User talk:bjh21

Welcome to my user talk page. Comments and questions about Geograph Update Bot and Usage Bot belong here.

Image:Lelantcrossing.jpg

Hello, and thank you for uploading your files to Wikimedia Commons. There seems to be some license information missing regarding this particular file, however. Could you please fix this? Thank you--Orgullomoore 20:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re : Image:British Battlecruiser HMS Hood sinking.jpg etc

Hello. Yes, I know, and it's the same problem with the ones that User:Darkone uploaded for example.
Of course, the original pictures were taken by a German soldier and later (during/after the war ?) seized by the U.S. Government/Navy which placed them in the PD. There are other examples to be found in the site of the Historical Center, like Image:British_Battlecruiser_HMS_Hood_circa1932b.jpg, and that weren't taken by U.S. Navy crews but are present in the N.H.C. collection, and because of that, in PD.
So in these cases, which template use ? I've looked but didn't find anyone that could match : there is a lack in this case. The best, I think, would be to create a new template specific for the N.H.C. (or more general ?), something like Template:PD-LOC. In this case, I prefer let an U.S. (or U.K.) contributor create that template.
Note that I could also use Template:PD-retouched-user-w for these photos I've uploaded because I've cleaned them previously, but the problem would remain with the pictures of the Bismarck uploaded by Darkone, for example.
Regards. Sting 16:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I've created that template : Template:PD-USGov-Military-Navy-NHC and put a post in Commons talk:Licensing, waiting for the reactions. Sting 18:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Omar Mukhtar 11.jpg

Please check Image talk:Omar Mukhtar 11.jpg --Tarawneh 02:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sedona, Arizona

Hi! With regard to the Sedona category... Please keep in mind that it makes little sense to categorize images that already appear in articles by the same name. Four of the images you tagged had already been added to the article. Later today, I'll go back and add the other images you found (great images they are, too!) to the article as well. By using galleries in the article, we can keep the images far more organized and useful.

Categories are great for navigation and for tagging images that haven't been otherwise sorted, but let's keep them clear of images that have already been linked and added to various articles. As per Commons guidelines, articles are preferable to categories for managing images. Cheers, Rklawton 18:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Alexandrina Maria da Costa.JPG

Hi. The author of this image is unknown (nobody knows the photographer who did it). But this photo is in the Public Domain and is used by everyone, even for commercial use. Manuel Anastácio 15:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've explained why this image is in public domain (I don't think it is - it is really in Public Domain). If you want delete it - delete it. It's the same to me!... Manuel Anastácio 21:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

File:Melsonby - geograph.org.uk - 75064.jpg

Thanks for spotting the problem with the naming of this file. I'd renamed on the basis of what Geograph image was being linked to, inevitably there are the odd mistakes. Regards. Adambro (talk) 17:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Geograph images

Re this edit - removing a Geograph tag because it was an higher res version. Your edit was perfectly correct but, removing the tag may have resulted in the bot uploading File:Battle of the Standard - geograph.org.uk - 101344.jpg totally unnecessarily. There are a number of other cases where I have uploaded an high res version and claimed it to be from Geograph. There are other cases where I have replaced a Geograph image with the high res version and not changed the description. And I have this list of an hundred images requiring high res versions.

To avoid confusing the bot, may I suggest: please leave these high res versions with the spurious geograph tag in place - or check with GeographBot to see how the description should be changed. When the Geograph bot has finished playing, I will let you have a list of my Geograph uploads and you can go round and change all the descriptions. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not generally trying to track down {{Geograph}} templates on non-Geograph images at the moment – I only found those ones because they both happened to point to the same image on Geograph. Nonetheless, you plan seems quite sensible. I sometimes wonder if there should be a {{Duplicates geograph}} template to document that an image, while not from Geograph itself, would {{Duplicate}} one from there. --bjh21 (talk) 19:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can have the list now if you want. My uplog program now offers selection of Geograph images. The massive "Geog by ano" section (images uploaded by others, mainly the bot) contains 300 low res images needing to be replaced. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 23:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In fact it was not your edit which caused the GeographBot to do the un-needed upload. it was just a coincidence that the two events happened close together. The bot uses the sha1 hash total of the actual image file. It did not find the exact Geograph file so it did the upload. Conversely in these 39 cases it discovered images which have been double-posted to geograph and did not repeat the mistake here!

Pending the {{Duplicates geograph}} tag, I think we should use the Geograph tag on higher res versions or do what I have done here: put the image into the Geograph category without using the tag.

Keep your eye on my anomalies report, currently under development. You may find it useful. (It is painfully slow to load if it has not been used for some time. But keep trying!) — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 11:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Geograph images as PNGs

Is it really true that when a Geograph-image-as-PNG has been replaced and properly orphaned, we must mark it as superseded instead of simply zapping it? Seems pointless to me. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 11:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems a bit pointless to me too, but I couldn't find any better way to do it. Commons:Deletion policy is quite clear that {{Duplicate}} can only be applied to files of the same format. --bjh21 (talk) 17:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Map of Punjab 1909

Hello. I was drawn to your image - File:Punjab 1909.jpg, by today's story about Amritsar, ... David Cameron's visit. It's such a lovely map, especially for me as I have some experience in that part of the world. However, I think that it's a real shame that the detail is difficult to see. Perhaps it would be difficult to put onto a scanner; I imagine you've probably used a camera. I wondered, with cameras becoming more and more powerful these days, would it be possible to retake this picture so that more detail could be seen? I tried increasing the contrast, and such like, but the pixel depth was against me. With very best wishes. Francis Hannaway (talk) 08:31, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I no longer have any idea where I got that scan from. I'm fairly certain that I didn't scan (or photograph) it myself. If I had, I would have used a higher resolution and I expect I'd remember having borrowed the Imperial Gazetteer of India from the library. I'm sorry I can't be of more help. --bjh21 (talk) 20:05, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, well - such is life! Thanks for your kind reply! Best wishesFrancis Hannaway (talk) 22:25, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brad bowden photo

The photo that you flagged is a picture that my photographer friend took with my cellphone.. how do I prove that? Do I just write "Facebook profile photo"? Help me out here Bow27 (talk) 00:25, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Filemover

Hi Bjh21. I think you are completely eligible to become a filemover. If you are willing to become one, please condider requesting at Commons:Requests for rights#Filemover. Thank you 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:16, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Newdigate House, Castle Gate, plaque.png

This file was being used by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camille_d%27Hostun,_duc_de_Tallard, which you requested to be deleted. I can fix this for you on the English language wikipedia, but i cannot determine is there are any other articles on other wikipedias which also used this file. Can I ask you please not to delete images that are currently in use? thanks 86.151.120.146 17:28, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I expected that the admin who closed the deletion request would arrange for the new image to be properly substituted. I'll fix it up. --bjh21 (talk) 17:31, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That was quick! thank you. 86.151.120.146 17:40, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right. I've undone CommonsDelinker's edits on cs, da, en, es, and ro. I've also left a request for it to replace the references to the old PNG with references to the new JPEG. --bjh21 (talk) 18:01, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bond Street Northbound Jubilee.jpg

Hi Bjh21! What do you think of this renaming:? Better? --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 04:38, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hedwig in Washington: Much better, yes. --bjh21 (talk) 09:04, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hedwig in Washington: PS: thanks for taking my rather intemperate rant so well. --bjh21 (talk) 09:20, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cat

the category for britian and ireland. Can I help move them? Artix Kreiger (talk) 19:01, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

this is an important book. with no reference in wikipedia. zero. so i took a photograph of my book, Capital in the Twenty-First Century Book by Thomas Piketty.

maybe the license can be changed. i agree. this is funny. the editors have too much free time

File:Capital in the Twenty-First Century Book by Thomas Piketty.jpg

Capital in the Twenty-First Century Book by Thomas Piketty

— Preceding unsigned comment added by David Adam Kess (talk • contribs) 15:37, 4 November 2017‎ (UTC)[reply]

not to mention the file usage̟ - Capital in the Twenty-First Century Book by Thomas Piketty - editors with too much free time and no positive usage

File usage on other wikis The following other wikis use this file:
Usage on de.wikipedia.org
Thomas Piketty Das Kapital im 21. Jahrhundert

Usage on es.wikipedia.org El capital en el siglo XXI
Usage on fr.wikipedia.org
Le Capital au XXIe siècle
Discussion utilisateur:NaggoBot/CommonsDR
Usage on pt.wikipedia.org
O Capital no século XXI
Usage on ru.wikipedia.org
Капитал в XXI веке
Usage on zh.wikipedia.org 二十一世紀資本論 — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Adam Kess (talk • contribs) 15:38, 4 November 2017‎ (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you - Capital in the Twenty-First Century Book by Thomas Piketty

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For your tireless contributions of images - Capital in the Twenty-First Century Book by Thomas Piketty !!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by David Adam Kess (talk • contribs) 15:51, 4 November 2017‎ (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your postiive comment....i think when they delete the photo... i will take one more and then make edits to the user file like this

{{Non-free use rationale album cover|Article = Mr. Jones (Counting Crows song) |Use = Infobox |Name = "Mr. Jones" |Artist = Counting Crows |Label = Geffen Records |Item = front cover |Type = single |Source = Derived from a digital capture of the single cover (creator of this digital version is irrelevant as the copyright in all equivalent images is still held by the same party). Copyright held by the record label or the artist. Claimed as fair use regardless. }}

have a great dayǃ — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Adam Kess (talk • contribs) 00:43, 6 November 2017‎ (UTC)[reply]

Geograph Update Bot

Hello there, I noticed this diff where Geograph Update Bot removed the HTTPS from the links. Would it be possible to fix that to prevent bot edit warring? Thank you. Jon Kolbert (talk) 20:38, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jon Kolbert: That's not meant to happen. It looks like Geograph Update Bot loaded that page as part of a batch of 50 at 04:38:22, KolbertBot then edited the page at 04:40:47, and Geograph Update Bot finally saved its version of the page at 04:41:13. I had expected that in this circumstance, pywikibot would detect the edit conflict and raise an exception, but apparently that was too optimistic. I'll see if I can find a way to make pywikibot do what I want. Thanks for letting me know about the problem. --bjh21 (talk) 20:59, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like there'll only a few isolated cases, not much of an issue then. Thanks for the quick response :) Jon Kolbert (talk) 21:03, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jon Kolbert: I think I've fixed the problem. --bjh21 (talk) 16:33, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Tireless Contributor

Hi there. I saw the words at the title on your talk page. Why don't we altogether DR the most notorious UPFs and make a good clean up? It's not playing anybody's game, believe me. Let's just go into the new year with less spam in Commons. Give a helping hand. Thanks in advance. --E4024 (talk) 15:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@E4024: I'm happy for someone else to do it, but I'm afraid dealing with useless pictures is really not what I want to be doing on Commons. There are far too many useful pictures that need my attention. Sorry. --bjh21 (talk) 16:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the open-hearted answer. Have some salep, it warms. --E4024 (talk) 16:09, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Firefox 17.0 Page Inspector - Selected element.png

