Commons:Village pump/Archive/2012/09

Unable to save thumbnail to destination

• [Removed files already listed in bug 39697]
• File:1708 შაჰ-სულთან ჰუსეინის ბრძანებულება ქართლ-კახეთის საეკლესიო მამულების შესახებ.jpg
• File:Guruvayur, Amaraprabhu statue and Guruvayur Kesavan Statue - അമരപ്രഭുവിന്റെയും ഗുരുവായൂര്‍ കേശവന്റെയും പ്രതിമകള്‍.jpg
• File:1932. Школьники с. Бугас Волновахского района Донецкой области во время рейда по домам прогульщиков с требованием выходить на работу.jpg

I'm getting a Error generating thumbnail with the message Error creating thumbnail: Unable to save thumbnail to destination when creating new thumbnails. The last successfully created thumbnail (according to the Last-Modified HTTP header) was 9 May 2012. This may be related to the Swift backend installation. Dispenser (talk) 16:25, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

This is https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=39697. Aaron Schulz (talk) 00:08, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see the bug when searching "Error generating thumbnail" -- should've tried "Error creating thumbnail". Best of luck to you figuring out how to keep supporting the old URLs the outsiders use. —Dispenser (talk) 00:35, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

"Translate to" templates – which namespace: content or talk?

Historically, there were many templates and categories which indicate that a translation is possible (such as category: Translation possible), but there was no mean to indicate that translation to a specific language is needed. This is not a rare occasion, though. For example, an image which is particularly useful for Wikipedia is vectorized to a language other that English, such as File:Solar spectrum ita.svg where you can see my {{Translate SVG}} template. One can like it or dislike, but English Wikipedia is the main Wikipedia now. Some images or other content can have strong relevance to an xx-speaking region, and be not yet available on the corresponding xx language. There may exist a crowd of xx-speaking users which needs a specific HowTo or media on their language, at last.

Currently, I test the {{Translate SVG}} in "File:" namespace, but the need for a translation is actually not a problem of the image. It is a problem related to the image. Should Commons use File_talk namespace for such requests?

Also, I intend to make a template of more general use (which will look like {{Translate SVG}}, not like m:template:Translate). BTW, the preferable name for it is {{Translate}}, but it would require fixing hundred of uses of that, currently, redirect to {{Translation possible}}. In which cases should it be placed on the content page, and it which cases (if ever) on the talk page? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Preferred automatic cleanup method for frequent test uploads?

I'd like to begin automating testing for Upload Wizard and other upload tools soon, in production (because we may not surface all issues in staging environments). To do so we'll need to upload randomly named, random content files regularly (e.g. daily), and then delete them. We could create a privileged (admin) cleanup account to do so, or we could just add them to Category:Test uploads. I don't know if any existing bots are fast enough and reliable enough to perform the required cleanup, and/or if there are major objections against having a privileged maintenance bot performing the cleanup, so I wanted to raise it here first. Thoughts?--Eloquence (talk) 22:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd support adding those to Category:Test uploads. I'll also volunteer to run/host the deletion bot (I don't mind using my admin account) which would periodically clear the category. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Bot like this should verify whatever Template:Test upload was added by uploader Bulwersator (talk) 12:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

 Support automated clean-up bot if the test file count grows >100. I don't have any problems with a privileged bot as long as the credentials are kept secret and there is no vulnerable inside that would the bot making disclosing them and if it behaves correctly and can't be abused (e.g. anon user placing a template on a file page and the bot deletes it). Anyway, they should be added to Category:Test uploads. Please flag the uploads as bot-uploads if this is possible so they won't show up on Special:NewFiles. -- Rillke^(q?) 20:15, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

August 29

Un(interwiki)linkable files

SELECT CONCAT("[[File:",img_name,"]]") AS File
FROM image
WHERE LENGTH(img_name) > 250;

Because the above links exceed 255 bytes when including File: namespace these files cannot be interwiki linked from anywhere else. So looking at these files on English Wikipedia the links to Commons are broken. Is there something to prevent users from using long file names? —Dispenser (talk) 20:55, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Works for me:

