This is the requests and votes page, a centralized place where you can keep track of ongoing user requests, and where you can comment and leave your vote. Any user is welcome to comment on these requests, and any logged in user is welcome to vote.
When requesting rights that do not need the support of the community (e.g. filemover) please go to Commons:Requests for rights!
Any logged-in user is welcome to vote and to comment on the requests below. Votes from unregistered users are not counted, but comments may still be made. If the nomination is successful, a bureaucrat will grant the relevant rights. However, the closing bureaucrat has discretion in judging community consensus, and the decision will not necessarily be based on the raw numbers. Among other things, the closing bureaucrat may take into account the strength of any arguments presented and the experience and knowledge of the commenting users. For example, the comments and votes of users who have zero or few contributions on Commons may at the bureaucrat's discretion be discounted.
It is preferable if you give reasons both for Support votes or Oppose ones as this will help the closing bureaucrat in their decision. Greater weight is given to argument, with supporting evidence if needed, than to a simple vote.
Purge the cache. Use the edit link below to edit the transcluded page.
Please read Commons:Oversighters before voting here. Any logged in user may vote, although those who have few or no previous edits may not be fully counted.
Please read Commons:Checkusers before posting or voting here. Any logged in user may vote although those who have few or no previous edits may not be fully counted.
Please read Commons:Bureaucrats before posting or voting here. Any logged in user may vote although those who have few or no previous edits may not be fully counted.
Please read Commons:Administrators before voting here. Any logged in user may vote although those who have few or no previous edits may not be fully counted.
Reason: I would like to help with the license review backlog. I have more experience since I applied six months ago. --Ooligan (talk) 20:17, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Scheduled to end: 20:17, 19 January 2024 (UTC) (the earliest)
Comments
File:Pyongyang_Arena_near_Fatherland_Liberation_War_Museum.jpg CC BY 4.0 International license with a proper link to the CC license, so it is valid. In addition, "Freedom of Panorama" (FOP) is related to the arena is Ok, per COM:FOP North Korea ("Pyongyang"). It states, "A copyrighted work may be used without the permission ... when a copyrighted work in public places is copied." Keep
File:李海生.png CC Attribution 3.0 Unported license is valid and the license is linked on the video source page. This person's image appears between 0:23 to 0:26. Keep
could you plz try reviewing these?--RZuo (talk) 20:34, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support thx for the good answers. RZuo (talk) 09:13, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Actually I don't want to oppose, but we need to talk about this first.
A1Cafelasked you a month ago to archive your talk page. MediaWiki has limits regarding page size and template usage and it is common sense to keep your talk page at a normal size. I really encourage you to reduce the size of your talk page.
What really concerns me is how you talk to others. A1Cafel wants to help you and you are telling them ”this seems like vandalism“. And then you dig out old things from some year ago.
What I also find strange is that you actually remove things from your discussion page. But only when people write you nice messages (1, 2). Your behavior worries me in this regard and so I cannot vote for you in good conscience. Killarnee (talk) 23:17, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Killarnee, I apologize for the delayed response. There was a weather-related power outage for 28 hours.
First, I agree with you about archiving my talk page. I will be archive my talk page soon. I want to restore the text deleted by A1Cafel, before I add an archive bot.
In the link you provided above, A1Cafel wrote they had not removed anything from my talk page, yet I had provided links to show some of their removals from my talk page.
Here [1] A1Cafel deleted content from my talk page and 1 minute later, reposted the same "Flickr2Commons" posting again to my talk page here [2].
Also, A1Cafel removed this exact same "Flickr2Commons" text from my talk page here [3]. I did not know it at that time that these deletions were made to my talk page. I was not notified by this user of these deletions to my talk page and no reason was given to me.
I notified A1Cafel deleting content from my talk page here [4], a denial here [5], acknowledged past deletions here [6], but did not restore their deletions to my talk page. I want my archives to have all the content, including the content deleted by A1Cafel. No other user has deleted content from my talk page. A pattern of unexplained deletions of talk page text by a User with 9 years experience appears not to be a good faith edits. -- Ooligan (talk) 21:50, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't find the text convincing, because it is basically just a summary of the discussion on your talk page. I'm removing my oppose, which was only there to prevent this request from being closed, but I still cannot support.