Hi. I've replaced the Mohamed Morsi image, so I think the screenshot should now be fine. -Mardus /talk 12:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If a nomination for deletion is withdrawn, then I assume, that it would still be an administrator, who must close the discussion and remove the deletion tag from the file it was attached to? -Mardus /talk 13:18, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mardus: Yes. Also they might want to delete the old version of the file. --bjh21 (talk) 13:42, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mhm. Deletion of the old version is very likely to happen. -Mardus /talk 13:45, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Geograph manual uploads

Hi. Thanks for the manual upload of this image. You said at the Village Pump thread that manual uploads are relatively easy. I ran into the same problem with this image. Could you describe the steps I need to take (and where to obtain the information from) and I'll try and do this one myself. Carcharoth (talk) 12:49, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Carcharoth: Here are the steps I'd follow (in perhaps too much detail):

On https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/2168023, look at the copyright notice under the picture. The word "reuse" is a link to https://www.geograph.org.uk/reuse.php?id=2168023. Follow that link.
On https://www.geograph.org.uk/reuse.php?id=2168023, scroll all the way to the bottom to the section headed "Wikipedia Template for image page".
In that section, there's a link labelled "download the image". Right-click that, choose "Save link as..." and choose "Save" the the dialogue box.
In the same section, right-click "upload to Wikimedia Commons" and choose "Open link in new tab" (it's just a link to Special:Upload).
Click in the text box below containing wikitext, and press Ctrl+A, Ctrl+C (select all; copy to clipboard)
Switch to the new tab.
Click "Choose file" and navigate to the file I downloaded earlier.
Edit the "Destination filename" to make it descriptive of the picture.
Click in "Summary", and press Ctrl+A, Crtl+V (select all; paste from clipboard).
Add categories using the "Categories" section (which works like HotCat).
Click "Upload file".

I hope that helps. --bjh21 (talk) 13:40, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect, thanks! Carcharoth (talk) 13:44, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:2008 05 06, Date stone, Sandcliff Hotel, Cromer.jpg

Hello. I'm curious about the licence on this file. You've indicated that it's derived from File:The Sandcliff Hotel - west facade detail - geograph.org.uk - 791348.jpg (though you linked to the copy on Geograph), which is licensed under {{Cc-by-sa-2.0}} with a required credit to Evelyn Simak. However, your picture is licensed under plain {{Attribution}} without any attribution to Evelyn Simak required. How so? --bjh21 (talk) 20:46, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, now rectified, Thanks, Kolforn (talk) 07:12, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

About the question with use of "Category:Corner buildings"

I read your suggestion at COM:HD. About the question with use of "Category:Corner buildings", what do you think who should I ask for help? Because I've stopped creating "Corner shops in XXX" and "Corner buildings in XXX" two categories.--Kai3952 (talk) 04:24, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean to say "corner view"?--Kai3952 (talk) 06:51, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Attribution changes for Geograph sourced images?

Hi, I'm puzzled by changes like this.

It adds {{Credit line |Author = Chris Allen |Other = ''Waddle fan, National Garden Festival, Ebbw Vale'' |License = CC-BY-SA-2.0 }} to the infobox, thus changing the CC-by-sa attribution line to:


Attribution (required by the license) InfoField	Chris Allen / Waddle fan, National Garden Festival, Ebbw Vale / CC BY-SA 2.0
InfoField	Chris Allen / Waddle fan, National Garden Festival, Ebbw Vale

This raises a couple of problems: Firstly there's no reason to do this. Chris Allen has requested (at Geograph) attribution of "Chris Allen". Not "Chris Allen and <image title>" for each image. It is not WP's role to mess with anyone's attribution, even in a good-faith change like this.

Secondly, it makes the attribution different for each image from that author. That sucks as a practical situation in managing such metadata, especially automatically. The attribution line is no longer usable as an identifier for authorship, especially when checking licences. (Now that's maybe not the best idea anyway, that's why we keep the Author slot, but this does go on). Mostly though, an image gallery with many images would previously be able to bundle attribution as a simple statement, "All images credited to Chris Allen" to either a separate credit for each one (no-one has required this) or else having to try and fix the attribution statement by parsing out the real part from the decoration.

Thirdly, imagine a bulk re-use of such images, via Wikipedia rather than direct from Geograph. Or maybe even a mix of sourcing. How does such a re-use then check its licencing and verify that the attributions are correct? If it uses the correct attribution text, that will be a mismatch when compared to that from Commons.

Was this discussed anywhere before it was done? It's a bad change and it needs to be reversed. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:10, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Dingley: I've stopped the bot. I'll reply in more detail later. --bjh21 (talk) 11:22, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Dingley: The simple answer is that I disagree with you about whether including the title when redistributing images from Geograph is necessary. I think it is. Geograph images are all licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0. The attribution requirements for this licence are in clause 4.c of its legal code. There are lots of words there, but the critical part is the requirement to convey "the name (or pseudonym if applicable) of the Original Author if supplied" and "the title of the Work if supplied" when distributing the Work. Photographs on Geograph have titles associated with them, so prima facie it seems obvious to me that those titles must be conveyed when distributing the photos. Do you disagree with this analysis somewhere? If not then we can discuss whether {{Credit line}} is the right way to record a licence-mandated title.

As for discussion, I raised the matter in two places. First, in Template talk:Credit line to check that I was using the template correctly, and second in Commons:Bots/Requests/Geograph Update Bot (credit lines) to get permission for Geograph Update Bot to make the edits. --bjh21 (talk) 14:17, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is an old principle in metadata handling that you don't modify the metadata values: you store them, you pass them on, and you do this faithfully. Otherwise chaos ensues. In particular, it is very easy to concatenate two values (as happens here), impossible to reliably split them again. So don't concatenate them. If anyone is going to concatenate them, do that as the very last step (as it recognises that the metadata is made unprocessable afterwards). And if you do do this, and concatenate them, that new value has to be recognised as a new creation, not just a replacement value for an old property.

I have no problem with "credit line" as a piece of formatting. It would be useful on WP, or anywhere that represents the final use of content. But what's a problem is when this is done for the storage of those items (and Commons is primarily a repository, secondarily a gallery). Embedding the (per item) title into the attribution breaks many of the use cases for that attribution value. In particular, those based on recognising common authorship and accreditation for a range of items. CC themselves recognised this and expressly dropped the "requirement" (which was never even a requirement, it was an unintended consequence) to embed the title from 4.0 onwards.

I withdraw my main concern over {{Credit line}} because I realise that the situation here isn't quite as bad as I thought it was - this new value is being treated as a new property on Commons, and its a downstream problem with the mirrors where they've now absorbed it under an old property (I have 20,000 broken image licences and two book publications held up on this). But Commons needs to be very careful that it stays as a distinct property (and should only be used in galleries, not repositories) - the creator here, for the purposes of accreditation and licence checking is still "Chris Allen", not "Chris Allen / Waddle fan". Part of the trouble is that it isn't even part of a robust data model for image metadata here - Commons still does nothing better than a HTML table and human-targeted "label and hope" within that. Where's Dublin Core, or something sensible and machine processable? The risk now (and what has just happened) is that the scrape-and-pray consumers are picking up this new Attribution property from the {{Information}} table and using that (wrongly) as a first-class value within the licence metadata.

There's also the error in {{Credit line}} in that it concatenates the title for a CC-4.0 licence, which is still wrong.

Andy Dingley (talk) 16:17, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Dingley: Fixing Commons' metadata model is something I'm very happily leaving to other people. Once a better structure than {{Credit line}} is available, I'll happily retrain Geograph Update Bot to use that. Meanwhile, may I set the bot going again? Rest assured that it only ever adds {{Credit line}}, and never modifies or removes that template.

Restart it then. I don't like this, but I know my voice counts for nothing here. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:28, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Dingley: Of course your voice counts for something. In particular, if you think the Geograph Update Bot shouldn't add {{Credit line}}s containing titles then that's enough reason for me to stop it doing so. Bots should only do uncontentious tasks, and if you disagree with this task then that's enough to make it contentious. --bjh21 (talk) 17:38, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm fine with it (although fixing CC-4.0 would be good). The real problem is either downstream of Commons, or Commons' lack of a public data model. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:16, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Dingley: Thanks. The bot is now running again (after a brief break for a database update and some a quick run of resolution improvements). --bjh21 (talk) 00:20, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Licensing of File:St Andrew, East Runton, Norfolk - geograph.org.uk - 314752.jpg

Removed - My mistake it was added in error when I added the coords templates Kolforn (talk) 20:14, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Avoncliff Station (geograph 1463645, high-res).jpg

As you correctly pointed out when reverting File:Avoncliff Station - geograph.org.uk - 1463645.jpg, these two images are not quite the same. However they have the same source, which only shows the edited version. So what's the correct source for the larger one? -mattbuck (Talk) 16:11, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mattbuck: It's the higher-resolution version of the same picture. You can get it either from the "reuse" page or the "more sizes" page. Geograph allows contributors to upload high-resolution versions of existing pictures and stores them separately, so sometimes they differ from the low-resolution version. Obviously the documented source needs to be changed to make this more obvious. --bjh21 (talk) 18:28, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see. I'd say delete the smaller one, but I'm not fussed. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:20, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Geograph Update Bot

Congratulations! Resolution upgrades II task was approved. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:33, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Friars Carse

Yes it's one of mine not Geograph. Quite happy for them to use it if the system works that way.RSLlGriffith (talk) 10:30, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tom Shanklin - Rehab.jpg

Want to check out the above file? JMK (talk) 13:50, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JMK: I've tagged it as an obvious copyright violation. --bjh21 (talk) 14:40, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by RainbowSilver2ndBackup

Tell them RainbowSilver2ndBackup (talk) 22:50, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RainbowSilver2ndBackup: Well, if you insist. --bjh21 (talk) 22:57, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

I am very late and very sorry. I did not thank you for this answer Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2019/04#GFDL_and_authors. I appreciate it very much. Thanks a lot. Regards--Pierpao.lo (listening) 10:15, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion request

Hello.

File:World map of gasoline units .jpg can be deleted, per COM:Redundant. The updated version File:Gasoline unit.svg is now used in the Malay Wikipedia article ms:Gelen. You can check it in the files and in the article.

Yours sincerely, Maphobbyist (talk) 06:33, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment

Commons:Deletion requests/Llewelynpritchard2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by KKKNL1488 (talk • contribs) 02:55, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Important message for file movers

A community discussion has been closed where the consensus was to grant all file movers the suppressredirect user right. This will allow file movers to not leave behind a redirect when moving files and instead automatically have the original file name deleted. Policy never requires you to suppress the redirect, suppression of redirects is entirely optional.