Stefan4 (talk) 21:00, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Try getting back to commons: [1], [2] Dispenser (talk) 00:39, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Weird, it takes me to the Commons logo's page on the local project. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:37, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

They should be renamed. Anyone against that? Yann (talk) 05:20, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Not I. We should also consider an edit filter as a quick fix on this. Sven Manguard Wha? 14:49, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I took a shot at a half dozen of them, and put two up for deletion as out of scope (raw text). I won't work on the ones that aren't in English, for obvious reasons. If Dispenser could create a subpage with the full list of these files, it would be appreciated. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:26, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

SELECT * FROM toolserver.namespacename WHERE ns_id=6 ORDER BY LENGTH(ns_name);

Изображение: (alias, 23 bytes) and Fil: (primary, 4 bytes) are among the longest and shortest localized names for the File namespace. But the canonical English File: (5 bytes) can be used everywhere. So the above list of 70 where byte lengths > 255-5 is complete. Dispenser (talk) 20:09, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

September 1

Creator: Carol M. Highsmith

I have added a few images from the Highsmith collection in the Library of Congress. I have gotten the hidden category http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2011/01#Carol_M._Highsmith_.7C_Creator_Tag_.7C_Gallery added. I have gone back and added the Creator template. I have added the creator template during the upload. See as an example. All result with the this hidden category. Am I doing something incorrectly? KudzuVine (talk) 14:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to User:Clindberg. Use the creator template for the author's name in uploading: |Author = {{Creator: Carol M. Highsmith}} KudzuVine (talk) 16:34, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, turns out the category Category:Author matching Creator template, Creator template not used is for when the Author parameter in the Information template matches a Creator template, indicating the field should actually contain the Creator template itself (the Information template cannot detect if the Creator template is used elsewhere on the page). It also makes reference to a non-existent category of Category:Author matching Creator template Carol M. Highsmith, Creator template not used to show all of the images which need the Highsmith creator template, as an aid to editors fixing things up. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:56, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Carol Highsmith is a notable photographer. I unhid the category. Dankarl (talk) 16:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

September 3

VicuñaUploader - new file upload tool

Hi, I want to show you new file upload tool to Wikimedia Commons written in Java. I wanted to add some improvements to Commonist, but it was easier to write something from start :). In VicuñaUploader you can eg. save session to file and upload it later or edit multiple files' descriptions at once.

Anyway, you can find it at Commons:VicunaUploader. Source code and documentation at Github. It will be nice to have some feedback at talk page :). Yarl ✉ 18:54, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Will try it very soon, I desperately need some substitute for Commonist. Many thanks.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 08:35, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Olympics in London 2012 - various disciplines and Paralympics

Hello fellows!

Here is a quite huge source for images from London Olympics in 2012 and the recently running Paralympics. I have started to upload some files. If somebody wants to help, feel free upload. Thanks! Greetings, High Contrast (talk) 15:14, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

English variations

I can't find any equivalent to w:WP:ENGVAR on Commons, but I think it might be useful. (This is with regards to Commons:Categories in particular.) The current structure is somewhat inconsistent in places. For instance Category:Gasoline, but Category:Petrol stations (the English variant chosen by original creator of the Commons cats).

I think it would be better to get a degree of consistency, some basic principles I'd favour as a start:

1. When the category is not specific to a country, try to use a generic form that doesn't vary between dialects but is favourable to all (Aircraft not Airplane or Aeroplane)
2. In general, try to match the en.wp article name. WP tries to find dialect-neutral forms, so should address the above.
3. When the category is specific to a country, either use a generic form or the version specific to that country. If the generic category name is dialect specific, use the other variants when appropriate. So Category:Gas stations in Canada not Category:Petrol stations in Canada.