Work on your communication and there will be more people on your side. Killarnee (talk) 14:40, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OpposeNeutral Basically per the same reasoning of last July and per Killarnee. Sorry. Bedivere (talk) 15:47, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Bedivere, Please, see my reply above. I replied within hours to @RZuo's questions in detail, unlike last July. Also, my electricity/ internet was lost for over a day in ice storm. Sorry for the delay. -- Ooligan (talk) 22:14, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Reason: I applied previously and have learned a lot since, I'd like to help with the backlog, especially European Commission files and other CC videos. Thank you for consideration. -- // sikander { talk } 🦖 14:18, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Scheduled to end: 14:18, 20 January 2024 (UTC) (the earliest)
Comments
Sikander, I'd briefly want to know what did you learn since then? ─ The Aafī (talk) 14:24, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@TheAafi: Good question, thanks. Browsing Deletion requests and outcomes has been a great source of information. COM:FOP can be complicated especially when 2d/3d objects have to be considered (and I've tripped on it a few times). I've found COM:TOO to be quite interesting especially now that AI generated images are so easy to create. Websites changing license to NC is super unfortunate but it happens and uploaders and reviewers have to do that extra work to make sure the image is free. The COM:VRT and the effort that goes into verifying images is fantastic and I've contacted my local elected reps and encouraged them to use it for their profile photos. Unfortunately the Canadian government is not as open as U.S. and we don't have a Template:PD-USGov equivalent here. Learning can never be complete so it is an ongoing process. Best regards, // sikander { talk } 🦖 14:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How would you license-review a file where the source changed license from CC BY-SA to NC? ─ The Aafī (talk) 17:16, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@TheAafi: The review would depend on when the file was uploaded to Commons and what the source license was at that time. It we can verify via https://web.archive.org or google cache that the image was available at the source as CC BY-SA, then it can remain on Commons. If no such confirmation exists, then the file should not be allowed here. // sikander { talk } 🦖 15:25, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Disagree The lack of metadata info on File:Dorota_Czaja.jpg is a concerning but it is a screenshot from a YouTube video so that's understandable. The YouTube video shows license as "Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed)" so that's a good sign. Email address for the YouTube channel is pomyslowyrodzic.pl so that is also a positive sign that the channel is not fake. However, the site is in Polish and looks like an abandoned WordPress site so I would reach out to a license review who speaks Polish and get their input and also ask the reviewer for File:Monika Mrozowska.JPG for help. I myself would not mark the file as valid as I don't have enough knowledge about the source YouTube channel and website.
AgreeFile:WillKoopman2023.png is also a screenshot from a YouTube with license set to "Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed)" and and the channel belongs to a streaming service so I have a lot more confidence in the license being valid. I would approve this file. // sikander { talk } 🦖 15:25, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Before making a bot request, please read the new version of the Commons:Bots page. Read Commons:Bots#Information on bots and make sure you have added the required details to the bot's page. A good example can be found here.
Any user may comment on the merits of the request to run a bot. Please give reasons, as that makes it easier for the closing bureaucrat. Read Commons:Bots before commenting.
Automatic or manually assisted:Supervised automatic Manual
Edit type(e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): Regular (not continuous)
Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute): 5
Bot flag requested:(Y/N): N
Programming language(s): Python
I have not yet started any development work on this as I'll be awaiting for a test run approval. -- DaxServer (talk) 11:32, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I corrected all the uploads with respective PD licenses, dates, categories - the corrections are an output from the bot (as if it is run to upload). Thus, the bot is manually-assisted capable of corrections to the fields on-demand. There are some quirks here and there, but I expect to update the bot logic as they're encountered.
I'm not sure what you meant by using language ta for department field. Could you explain?