Possible acceptable uses of this ability:

To move recently uploaded files with an obvious error in the file name where that error would not be a reasonable redirect. For example: moving "Sheep in a tree.jpg" to "Squirrel in a tree.jpg" when the image does in fact depict a squirrel.
To perform file name swaps.
When the original file name contains vandalism. (File renaming criterion #5)

Please note, this ability should be used only in certain circumstances and only if you are absolutely sure that it is not going to break the display of the file on any project. Redirects should never be suppressed if the file is in use on any project. When in doubt, leave a redirect. If you forget to suppress the redirect in case of file name vandalism or you are not fully certain if the original file name is actually vandalism, leave a redirect and tag the redirect for speedy deletion per G2.

The malicious or reckless breaking of file links via the suppressredirect user right is considered an abuse of the file mover right and is grounds for immediate revocation of that right. This message serves as both a notice that you have this right and as an official warning. Questions regarding this right should be directed to administrators. --Majora (talk) 21:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maram Susli

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Maram Susli.jpg is closed, but including Sky News coverage is fair criticism for someone who is neither a bot, nor Russian. https://www.rt.com/uk/424716-uk-government-accuse-bot-russia/ --85.148.244.121 22:35, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The number of hoops I had to jump through, is rather high. IIRC, I had to overcome 5 challenges, this time I will count. --85.148.244.121 22:45, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was none (for posting something at your talk --85.148.244.121 23:45, 18 November 2019 (UTC)). I will repeat the experiment at my own talk page. --85.148.244.121 22:54, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And again no hoops (for posting exactly the same message there --85.148.244.121 23:45, 18 November 2019 (UTC)). What's going on here? --85.148.244.121 23:31, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your arguments on deletion requests

Hello,

I understand that you want to have a picture of everyone who has an article on the big Wikis and that's understandable. But sometimes it's better to have nothing instead.When the pictures are really bad like Bull-Doser's (who doesn't seems to understand the problem), it's sometimes better to just delete them and wait for a good picture. Please note that the picture that I nominated aren't used on the articles in FrWiki because of their quality. This makes your argument quite weak and that would be bad if these pictures would be kept just because of it.

--Myloufa (talk) 22:44, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DRs

Is there a reason you nominated one of my images for deletion but never notified me so I could respond? That's really unprofessional. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:01, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Fry1989: It was almost certainly an accident. Which file was it? I use AjaxQuickDelete and VisualFileChange (both of which should notify uploaders) for almost all my DRs, and usually I check my contribution history afterwards to make sure that the notifications were sent. Presumably in your case the gadget misbehaved and I neglected to check my contributions. If that's the case, I apologise and will nominate the file for undeletion if you don't get there first. --bjh21 (talk) 20:00, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination. To be clear, I believe your nominating reason is in a grey area, as we do host a variety of proposed flags. I would have argued strongly against it. Fry1989 ^eh? 16:34, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Fry1989: Was User talk:Fry1989#Notification about possible deletion (added in Special:Diff/370695972) not adequate? --bjh21 (talk) 17:55, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Help_desk&diff=391312713&oldid=391298709 : thanks! I'm sure you deciphered this correctly. I'd made the mistake of assuming that a question on Commons:Help Desk about editing caption was about editing a caption on Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 16:21, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Blank UK Map.png

Thank you for replacing the two remaining uses of that poxy map. I'd wanted to do so myself, but I don't speak German or Luxembourgish, and I didn't want to risk getting involved in more complex things like templates over there.

I also notice you replaced them with an image of England, rather than the whole of Great Britain, which was the other thing that bugged me (as it was a specifically English thing). Thank you for that as well! Ubcule (talk) 19:13, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your Responses Last Month

Visit this page (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bull-Doser) plus comment on my uploads (incl. Marie-Claude St-Laurent) still with a deletion tag. -- Bull-Doser (talk) 21:24, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

Hi Bjh21, I know I'm very late saying this but I wanted to thank you for leaving the message on my talk page on 6 July 2019. At the time I didn't know about Wikimedia Commons' policy in relation to overwriting files and it wasn't my intention to be disruptive. Thanks. Scaramanga731 (talk) 23:14, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Geograph images and CropTool

Thank you for sorting out File:Runston Chapel - geograph.org.uk - 270303 (cropped).jpg. I had used Commons:CropTool to crop the image, which I think is a widely used tool. It seems there is an incompatibility between a Geograph upload tool and CropTool. It may well be possible to modify CropTool to make the appropriate changes to cropped Geograph images – could you please raise this at Commons talk:CropTool; you probably know more about the licensing issues than I do. In 2017 I had problem that required a fix to CropTool (here), and the fix was made quickly and efficiently. Regards, Verbcatcher (talk) 16:01, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for helping me! Firestar464 (talk) 01:45, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Geograph Update Bot

Congratulations! Task locations II was approved. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:06, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hi Bernadene2020 (talk) 09:24, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bernadene2020: Hello. Do you want something? I've moved your comment down to the bottom of this page so it's easier to find. --bjh21 (talk) 10:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyright Watcher Barnstar
	Thank you for putting all my uploads in the right copyright category and teaching me the correct way :) much appreciated! Eat Your Makeup (talk) 14:49, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alexandra Road Estate.jpg have no license

Hi! This file have no license and I noticed this edit. I wonder if the bot could also add a license if it is missing? --MGA73 (talk) 15:33, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MGA73: This is an extremely rare problem: Special:Search/File: hastemplate:Geograph -incategory:CC-BY-SA-2.0 gives no results now that I've fixed that one. It's not worth the effort of coding and testing and getting approval for such a rare task. Thanks for pointing it out, though! --bjh21 (talk) 15:52, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Thank you for the fast reply. --MGA73 (talk) 16:13, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:FEDLINK_-_United_States_Federal_Collection

Thanks for the re-licenses.

If you have the time, dispersing and license reviewing this category would be very useful :)

There's more information on the IA mirroring effort here - User_talk:Fæ/CCE_volumes which should probably be updated to a project page at some point. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:43, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bjh21: In followup also see Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Clarifcation:_re_Category:FEDLINK_-_United_States_Federal_Collection_and_subcategories.. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

a request

When you find duplicate images please just speedy delete the newer one with a {{Duplicate}} tag, okay? Geo Swan (talk) 17:12, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Non-equilibrium effects in fast moving plasmas (IA nonequilibriumef00coop).pdf

Can we be really sure this was by a servering Navy Sailor?

BTW If these are Okay there was a specfic sub-category for them. Reviewing items in the Subcategories (which at present are relatively small) would also be greatly appreciated. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:40, 26 June 2020 (UTC) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:40, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion requests of Hywel72

Hi, we both appear to have been going through Hywel72's recent deletion requests. I noticed that Commons:Deletion requests/File:No Fit State Circus yn Bluestone, Arberth.jpg was recently declined with the comment "Kept: no valid reason for deletion", and I wondered if most or all of the images would be kept on this basis, making our work reviewing them pointless. I asked the admin concerned about this at User talk:MB-one#Deletion requests rejected with 'no valid reason for deletion'.

Meanwhile, I have made a list of the requests at User:Verbcatcher/Sandbox, which I will use to review the images (if needed). Verbcatcher (talk) 00:08, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Geograph Image

Thanks for renaming File:The Great Light (night view), Titanic Quarter, Belfast (November 2018) (Geograph 5966944 by Albert Bridge).jpg it was one of those Geograph files that would not pass through the geograph2commons tool, so I had to do it the other way, and forgot the renaming step. It's a shame Geograph doesn't spit out a decent filename. Thanks again.--Jokulhlaup (talk) 14:20, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image Copyright Advice

Ref: RGS-X8 Retford King Edward VI Grammar School cloisters and bell tower from its playing field. Taken before 1937.jpg Thank you for the Hirtle link. The old images in question (taken 1920-1945) were placed in the public domain (www.eyemead.com/open.htm) by a now elderly webmaster, actual publication date unknown. I have been attempting via OTRS and person concerned via his (elderly) brother and email, but without success so far. All advice welcome including using Talk correctly! Gedgmoss (talk) 16:32, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vidya balan

Please stop changing photo on vidya balan Wikipedia. This is too much. Why you putting her ugly photo again and again. Plz stop it Shaniya689 (talk) 08:56, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Shaniya689: Personally, I don't care which picture is displayed on en:Vidya Balan. If you want to change which picture is displayed there, you should upload your preferred picture under a different name and then edit en:Vidya Balan to use the new picture. By replacing File:Vidya Balan in 2020.jpg here on Commons you are bypassing the proper way to make changes on English Wikipedia. That is not acceptable. We have a policy, COM:OVERWRITE, which says that you should only replace a file on Commons to make minor improvements, and your replacement of it with a completely different picture is obviously not a minor improvement.

Looking over on English Wikipedia, it seems that your first attempt at changing en:Vidya Balan was wrongly reverted by a bot, while your second got reverted because you accidentally removed the entire infobox and couldn't put it back. Since you're new to Wikipedia, I strongly recommend visiting the en:Wikipedia:Teahouse and asking for help there. The hosts there are very friendly and should be able to guide you to make your changes in a way that might stick. Meanwhile I shall revert File:Vidya Balan in 2020.jpg again. --bjh21 (talk) 09:35, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

License migration

Hi. I noticed this diff. You say we need to know if it was published somewhere else. We have no indications that it was so I do not think we have a problem. And it was uploaded to Commons by the photographer. I think the special requirements for the upload date is for cases where A upload it to some website with the license GFDL and B copy it to Commons. --MGA73 (talk) 15:46, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MGA73: I was going by the criteria in Commons:GFDL 1.3 relicensing criteria, which don't give any indication that the rules are different for uploads by the author, or that there should be any presumption that an upload to Commons is the first one. If you're confident that a particular file is eligible for relicensing then obviously you should tag it as such. I shall continue to apply the needs-review tag in cases where, as explained in Commons:License Migration Task Force/Migration, I "can't figure out whether it meets the criteria or not". --bjh21 (talk) 19:43, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thats the safe way to do it so I can't argue with that :-) If you (can) use MediaWiki:Gadget-LicenseReview.js then it may be easier for you to work on license migration. You just have to check if it works as you want it to because the script have not been updated for some time so there are a few things that should be fixed. --MGA73 (talk) 19:50, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Henry_G._Gilbert_Nursery_and_Seed_Trade_Catalog_Collection

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Henry_G._Gilbert_Nursery_and_Seed_Trade_Catalog_Collection&fileuntil=A+few+choice+seeds+and+plants+-+best+in+the+world+%28IA+CAT31299223%29.pdf#mw-category-media

Can you review some of the recent moves here (the ones were the cover sheets were removed?) and add appropriate licenses. Thanks in advance.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:42, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:ChingHai Sydney in 1993.jpg