Thoughts?--Nilfanion (talk) 08:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, "aircraft" is a bad example because it's a supercategory for airplanes, helicopters, zeppelins, etc. =) Powers (talk) 00:31, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Isn't this basically the same issue as discussed in the "A question about consistency vs anthropology" section above? -- AnonMoos (talk) 08:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I can understand that for entirely different names, such as petrol stations. But when using small variations or words that occur in categories pertaining to several countries, such as gray/grey, organisations/organizations, color/colour, license/licence ... I feel that we should try to align with the root parent category name. --Foroa (talk) 11:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Participate from Egypt

Is there any chance for users from Egypt to participate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahmo (talk • contribs)

• Why not? Bulwersator (talk) 15:09, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Not very helpful :) I left a note on the talk page. --Hedwig in Washington ^(Woof?) 07:18, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

As I see that Rahmo has registered his/her account on September 1, I am sure he meant participating in Wiki Loves Monuments 2012, not in Commons in general :-)) odder (talk) 11:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

SVG problem

Someone knows what's the problem here? Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 20:49, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

You have not specified a MediaWiki font, see Help:SVG#Fonts. -- πϵρήλιο ℗ 23:27, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

But anyway, why you put the extra text on? Why you increase the dimension so much? This affect many pages. Do you have some kind of a consensus for it? -- πϵρήλιο ℗ 02:00, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

See the logo used on br.wikimedia.org, this was out of date. And if we do not increase the size, you can not see the text. And thanks. Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 12:19, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I have boldly reverted your changes to the version created by Bastique in 2009. You cannot modify official (or, in this case, semi-official) logos of Wikimedia entities like that; please refer to the Wikimedia visual identity guidelines for more information. odder (talk) 13:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Dude, sorry, do you know the Wikimedia Brasil? Do you know my work with the group? ... And if you read this guide, I have decorated by the way, and spent 35 euros to buy the required font, you will see that there are no violations. It's one of dozens of outside interference that I do not understand why it occurs. I'll say the same thing I told the volunteer above, please br.wikimedia.org, and see the logo.Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 04:40, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Rodrigo, I do know Wikimedia Brasil, and your work with that group, and the situation with your recognition as a Wikimedia chapter. I even know you, as we have met and talked during the 2012 Chapters Conference, but you clearly cannot connect the face with the nickname (hint). Not that this matters in any way—I still think that you cannot modify your logo like that; the guidelines clearly say that: The subline can be localized (eg. name of the country in the relevant language/languages). It can consist of one or more lines and can be written in the relevant script/ideograms. See how they do not mention adding a motto, and only localising the name of the country? odder (talk) 11:33, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Tomasz, I do not really remember the nicknames, and not recognizing you and I'm angry with other interventions that are accumulating. I will ask for the WMF send an authorization via OTRS and this story ends. Ok? Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 12:41, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

That's OK, Rodrigo :-) I am not sure about a proper OTRS queue for that kind of questions; I think you'd better write to Michelle Paulson (mpaulson@wikimedia.org), who's in charge of trademarks at the WMF's LCA team, and also send a carbon copy (CC) to Philippe Beaudette (philippe@wikimedia.org) and myself (odder.wiki@gmail.com) so I could keep track of things, and inform the AffCom whenever necessary. Thanks in advance! odder (talk) 14:23, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

September 2

Category:English characters

Can someone tell me what to do with these characters? I just copied them from it's parent category Category:English language--Sanandros (talk) 19:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean what to do with them? At least some of them are in use on Wikibooks; as such, you can leave them be, or categorize them by hand if you feel the need to be helpful.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:23, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Naming of athletes/sportspeople categories

Please participate in the discussions at "Commons:Categories for discussion/2012/08/Category:2012 Summer Olympics athletes by country", "Commons:Categories for discussion/2012/09/Category:Paralympic competitors", "Commons:Categories for discussion/2012/09/Category:2004 Summer Paralympics athletes". The decisions made will have a significant impact on how these categories are named. Thanks. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 14:23, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The main discussion is taking place at "Commons:Categories for discussion/2012/08/Category:2012 Summer Olympics athletes by country", and the primary issue is whether athletes should be used to mean all persons engaged in sporting activities, or only track and field athletes (in which case, sportspeople should be preferred as the wider term). — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 14:42, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Legal Fees Assistance Program

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a request for comment on a proposed program that could provide legal assistance to users in specific support roles who are named in a legal complaint as a defendant because of those roles. We wanted to be sure that your community was aware of this discussion and would have a chance to participate in that discussion. If this page is not the best place to publicize this request for comment, please help spread the word to those who may be interested in participating. (If you'd like to help translating the "request for comment", program policy or other pages and don't know how the translation system works, please come by my user talk page at m:User talk:Mdennis (WMF). I'll be happy to assist or to connect you with a volunteer who can assist.) Thank you! --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 15:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Waiting on bits.wikimedia.org