Apart from that, please review and let me know the feedback, and if I missed something. Thanks! -- DaxServer (talk) 19:58, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For example, {{en|UCLA Digital Library – AIIS Center for Art & Archaeology – Negatives & Slides Collection}}. Is it possible to use proper copyright tag based on part of collection like all photos are 2D reproductions of public domain art? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:55, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I used the {{PD-Art|PD-old-100}} inside the {{Photograph}} template and {{PD-old-100}}{{PD-US-expired}}{{PD-country}} for the original object {{Artwork}} template. If I understand correctly what you meant, the PD tags highlighted in green would not be necessary - when the original art work/collection is in PD and the photo is its 2D repro. Did I get it right? -- DaxServer (talk) 20:36, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What qualifier would you use instead? Can you please elaborate more about the exact statement that you would create? Thanks. Geert Van Pamel (talk) 16:23, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It makes sense to have broader discussion on matter of qualifiers. May be bot should be limited just for subjects for now? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:35, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: To upload, categorize, rename, provide with a generated index Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps downloaded from the Library of Congress and other places (seldomly).
Automatic or manually assisted: manual
Edit type(e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): intermittently for a few weeks
Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute): 100 when uploading
i have already uploaded 80,000 files through my main account in the last few days, unaware of this prior authorization requirement. Nowakki (talk) 16:28, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
here is a proposal for the index which i would add to the category page of a town. this category would then have subcategories for the (year, volume) combo of a map too. But the index should suffice to access all the plates.
the code to add the index is not yet written. i will add comments above and below the generated content to allow automatic edits to easily be undone.
For the moment i just need to upload the images. I can ask for additional permissions when i have the code ready.
Additional permissions will almost certainly also include the renaming of old files that were uploaded by somebody else with a bad naming scheme.
In any case, all accesses of the bot will be restricted to files and categories that start with "Sanborn Fire Insurance Map From". In other words, it may make more sense to just look at the end result as this is really just an upload job for new content with some alteration to old content in the same "namespace". Nowakki (talk) 16:38, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Based on your uploads: will be good idea to put content of file name into description, not just plate number; please enclose description in language tag. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:12, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, i am now using the in the description the same string as in the filename (File:ALLTHIS.jpg) with a language tag. I will delay editing existing pages in case something else comes up. Nowakki (talk) 05:01, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@EugeneZelenko: So what is the ruling here? Can i run the bot or not? If yes, can you transfer the auto patrol rights from my main to the bot account? Or do i have to make a separate request for that? I need that to get rid of the rate limit. Nowakki (talk) 03:55, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please make test run. Bot could operate on full speed after approval, but it's necessary to verify that its uploads are fine. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:39, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is an ongoing process. Functionality is continuously added. However uploads can proceed now. There are now a few more uploads for you to verify.
I will then finalize the code and bring a few example towns to the intended end state, so you can approve of the old file rename and the generated index features when the time comes. SanbornMapBot (talk) 11:55, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Description is still not wrapped in language tag ({{en|<description>}}). --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:02, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Damn. It is fixed now. Some more images uploaded. SanbornMapBot (talk) 02:43, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
can you transfer the autopatrol right from my main account to the bot? SanbornMapBot (talk) 02:20, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done. But please perform only test uploads until this request approval. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:45, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have today recategorized and supplied with a {{rename tag all map files from Wyoming (954 files). There are 218,807 files still to be renamed.
As it stands the newly renamed files have a different structure, with different metadata, as provided by the original uploader, from all the plates that i uploaded.
perhaps it would be a good idea to include at least one wiki-link with the newly uploaded files and behind that wikilink would be a page that explains everything about the files in general. SanbornMapBot (talk) 17:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A request to rename 200,000 files found no support after a recent poll failed.
I am planning to add 500,000 redirects to commons and build an alternative tree of categories to
hold the redirects instead. I am requesting permission to let the bot do that.
To make this possible, all names in this tree will be of the form "Sanborn Fire Insurance Map of"
instead of "Sanborn Fire Insurance Map from".
An advertisement/notification for the "fixed and consistent with Sanborn original indexing practice" filenames will be placed in c:Category:Sanborn maps of the United States by state and in each of the 50 state categories, because 50 is not a big number.That should be sufficient for it to get noticed by anyone involved enough (i.e. using the files often) to benefit from the fix. Nowakki (talk) 16:27, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@EugeneZelenko I believe the request in the parent comment needs approval. Is there something you can do? Thanks. Nowakki (talk) 17:51, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What is usage statistics for these files? If absolute majority of them are not used, I think they should be renamed without leaving redirect. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:56, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@EugeneZelenko I made a mistake during upload. a few thousand files were uploaded with a different naming scheme from the others. The volume and the year in the filename switched places. Since these files are barely a week old, they should be renamed without leaving redirects. I request permission to take care of the problem. Nowakki (talk) 09:45, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please make test run. Sure, it's fine to rename without leaving redirect in such circumstances. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. I will start working on that.