I think I may have done something erroneous with the licence on this page. Thank you for crediting me with "presumably doing it for a good reason", but I honestly can't remember what I did to that file at the time or why I did it. If it needs to be changed, please edit or restore it as needed. My apologies. Objectivesea (talk) 09:30, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Objectivesea: OK. I've switched the file to {{GFDL-user-en-with-disclaimers|migration=relicense}} because I think that's correct. The PNG original, en:File:Chinghai sidney1993.png was uploaded to English Wikipedia on 2007-04-27, at which time en:Template:GFDL-self still included the disclaimers link (it was finally removed in en:Special:Diff/132511182 on 2007-05-21). That upload date is also consistent with its having been automatically relicensed under CC BY-SA 3.0. --bjh21 (talk) 11:53, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Geograph bot will now run 24x7

Hi Bjh21, thanks for the feedback to improve GeographBot. I ran a couple of batches and I didn't spot any more issues so I updated the code to just upload all the time. It will check every 4 hours if the bot is running and if not, resume where it left off. The reverse geocoding glitches every once in a while. That will cause files to end up in Category:Images from Geograph Britain and Ireland needing categories and Category:Images from Geograph Britain and Ireland missing SDC location of creation. The numbers are relatively low. I haven't looked at automatic clean up yet in case you feel like having a shot at it :-)

The upload bot isn't going very fast so with this speed it will probably take a couple of years to catch up with Geograph. Multichill (talk) 16:15, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adding new license details

Can u guide me for how to remove this is my own work details after uploading the content? Or how to edit license details after uploading the content

Thanks Kannadiga2021 (talk) 17:00, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kannadiga2021: There's an "Edit" link at the top of the image page, like at the top of an article on Wikipedia. Select that and make appropriate changes. At the very least, change the line |source=Own work to replace Own work with a description of where you got actually got the file. --bjh21 (talk) 21:14, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tag removal

I simply didn't notice the relicense tag. Sorry, and thanks for restoring it. Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 23:10, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source of File:-2021-03-24 Derelict Railwaymans Bothy, Honing Railway Station, Norfolk.JPG

You uploaded File:-2021-03-24 Derelict Railwaymans Bothy, Honing Railway Station, Norfolk.JPG in March, claiming that its source was "From geograph.org.uk". That's not the correct picture on Geograph and, unusually, I can't find the correct one. There's a similar one that also matches the other details in your description, namely 6786070, but it's taken from a different angle. Are you able to work out where the picture actually came from? --bjh21 (talk) 12:58, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is a photograph of my own which I seem to manged to mix up with the similar one 6786070. My mistake and I have put it right Kolforn (talk) 13:06, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kolforn: Brilliant! Thank you! --bjh21 (talk) 13:15, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:-2021-05-11 The view from the south east, Saint Mary’s, Happisburgh, Norfolk.JPG

This is another instance of a file you've marked as coming from Geograph, but that I can't find there. It's linked to 6835072, but that's a different photo of the same church. 6836808 is also similar but not the same. --bjh21 (talk) 22:46, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me that the image has been removed from the Geograph browser as I have also checked. All the other images of Happisburgh church taken on that date by David Pashley are there but as you correctly say that particular image seems to have been removed so I don’t have an answer for you! I have to ask, It feels like you are you stalking Me? I am uncomfortable with this situation. 6836808 is a differnt church altogether. Kolforn (talk) 07:21, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kolforn: For the most part, I'm not targetting your uploads specifically, so I'm sorry if I appear to be stalking you. I'm just looking for ways to improve files transferred from Geograph Britain and Ireland and you happen to be a particularly prolific uploader of such files and also one who leaves more opportunities for improvement than most. This means that a lot of my maintenance searches turn up files that you've uploaded. One occasion where I did deliberately target your uploads was last week when I found you'd put the same wrong URL for David Pashley's Geograph profile on over 100 files. I corrected them in bulk rather than waiting for them to turn up through other searches. I don't want to make a productive contributor to Commons feel uncomfortable, though, so if you can be slightly more specific about what's troubling you, I can probably avoid doing those things. Obviously if I stopped contributing to Commons entirely that would solve the problem, but I like to think that some of my contributions are useful so maybe we can come up with a narrower restriction.

Regarding File:-2021-05-11 The view from the south east, Saint Mary’s, Happisburgh, Norfolk.JPG, I'm fairly confident that the author or date are wrong, but I don't want to overwhelm you with the rather technical evidence if you're already feeling harassed. You are of course entirely correct about 6836808. --bjh21 (talk) 00:38, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After doing some research through my own photo uploads I have now found the original uploaded file File:-2020-11-13 The view from the south east, St Mary’s, Happisburgh, Norfolk (1).JPG by me on the 2020-11-13. I am not sure how I managed to mix it up with the other images of Happisburgh church taken on 2020-11-13 by David Pashley, but I have now requested a speed delete as it is a duplicate and wrong attributions. Hope this resolves this for you now. Kolforn (talk) 07:05, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kolforn: Excellent! Now I'd just like to narrow down what I need to change so as to allow you to be comfortable on Commons again. For now, I won't edit anywhere on any Wikimedia project except in this thread, but I hope there's something I can usefully do on Commons that won't feel like I'm stalking you. Maybe if I (and my bot) avoid edits and logged actions that touch files you've uploaded, and also avoid any interaction with you? --bjh21 (talk) 19:58, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bjh21 planning to start editing again

@Bjh21: Thank you for your communication, I sorry you thought that I should answer you, but I don’t think I have any say on how you contribute and I have no wish to restrict your edits to commons. This is a decision that is yours. I appreciate our communication between us. Kolforn (talk) 06:23, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kolforn: OK. Please do let me know if my (or my bot's) editing becomes a problem again. --bjh21 (talk) 08:49, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit comment

Hi, you added the comment "Use {{Derived from}}. Don't use {{Geograph}} on a derived image."

However, the edit was made using CropTool, and anything like those tags was purely automatic, and will be happening on thousands of edits made using the tool. Feel free to have words with the tool's makers if you think their gadget's output is wrong, but there's no point making remarks of that kind to tool users. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:32, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very sorry. I come from a computer-programming background, so my habitual edit summary style uses the imperative mood, the same as the one usually used for commit messages in version-control systems. This style guide, for instance, recommends this style. This does have the unfortunate consequence that sometimes it can read as an instruction to another editor, even though that isn't my intention. Someone complained a while ago about an edit summary I used when renaming a file, so I changed the verb I used for those. Given that you've got the same impression, though, I think a more radical change is in order. I notice the automatic edit summaries under Help:Automatic edit summary are all in the past tense, so I'll try using that instead. Thank you for telling me about the problem. --bjh21 (talk) 20:07, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiswick Chap: ← missing ping. --bjh21 (talk) 20:13, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiswick Chap: I've updated my bot to use the past indicative. Updating my brain may be a little trickier.

Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:16, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Well done! Thank you for your contributions to improving the wiki and the camaraderie of the editors. 365 Women will be grateful! Victuallers (talk) 18:27, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wye Valley

Are you planning to delete the other one then? I have absolutely no interest in which we keep (I can't see the difference), but I can't see a need for two. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:41, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Dingley: My plan is to start a DR for the sharpened version, because that's the version that you tagged for deletion. It's also the version that I'd prefer to be deleted because I think any benefit from the sharpening is outweighed by an extra generation of JPEG artifacts. However, the original uploader presumably disagreed or they wouldn't have uploaded the sharpened version, so they (and anyone else interested) should have a chance to make their case in a DR. --bjh21 (talk) 13:51, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lambusart and Gosselies

Hiya,

You've been very focused on my created maps on the battle of Gosselies for some time now. In light of your recent rejection of my battle maps, I'd like to see how best to create maps that might be approvable by you--or any other Wiki editor. I'm therefore seeking advice from you because I really believe these maps will be of value in illustrating the battle, and I really want to accomplish my mission of getting something up there that will remain up there, ideally from someone who seems much more technically minded and familiar with the whole Wiki coding and legal requirements.

I'd like to say that I'm completely amateur and not very tech-inclined, so I definitely do not know enough about creative licences and tags and whatnot to be able to adequately navigate this coding/legal environment in the back end of Wiki. I just wanted to contribute to a gap in knowledge that I happened to have information about and I definitely didn't expect I'd need to trawl through so much legalese in addition to that. Any errors I have made are simply because of this, not because I'm trying to be some pirate or plagiariser. Thus, all map elements are purely mine, pieced together from my research and reconstruction, and only the map backgrounds are from another source. I'm not trying to pass off someone's battle map as my own because such a battle map simply does not seem to exist anywhere online.

Having said that, to refresh your memory, what has happened to date is as follows:

1) I created battle maps by superimposing my own arrows and place annotations on top of a Google Earth map. You rightly pointed out in the Teahouse that this was not acceptable and pointed me to [site] for free map sources. Looking through the options on this page, I felt that only Open Street Map was suitable for my needs, level of detail and required zoom levels.

2) However, as I needed to annotate historical places, not modern ones, this is where it gets a bit nifty--I found a page that had the OSM map without modern labels. https://mc.bbbike.org/mc/?lon=4.418341&lat=50.438565&zoom=12&num=1&mt0=osm-no-labels&mt1=mapnik I assumed that it was based on OSM so it was still okay. Maybe it wasn't?

3) I then created my maps by annotating excerpts of these maps. I uploaded them to Commons with “© OpenStreetMap contributors” because that's what the OSM copyright page said should be mentioned if their maps are used.

4) You then pointed out that derivative works of non-free origin were not acceptable, though I thought that if the map was based on OSM, which was free, it should be okay.

So yes--I'm afraid I need your advice to go through this process and tell me where something went wrong, or whether it was a technicality I omitted, something I misunderstood, or simply that it was fundamentally wrong from the beginning. My maps for the subsequent battle of Lambusart seem to also have an alert as it didn't seem to contain enough copyright info about licence tags so I've tried to add (CC BY-SA 2.0) to it as OSM says that's the licence their maps are licensed under. I really don't even know if I did that right but I'm trying.

Please let me know how to proceed. If I have to trace the darn map out on Photoshop and just use my traced freehand version with no map background because ANY and all map imagery is prohibited somehow, I'll do that--but I need to know I'm not wasting my time again, it isn't easy or fast for me to make these maps and I've already had to redo all of them twice so far, burning many nights in the process. If I have to redo them again, I want to make sure it's correct and acceptable this time. I love history and contributing to knowledge, but this lack of clarity or sufficient guidance from anyone is really frustrating and annoying for a newbie like me. I'm really hoping you can help point me in the right direction.

Talamioros (talk) 06:59, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Talamioros: I think your timeline is correct, but misses a crucial fact, which is that, unless I made a terrible mistake, the files that I tagged for deletion were the old ones that you made based on Google Earth, not the new ones based on OpenStreetMap. I saw this as a simple tidying-up operation, since you had apparently found a new OSM-based workflow and none of the maps I tagged was in use.