Since about 3 weeks I have the problem that loading of pages of Wikimedia and also Wikipedia is very slow or does not succeed. Often I see in Firefox (on Macintosh) the message "waiting on bits.wikimedia.org". The indication at the tab in Firefox shows that it is still loading as now when typing this message. For the Dutch Wikipedia the main page is not loaded and the last message is (translated) "bits.wikimedia.org has been read". Using Safari as browser gives the same problems. Pages outside Wikimedia/Wikipedia pose not any problem. On the other hand do I have not any problem when using my iPad for Wikimedia/Wikipedia. Any idea how to solve the problem? Wouter (talk) 11:17, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Don't know if it's related to that, but since I come back to Commons last month that I'm unable to edit my watch list, it always times out. I know I have + 36.000 files there, but it didn't use to be a problem. And now that I can't even clean it up, it will only grow and grow and grow. :| -- Darwin ^Ahoy! 11:48, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not related. Watchlists have always done that if you let them grow to big. TheDJ (talk) 08:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Ohh.. It's gone then. Drat, and double drat! Isn't there another way to access them besides using that special page? With AWB perhaps? -- Darwin ^Ahoy! 10:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Does the raw edit mode at Special:EditWatchlist/raw work? MKFI (talk) 12:11, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

No... In Firefox it returns a blank page, in Chrome gives the error "HTTP Error 500 (Internal Server Error): An unexpected condition was encountered while the server was attempting to fulfill the request.". I wonder if there is some string we can append to it to limit the number of entries shown, and make it more manageable? -- Darwin ^Ahoy! 12:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I think that they've been tinkering with the Javascript code in recent Wikimedia sub-version releases, and some of the new code doesn't work on as wide a range of browsers as some of the old code... AnonMoos (talk) 07:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

In Firefox, you can install Firebug-AddOn, then switch to the network tab and you'll see the resource/file that doesn't load (you may have to reload the page). I had a few occurrences of this problem in the past and purging my browser's cache often resolved it. Chrome and Safari also have a network panel for inspecting how much time the resources take to load. -- Rillke^(q?) 10:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. What I found was when trying to load this Village pump page.

• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump 304 Not Modified 81.5 KB 91.198.174.224.80 189 ms

• http://bits.wikimedia.org/commons.wikimedia.org/load.php?debug=false&lang=nl&modules=startup&only=scripts&skin=vector&* turning wheel

• http://bits.wikimedia.org/commons.wikimedia.org/load.php?debug=false&lang=nl&modules=skins.vector&only=scripts&skin=vector&* 304 Not Modified 2620:0:862:ed1a::a:80 51 ms

So apparently the bits.wikipedia is a problem. When trying to get the main page of Commons again the bits.wikimedia was a problem but also upload.wikimedia. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f3/LUSITANA_WLM_2011_d.svg/80px-LUSITANA_WLM_2011_d.svg.png has a turning wheel. On the Dutch wikipedia again the bits.wikimedia gave the problem http://bits.wikimedia.org/nl.wikipedia.org/load.php?debug=false&lang=nl&modules=startup&only=scripts&skin=vector&* has a turning wheel. The English and French wikipedia give less a problem than the Dutch one. It seems that I had to have luck when it works. Most of the time it is a big problem. Wouter (talk) 20:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

What happens when you navigate to http://bits.wikimedia.org/commons.wikimedia.org/load.php?debug=false&lang=nl&modules=startup&only=scripts&skin=vector&* and ⇧ Shift+Reload? If nothing happens (turning wheel), what happens when you go to http://bits.wikimedia.org/commons.wikimedia.org/load.php?debug=false&lang=nl&modules=startup&only=scripts&debug=1&skin=vector&* ? I am also not sure why the second script (modules=skins.vector) is loaded while the first (modules=startup) is not ready. For me they all load pretty snappy. Someone who knows ResourceLoader (RL) will be probably of help. -- Rillke^(q?) 16:34, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The first link took the first time about 27 seconds to load, later no problem. The second link no problem. Firefox closed and this morning started again. Problem of for example going to the main page of the French Wikipedia problem with upload. wikimedia.org http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/26/Georgina_Hogarth.jpeg/150px-Georgina_Hogarth.jpeg