Feel free to comment on the other request above.
Answers like: "I don't know", "I am not authorized", "I'd rather not" are total acceptable. I am an adult and will find ways to deal with it. Nowakki (talk) 13:42, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not using the bot to talk anymore after having been told so yesterday. Nowakki (talk) 12:11, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please do not use a bot account for manual edits, and especially not for discussions. We discuss with bot operators, not with bot accounts. --Krd 12:04, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: upload images, update their description and structured data
Automatic or manually assisted: automatically triggered, when upload happens on OsmAPP.org
Edit type(e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): when user uploads an image on OsmAPP.org
Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute): 20 ?
Bot flag requested:(Y/N): N
Programming language(s): TypeScript
Note: Bot is currently in development, asking to be able to test it. Zbytovsky (talk) 19:20, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Discussion
Do I get it right? Someone adds an image to osmapp and your bot will transfer it to Commons. If so, how is ensured that the license of that image is a) valid and b) meets Commons' requirements? --Achim55 (talk) 19:50, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Achim55 Yes, i think you got it right. As OpenStreetMap is also a open data project, we aim to have open licenses. Please see the design of upload dialog. I tried to write it the best I can, but I welcome any suggestions. It will add images with direct link to OSM feature, which means also proper map coordinates and category (eg. castle, guidepost, school, bridge etc.) Zbytovsky (talk) 07:35, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@EugeneZelenko Well, I didn't think of that, thanks for bringing it to my attention :-) As we are a map application, it is pretty easy to inform users based on country of the object. I created a mockup here - it would show up for the "NO" countries. Do you think it is sufficient for the beginning? I don't expect many users soon, but if it turns out to be an issue, it is quite easy to be more restrictive, or eg. check if there is a building in 1km, etc. Zbytovsky (talk) 20:22, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It'll be OK for beginning, but will be good idea to extend database (Wikidata is perfect place to share with WLM if organizers will finally comprehend the need to do so) to include information about sculptress/architects, so it'll be possible to allow what is in public domain. There are also countries with partial freedom of panorama, where photos of buildings are allowed, but not of works of art. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:00, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure, I can reach out to WLM once this become an issue. Zbytovsky (talk) 19:51, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the FOP aspect should be addressed before is becomes any issue. At least all countries with partial FOP should be excluded; better all images should be manually reviewed, as even in FOP countries there will be images with works not permanently in public space. Krd 14:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good question! My general approach with these things is to be extremely conservative – imo the V1 bot should be purely additive, and any conflicts should be flagged for manual inspection.
Then a couple of things might happen:
The existing SDC looks wrong, so I make a manual edit from my account to fix it. e.g. I’ve already been looking at the use of source of file (P7482) for Flickr photos in the SDC snapshots, and I found ~200 cases where the URL points to the Flickr URL’s profile (/photos/{username}) rather than the photo itself (/photos/{username}/{photo_id}). Those got dropped on a queue and I’ve been gradually tidying them up by hand – opening the files in question and making a manual edit from my account to point to the more specific URL.
The existing SDC looks right, so I work out why the bot is disagreeing. Is it a bug in my code, have I interpreted the data mapping wrong, is the data mapping at odds with the community approach to SDC, is the bot missing some bit of info on the Flickr photo. But the bot won't do anything on its own.
There might also be cases where the existing SDC is wrong in large numbers and we'd want to write an automated fix, but that's somewhat risky and I’d want to be extremely careful before doing that. Two possible examples spring to mind:
License versions. Flickr photos use CC 2.0 licenses, so that's what the bot will write into the SDC. But what if it finds a Wiki Commons file which links to the 4.0 version of the CC license? That sounds like an easy candidate for a fix buuuut I think there are Flickr users who leave descriptions on their photos saying "I license this as CC 4.0". A human copying their photo across would notice that; the bot might not. So in this case the bot would likely leave it as-is to avoid deleting info.