It looks as though this may have been a slight mistake, though, since it's drawn the attention of EugeneZelenko and he has tagged all your nice new OSM-based maps as not having a correct licence tag. It's possible that this is right and you've made some subtle error in attributing OSM. I know that OSM changed their licensing a few years ago, so maybe it's related to that. Anyway, fixing it should just be a case of finding the right form of words, so I'll try to look into it later today and come up with something plausible. It shouldn't be necessary for you to redraw the maps again. --bjh21 (talk) 11:26, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Talamioros: I've had a bit of a poke around (and disappeared down the odd rabbit-hole), and this does indeed look simple to fix. The rendered map tiles that you're using ultimately come from an OSM Tileserver on Wikimedia infrastructure. The renderer seems to be using an old version of the openstreetmap-carto style with the labels removed. Carto is in the public domain[1], so even thoiugh the tiles are probably derived works of Carto, it doesn't impose any licensing restrictions or attribution requirements. What is needed is a correct statement of the source of the map data. As far as I can see, that's just a case of sticking {{ODbL OpenStreetMap}} in the licensing section before your {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}}. It would probably be a good idea to also update the source to indicate where you got the map from. A link like the one to mc.bbbike.org above would seem appropriate. I've updated File:Battle of Gosselies.png with what I think are the appropriate changes. Does that look sensible? --bjh21 (talk) 16:56, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Bjh21, thank you so much for taking the time and trouble to investigate. I didn't realise you'd tagged my old images, but given Eugene Zelenko's subsequent tagging, I doubt that realisation would have lessened my confusion anyway haha. You're a lifesaver, and I'm glad you helped because I'm not sure I would've been able to cut through the confusion myself. I think the changes you made on my Gosselies map have made it so clear--given that I'll be using this same methodology for all subsequent battle maps (cuz I'm planning to map pretty much all the Revolutionary/Napoleonic War articles that don't have contemporary or detailed maps), it's an incredible relief that I can continue this method, and also that I now have a model on which to base my subsequent submissions.

Thank you SO MUCH. I'll apply your tags the way you did them to the other works I've made as well. Talamioros (talk) 13:50, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeghishe (Եղիշե), not Jeghishe (Ջեգիշե)

You declined my offer to change the name of the photo. This man's name is written in English as Yeghishe, not Jeghishe. He is Armenian by nationality, his name is written in Armenian by Եղիշե Իշխանյան. In my opinion, you can also write Armenian in the title of the photo with English (Yeghishe_Ishkhanian - Եղիշե Իշխանյան). There seems to be no reason not to do so․ Please make the appropriate change in the photo.--Gardmanahay (talk) 13:52, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gardmanahay: You requested renaming under criterion 4 of COM:FR, "To harmonize the names of a set of images so that only one part of all names differs", but didn't provide any indication of what the set of images was or how they fitted within the narrow terms of criterion 4. From your explanation above, I think you may have intended criterion 3, "To correct obvious errors in filenames, including misspelled proper nouns, incorrect dates, and misidentified objects or organisms". The file was uploaded by Vacio, who is a native speaker of Dutch (see m:User:Vacio), and the Dutch letter "J" has the same sound as English "Y", so a possibility is that this is simply Ishkhanian's name in Dutch, but that's contradicted by the very different Dutch name in the description. So on balance I think that this is a case for criterion 3. And while we wouldn't rename a file solely to add a different language, it seems reasonable to add someone's name in their own language if we're renaming a file anyway. As such I have renamed the file under criterion 3 to your suggested name. In future, if you could use the correct criterion and provide some explanation with your requests, it's more likely that they'll be accepted. --bjh21 (talk) 16:01, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the detailed explanation.--Gardmanahay (talk) 19:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with photo name

You declined my offer to rename this photo. Why? Do you think there should be some incomprehensible numbers in the title of the photo? For example these (18557747543)․ Please make the appropriate changes according to my application. --Gardmanahay (talk) 13:59, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gardmanahay: : I declined the request because you requested it under criterion 4 ("To harmonize the names of a set of images so that only one part of all names differs") but gave no indication of what set of images needed to be harmonised or why. As explained in its footnote, criterion 4 is very narrow and only applies in a few specific cases, none of which are obviously relevant here. I am generally neutral on whether file names should include disambiguating numbers like Flickr IDs, though I usually include them in my own uploads of files from other sites. When renaming files I'll generally try to follow whatever the original uploader did. In any case, COM:FR doesn't authorise renaming files solely to remove (or add) such identifiers. --bjh21 (talk) 15:35, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Special:Diff/621390247

Hi Bjh21. Regarding the above mentioned diff, I do think that the name is ambiguous and didn't define the image properly as you can yourself see him recieving the award from the President. And there are others present too not only Samuthirakani making the name even more ambiguous. Thanks! Hulged (talk) 07:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hulged: The question isn't whether the name is ambiguous, but whether it's so ambiguous as to warrant renaming. Renaming a file has the potential to cause harm because some kinds of external use of a file (links directly to the file) stop working when a file is renamed. The longer a file has been on Commons, the more likely it is that such uses will exist. This is why Commons:File renaming (which, unlike Commons:File naming, is actually agreed policy) specifies quite narrow criteria for when renaming is acceptable. For ambiguous names, all of the examples are much more ambiguous than this one, so I still think that renaming is not appropriate. Sorry. --bjh21 (talk)

Ryszard-Jasniewicz-Rewolta-(Revolt)-2012-Gabriela-Pewinska.jpg

Thanks again for renaming the file.

Could you please modify the auto-generated comment:

“Uploaded a work by Grzegorz Mehring from wife of Ryszard Jaśniewicz with UploadWizard”

replacing “Grzegorz Mehring” with “Gabriela Pewińska”? — Preceding unsigned comment added by W1k0 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 17 January 2022‎ (UTC)[reply]

@W1k0: I'm afraid I'm not able to do that. I don't think even administrators can change log entries like that, but they may be able to hide the entire comment. I think this would be a kind of revision deletion, though, and that page doesn't seem to cover entries that are only inaccurate. --bjh21 (talk) 23:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answer.

The file name and author name are now correct. I can live with this minor comment error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by W1k0 (talk • contribs) 00:40, 18 January 2022‎ (UTC)[reply]

Upper Dolpo stuff

great! many thanks for your help. 2003:E5:3714:4E00:E8BC:23CF:8BAB:A4B5 09:46, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, when you have some time: Could you please move all files with "Upper Dolpo" filenames from Category:Photographs_by_Bruno_Rijsman to Category:Photographs of Jumla to Jomsom trek 2017 by Bruno Rijsman? That should remove the now redundant flickrstream category, and also catch lost ones (in case there are any). I already did that for the renamed ones. thanks again. 2003:E5:3714:4E00:E8BC:23CF:8BAB:A4B5 10:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thank you for working on this! --bjh21 (talk) 10:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You like long

You really like these long descriptive filenames for our maps - no matter that every file has Description section, where these long description should be placed and file explained, not in title/filename. Who is going to use these files in Wikipedia, with a filename longer then a friggin paragraph.--Santasa99 (talk) 02:58, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Santasa99: I don't particularly like long filenames. What I do like is following the requirements of Commons:File renaming, which don't mention excessive length of name as a reason for renaming a file. If the filename is too long to use on Wikipedia, you can always create a redirect at a shorter name (either here or on Wikipedia) and use the name of the redirect instead. If you want to change the renaming policy, you should probably be at Commons talk:File renaming or Commons:Village pump/Proposals. --bjh21 (talk) 11:45, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Renamings

I took a bit too close to heart your renaming rationale of File:Símbolo do PPM.png and reverted it with some harsh words, for which I apologize. The uploader seems to be under the impression that filenames should be in English (or maybe that if his uploaded copyvios are filenamed in English nobody will delete them?) and you made the best of his clumsy renaming request, given that you do not know Portuguese. The automated edit summary reads a tad offensive, though, and that made me respond in kind — and unkindly. Futurely, it’s best to ignore these FR requests, for they are frivolous at best and at worst they are poor attempts at circumventing copyright restrictions. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 06:43, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tuvalkin: Oh, yes, I see what you mean about the summary in combination with the language change! I'm sorry about that. My meaning was the "PPM" was ambiguous (along the lines of the "only initials" sub-category), not that there was anything meaningless or ambiguous about naming a file in Portuguese. I was effectively using two criteria, changing "Símbolo do" to "Logo" under criterion 1 (uploader request) and "PPM" to "Partido Popular Monárquico" under criterion 2 (meaningless or ambiguous name). I know that there's been some discussion of the relationship between criterion 1 and the recommendation under COM:FRNOT to decline requests that only change language but I haven't seen any consensus. My current approach is to only decline an original uploader's request when it would actually make the filename worse (as several in this set did), but maybe I should be more conservative with older files. In case you want to revert any others, here are my other renames in that set:

File:MRPP.png → File:PCTP-MRPP logo.png (criterion 2)
File:R.I.R.png → File:Reagir Incluir Reciclar logo.png (mixed criterion 1 and 2; deemed not a copyvio in Commons:Deletion requests/File:R.I.R.png)
File:Bandeira do RIR.png → File:Reagir Incluir Reciclar Flag.png (mixed criterion 1 and 2)
File:Bandeira do PTP.png → File:Partido Trabalhista Português Flag.png (mixed criterion 1 and 2)
File:Bandeira do MAS.png → File:Movimento Alternativa Socialista Flag.png (mixed criterion 1 and 2)
File:Martelo ,Foice e Estrela do PCP.png → File:Portuguese Communist Party Hammer and Sickle.png (criterion 1)
File:Ergue-te.png → File:Ergue-te logo.png (criterion 1)
File:Bandeira do Volt Portugal.png → File:Volt Portugal Flag.png (criterion 1)
File:Bandeira do PPM.png → File:PPM Flag.png (criterion 1)
File:Bandeira do PCTP-MRPP.png → File:PCTP-MRPP Flag.png (criterion 1)
File:Bandeira do Partido Livre.png → File:Partido LIVRE Flag.png (criterion 1)
File:Bandeira do Nós, Cidadãos!.png → File:Nós, Cidadãos! Flag.png (criterion 1)
File:Bandeira do Ergue-te.png → File:Ergue-te Flag.png (criterion 1)
File:Bandeira do Aliança.png → File:Partido Aliança Flag.png (criterion 1)

--bjh21 (talk) 10:39, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming denial

Hi Bjh21, you denied that renaming request — and many others — saying something that is not understandable for me : this is not a point where "oe" replaces "œ" but the contrary : the spelling with the "œ" is erroneous because that spelling badly adapting (with the "œ") the German language never occurs (which is widely explained in the articles in French and then in English). And both writings are not alternatives but a tolerance about those unhappyly frequent errors. So there is no reason to perpetuate these errors. Could you please revise your position ? And I would be grateful to know the right item (from 1 to 6 ?) to choose for justification. Regards. --LeoAlig (talk) 12:34, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that the photographs are numerous and that a large part of them (about a little more than one out of three) are erroneous. Regards. LeoAlig (talk) 13:17, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@LeoAlig: Criterion 3 requires not just error, but "obvious error". Here the error is sufficiently non-obvious that both English and French Wikipedias only renamed their articles yesterday, and on English Wikipedia this was preceded by an edit war that required that article to be protected for a week. And, as you say, about a third of pictures on Commons use the name with "œ". To me that indicates that the error is far from "obvious". However it seems that my street has its water supply back so I'm going to have a bath. Maybe another filemover will take pity on you while I'm away. --bjh21 (talk) 13:33, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think so because you removed my renaminq requests. And it was quite a job to prepare them.

