Commons:Village pump/Archive/2024/01

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Mass renaming of wrongly identified plants labelled as Nymphaea tetragona

This section was archived on a request by: Jmabel ! talk 22:42, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Greetings, I recently noticed, that almost all images labelled as Nymphaea tetragona are not this species. But there are too many photographs and I am unwilling to write a file renaming request for each individual file. Is it possible to do a mass-rename of all the obviously falsely labelled images? Conan Wolff (talk) 14:53, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

@Conan Wolff: Sure, as long as there is some way for you to communicate which are misnamed, and what they should be renamed to. - Jmabel ! talk 19:34, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel Thank you for your reply! How should I do that? Should I just write a list of filenames here? I think it would be best to rename them to "Unknown Nymphaea species or hybrid 00", "Unknown Nymphaea species or hybrid 01", ...
Would that be alright? Conan Wolff (talk) 19:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
I don’t care for putting “Unknown“ in the filename: categorization and/or the description can communicate that. If someone identifies the species in future, the file(s) concerned will probably want moving again, which circumstance we can anticipate with a degree of vagueness in the names. How about simply replacing “tetragona” with “sp.”?—Odysseus1479 (talk) 20:09, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
@Conan Wolff: I'm inclined to go with Odysseus1479 here. Is Nymphaea tetragona => Nymphaea sp. or hybrid OK with you?
Mass rename has to work with one category at a time, so while a list of filenames here would be fine, it would be best if you break it down to sub-lists in a category. OR, better, if you are good with either cat-a-lot or VFC, it would be even easier for you to add a temporary Category:Nymphaea rename 2023-01 to the relevant files, which would make it super-easy for me to do the mass rename (and then get rid of the temporary category). - Jmabel ! talk 20:51, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel @Odysseus1479 I'm fine with your naming suggestions. For me the main thing is to get rid of the false filenames. I would prefer the "sp. or hybrid" option, because the plants displayed are also likely to be artificial hybrids, and not species.
I don't know what cat-a-lot or VFC is. But I would be fine with adding a category like "Category:Nymphaea rename 2023-01" to mark the files in need of renaming. Conan Wolff (talk) 21:27, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
@Conan Wolff: OK. Add that however works for you, then ping me here and I can do the mass rename. - Jmabel ! talk 21:32, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel I have added the temporary category to 98 files, which should be renamed. Conan Wolff (talk) 11:51, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
@Conan Wolff: Helpful links: Cat-a-lot and VFC.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:29, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
@Jeff G. Thanks! I wish I had used that tool instead of adding the category individually. That wasn't fun at all, but at least I'll know about it in future. Conan Wolff (talk) 16:40, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
@Conan Wolff: the bulk of these have now been moved. The rest apparently create collisions if we try to simply substitute Nymphaea sp. or hybrid, so we'd need to do something a little different. Probably Nymphaea sp. (or hybrid) would not cause a collision on these; would that be acceptable? - Jmabel ! talk 20:15, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel Thanks for the renaming. Yes, that sounds good. Conan Wolff (talk) 20:29, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
@Conan Wolff: Done. Could you please check Category:Nymphaea rename 2023-01, make sure that everything is as you want it, and if it is come back here and let me know to kill the maintenance category. Thanks. - Jmabel ! talk 20:55, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel The files "File:Nymphaea Tetragona 8.JPG", and "File:Nymphaea Tetragona 9.JPG" are still missing, but the rest is fine. Conan Wolff (talk) 21:27, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Convenience links File:Nymphaea Tetragona 8.JPG, and File:Nymphaea Tetragona 9.JPG (please link files when referring to them). - Jmabel ! talk 21:30, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Now did those two by hand. No idea why they failed before. @Conan Wolff: do you still want that maintenance category for a while, so you can easily find any descriptions that need editing? Or should I kill it? - Jmabel ! talk 21:36, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel Great, thank you for your help with this matter! I tried to link the files, but then it displayed the images here in the preview of the comment as images, not links.
The temporary category can go. Thank you! Conan Wolff (talk) 21:40, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
@Conan Wolff: sounds like you were missing a colon in the syntax, after the two left square brackets: [[:<File:FILENAME.EXT]]. - Jmabel ! talk 22:25, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel Ah, thanks for the explanation! Conan Wolff (talk) 22:32, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Jmabel ! talk 22:42, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Revision deletion?

I accidentally uploaded a copy of Thure de Thulstrup's Battle of Shiloh instead of his Massacre at Rock Springs in the middle of a chain of uploads (I like to upload in-progress uploads of restorations ever since I had a file I had been working on for hours get corrupted a few years back). The bad upload is https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/7/7b/20240102005056%21Thure_de_Thulstrup_-_The_Massacre_of_the_Chinese_at_Rock_Springs.png - the main file link is File:Thure de Thulstrup - The Massacre of the Chinese at Rock Springs.png.

The mistaken upload is on Wikipedia already (File:Thure de Thulstrup - Battle of Shiloh.png) so no need to keep it.

I do apologise: I have to use the chunked upload for this as it's over 100MB, and that skips past some of the checks, like the preview and the duplicate warning. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:30, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

@Adam Cuerden: this describes in detail what you did, but not what you want someone to do. Are you asking for a revdel of the version from 23:41, 1 January 2024, or are you asking for something else? - Jmabel ! talk 19:37, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes, if possible. Just want to get rid of the one upload of a different image. Unless it's agreed it doesn't matter. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:07, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
I vote for “doesn’t matter”. We have zillions of old revisions that are “wrong” in some way or another, quite harmlessly.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 20:20, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
In this case it would be a good idea to delete the old revision. It will remove the temptation for someone to invoke COM:Overwrite to revert to the original upload in technical compliance with the guideline, which would restore a duplicate of another file we have stored elsewhere. From Hill To Shore (talk) 20:30, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Done. - Jmabel ! talk 20:42, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --From Hill To Shore (talk) 20:44, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Commons Gazette 2024-01

Happy New Year 2024!

Edited by RZuo (talk).

Commons Gazette is a monthly newsletter of the latest important news about Wikimedia Commons, edited by volunteers. You can also help with editing! --RZuo (talk) 09:12, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Commons 2023 in numbers

The number of files increased from 89,715,735 files on 1st January 2023 to 101,839,339 files on 1st January 2024, which is an addition of 12,123,604 files in 2023, including the subtraction of deleted files in 2023. The amount of files grew by 13.5 % in 2023. The increase in 2022 was 9.917523 Mio. files.