Loading Commons Village pump did not succeed because of bits.wikimedia.org http://bits.wikimedia.org/commons.wikimedia.org/load.php?debug=false&lang=nl&modules=site&only=styles&skin=vector&*

Trying to load http://bits.wikimedia.org/commons.wikimedia.org/load.php?debug=false&lang=nl&modules=startup&only=scripts&skin=vector&* gave immediately the long text, but in the Firebug window has bits.media.org still the turning wheel: http://bits.wikimedia.org/commons.wikimedia.org/load.php?debug=false&lang=nl&modules=startup&only=scripts&skin=vector&*

When I finally succeeded to reach Village pump (via Wikipedia -> an image -> Commons -> watch list -> Village pump) not any problem with your first link. Wouter (talk) 07:22, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Thumbnail image not accurate.

Sorry if this isn't where I should be posting, but I am having some trouble as a new wikimedia user and searching online has not been very useful.

I uploaded my first image and if I trace to place it in an article, the thumbnail appears dark. Also, it appears very dark when I click the my uplinks link at the top of the page.

However, if I click on the image itself, it looks as it should.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/07/Kali_Yantra.jpg

Could someone please explain why this is happening? - unsigned

• Convenience link: File:Kali Yantra.jpg. - Jmabel ! talk 03:48, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Sounds like Category:Bug 24854. TheDJ (talk) 07:42, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Does this image have an embedded color profile? The thumbnailer does all sorts of strange things if a color profile is embedded. Please upload a new version without the color profile. Instead of playing around with some blink-blink software features the devs should actually start to fix some long standing bugs. --Denniss (talk) 12:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

This is a bug in ImageMagick, you are welcome to solve it, it is an open source program, just as MediaWiki is. TheDJ (talk) 20:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Overview_of_a_three-tier_application_vectorVersion.svg

In my opinion, is not very pretty. I think it should be modified to use Nuvola images but with the same text. 68.173.113.106 16:42, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Knock yourself out. No one's stopping you. If you don't feel you have the skills to do so, try Commons:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop. Powers (talk) 20:49, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

HTML5

BTW, HTML 5 is coming. Quoting Reedy: "We're going to be enabling HTML5 [3] on all Wikimedia wikis on Monday 17th September 18:00-20:00 UTC [4]. Just a heads up for anyone that might actually care." TheDJ (talk) 07:51, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Well tell us why to care! Will it break things? Make things better? Or just enable future goodies to be developed? Rd232 (talk) 09:04, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

As any large technology change it might break things, though that is not the intent. Things that might break are especially community or user tools that still do screenscraping 7 years after people were advised to no longer do that and use the API. It will bring any benefits that HTML5 brings, so it is required to (in the future) make WMF sites use the more semantic elements, as well as to develop better (native) integration for media elements. It also brings data attributes, which enables you to set the sorting of a column on sortable tables, but also allows RDFa (not in wikicode yet I think) which will be used for the Visual Editor for instance. Immediate benefits are little, but it is required for developing some of the longer term goals and for generally not getting stuck in the 2000's in terms of HTML. TheDJ (talk) 09:34, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

What will happen to the elements that are not supported in HTML5? Will they be simply ignored or replaced? (for instance: tttt). Ruslik (talk) 10:10, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

They will simply remain (and thus cause non-conforming HTML5). This is not seen as a problem. Eventually, probably html5 rewrites will be used to change the output to valid html5. TheDJ (talk) 11:30, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Rd232 (talk) 12:00, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Licensing

I'm looking at Commons:Licensing today, and I ask myself some questions:

1. Why does it have so much content which is clearly not policy material, and not really even guideline material? Everything below the "simple design" section is basically just a summary of international and national law, without saying much if anything about how Commons interprets it. Why not have this material in a separate licensing help page, like Commons:Copyright rules?
2. Why not draw on the table at en:List_of_countries'_copyright_length? This covers a lot of the same national law ground, in much clearer form. It really just needs an extra column to summarise "not subject to copyright" issues.
3. Why not link that national copyright rule material better with Commons:Copyright tags, which has a lot of material on country-specific tags? In a few cases relevant tags are mentioned in COM:L, but it's not consistent.