Date granularity. Flickr has different levels of granularity for "date taken". Most photos are DDMMYY, but there are some which are MMYY or YY or "Circa YY". If there are lots of cases where there's an imprecise data but the SDC claims it's a full DDMMYY, we might consider automating that. (It's pretty obvious when this has happened – Flickr always returns a full timestamp from its API, but it sets all the unknown values to 0/1. So a YYYY becomes taken="1950-01-01 00:00:00" takengranularity="6".) The bot could be written to fix these. But I don't know if that's a widespread issue in practice.
If/when the bot does start editing existing SDC claims, I'll make sure we document those with examples – and if there are cases that seem contentious, I'll bring them back for community discussion before actually implementing them. Alexwlchan (talk) 08:13, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To return to this question of "how does the bot handle conflicting edits":
Right now the bot will flag any conflicts as "unknown", not make any edits, and put them in a manual queue for review. I’ll look at them and decide if we need to update the bot code, do a manual edit to the SDC, or leave it be.
This confuses the bot, because it wants to write a different SDC statement to what’s currently in Commons – so it flags it as “unknown”.
I went and had a look at it, and I can see that the license has changed since the initial upload – there’s a license history feature on Flickr, and it was changed from CC BY 2.0 in April 2014, a year after it was uploaded to Commons.
(And now I'm going to look at tweaking the bot code so it gets the license from when the photo was uploaded to Commons, and uses that rather than whatever the license is now. But license is a pretty well-populated field, so I may not need this in practice.) Alexwlchan (talk) 08:22, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Brief addendum to this: I’m going to take license out of the bot for now.
1. Licenses are already pretty well-populated in SDC, so the potential gain here is less.
2. I’m encountering a lot of cases where Flickr users have changed their license after the fact, which makes the bot unhappy.
It is possible to see license history on Flickr as far back as 2008, or I could inspect the Wikitext, but I’m going to leave it for now. I can come back later and see how many Flickr photos are actually missing a license in practice. Alexwlchan (talk) 14:45, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To add another example to this:
If the bot encounters conflicting information in the "date taken" field, it flags a warning but doesn’t do anything.
e.g. File:STS059-238-074 Strait of Gibraltar.jpg is a photo which was posted to both Flickr and a NASA website. On Flickr the taken date is "April 1994", but on NASA's website we get the more precise date "17 April 1994", which is what's used in the SDC.
Flickypedia would write a statement "April 1994" if it was copying the photo fresh from Flickr, but it doesn't overwrite the existing, more-precise statement when it does the backfill. Alexwlchan (talk) 11:02, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
👍 I’ll probably get to making some test edits early next week, and I’ll link them here for inspection when they’re done. Alexwlchan (talk) 07:46, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I know it’s been a couple of weeks and nothing has happened on this.
I am planning to get back to this bot eventually, but right now I’m prioritising getting the “uploader” part of Flickypedia working. Once that’s done, I’ll come back to the Backfillr bot. Alexwlchan (talk) 09:47, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you use a JSON data specification this can be done by simply merging all the different claims.
Please tag the edits with "BotSDC" as lots of user use this tag to filter out SDC edits
If you use a JSON post request this can be done by adding { "tags", "BotSDC" }
Please make sure you specify a maxlag for your edits as this got me into trouble once and avoid database overload
If you use a JSON post request this can be done by adding { "maxlag", "2" }
In the edit summary, please link the phrase structured data to [[Commons:Structured data|structured data]] or this bot request so users can find out more if needed.
I would appreciate if you could perform another set of bot edits that incorporate this. --Schlurcher (talk) 08:46, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the quick feedback! I’ve addressed all four of your suggestions.
1. Done, duh. For some reason I got it into my head that you can’t modify multiple properties at once, but I think that’s just a limitation of the visual editor? API seems fine with it, so that’s changed.
2. Done.
3. Done. I’m also planning to drop a note to somebody who works on the structured data team before I start running the bot at large scale, as a courtesy – backfilling Flickr data means 10s of millions of new statements, and I figure it’ll be easier if they have a direct line to the person adding database load.