The amount of data (excluding deleted and old version of files) increased from 417.461 terabytes (1st January 2023) to 532.934 terabytes (1st January 2024). This is an increase of 115.472 terabytes. The amount of data grew by 27.66 % in 2023. The biggest increase was in 11/2023 and 12/2023 with 44.26 terabytes. The increase in 2022 was approximately 71 terabytes large.

--PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 11:42, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Ymblanter (talk) 21:28, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Video2commons still down?

Is Video2commons working? I can't seem to get it to work. SeichanGant (talk) 16:52, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Me too. I had to download it and reupload it to V2C --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 18:27, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Assuming this is about a transfer from YouTube, last I've heard is that YouTube is currently blocking downloads. - Jmabel ! talk 19:38, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Dutch east indies birth cert

i have a question about this cert. the date in the lower right corner is 1955 right? then the question is, did the indonesian govt or the dutch govt issue this cert?--RZuo (talk) 11:16, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

There are in fact three dates visible in this birth certificate. (1) The certificate states that Tjiong Joen Foeng (a girl) was born on 26 October 1934; (2) the excerpt is dated 27 Nov. 1948 (date of issue); (3) and legalized ("gezien voor legalisatie") on 25 March 1955. The third date indicates that an Indonesian official legalized this birth certificate in 1955. Vysotsky (talk) 12:39, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
thx a lot. i'm surprised by the document being written still in dutch (using old spelling bandoeng etc.) a few years after the independence. i have no knowledge of the legal customs there, so i was confused. RZuo (talk) 12:45, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
The original document dates from 1948. It was legalised later, in 1955 (using a different typewriter). My guess is that several Chinese citizens of Bandung tried to get out of Indonesia in 1948, and needed official documents to be able to travel. See this photograph, in which Chinese representatives from the city talk to nine Dutch officials in Bandung, June 1948. Sukarno and Hatta declared Indonesia independent on 17 August 1945, but Dutch officials were in Indonesia until December 1949. Vysotsky (talk) 16:53, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
True; major cities on Java remained under Dutch control for most of the independence conflict in 1945-1949 and Bandung was one of them. Perhaps there was no landrechter available for the second signature when the ambtenaar van den burgerlijken stand created the certificate. Considering the situation at the time, I am not too surprised. Then Tjiong Joen Foeng apparently had to wait until 1955 for the signature of the Indonesian successor to the landrechter (ketua pengadilan negeri, handwritten). Fun fact: while most of it is Dutch, there are two typewritten parts in Indonesian: Ongkos Rp. 1.50 (looks like you had to pay 1.50 rupiahs to get this excerpt) and 23 Maret 1955. --HyperGaruda (talk) 20:52, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
thx a lot. that clears up my doubt. i dont understand dutch or indonesian, so i thought someone was still writing in dutch in 1955.
the story behind this is the girl and her father went back to gwongdung, but the father fled to indonesia again after the communists came and purged anyone with a bit of money, but the girl stayed in gwongdung coz she was engaged and then married. the cert was sent to her by her elder siblings. this paper could be an escape ticket coz situation in gwongdung turned really grim since 1950s. RZuo (talk) 03:09, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Category:Bertrand de Beauvau

Another medium-sized category (including a subcategory) consisting entirely of AI-generated images of a quality that might be (barely) acceptable for a children's book, but has no apparent relevance to Commons's scope. Category had no parent categories, which is how I ran across it. I'm certainly not going to do the research to put parent categories on what I consider junk. - Jmabel ! talk 06:08, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

File:Tesla den Hahn abdrehen, Blaues-Band-Aktion gegen Tesla, Grünheide Fangschleuse, Wasserschutz vor Profite! Fabrik-Eerweiterung verhindern! 01.jpg

Oooch Leute, nichts daran ist mehr lustisch. Da habe ich 33 Dateien, bei denen ich leider überall ein e zuviel im Dateinamen habe, die also einfach ent-e-t werden müssen und weil kein file mover das bemerkungen feld in der bewegen vorlage nicht ignoriert muss ich also 33 edits machen damit auch alle 33 dateien ent-e-t werden. und was sehe ich zufällig nach 3 tagen? eine datei wurde falsch verschoben, zweien wurde einfach die vorlage entzogen und die anderen wurden nicht bearbeitet. Informiert wurde ich darüber nicht. ja bei den bewege-anträgen ist mir ein fehler unterlaufen, der wäre durch den medienbeweger aber einfach zu entfehlern gewesen, oder alternativ mir "bescheid" sagen. aber nee, das wäre wohl alles zu einfach. --C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 15:33, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@C.Suthorn: I usually read German decently, but I'm afraid I don't follow that. Are you asking for someone to do something, complaining about an (unnamed?) tool not behaving correctly, or what? Is there some action you are requesting? - Jmabel ! talk 19:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Among other things, "file mover" (in English): do you mean software or a person? "kein file mover das bemerkungen feld in der bewegen vorlage nicht ignoriert" seems to be "no file mover fails to ignore the comment field in the move template" which is awfully convoluted, and I assume means "all file moves ignore the comment field in the move template" but I still don't know what you mean. {{Move}} doesn't have a comment field (unless you mean the "reason" field) which I would expect any software to ignore. So are you complaining that people are ignoring your stated reason? or what?
Feel free to answer in German, but please try to be a little more straightforward, provide links and examples, etc. - Jmabel ! talk

Standardizing Setsumatsusha Categories

Looking at Category:Setsumatsusha I want to make the subcategories more standardized. Some of them are called "Sessha and Massha of X shrine" in various capitalizations. I think we should harmonize the names of the subcategories a bit. Maybe either rename it to Category:Sessha and Massha or rename the categories to "Setsumatsusha of X Shrine". My understanding from the English article is that they are effectively one thing now, and we do not need to distinguish between the two. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 09:56, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