My suggestion: we move this content to Commons:Copyright rules (summary/intro page) and Commons:Copyright rules by territory (converting it into table form as per point 2 above). And then we rename Commons:Image casebook to Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter (I can never remember "image casebook", and some of the items aren't even images), and include it in the Commons:Copyright rules summary/intro. Comments? Rd232 (talk) 15:18, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

OK with me. Yann (talk) 09:25, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, it might look something like this: Commons:Copyright rules by territory (TOC needs to be done manually for tables AFAIK, but this can be prettified with a template later so at least will look OK). Comments? Rd232 (talk) 17:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree the current policy needs to be less daunting. Telling someone to "read Commons:Licensing" today is likely to be met with the reaction "I'm not going to read all this!" I've brought this up before: Commons:Village pump/Archive/2011/04#Proposed splitting and restructuring of Commons:Licensing and started some drafting work: User:LX/Commons:Copyright policy, User:LX/Commons:Licensing policy and another would-be page for public domain-related rules. I kind of got stuck/sidetracked, though. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, I've made a start: Commons:Licensing is much shorter now, with most of the material moved to Commons:Copyright rules by territory, some to Commons:Copyright rules. For consistency and clarity (and accuracy) "image casebook" is now Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter. COM:L still has material in it which isn't really policy (most of the PD section), and the part which is policy could really do with simplifying or at least additional plain English summaries - but I think what I've done is radical enough, so let's see what people say... Rd232 (talk) 10:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I like the split. However I think we need to provide links from Commons:Licensing to Commons:Copyright rules and Commons:Copyright rules by territory and Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter and back in some easy to find manner. We already have a {{Commons policies and guidelines}} (already updated), but I am not sure if those links are obvious there. We will also have to update links, for example in Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter many links say "see Commons:Licensing for a country-by-country list" ( I will fix those). Finally we will have to do something about many translations of this page. --Jarekt (talk) 12:28, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've added a new section to COM:L to clearly link the new Copyright rule pages. I don't think there's any rush to update translations, let's give it a chance to bed down. For instance I'm now looking at Commons:Derivative works with a rather skeptical eye: there's a lot of overlap with COM:L and Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter. Rd232 (talk) 12:50, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes there is no hurry to translate before English version settles. --Jarekt (talk) 16:24, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

August 31

Watermarks

Are the signatures of artists in an artwork considered as watermarks ? I ask this noting a recent categorization at http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3APterodromaCaribaeaSmit.jpg&diff=77145261&oldid=67695756 - I do not find Commons:watermarks addressing this sufficiently. Shyamal (talk) 07:38, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

In that case it is not a watermark at all, it's part of the illustration. Tagging a Caravaggio with "images with watermark" due to the artist signature would be quite lunatic as well. In my understanding, watermarks are marks which are not part of the original file, such as copyright notices and timestamps. The wording in a postcard, either superimposed or below the image, should not be interpreted as a watermark as well. It may be not part of the original photograph, but is part of the original postcard.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 08:29, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

See discussion on my talk page, where I made my arguments.[5] It would be nice if people would actually notify the editor in question when making such complaints. FunkMonk (talk) 14:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I will summarise my arguments here for clarity. First of all, typewriter written text is not the same as a signature[6]. Secondly, media for cleanup states[7] "Some images contain descriptions or captions in a specific script or language. As far as possible any descriptive text (captions, annotations, legends) should be within the file description page, not in the image itself.", "Pictures that need to be retouched, trimmed and scaled: These include images with captions that are too small to read or photos that contain irrelevant surroundings." The issue could be solved if Darwin simply added the {{Original}} template to the image. Furthermore, the "images with captions" category redirects to "images with watermarks", so I couldn't add the former even if I wanted to. FunkMonk (talk) 14:26, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