About the error, it is really "obvious" but many people nevertheless do it, because it is not so easy to distniguish one writing from another : this is the problem.

Have a good bath : I hope you are not speaking of a flood. LeoAlig (talk) 14:05, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@LeoAlig: There are still over 40 files nominated by you for renaming in Category:Media requiring renaming - rationale 4, so there are plenty of opportunities for other filemovers to decide that the request are valid. If it turns out that they do, it took me less than ten minutes to decline all the requests that I declined, so I expect I can restore them similarly quickly. --bjh21 (talk) 17:35, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi bjh21, I do not think things will move more because I've just checked that all my renaming requests seem to have been denied by you. Regards. LeoAlig (talk) 15:51, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will you excuse me : I forgot to check a row of "onglets" (as we call it in French… maybe translated by "tabs"). Some seem to remain… still not renamed. LeoAlig (talk) 15:53, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@LeoAlig: Yes, I haven't denied any more since you asked me to stop, but it doesn't look like anyone's keen to rename them either, so they're still clogging up Category:Media requiring renaming - rationale 4. --bjh21 (talk) 16:33, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shall I change the rationale ? LeoAlig (talk) 18:51, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@LeoAlig: That would at least put them in the correct category. I have no idea whether it would make anyone more likely to move them though. It's been almost two days since you tagged them and if it were obvious that moving them was right I'd expect that someone would have done it by now. --bjh21 (talk) 19:50, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well !?

Accoring to you, what would be the correct category ? And, if any, what is the way to change it ? I think that I would need to cancel the first request and then create a new one. LeoAlig (talk) 20:18, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@LeoAlig: Obviously according to me the correct category is none at all because the files don't qualify for renaming. But the one they're closest to qualifying under is criterion 3: obvious error. You can just edit each file's description and replace 2=4 with 2=3 in the {{Rename}} template. --bjh21 (talk) 20:46, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advice. LeoAlig (talk) 04:05, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@LeoAlig: It's been a few days, no-one has accepted any of the renaming requests under criterion 3 (or 4), and Richardkiwi declined your request on File:Château du Haut-Kœnigsbourg - 20160605 170727.jpg, so it looks like I'm not hugely out of step with other filemovers. I've declined all the remaining requests. --bjh21 (talk) 12:51, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It lacks enthusiasm ! Regards. LeoAlig (talk) 13:18, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kijkwijzer icon.png

Could i get you to move this to Kijkwijzer Coarse language.png? --Trade (talk) 00:16, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Trade: Not until it has a free licence, for which I've tagged it. When it has a free licence, you can use the "Move" link in the "More" menu, or add a {{Rename}} template. --bjh21 (talk) 00:37, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ristorante Opificio 16 - Enoteca & Wine Bar (47669310691).jpg

Nel rinominare questo file, hai lasciato una parte del vecchio nome (47669310691) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walter Giannetti (talk • contribs) 19:07, 16 February 2022‎ (UTC)[reply]

Replied below. --bjh21 (talk) 19:17, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ristorante Osteria del Conte (Montepulciano) (40702906353).jpg

Nel rinominare questo file, hai lasciato una parte del vecchio nome (40702906353) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walter Giannetti (talk • contribs) 19:10, 16 February 2022‎ (UTC)[reply]

@Walter Giannetti: Yes. That number identifies the picture on Flickr, so it helps with finding it again later and makes sure the name is unique. From Commons:Rinominare file: Se possibile, si dovrebbe cercare di mantenere sia la lingua che lo schema utilizzati, così come la numerazione assegnata dalla macchina fotografica o per catalogazione. Possibly I should have left the "DSC 0633" in there as well. --bjh21 (talk) 19:17, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, grazie per la risposta Walter Giannetti (talk) 19:23, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moving (renaming) Alex Comfort image

Thanks so much for your help with this. Might you do it again (sorry!), this time including the correct date in the file name, ie 1 July 1989 (rather than the old Spitzy date of September)?

AnOpenMedium (talk) 17:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AnOpenMedium: I think I've done that already. The mistake was entirely my fault: I didn't notice that you'd explicitly specified the new name that you wanted until I started replying to you. --bjh21 (talk) 18:35, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Naming convention

I'm not sure if 'Cosplayer of X character' is correct english according to Wiktionary --Trade (talk) 21:07, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Trade: Ooh, this is an interesting grammatical question. There's certainly a shortage of Google hits for "cosplayer of" followed by a character name. However, it seems that in general an agent noun (like "cosplayer") can be followed by "of" and the object of the corresponding verb. In this case, wikt:cosplay is a transitive verb whose object is the character in question ("Y cosplays X character"), so that gives rise to "Y is a cosplayer of X character". This use of "of" is meaning 9 in wikt:of, relating to the "objective genitive". This covers both the agent noun case ("cosplayer of X character") and your preferred style with a noun of action ("cosplay of X character"). So I think both forms are valid, and the reason they're not listed on wikt:cosplay or wikt:cosplayer is that they are instances of a general grammatical rule. --bjh21 (talk) 21:47, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Detecting nonexisting files

See https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Files_used_on_OpenStreetMap/125 - is it possible to list nonexisting ones separately? In addition or instead? I just fixed several, but gathering tehm together may be a good idea if easy to do Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:06, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mateusz Konieczny: I've been fixing a few of them too: https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Ben%20Harris/history. The bot could check each file for existence, but that would add quite a lot of API calls for something that's not really its job. There's a list of galleries with broken links here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Commons_pages_with_broken_file_links&from=Files+used+on+OpenStreetMap. It's not very helpful, though, because with 1000 files per gallery almost every gallery has at least one broken link. I wonder if I can do anything with Quarry... --bjh21 (talk) 12:30, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mateusz Konieczny: Not quite what you wanted, but quarry:query/66913 may be of interest. If you want to re-run the query (or change it), you can fork it to your own account. --bjh21 (talk) 12:42, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Readme

Can you add to https://github.com/bjh21/usage-bot readme with info how this bot can be run? This would increase chance that bot can be resurrected once you stop running it Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 13:29, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mateusz Konieczny: It's tempting to suggest that anyone who should be running the bot will have no difficulty working out how to do so, but I've stuck a quick README file in there giving some pointers. --bjh21 (talk) 16:55, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

wiki:symbol

Are you interested in listing use mentioned in https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:wiki:symbol ? Though it may be trickier as many are referring to OSM Wiki pages Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 13:31, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mateusz Konieczny: Yes, working out which wiki a file comes from would be a bit tricky because it would involve feeding the full list of files to the API on the OSM Wiki. One possible approach would be to have another usage bot instance maintaining galleries on the OSM Wiki of files referenced from wiki:symbol=*, and then those would be naturally picked up by my Usage Bot and added to Commons:Files used on the OpenStreetMap Wiki. That would also ensure that the files hosted on the OSM Wiki got properly marked as being in use. A similar approach would work for files used in data items on the OSM Wiki. --bjh21 (talk) 17:24, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense! Feel free to ask on Talk:Wiki on OSM Wiki for bot permission (right now I have bot marking such use, but by putting template on file pages - I think that gallery version is superior) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 12:00, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mateusz Konieczny: After some consideration, I think I will propose running the bot on the OpenStreetMap wiki as well. I do have a question, though. What is there that displays wiki:symbol? There doesn't seem to be any mention of this on osmwiki:Key:wiki:symbol. Taginfo says that Nop's Reit- und Wanderkarte uses it, but I've not managed to find anywhere where it shows wiki:symbol rather than osmc:symbol. --bjh21 (talk) 20:18, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No idea! It is possible that it is not supported anywhere at all Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 16:35, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mateusz Konieczny: Thanks. One of the (unwritten) principles of the Usage Bot is that it tracks where files are displayed, and not where they're merely referenced. This corresponds with how Special:GlobalUsage tracks display of images but not links to them. So if nothing displays wiki:symbol (yet), I won't add it to the bot.

However, I may well want to run the bot on the OSM Wiki to track uses of osmwiki:Property:P28, since that is displayed on item pages, and references files on the OSM Wiki. I just need to sort out the code for finding them... --bjh21 (talk) 20:07, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Files used on OpenStreetMap

Found "Dateiverwendung Die folgende Seite verwendet diese Datei: Commons:Files used on OpenStreetMap/..." ... very nice

on the linked "Commons:Files used on OpenStreetMap/[...]" i read

"Files in this gallery are referenced by the image=* and wikimedia_commons=* keys on OpenStreetMap."

this means

"Files in this gallery are referenced by the image=* or wikimedia_commons=* keys on OpenStreetMap."

i guess?

(The linking to Taginfo ist rather sensless ... better would be a Link to the OSM objekt) ... Baummapper (talk) 17:26, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Baummapper: I think I did mean "and", and that the meaning of "and" and "or" changes when applied to a plural noun. But I also think I made a mistake, so I've corrected it to "and/or" which is ugly but covers all the possibilities.