  • @Immanuelle: I would (probably) start a multi-category CfD for this and (certainly) ping the people who've been working in this area. - Jmabel ! talk 19:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
    @Jmabel how do I do that? Also is this more like the teahouse on enwiki or did I post in the wrong spot? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 19:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
    @Immanuelle: Commons doesn't have an exact analogue of the "Teahouse" (which is mainly oriented toward beginners). This project has about 10-20% as many active participants as en-wiki, so we have fewer specialized discussion areas. There's the "Help desk" (where this probably ideally would have gone) and the "Village pump" (here, and not a bad place to ask). The Village pump is usually more for items that might require broad discussion among multiple experienced users, but it can become a bit of a catchall and that is OK. There is also Commons:Village pump/Copyright (specific to copyright questions) and Commons:Graphic Lab for help with retouching, making maps, etc.
    Instructions for starting a discussion of a particular category or categories are at Commons:Categories_for_discussion; there's a section there specifically on listing multiple categories. I'm guessing you know how to look at histories, see who's involved, and ping them.
    Let me know if you need anything else. - Jmabel ! talk 20:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
    @Jmabel I just started the discussion Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2024/01/Category:Setsumatsusha do you have something like AWB to use to add the template to all the pages? There's 64 categories for discussion so it is quite difficult to tag all of them properly. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 22:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Commons:Meet our photographers/People

Hello.

This page Commons:Meet our photographers/People doesn't appear correctly on smartphone. --ComputerHotline (talk) 07:17, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Shaping the Future of the Community Wishlist Survey

Hello community,

Thank you for participating in the Community Wishlist Survey over the years.

We are also grateful for your feedback about the survey and your patience in waiting for a response.

We have reviewed your feedback and made preliminary decisions to share with you.

In summary, Community Tech would like to develop a new, continuous intake system for community technical requests that improves prioritization, resourcing, and communication around wishes. Until the new system is established, the Community Tech team will prioritize work from the recently audited backlog of wishes rather than run the survey in February 2024. We are also looking to involve more volunteer developers in the wishlist process, beginning with the first-ever community Wishathon in March 2024.

Please read the announcement in detail either on the Diff blog or MetaWiki, and give your feedback.

The new intake system will need your ideas and involvement, and we’ll reach out on this topic in the next few months.

We look forward to hearing from you. –– STei (WMF) (talk) 17:34, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Does this have any effect on Commons:Requests for comment/Technical needs survey? (I think not, but just checking). - Jmabel ! talk 19:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Discussion of an edit to Commons:Licensing

Input would be welcome at Commons talk:Licensing#Forbidden licenses and below that Commons talk:Licensing#Poll. Basically, a discussion about how to structure some of the sections on this page. - Jmabel ! talk 19:36, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Usage of files with link to file removed

Do we allow the removal of the link to the file if it is used on a page on Commons? If you use a file on a page it always has a link to the file page with the author and license information. But it is possible to remove this link. Do we allows this to be done for not public domain files? With the link removed we requirements of the license are violated. GPSLeo (talk) 16:25, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

@GPSLeo: I can't make sense of that. "the link to the file" meaning what exactly? Can you give an example? - Jmabel ! talk 22:34, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel: I think GPSLeo means using "link=" (that is, no link) in file display wikitext as per the last paragraph of en:H:PIC#Links. We should not allow this to be done for not public domain files unless the link would be obvious from the context.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 03:25, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable. I'm just wondering if it may be an issue sometimes for images used as part of a template. Or do we confine that to PD & CC-zero for that purpose? Again: is there an example of an actual place where this has been a problem? - Jmabel ! talk 03:30, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
For more context see my edit in https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?diff=836599240 explicitly setting link= to no value (because if we talked about HTML pages there would be no sense in linking a purely decorative embedded image which would be noisy in screenreader software). This conversation would definitely benefit from input by folks regularly using screenreader software. I personally see a tradeoff between accessibility practices versus interpretation of license requirements (and I'd love to be proven wrong). --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 06:35, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
I am not sure how you can talk about "interpretation of licence requirements" as if there is some aspect of ambiguity. One example from your edit, File:PICOL icon Statistics.svg, has a clear instruction in the licence saying, "You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner." Your edit fails all 3 of the requirements in the first line. If this causes problems for screen readers then we may need to consider this issue as a wiki-wide problem - why is it just your one page that is impacted and not every instance of an image being used in a wiki? From Hill To Shore (talk) 09:26, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
@From Hill To Shore: Well, there is "some aspect of ambiguity" as enforcing laws (and thus licenses) relies on human interpretation of requirements to fulfil. Would you say that "You may do so in any reasonable manner" is not ambiguous? In this case, my personal interpretation is that whether linked or not, an image currently does not provide a (direct) link to its license anyway. My edit fails all 3 requirements and in my interpretation all 3 requirements failed already beforehand. You may disagree here if you consider the link to the file page as "in any reasonable manner", and maybe you are right if that is your point of view. Anyway, no strong feelings and just trying to explain my point of view so please feel very welcome to revert my edit. Though I'm wondering if keeping the <span role="presentation"> around and removing the link= could be sufficient for screenreader software and that is why I wrote that this conversation would really benefit from folks regularly using screenreader software. I hope there's a way to both cover license requirements and throwing less unhelpful noise at people who reply on screenreaders to read that wiki page. --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 16:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
@AKlapper (WMF): Thank you for the clarification. The image link to the file details page (containing information on the licence, author and date) is the mechanism chosen by the wiki software developers (and endorsed by the consensus of wikimedia contributors at previous related discussions) to meet the "in any reasonable manner" requirement. The presence of the image link can be debated on whether it meets the reasonableness test; removal of the image link and not providing an alternative link clearly fails the test.
As you are not sure which part of your edit may impact screen readers, it would definitely be of benefit to get some additional view points on this. I'll see if I can track down any groups interested in accessibility issues on other wikis I frequent, to see if they are willing to provide input. From Hill To Shore (talk) 17:15, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
I have asked at en:Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Advice on impact of image links on screen readers. From Hill To Shore (talk) 17:32, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
some pd design can be made to replace these files, while an investigation into commons' compatibility with screen readers is carried out.--RZuo (talk) 11:16, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
@AKlapper (WMF) and From Hill To Shore: I'm a screen reader user. On my home project of the English Wikipedia, we actually have guidelines about this very topic as part of the alt text guideline. When an icon image needs attribution, alt text like "About icon" is just as good an option (from a screen reader perspective) as no image link at all. Graham87 (talk) 12:24, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
  • I sympathize. I know from experience that for screen readers (of which there are a great many in this world), the shorter the description the better. Simple and direct descriptions are good. Krok6kola (talk) 03:04, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Photo signature help