4. Done. I’ve also added the property IDs, which I figured might be useful.
Thanks. No further comments from my end. My database issue was described here [8] and as I learned, as long as we respect maxlag it should be fine. As I've myself added 100s of millions of statements, I would not be too concerned about this request. Contrary, I think it is an excellent addition to improving SDC use. --Schlurcher (talk) 13:27, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please summarize: Have all issues been addressed? --Krd 04:28, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi @Krd – sorry for the delay, I took a couple of weeks break from working on that. Getting back into it now, hope to wrap my head around what’s still needed soon! Alexwlchan (talk) 15:37, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Tasks: Upload up-to-date maps of Italian municipalities. There are about 8000 municipalities, boundaries are updated yearly by the national statistical agency. Here is an example of image that will be uploaded, the description will be automatically updated for each municipality: [9]
Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: upload several images automatically
Automatic or manually assisted: automatic supervised (through OpenRefine)
Edit type(e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): One time run each year
Maximum edit rate (e.g. edits per minute): I don't know the edit rate allowed using the new OpenRefine function for uploading images. As fast as it can, i suppose.
Just to clarify: Is this to upload as a new version, or to overwrite? If the latter, is there a consensus to do so? I see that those borders include photo credits to the individual photographers, and these are from a respected archive, so I'd just want to make sure that there is agreement that this is desired; I've seen similar situations go either way. Clearly more useful in Wikipedia articles without the borders, but it's not clear to me that we don't want also to host a version with the credit line on the image. - Jmabel ! talk 23:58, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My thought is to overwrite. I've not seen any written consensus on the matter, but in practice that's what has been done for years in this category. I think that implies a silent consensus, considering these captions have been digitally added by the archive and provide no additional information not already in the description. Beao (talk) 08:36, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please make some example edits. Krd 17:06, 6 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks good to me. Krd 13:49, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Any more information or discussion needed? Beao (talk) 12:22, 14 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
[10] Why is this updated so often? Krd 03:04, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The "Images with watermarks" category is very big, so the retrieval of file usage statistics is batched to a fixed number of images every hour to avoid performance spikes, and I update the gallery after every batch. Is updating gallery pages too often problematic? I could do it less often (I'm thinking if images are not removed from the category), and also avoid doing it when nothing changes. Beao (talk) 15:53, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please at least don't update when nothing significant changes. Krd 07:42, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've updated the code to update only on changes now! Beao (talk) 09:01, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I appears to me that there are still too many edits or the statistics pages. (Or is there any relevant work done on these maintenance categories?) Krd 14:31, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've updated the code a couple of days ago and did some extra runs to confirm that it worked, and since then the non-changing categories haven't updated. But yeah, I'm also removing watermarks! Beao (talk) 07:27, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not extremely useful, not completely useless. But okay, I will limit the updates more by rounding the stats to the nearest 100 or 1000. Beao (talk) 14:11, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the usefulness of the edits haven't been shown at all. --Krd 09:10, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support votes or 
Oppose ones as this will help the closing bureaucrat in their decision. Greater weight is given to argument, with supporting evidence if needed, than to a simple vote.
Keep
Disagree The lack of metadata info on File:Dorota_Czaja.jpg is a concerning but it is a screenshot from a YouTube video so that's understandable. The YouTube video shows license as "Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed)" so that's a good sign. Email address for the YouTube channel is pomyslowyrodzic.pl so that is also a positive sign that the channel is not fake. However, the site is in Polish and looks like an abandoned WordPress site so I would reach out to a license review who speaks Polish and get their input and also ask the reviewer for File:Monika Mrozowska.JPG for help. I myself would not mark the file as valid as I don't have enough knowledge about the source YouTube channel and website.
Done. But please perform only test uploads until this request approval. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:45, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[7]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3ATimesSquare-500px.jpg&diff=829081269&oldid=700856020){kind=link}
.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=830338946){kind=link}
.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=830339160){kind=link}
.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=830339211){kind=link}
![[9]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_Aicurzio_(province_of_Monza_e_della_Brianza,_region_Lombardia,_Italy_2023).svg){kind=link}
Centralized discussion