I did have a good reason for linking to Taginfo rather than to individual objects, but it doesn't really apply now. On the other hand, I do find the Level0 link from Taginfo really useful, so I'm reluctant to put in the effort to change things in a way that will make things worse for me personally. If you can put in the effort, feel free to submit a pull request. --bjh21 (talk) 20:12, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Files used by RegiowikiAT

Hi Bjh21, at first sorry for my bad english ;-) - but I have a request, if its possible to implement in your Bot the used Files in regiowiki: which is driven from WMAT - which kind of informations is necessary to install it from yourside? --regards from Austria -- K@rl (talk) Mid Abstond hoidn xund bleibn 20:50, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Karl Gruber Ihr Englisch ist ganz besser als mein Deutsch! I think I have all the necessary technical information already: I just ran the back-end of the bot against RegiowikiAT and it found about 11000 files from Commons. Since that's quite a lot of files, I've posted the proposal at Commons talk:Tracking external file usage. You might like to comment there. --bjh21 (talk) 00:12, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thx for your help. The matter of the 11000 files are, that not one image is uploaded in the regiowiki directly. so I hope, the request will be asses positive. regards -- K@rl (talk) Mid Abstond hoidn xund bleibn 06:37, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Only a short question: How many okays are necessary, to implement my request? ---- K@rl (talk) Diskussion 12:55, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Karl Gruber: One would be enough. I do want to allow enough time for people to comment or ask questions, though. The part of the bot that queries other wikis will next run on Monday. If no-one has objected by then, RegiowikiAT will be in that run. --bjh21 (talk) 14:05, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Super, I understand, many thx - regards -- K@rl (talk) Diskussion 14:16, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Once more, the method is very tricky :-) - two question more: How many files are on one subpage? - second: If a file is not use longer, it will be deleted in the list too? It menas. the list will created everytime new or only appended? - regards -- K@rl (talk) Diskussion 08:59, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Karl Gruber: Each gallery page has at most 1000 files (and usually exactly 1000 files). The bot will remove files from the galleries as they stop being used. For example, this recent edit removed one unused file from a gallery and then added another to bring the gallery back up to 1000 files: Special:Diff/695366182. --bjh21 (talk) 10:13, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Understudd, many thx for your help and your answers, which are very helpful for me. regards -- K@rl (talk) Diskussion 10:22, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

S I have one question more to this: How you can find out in Regiowiki the files? out of articles or out of Special:Wanted files? --thx -- K@rl (talk) Diskussion 09:38, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bjh21, a happy new year in hindsight and many thanks for the bot, which is verry helpfull for our statistic. But I have a question to this matter. At first: All the pages were filled up with 1000 images, but in the meantime, each page have more or less images stored. so its very crazy to find out the true number of user images. Do you know a possibilty to count and add from each page the correct number. So the result could be shown on Commons:Files used on RegiowikiAT --regards. -- K@rl (talk) Diskussion 10:01, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Geograph Germany

Hi @Bjh21 Thank you very much for curating Geograph images. I really like the Geograph projects! We have a new property for images from Geograph Deutschland: d:Property:P11309 Could you modify your Geograph bot to update metadata of files from Geograph Deutschland? ChristianSW (talk) 13:23, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ChristianSW: For Geograph Britain and Ireland, my bot depends on the database dumps available at http://data.geograph.org.uk/dumps/. Are there similar database dumps of Geograph Deutschland available? --bjh21 (talk) 14:16, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Bjh21 Can't find it, maybe http://geo.hlipp.de/help/api ? ChristianSW (talk) 16:08, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Images from Geograph Britain and Ireland needing category review

Hi bjh21, I'm doing some clean up and I wonder if we still need Category:Images from Geograph Britain and Ireland needing category review. These files have been tagged for more than ten years. I think it's probably best to remove the {{Check categories-Geograph}}. What do you think? If you agree I'll nominate the categories for deletion. Multichill (talk) 14:42, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Multichill: I find the template slightly useful. When I see it on a file I'm touching for other reasons, I notice it and check the categories. So I think the template should remain. I think sorting the files by date is pointless, so we could just have a flat category at Category:Images from Geograph Britain and Ireland needing category review. I think the top-level category should be kept, though. --bjh21 (talk) 13:57, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fine by me. Multichill (talk) 17:46, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarang: You blanked this redirect yesterday. This means that a few hundred files no longer have links to their originals. Are you planning to correct them? If not then I think the redirect should be reinstated. --bjh21 (talk) 14:31, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for telling me - I made an error, meant was the unused Template:{{DerivedFrom}}; now Derivedfrom is restored and DerivedFrom blanked, everything is fine now. -- sarang♥사랑 16:47, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarang: Thank you! --bjh21 (talk) 13:52, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Usage Bot

Hello Bjh21, as before, I am grateful for your commitment to the development of the Usage Bot. One question: could you imagine adding a category function to the bot? (see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:wikimedia_commons#Examples)? Reason: here, too, renaming is possible on the Commons side without being noticed on the OSM side. Molgreen (talk) 18:35, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Molgreen: There are several reasons why I think this is unlikely:

Commons doesn't have any equivalent to COM:INUSE for categories. So whether a category has links from other Wikimedia projects, let alone the world at large, is unlikely to be a consideration in deciding whether to delete it.
Relatedly, Commons doesn't have a way of detecting links to categories from other Wikimedia projects, so adding such a mechanism for external projects would be weirdly inconsistent.
Any Commons category that corresponds with a feature in OSM almost certain has (or at least should have) a Wikidata item. Wikidata items are automatically updated when changes are made on Commons, are visibly linked from category pages, and are generally not renamed. So wikidata=Q915614 would be better than wikimedia_commons=Category:St Paul, Birmingham.
Category pages don't have an equivalent of a "File Usage" section, so either the bot would have to edit the category page or people would have to visit "What links here" to find links when considering renaming or deletion. The former would be excessively noisy and the latter seems unlikely to me.
Usage Bot is currently approved only to maintain galleries of files, so tracking references to categories would require further approval.

So on balance I don't think this is an appropriate thing for Usage Bot to do. Sorry. --bjh21 (talk) 11:23, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bjh21, thank you very much for your clear explanation. No problem. As I said, I am still very grateful to you for the bot. --Molgreen (talk) 15:36, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Files used on OpenStreetMap

Hi Bjh21,

first of all, thanks for your work, especially these categories and for the Quarry query you linked in another reply. They are very helpful and I'm using those + Overpass and a Maproulette challenge to fix all the values syntax + removing all the deleted/missing images. There are still two things that we can't automatically check yet, and I was wondering if you knew some solution:

1. When people puts more images as value, such as "wikimedia_commons=File:xyz.jpg;File:zxy.jpg", that's flagged as a "broken link" in "Commons:Files used on OpenStreetMap". This way isn't possible to understand if both images are valid, if both are broken or if one is valid and one is broken.

2. Do you think there's a way to do a similar job for categories ("wikimedia_commons=Category:xzy") to detect if a category used as a value is broken (e.g. it doesn't exist or there's a typo)?

Thanks again Ivanbranco (talk) 10:17, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanbranco:

1: There is nothing in osmwiki:Key:wikimedia_commons to suggest that semicolon-separated values are acceptable. Moreover, semicolons are allowed in Commons file names, and some such files are referenced from OSM (e.g. File:Podlaskie - Białystok - Białystok - Raginisa 8 - cm Farny - kościół Chrystusa Zbawiciela - Front;daleko.jpg). The bot has no way of knowing whether a semicolon represents a real semicolon in the file name or a separator between file names, so it follows the specification and treats it as part of the file name. Both overpass turbo and the OSM Web site agree with Usage Bot's interpretation (overpass turbo query, node in OSM). If the OSM community updates osmwiki:Key:wikimedia_commons with an explanation of how to reliably distinguish these two cases, I'll update Usage Bot to follow it.

2: See my reply to Molgreen above regarding categories.

--bjh21 (talk) 10:36, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I would like to update the Wiki discouraging the use of ";" as a separator for the reasons you provided, and the use of "=Category:xyz" when Wikidata is already present since Wikidata is easier to QA, this using parts of your reply, would you be fine with it?

Ivanbranco (talk) 13:10, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bjh21: I put a temporary version in my userpage with the edited parts in bold if you want to take a look at it or giving me a suggestion to improve it (English isn't my first language). --Ivanbranco (talk) 14:37, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Crete

Thank you for your swift response to my request for renaming the fantasy flag. Much appreciated! I have mangaged to eliminate the use of the files from the article space of all xx-Wikis. There is, however, a small remaining problem. For some reason, the flags are still visible in the "Places by century"-template on the Commons category page Category:Crete by century and similar for the 18th, 19th century etc. Perhaps the flag is picked up by automatically following the remaining redirect? I do not know if you can do anything about it, but perhaps you know who can? Thank you in advance, and kind regards. TU-nor (talk) 14:07, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TU-nor: I noticed that. It appears to be because Template:Place by century guesses that a file called "File:Flag of place.svg" is a good fallback image to represent place. You can override this by setting the image= parameter on that template in Category:Crete by century etc. I don't think there's currently a way to say "no image at all". --bjh21 (talk) 15:23, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I tried to find a way to insert "no image", but couldn't. Isn't it possible to delete the redirect? --TU-nor (talk) 18:55, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just after posting this, I got an idea and found File:Blank flag.svg. It works! --TU-nor (talk) 18:58, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Usage Bot's false positive

Hi Bjh21,

I think I found a false positive in the Usage Bot. The file "File:ძიბახევი (Dzibakhevi) cemetery.jpg" is listed as "broken file link" in "Commons:Files used on OpenStreetMap/47" even if the image exist. I guess it has something to do with the georgian letters? Ivanbranco (talk) 09:19, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanbranco: Yes. The problem is that the bot thinks the file's real name is "File:Ძიბახევი (Dzibakhevi) cemetery.jpg". It seems that the bot disagrees with MediaWiki about whether "ძ" should be replaced by "Ძ" at the start of the file name. I'll see if I can work out why they disagree. Thank you for reporting the problem! --bjh21 (talk) 10:36, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanbranco: I think I've fixed this now. The problem was that the bot was using a newer version of Unicode than Commons for upper-casing the first character of the file name. The fix is in commit f16e02. The bot will run with the new code tonight, so that run should fix the file you mentioned. I've put a few test cases in User:Bjh21/Unicode casing test to demonstrate which characters are and aren't changed. --bjh21 (talk) 13:18, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanbranco: There we go: wrong version removed and right version added. --bjh21 (talk) 09:21, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Missing pages

Hi bjh, two Geograph images have been found having no file page:

Can you add them using the dumps or your bot or should we delete the files for reupload? Cheers, Achim55 (talk) 21:13, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Achim55: I think I should just be able to paste them in from Geograph's sample wikitext. One moment please... --bjh21 (talk) 21:21, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those are both fixed. I just copied the wikitext from here and here respectively, and added some categories. --bjh21 (talk) 21:28, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thank you! I didn't know of the #wikipedia section. Next time I'll fix it myself. All the best, Achim55 (talk) 21:31, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

External usage for AARoads Wiki

Hi, we have just opened the AARoads Wiki which is a subject-specific fork of English Wikipedia. Would it be possible to track external usage on Commons, similar to the setup for OSM Wiki? Rs chen 7754 03:37, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rschen7754: I can't immediately see a problem with that. I usually propose new targets on Commons talk:Tracking external file usage to check that the Commons community is in favour, and post a link to that proposal on COM:VPP. I'll probably do that later today, but I wouldn't object if you got there first. Agreement from the AARoads Wiki side that I should add it as a target would also be good, though in this case maybe I can assume that you speak for AARoads Wiki. --bjh21 (talk) 09:08, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We can crosspost if we need to once the discussion is live. Rs chen 7754 18:04, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rschen7754: This may take a little longer than expected because my test run fetching the list of used files on the AARoads Wiki took over five hours to run before I got bored and stopped it. I don't want to make any proposal until I'm confident that the technical side will work, and it'll take me at least a few days to work out what's going on. Sorry about that. --bjh21 (talk) 21:43, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, there are known performance issues that we are still looking into. Do you know what endpoint your bot is hitting? --Rs chen 7754 00:19, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rschen7754: The bot's main query is https://wiki.aaroads.com/w/api.php?generator=allfileusages&gafunique=&prop=imageinfo%7Cinfo&iiprop=&inprop=url&action=query&indexpageids=&continue=&gaflimit=50&meta=userinfo&uiprop=blockinfo%7Chasmsg&maxlag=5&format=json and then following the continue links from that. In the run I started a few minutes ago, the first request returned in about five seconds, but each subsequent request took about twenty seconds. I'd usually use a larger gaflimit value, but on the AARoads Wiki that caused the requests to take so long that the pywikibot timed them out. I'll leave the test script running in case it's helpful. --bjh21 (talk) 09:08, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rschen7754: I let the test script run to completion and it took over nine hours to do so. This is slow but probably acceptable since I only plan to run the bot weekly. I've put a sample gallery of 1000 files at User:Bjh21/Usage demo. --bjh21 (talk) 21:14, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, we're trying to troubleshoot some performance issues on the AARoads Wiki. Do you know when the last run of the bot on AARoads took place? --Rs chen 7754 21:01, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rschen7754: The first proper run started at 2023-09-25 04:53:51 UTC and finished at 2023-09-25 05:18:03 UTC. It looks as though it failed because of excessive request timeouts, so I'll reduce the request size before next week's run. If you want an earlier run for testing I can set one off manually. --bjh21 (talk) 22:45, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, so far it looks like that is not the cause of the issues but we are still looking. --Rs chen 7754 04:18, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Redundances"

Hi Bjh,

I beg your pardon that I've modified the the headline of your list.