Can anyone make out the photographer's name at the lower left of the photo at File:The Town Crier, v.15, no.51, Dec. 18, 1920 - DPLA - 336742dee91f10f14dff73ed6052b2f7 (page 1).jpg? Seems to be hyphenated, so maybe a studio name. Last part is "Connelly", so I'm thinking James Hargis Connelly (right era & subject matter), but the only hyphenated studio name we have for him is "Hixon-Connelly", and that's not what this appears to say (nor does it look much like the mark/signature at File:Stage actress Mabel Bert (SAYRE 6602).jpg). Location isn't entirely clear either. Maybe "K.C." ("Kansas City", which would fit for him), but maybe not. Any help would be welcome. - Jmabel ! talk 02:54, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@Jmabel: I would not be surprised if the beginning of the signature was cut off.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:26, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
I made a crop of just the photo and searched using TinEye and Google Images, but found no hits. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:12, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Agreed. - Jmabel ! talk 19:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel: it could be the studio just changed their logo/signature over time. The ones in File:Lillian Rosedale, stage actress (SAYRE 8715).jpg and File:Vaudeville actress Janet Bonni (SAYRE 9610).jpg actually do look quite a lot like the one in the Town Crier. --HyperGaruda (talk) 19:50, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
@HyperGaruda: so do you think we should mention him as the likely photographer & add Category:James Hargis Connelly? - Jmabel ! talk 19:56, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel: oof, Category:Hixon-Connelly Studio is as specific as I would dare to go. Which of the two photographers, Hixon or Connelly, clicked the button, I cannot deduce from this. --HyperGaruda (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
At some point between 1918 and 1922, Hixon bought out Connelly but appeared to retain the studio name. Connelly went on to make entertainment photos for the Chicago Tribune.[1] As this poster is from 1920, the photo (with an unknown date) could have been taken by the studio (with or without Connelly), by Connelly acting independently of the studio or by another photographer with the same name (though I think this last option is less likely). From Hill To Shore (talk) 14:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Resurrection of Featured media candidates

Hi, It seems that the accession of Steamboat Willie into the public domain resurrected Commons:Featured media candidates. Please join. The bot archiving the candidates is dead, so we need replacement. There is also an issue with these successful candidates (Commons:Featured media candidates/File:Sunset on Halfdome timelapse Yosemite CA 2023-07-15 20-11-06 1.webm, Commons:Featured media candidates/File:Henry Purcell "Dido & Aeneas" (extrait) - Les Arts Florissants, William Christie.webm), which display Please add gallery! although the gallery is there. Any idea? Yann (talk) 20:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Flickr2Commons stalled?

I just set up a batch of 100+ files to upload with Flickr2Commons, and hit the upload button. The first five files were highlighted blue, as expected... and then nothing. NO files have been uploaded, and no error message has been displayed. Anyone else having issues? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:56, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Flickr2Commons is now working again. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:42, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Glamorgan

Glamorgan is also not working. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:05, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Long-term file warring regarding scope of Asia

There's been over a decade of slow edit warring as to whether western New Guinea should be included in File:Asia (orthographic projection).svg, with it currently being included. I feel there needs to be some kind of discussion to settle the matter. In my opinion, we shouldn't include it, because it's geographically not part of Asia (see [2]), and we're not including Western Thrace as part of Asia on the map, which nobody seems to have issue with. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:51, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Just my opinion, but it is part of Asia due to part of the island being Indonesia. But other people would disagree with that. So it really depends on who's definition your going by. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:56, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
But we're going off the geographical not geopolitical definition no? New Guinea forms part of the same landmass as Australia [3], and most sources I have seen do not consider it part of Asia. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
I would say, not neatly either geographical or geopolitical. The purpose of categories is to help people find stuff. If people are likely to look there, it should be there. Categories are about navigation, not ontology. - 22:31, 3 January 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmabel (talk • contribs)
This is not about categories, it's about whether a portion of a particular widely used orthographic map image should be coloured green or not. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:59, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
  • @Hemiauchenia: got it. Sorry for commenting when I'd merely skimmed. - Jmabel ! talk 00:28, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
This is why COM:OVERWRITE was created. They should be separate files and each user should be able to choose which one they want to use.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:01, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes, which is why I created File:Asia (orthographic projection) without New Guinea.svg by forking off a previous file version. The question is, should the title of the original file be changed? Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:20, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes, they should be separate files and they should be clearly labeled to explain the difference (which means renaming the original file). However, unless you have a bot update all the transclusions, you'll need to have a redirect from the original name in order to not disrupt the numerous transclusions. Nosferattus (talk) 22:42, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
No, original file should not be renamed, see Commons:File renaming. You should of course clearly label it. It's up to the downstream users to decide which file to use. Multichill (talk) 11:54, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Template:Taken with

I'm brining this template up because the File:Asian Highways 1 South Korea.jpg was using {{Taken with}} in the Author field of the Information template. This makes it impossible to retrieve reasonable information from those fields to present in other interfaces. As I was looking at this case, I wondered where it SHOULD go. It's documentation page says it should go into the "Source" parameter. That seems wrong to me. The template has nothing to do with where the uploader got the image from, it's plain metadata. Then the documentation page gives an example where it states that it should be in the "Other fields" of the Information template. That seems slightly better. Where do you all think this kind of metadata should go (other than in Commons Metadata). —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:41, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@TheDJ: That info was added in this edit 09:24, 9 April 2021 (UTC) by LERK. What would you do about the 140,570 transclusions?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:32, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
For clarity, the information wasn't added in that edit. LERK removed "Category:Taken with..." and replaced it with the template. From Hill To Shore (talk) 14:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Hmm, according to the documentation, the template is also not to be used directly.. bit of a mess I'd say. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:17, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
I can see the logic behing having {{Taken with}} in the source field of {{Own}} photos. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 05:20, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

How often have mp3 and mpeg-2 been used lately?

