campus occupation, yes, I'd also include Category:May 2024 in Kraków. But my own feeling is that it should simply use Category:2024 events in Kraków, and the month-specific categories should be on individual photos. - Jmabel ! talk 19:10, 2 July 2024 (UTC)