But as you have neglected the crucial difference between the files within the left column and the files within the right column, a firewall was necessary against major destructions.

Best regards, --Ulamm (talk) 14:16, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ulamm: Your new headings are inaccurate: in some cases the original Geograph version has more pixels than the one you uploaded (for example File:St Nicholas church, Willoughby - geograph.org.uk - 3767447.jpg vs File:Willoughby St Nicholas fr SE GeoUK 3767447.jpg. I have reverted User:Bjh21/Redundant derivatives of Geograph images/Visual table to the original accurate headings.

If you want to object to the deletion request, you should do so at Commons:Deletion requests/Redundant derivatives of Geograph images. The closing admin is unlikely to notice comments elsewhere. --bjh21 (talk) 16:59, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bjh21: In most cases, the offered versions have a lesser resolution than the originals, which results in better resolutions created by screenshots.

In some cases very good resolutions are offered. Improving the documentation of of about 3.000 buildings is a hard routine work, resembling an assembly line, though one is alone. Therefore, I did not always look, if a high resolution was offered. Therefore, you should look in each case, which of the photos has the better resolution.

Your approach for deletion makes it impossible to reply on a deletion discussion page.--Ulamm (talk) 19:56, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:St Cuthbert's hall, Shotley Bridge - geograph.org.uk - 4017801.jpg

Thank you for redirecting the duplicate/smaller image files to the above image filepage and the six other St Cuthbert duplicate files ditto. it is useful to now have the larger image files correctly categorised.

However, the duplicate tag (on the now-deleted smaller files) stated that all the extra information on the duplicates would be transferred also. That should include the longer file descriptions (which I had copied from the original on Geograph) which are now missing. That information is important for categorisation, because one or more of the missing descriptions say that the vicarage was designed by the architect of the church. I do not know how to edit this set of bot-transferred image files - the edit icons do not work for me. Please could you either transfer the missing longer descriptions to the new locations, or let me know how to do it myself? Thank you. Storye book (talk) 10:53, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Storye book: I think if you want to do this, you need to replace the existing {{Geograph from structured data}} in the file's description with a conventional {{Information}} template. I'd suggest first copying the one provided on the file's "re-use" page and then replacing the description with an expanded one based on the Geograph comment. Note that the Geograph comments are licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0 like the pictures, so you should at least acknowledge the source in the edit comment. I've done this to File:St Cuthbert's hall, Shotley Bridge - geograph.org.uk - 4017801.jpg as an example. The reason I didn't do it before nominating the files for deletion was that I thought there was a licensing problem with importing long comments into Commons. Having re-read the Terms of use I think I was mistaken and it's OK as long as you put them in wikitext and not structured data. --bjh21 (talk) 11:37, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

... So I apologise: I should have read the Terms of use more carefully and in future I will preserve comments copied from Geograph. --bjh21 (talk) 11:38, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thank you - I get it now. Just swap the whole template format. Why didn't I think of that before? Your help is much appreciated. Also, please don't forget that sometimes uploaders add extra description comment to Geograph filepages on Commons, e.g. a corrected town location name, or other valid expansions - there is no copyright problem with those additions, and they are sometimes important for categorisation. Storye book (talk) 12:22, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Storye book: Indeed, I usually try to preserve text written by uploaders if it seems to add something to what's on the existing copy. --bjh21 (talk) 13:06, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Keep up the good work! Storye book (talk) 16:59, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files used on DCW website

Hi @Bjh21. I'd appreciate if you could help set up a page that lists files that we are using on our website at dcwwiki.org. The category could be something like: Files used by Deoband Community Wikimedia (or just DCW). Best regards, TheAafi (DCW) (talk) 16:09, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheAafi (DCW): That sounds like a good idea. At present, Usage Bot only has community approval to maintain galleries for Wikimedia chapters, so I've proposed over on Commons talk:Tracking external file usage that this should be extended to all kinds of Wikimedia movement affiliate, including DCW. --bjh21 (talk) 17:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I just came across WMAU thing and thought it was better to ask. TheAafi (DCW) (talk) 18:51, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bjh21: Thanks for the great work and setting up Commons:Files used by Deoband Community Wikimedia. I wonder why files from this page don't show up? or do I get it right that this is a behavior issue with mw:Extension:LinkCards? TheAafi (DCW) (talk) 08:31, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheAafi (DCW): Yes, I think the problem is that {{#linkcards:...}} doesn't properly mark the files as being in use. If you look at https://dcwwiki.org/File:Tanveer_Hasan_20180912.jpg (the first picture on the page), you can see that under "File usage" the page says "There are no pages that use this file." If the wiki can't tell that the file is in use, neither can Usage Bot. --bjh21 (talk) 09:39, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

location for files used on OSM?

Hi Bjh21, Commons:Files_used_on_OpenStreetMap/169 etc. is quite useful stuff. What do you think, would it be possible in this context to extract object location info from OSM and put it to the images, if there is none? I have a script that does this file by file manually, e.g. for File:P1012481 Original Dicke Linde 20130907.jpg the call is [2], but I can imagine more elegant solutions. best --Herzi Pinki (talk) 18:53, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Herzi Pinki: That's a neat idea. I think this might be safe to do with a bot, but I'm not going to write it any time soon (too many other things to do!). --bjh21 (talk) 23:44, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be a great idea, I was about to suggest the same. Somehow coordinates should be a condition for hosting all these files for OSM. It's a bit odd that cartographers upload them without coordinates. Enhancing999 (talk) 10:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

illegal file name (for usage bot purpose)

In Commons:Files used on OpenStreetMap/168 there is a (red) link to image=file:///home/ado/Bilder/bracstone.jpeg, which is not a commons pathname. No idea what this means, maybe you can filter such cases. best --Herzi Pinki (talk) 19:00, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Herzi Pinki: What it means is that some object in OSM had a tag saying image=file:///home/ado/Bilder/bracstone.jpeg (though it seems it's been changed now; the Overpass API can't find it). The link is to file:///home/ado/Bilder/bracstone.jpeg, which doesn't exist. Slightly to my surprise, though, it could exist. As an example, I just created a redirect at file:///example.png that works perfectly well. So the bot can't tell that there's anything wrong just by looking at the filename.

The bot deliberately includes red links in galleries, partly because that's easier than filtering them out and partly because they usually represent an error on one side or the other that ought to be corrected, so making them visible is useful. --bjh21 (talk) 20:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

quite interesting file:///example.png. ok, if that is a legal possibility (thought this to be illegal), things must stay weird. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 20:53, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Potato starch 2.jpg

File:Potato starch 2.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

0x0a (talk) 11:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ubus 747U5.jpg

You made the right decision by rejecting Solomon203's rename request on this page. I was checking Google Street View and this road is actually called "Shuangshi Road." In other words, he mistook Jianguo Road for Shuangshi Road. Furthermore, I have also found that he often doing unnecessary renaming for files. I've never seen anyone else do this like him, but I'm not sure if this is his hobby. I feel like I should remind you: Solomon203 has a history of COM:RENAME violations like [3], [4], and [5].--125.230.85.210 04:44, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Teatro_Ivo_Chiesa.jpg

Hello Bjh21, I fear you might have read the reason for the renaming request a bit too quickly. The request was based on two reasons: (crit. 2) to harmonize the names with all those present in the relevant category (in which each photo is divided by year) and because, given this point, the name containing only the first name becomes ambiguous (in different years, in fact, the architecture was significantly different and, shortly, it will be much more so due to a complete restoration project already funded by the European Union); crit. 4. Thank you. --teatroge (dm) 00:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Teatroge: Criterion 4 (harmonizing names) definitely doesn't apply here. If you read the footnote at COM:FR#cite_note-4, you'll see that criterion 4 has two branches: one where some outside system (like the BSicon templates or Wikisource) needs us to use a particular filename, and the other where a single work has been split into parts for uploading to Commons. Neither of these applies here, and in fact they almost never apply to photographs at all. The argument on criterion 2 (ambiguous name) is stronger, but you'll notice that in the list at COM:FR#cite_note-2 there's nothing that relates to disambiguating by date. Indeed, "an individual building" is specifically mentioned as a kind of filename that doesn't qualify under criterion 2. So I believe that my decision followed the file renaming guidelines. --bjh21 (talk) 12:31, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the detailed response, which I appreciate. However, I believe the answer is incorrect in its ratio legis and pragmatically illogical, even if not wrong. I actually agree with everything you wrote, but it doesn’t address the reason for the renaming request. According to note 4: the file is not part of a set, it’s just in the same category, indeed. According to note 2: disambiguation by date was simply the most effective in this case, but obviously it is neither the only nor the predominant reason for the request (or for the denial). Let me explain better with two examples: the "file:Tree.jpg" or the "file:Table.jpg" are clearly ambiguous and misleading; in fact, they were renamed (one of the two even got blocked). There is no reason why the same shouldn't apply in this case. Furthermore, since the entire category has been reorganized and there is an intention to complete the work, it no longer makes logical sense to maintain a name that is objectively ambiguous in time and form (buildings change, are renovated, can be destroyed, etc.). I hope I have explained myself better now and that you agree with this. If not, would you mind if I requested the renaming again to see if there is a different interpretation by another sysop, or would you prefer a broader discussion (in which case I would ask you to suggest where you prefer it to take place)? Thank you! --teatroge (dm) 23:09, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]