Ever since mp3 and mpeg-2 patents have expired in the US, I was hoping that mp3 and mpeg-2 would become more popular here than webM and ogg. Why hasn't it been the case yet? Why still use webM and ogg over mp3 and mpeg-2? George Ho (talk) 18:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC) (comment moved from above)

Can you explain what you want? mp3 is an audio format. webm is used nearly only for video, ogg can be oga an audio format or ogv a video format. Both ogg and webm are younger formats than mp3 and therefore superior. For audio in really good quality on commons you can use wav, opus or flac. for video in really high quality you can use webm with AV1 encoding or at least VP9, but even VP8 is much better than ogv. MP3 is often used by new users for pirated content and therefore forbidden for new users. It would be good to completely phase out mp3, mpeg2, ogg, oga, ogv and webm with VP8 or VP9 with the only exception of imported media, where any of this formats is the original format in which the media has been published and other versions in other formats have been derived from that original. C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 19:25, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Okay, outside Commons, I really thought mp3 files have been popular due to mass use. Actually, I've not uploaded audio and video files much in this project. I've uploaded short audio clips (i.e. samples) mostly in mp3 format as mp3 is more accessible especially on mobile and more compliant with Wikipedia's policy on unfree content. Also, I really want to use popular formats that are accessible and easy to use on desktop and mobile. I assumed mp3 and mpeg2 are popular due to mass production.
But then you discussed audio quality as more important than and topped it over convenience and popularity and familiarity. If you're very concerned about superior quality, then I'd love to use VP8 and VP9 formats. However, I really want to use formats that the masses can use especially to download or stream well without compatibility issues. George Ho (talk) 11:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
Note: for this and other reasons it would be good if files could be converted to another format in a new version. That's also the problem had (and still have) at this broken file here. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:55, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
Transcodes weren't done, I reset them. Yann (talk) 12:08, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
Transcodes didn't change the issue, so I reuploaded it from YT, but File:Smartphone Becomes Microscope.webm isn't in Full HD, and I don't understand why. It works fine however. Yann (talk) 13:08, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
OK, I figured that out. Yann (talk) 13:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
MP3s aren't super popular anymore to begin with. Even with pirating music since most people do it through YouTube or sharing their Spotify accounts now. I don't know when the last time I've seen or used an MP3 file for anything though. Mpeg-2 is about the same. Although I don't really watch videos outside of streaming them. So that could just be me, but I still feel like both are super outdated. At best they are just pointless and at worst MP3s encourage piracy. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:59, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
"more accessible"? Every web browser will play webm, wav, opus, flac. What mobile device that can make use of wikipedia can handle mp3 and mpeg2, but not webm, wav, flac, opus? C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 12:06, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
WebM is playable on Android version of Chrome (fully) and iOS version of Safari (partially), but that varies, depending on whichever browser app version you are using. (No word about Chrome on iOS or Firefox on iOS.) Same for opus; that varies as well. The rest can run well on mobile devices. George Ho (talk) 14:31, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
Maybe you overlooked what I did write "mobile device that can make use of wikipedia" (Website, App, Kiwix App). Wikipedia comes with its own MediaPlayer. That there is software available for Android and iOS that will not work with this or that format is a different issue. If I want to create derivative works from a video or audio from commons, I will use a software that can do the job. Maybe you overlooked that you do not get the uploaded Video or audio from wikipedia but a transcoded version (and for videos that is webm (VP9) or streamed VP9 at the moment) - audio also gets transcoded and played in the MediaPlayer. Example File:I-15bis.ogv is an ogg video, if you scoll down you can see it is transcoded to VP9. C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 18:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
I tested out Mediawiki's media player on Safari with one device running iOS 15 and another running iOS 12. Somehow, the player is not loading properly, or its loading time has gotten very slow and won't load content. I also tried transcluded versions, but the content still won't appear. I even tried an older version and then newest/latest version of Chrome on iOS. Same issue persists. I guess the video player works on iOS/iPadOS 16 or 17 then. George Ho (talk) 00:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Asahel Curtis

It looks like tens of thousands of previously undigitized images by Asahel Curtis will be digitized and placed online over the next year or so. The bulk of these should be in the public domain. Would anyone like to form a plan to import these as they become available? - Jmabel ! talk 21:43, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Fæ can do it. Oh, wait. Hm… -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 05:10, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
@Tuvalkin: yeah, but lacking a time machine I'd prefer having this done by someone who currently has some involvement with Commons. I figure they are a lot more likely to get around to it.
BMacZero, Dominic, is this something either of you could do, or could suggest who would? Does either of you have access to Washington State Historical Society content? - 07:37, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel: You may ask at Commons:Batch uploading --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 21:11, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
@PantheraLeo1359531: a reasonable idea, but probably premature since these are just starting to be digitized. I was hoping that one of the people who is already working with archives in the region might already have a relevant connection. - 01:33, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Mass rename requests

What to do with the 20,000 requests, a set (as far as I can see). I'm not going to rename that, it's weeks of work, or more. I don't even know if these requests are good. This is more for a bot, if it should be renamed, also if it should be declined. Grtz. - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 16:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

  • @Richardkiwi: care to provide a link to whatever you are talking about? - Jmabel ! talk 19:38, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
    @Jmabel: there is an awfully large amount of rename requests according to Category:Rename, in particular in Category:Media requiring renaming - rationale 4. I think that also explains one of C.Suthorn's complaints in the preceding section, about hardly anything having been done about his requests after three days. There are just not enough filemovers to deal with this flood. --HyperGaruda (talk) 20:11, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
    I don't think anyone saw 20k rename requests coming when the requester got the advice in Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2023/12#staff situation. --HyperGaruda (talk) 20:20, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
    • Ah, all that Sanborn stuff. Didn't we say that if that was to go forward it should be done by a bot? - Jmabel ! talk 20:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
      If the rename requests are valid, I won't oppose a bot-action but it is really a tough job to discern what is good and what is bad for a bot. However, since these Sanborn stuff requests are coming from a single user, I guess a few requests should be weighed in manually? If that's a good sign, let's get any bot to do this tedious job. ─ The Aafī (talk) 20:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
      There are 196870 files that need renaming from the old format.
      And then there are a few ten thousand that need renaming from new format 1 to new format 2. This is due to a mistake i made during the initial upload.
      User:Nowakki/test2 illustrates why the old format is inferior. For 1885 and 1888 the Library of Congress sequence number happens to be the same as the plate number, for later years this is not the case. Internally these maps only use plate numbers. One would have to click on a few files first to find what they are looking for. I don't think many people use these maps as they are now.
      This is not a big deal. the Library of Congress provides the plate number for all files. This requires little manual intervention.
      User:SanbornMapBot/teststate is a preview of the state index, to be prepended to the top level categories. SanbornMapBot (talk) 20:54, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
      Also I should note that the LoC metadata is very reliable. From my experience the error rate is less than 1% (haven't found one yet). The plate number, the year and the volume are also printed in big-ass letters on each plate. It is easy to verify that a random sample of new file names is correct. SanbornMapBot (talk) 21:05, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
      Not everything that is wrong or is in an old format, has to be renamed. Like 10k, for example, it must be really necessary. Big requests must be done carefully or declined when not really necessary. For small amounts, it's not a big deal. - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 21:11, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
      I should have worked more slowly.
      On the other hand, i have dealt with 5 different bureaucrats already, who don't seem to talk to each other and you guys haven't even made up your mind whether you want any of this.
      The renames will be done in 2 or 3 days and they will eternally prevent headaches for each and every customer. SanbornMapBot (talk) 21:17, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
      To summarize: sometimes requests have to be approved, sometimes they have to be declined. The number of files in general needs to be considered.
      At this point the above has to be applied to the present situation. SanbornMapBot (talk) 21:30, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
These renames are not in line with Commons:File renaming. Point 4 was always for files like File:BSicon BHF.svg. File:Sanborn Fire Insurance Map from Aberdeen, Monroe County, Mississippi. LOC sanborn04422 004-2.jpg is a fine file name, maybe not the best. We only rename files when something is wrong with the old name, not to improve it. The whole point of this option was old templates that relied on file names to function. With LUA these days that's no longer a valid point. We should probably remove it as a rename request reason. Multichill (talk) 17:43, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Well I have an SQLite3 database that allows me easy mapping from plate number to the filename.
We can distribute the database, so people can install it on their laptops and phones.
Or we let them click on a few files when they have a plate name in hand and try to narrow down where the corresponding file is. Since commons doesn't do improvements, i guess that is inevitable then. SanbornMapBot (talk) 18:07, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
If someone gives a green light, what Multichill already does a little, I want to help 'declining' them. As you can see, I already doubt if they should be renamed. Or let a bot do that, but I don't know how that works. If I see consensus, I can help. - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 18:12, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
I have read all this discussion. I would decline all per @Richardkiwi as well as @Multichill, but would keep rename reason #4.
My concern is the use of the word "plate" in each file name, instead of the word "sheet." Every Sanborn Fire Map file webpage at the Library of Congress uses the word "sheet" or "sheets" for a map set.
Here [4] is a typical example of a Library of Congress JSON manifest page, where this object (map) description contains the word "sheet(s)"- not "plate(s)." -- Ooligan (talk) 08:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
There are already more than 200,000 new file uploads that use the word plate.
I don't think you'll get much support for a mass rename addressing a minor technicality.
Plates are illustrated full page sheets and as far as i know the use of the word in map books is common. The json file also calls a sheet "Page" in one place, "Canvas" in another and "Image" in yet another. Nowakki (talk) 11:20, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
We're not going to rename 200,000 files, I don't think Ooligan means that. - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 13:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
On the other hand: How would you solve the problem with LUA? Maybe that would work. SanbornMapBot (talk) 19:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

(common moved to below) Krok6kola (talk) 21:06, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Sanborn Maps. Time to Vote.

The Problem:

User:Nowakki/test2 illustrates why the old format is inferior. For 1885 and 1888 the Library of Congress sequence number (the number after the minus sign in the filename) happens to be the same as the plate number, for later years this is not the case. Internally these maps only use plate numbers. One would have to click on a few files first to find what they are looking for. I don't think many people use these maps as they are now, without an index they fail basic usability standards (are ass-backwards for no good reason).

Old format: c:File:Sanborn Fire Insurance Map from Tacoma, Pierce County, Washington. LOC sanborn09345 003-4.jpg

(the 3 numbers are all Library of Congress - generated identifiers: town_id, volume_and_year_id, file_sequence_number) approximately 200,000 such files downloaded in 2018 currently exist

New format: c:File:Sanborn Fire Insurance Map from Gadsden, Etowah County, Alabama, 1951, Plate 0012.jpg

approximately 300,000 such files downloaded in 2023 currently exist

To reproduce the problem, try to find plate 13R of volume 1 of 1896 in c:Category:1896 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map from Tacoma, Pierce County, Washington. Record the number of seconds spent.

Then find plate 201 of 1943 here c:Category:Sanborn Fire Insurance Map from Gadsden, Etowah County, Alabama

Plate numbers are used to navigate the Sanborn maps as illustrated here:

There are approximately 550,000 files of which ca. 250,000 would be renamed. The rename would be entirely automatic, with the exception of workarounds for minor inconsistencies that i might fail to notice (and which exist in the data set regardless of this action). Verification is based on random censuses of the file structure.

A valid answer can be to oppose this proposal on the grounds that redirects can be created instead of files renamed. This solution is complicated: the redirects have to be in the categories the user clicks through. Where would the actual files reside? If files are renamed, the redirects left behind for legacy external linkage support don't have to be put into categories.

Poll ends Monday, January 8, 23:59 UTC

Should the Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps be renamed?

 Support SanbornMapBot (talk) 06:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Can you maybe summarize why you think the maps need to be renamed and the pros and cons of both option for us lay people who weren't involved in the original discussion? --Adamant1 (talk) 06:11, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
original post has been updated SanbornMapBot (talk) 06:24, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
@Nowakki: Please login as Nowakki when discussing.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 06:31, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
@Jeff G. what would be a reasonable time frame for the poll? I have never done this before?
8 January 00:00 UTC? Nowakki (talk) 19:22, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
@Nowakki: "Poll ends Monday, January 8, 23:59 UTC" looks reasonable.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 08:30, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
@Nowakki: Above all, I would like a clear statement of the goals of this renaming project. "Uniformity" for its own sake is not enough. What is it that some user (including possibly editors) will want to do that you are trying to make easier? We cannot judge a proposal without understanding what it intends to accomplish by way of actual use cases. - Jmabel ! talk 21:33, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel You have been involved in this discussion for weeks. You still don't know what I am trying to do?
How much time have you spent working with Sanborn maps on commons? Nowakki (talk) 03:35, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
@Nowakki: I've been involved in several hundred discussions over the last few weeks. This one may be top of mind for you, but that does not mean it is top of mind for everyone.
I see you interspersed an edit above giving "new" and "old" formats. It would probably be useful to show what the same file would be in the two formats. It is not obvious (to me at least) how (or even whether) some of the numbers in each of the two examples relate to the other example. Also, is the "new" format the one you are trying to move toward, or is it just something more recent than the "old" format?
As for how much time I've spent working with Sanborn maps on Commons: probably in the range of 20 hours at one or another time, mostly the maps for Seattle. I found the naming scheme for them those particular maps to be a total clusterf**k. Among other things, it is almost impossible to determine what we do and don't have. I've also spent significant time over the years dealing with Sanborn maps elsewhere than Commons, including in physical form in libraries.
And, again, I don't think I've seen any clear statement of goals for this. What are we trying to accomplish for what use cases? I think the cart may be in front of the horse. I agree something needs to be done because the current state is a mess, but I'm not yet convinced of what needs to be done, or even that renaming is the correct solution. - 07:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
To me, User:Nowakki/test2 illustrates nothing. It is almost completely opaque as to what it represents, and what it is saying about it.
I agree from experience that many of the Sanborn map file names are a mess, and there are a wide variety of conventions. I'm not sure we need a single convention across all Sanborn maps, but it would probably be good if the ones from a given locale (and certainly a given locale + year) all followed the same convention.
Could some of this be achieved with gallery pages?
I don't understand this proposal in the slightest. "Should the Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps be renamed?" Renamed to what? Nosferattus (talk) 22:39, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
@Nosferattus: there has been some discussion over the last few weeks of Nowakki's proposal to impose a consistent file-naming scheme on the many Sanborn maps uploaded from the Library of Congress. - Jmabel ! talk 00:03, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
@Nosferattus @Krok6kola
I have explained it further in the original post. Nowakki (talk) 03:29, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
@Nosferattus: Where is the original post? User:Nowakki/test2 makes no sense to me. I am very familiar with the Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps, but I am confused by your format. It seems to assume those maps are useful only for their dates. Did you overwrite the files of Fæ? Also, you changed the descriptions. I can't tell from the file histories what happened. Where are the files Fæ uploaded? Krok6kola (talk) 04:28, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
@Krok6kola original post == first post in this thread ("the proposal").
I did not overwrite any files uploaded by Fæ. They are all still there. A few hundred have been haphazardly renamed some days ago.
I used a simpler metadata scheme than Fæ for new uploads.
Maybe the confusion clears up when you re-read the updated proposal. Nowakki (talk) 04:38, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
Admittedly I'm not super involved in the area, but it doesn't make sense to me either. Even after reading the updated proposal. You say in the proposal that "I don't think many people use these maps as they are now" but what evidence do you have that no one uses the maps with how they are currently named or that your proposed solution will actually fix the problem if it even is one? Personally, I'm not a big fan of overly long and complicated file names either, but I fail to see how your proposal does anything in that regard except for superficially changing a few characters around. I highly doubt anyone is searching for maps based on their plate number to begin with though. And don't even get me started on the whole "map from" thing or including the town, county, and state (along with the year at the end of it) in the file name. Except to say it's convoluted either way regardless. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:59, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
@Adamant1: if you don't think anyone searches for maps based on their plate number, that probably means you don't work much with these. (1) When a map like this is referenced in an article or book, plate number is almost always part of the reference. If it's anything other than a Wikipedia article with a link to Commons, you are going to be looking for year + city + plate number. (2) There's an index map at the front of each volume or set, which shows the breakdown to plates. If you want to find the map for a particular place in the city, at least in the paper version by far the sanest way to do that is to start with the index map and go to the correct plate. It would be very convenient to easily do the same here on Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 07:32, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes. This is what i want. Nowakki (talk) 07:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel: I said I didn't ;) Anyway, I was mainly thinking about randos looking for maps of their local town or whatever. I image most people wouldn't know or care what the plate number is. Mainly just the date and location, both of which don't rely on the plate number. Although admittedly it's useful for multiple maps of the same area in order to find the "zone" the map covers, but you'd have to know that to begin with and how exactly it's relevant. That information isn't available in a file name though. Like if I as a lay person who just wants a map of Gadsden, Alabama how am I suppose to know what part of the town Plate 0012 corresponds to? I wouldn't. So it's not really usefull IMO. At least not in the file where there's a need to not be overly descriptive. The same goes for the county BTW. Regardless that information would be fine in the description or as part of a gallery page. But its just needless in the file name. But then so is the original "LOC sanborn09345." I'm not advocating for either one. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:09, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
c:File:Sanborn Fire Insurance Map from Gadsden, Etowah County, Alabama, 1943, Plate 0000a.jpg
c:File:Sanborn Fire Insurance Map from Gadsden, Etowah County, Alabama, 1943, Plate ind1.jpg
plate numbers are used to navigate these maps. Nowakki (talk) 08:26, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
the County names should be included to disambiguate town with the same name in different counties of one state. Nowakki (talk) 08:29, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
Plate numbers are used to navigate these maps. No, really? I know they are there used to navigate the maps. But people can do the same thing with the current naming system. So the question is what makes this better then that, or at least better enough to justify renaming a couple of hundred thousands files, and I'm not really seeing the benefit. At least IMO if you going to do something on that scale it should have exponential benefit, or at least some.
Your proposal seems to be a wash at best though, if not a net negative since I'm sure there's people who are already finding and using the files with the current system. Like I asked you how you know that people aren't using them now and you've provided zero evidence for that. So this whole thing seems more like personal preference then an actual issue. Or at you said anything so far to prove it is was. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:42, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
how long did it take you to find plate 13R of volume 1 of 1896 in c:Category:1896 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map from Tacoma, Pierce County, Washington? Nowakki (talk) 12:22, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
Like half a minute if even and I don't even browse maps that way to begin with. You see the plate numbers in the thumb nails though and it just makes sense that if your looking for plate number 13 it would be about 1/4th of the way down. Although I still don't think plate numbers are how must people search for maps to begin with. Your way over selling them. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:44, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
I wonder how you do it without the plate number. In the overview map and the index to streets and specials, that's what you HAVE to use. Nowakki (talk) 12:57, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
@Adamant1: I mean literally: how do you do it? Is there some alternative way to access the maps that I don't know about where the index is not needed?
My point here is that i wrote me a couple of scripts to work comfortably with the maps and make the translation, using the mapping in the LoC json files.
Without the index and overview pages the maps would be useless AFAIK. You'd have to search through all the plates to find a particular business or street address. Nowakki (talk) 15:04, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
The last couple of digits in the file names already correspond to the plate numbers. They just don't say "plate" before them in the file name. Their also on the actual maps. I'm not saying the table or the numbers don't matter and aren't useful, but their just numbers. Its not like if you name a file "Town, county, state plate # X" that's any more helpful then the current system of "town, county, state # (which is still the plate number)." But my point here is that it's just a number. Most people don't call it a plate number or really anything else. They just look at the number in the index, look for it in the thumbnail or at the end of the file, and open the image. Its already pretty simple to do that with the current naming scheme. So adding "plate" to the file names doesn't change anything. Your acting like people can't figure it out on their own without big red signs screaming "plate number!!" everywhere though. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
The LoC sequence number is different from the plate number for the majority of volumes.
see User:Nowakki/test2 for example (hover the link with the mouse). Only same for the first 2 volumes in the table. Nowakki (talk) 15:59, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
@Adamant1 Can you please clear this up before the poll closes. You voted "oppose", but your comment clearly indicates that you do not understand the main point of the proposal.
I am of course happy as a cucumber to answer any remaining questions. Nowakki (talk) 19:22, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes, Town+County+State names need to be included in the naming scheme, and the year preferably as well.  Support for changes in the naming scheme, also on the category levels, as long as it gets more unified and makes more sense than the previous one. On another note on categorization, while I think it is great to have the Sanborn maps in the "Sanborn maps... of state/country" category tree (Category:Sanborn maps of Alabama etc), and to have them included in "Category:Maps of Etowah County, Alabama" (etc.), I beg that they are not to be included in "<year/decade> maps of <state>", because they are not showing the whole state or even larger areas of the state, and only clutter that category, like Category:1888_maps_of_Alabama: If don't think that people who search for Alabama state maps in the 1880s, will find Sanborn maps too helpful, they are too localized to be included on that level. Best, Enyavar (talk) 11:31, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per my previous comments. I'm not really seeing the benefit here. Especially considering the amount of files that have to be renamed and potential issues that come along with it. The main selling point seems be that plate numbers are used to navigate these maps, but so are the library codes. I've actually used to navigate the maps myself a couple of times. Although people don't really "navigate" using files names to begin with. Regardless though, what's the main selling point to this? Because all I see unfounded, vague assertions that no one is using the maps but that they will if the names have the plate numbers in them. I'm sure there's plenty of people who are using the files with the current system though. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:42, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The current naming system is easy to use, in my experience. If you look in Category:Frankenmuth, Michigan, you will see an example of how the Sanborn maps (under the old naming system) are used. What will happen to these if the names are changed? I have seen many examples of this. Category:Tampa Bay Hotel is another. Krok6kola (talk) 20:49, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
    This is not even an issue. File moves leave behind redirects. Nothing will happen. Nowakki (talk) 20:53, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
  • @Nowakki: Your method requires three steps: #1. find the city/county, state #2. find the volume number (some states have 5 volumes) #3. Click on "See parent category for index". Also, your method requires the renaming thousands of files. Plus I agree with Envavari's comment above about not including "<year/decade>" maps of <state>" for the same reasons. Those Sanborn maps have been on the Commons for years and users are accustomed to the way they are now. They appear neatly in the category of the city/town. No effort is required to find them. I never would have known about them if not for that. Krok6kola (talk) 00:14, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
    People here will use what they have been given.
    You can imagine an experiment. 2 categories
    • Sanborn maps (old format)
    • Sanborn maps (fixed format)
    what do you think is going to be used. Users do not oppose fixes. Natural part of any work in progress. Nowakki (talk) 11:53, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. There just doesn't seem to be a consensus here, for something that (unless I'm mistaken) will affect over a million files. Also, I still don't see exactly what the scope of this is. All Sanborn maps? Just those from LoC? Just JPEGs (because we also have many TIFFs)? And, above all, there has been no listing of likely use cases and how they will be affected. - Jmabel ! talk 01:30, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
    If only there was a place where those question could have been asked. Nowakki (talk) 11:50, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
    •  Oppose - Some files are already being renamed, but I want them all to be declined. It gives a mess too, not all files get the right name, and you get things like "file is missing", etc.. See Multichill (above) - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 13:41, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

References for map

Is this possible to add references to description of map? Eurohunter (talk) 08:51, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@Eurohunter: not only possible but desirable. But generally the <ref> mechanism is a mess on a file page. Just list your references and (ideally) indicate roughly what you got from each of them. Also, sometimes it's useful to use an ImageNote to indicate that a particular detail came from a particular source. Feel free to come back here for review afterward, if you like. - Jmabel ! talk 17:29, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Help with categorizing

File:Man making a sound recording using a cylinder phonograph LCCN2016891007.jpg
File:Man making a sound recording using a cylinder phonograph LCCN2016891007.jpg

In what kind of device the person speaks on the right? GeorgHH • talk   13:42, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

It may be a dictating machine similar to the Ediphone. From Hill To Shore (talk) 14:58, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Looking through various images in Category:Phonographs it is definitely a cylinder-type phonograph. From Hill To Shore (talk) 15:12, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Looks good. thank you very much for your help. GeorgHH • talk   17:16, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
And in this context it would certainly have been being used for dictation. - Jmabel ! talk 18:40, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --GeorgHH • talk   17:17, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Something’s wrong with SteinsplitterBot

See Special:Contributions/SteinsplitterBot, Special:ListFiles/SteinsplitterBot, and Category:Images requiring rotation by bot... --RodRabelo7 (talk) 15:53, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --RodRabelo7 (talk) 19:55, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2024/01&oldid=842092843"