To clarify as the original poster, I was not complaining nor am I against some editing - removal of the plate number is an acceptable crop to me if the image is used in an article where the central part is alone of use. If the plate is captioned as "a lithograph by XXX" then I would refrain from removal of the artist and lithgraphers credits along the margin, but these fine points may not be followed by someone who is mechanically dealing with tagged images. Shyamal (talk) 14:32, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Such info should already be present in the file description and captions in the respective articles, and would therefore be redundant. In this case, some of the text is hardly even readable, and uses outdated taxonomy. Therefore the file in it's present state is not fit for common, illustrative use, {{Original}} should be added, and a cleaned up version should be uploaded separately. And for the record, if I sound annoyed here, it's because Darwin has repeatedly threatened me and and used condescending language on my talk page. FunkMonk (talk) 14:34, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm quite appalled indeed that plates from 19th century books are being treated as "media for cleanup". Those files, with illustration, caption, notes, etc., are one entire thing that should not be divided or having it's parts excised just because they can be "translated into readable text". The same applies to postcards with the original caption, for instance. If someone wants a cropped version just with the illustration, then should crop it and upload it under a different name, and leave the plates alone. I've tried my best to explain this to FunkMonk, with little success to the moment. :| -- Darwin ^Ahoy! 14:48, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Sigh, again, that's what the {{Original}} template is for. See the following categories, where both original and cleaned/derivative versions coexist in harmony: [8][9] Outdated captions and credits written on a typewriter are in no way essential to these images, and may even hinder their proper use as clear illustrations. FunkMonk (talk) 14:51, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Plates are not "originals which may be obsolete for general use, but are kept for historical or archival use.". They are supposed to be used that way, and often they are. I've already explained this to you a dozen times, but it's being hard to pass the message.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 15:00, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

By the way, I personally often use the entire plates to illustrate articles, since they provide a useful (and often elegant) context to the image. I do not agree at all that they are "not fit for common, illustrative use". The outdated nomenclature, the style, the credits, it's all part of the same thing, and they do not distract from the illustration. And the proper thing to do with such plates displaying outdated nomenclature is show the plate and add as caption "X as Y, from Z book". -- Darwin ^Ahoy! 14:58, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

And yet again, it's all a matter of opinion. Therefore, threatening people with blocks does not exactly generate sympathy for your POV. I do not find outdated, undecipherable captions useful in most cases. But I might be a bit more favourable towards the idea if you didn't act as patronising towards your peers as Richard Owen himself. FunkMonk (talk) 15:01, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I do not believe that systematically replacing 19th-century plates with cropped versions with the illustration only is a "matter of opinion". To me, this is vandalism. And I never threatened to block you, I never block people who I'm arguing with. I threatened to report you if you don't stopped adding that file to that maintenance category, which is a very fair and understandable threat, since it would replace the plate with a cropped version at some point.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 15:08, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

So what would you report me for? Something that you consider "vandalism", yet is condoned by Commons policy? In any case, I've now uploaded a new, cleaned up version[10], and added the original template to the old one.[11] The cropped info and credit can still be found in the caption of the image.[12] FunkMonk (talk) 15:15, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

It is somewhere buried in Commons documentation (in SCOPE, I seem to recall) that pages from original antique books should be left alone here. And even more with plates. We have been talking about Wikipedia use of our files until now, but one very important use for 19th century plates is to be printed, framed and sold for decorative purposes. I don't know of an hotel here which doesn't have them somewhere, either on the rooms or the corridors. Usually the entire plate is kept on those prints. Therefore, people replacing the plates with a cropped version would actually be doing a disservice to potential Commons users, not a service.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 15:36, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Please link the page you're referring to. FunkMonk (talk) 20:48, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

It's in SCOPE.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 10:33, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

---

I haven't followed the links above, but in my opinion, manipulations such as the "19:16, 9 January 2009" upload of File:Agelou11.jpg are quite pointless, since you're removing relevant information which was present in the image as initially released, and substituting some random person's individual re-interpretation in place of what is historically valid. AnonMoos (talk) 08:18, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I dissagree. It is an illustration of a bird. It is not an illustration of 19th century typewriter fonts. The text attached to the illustration is pure metadata. On Wikipedia / Wikimedia Commons metadata is not stored graphicaly within the picture. Such media should be cleaned and metadata transfered to the description-section. /ℇsquilo 12:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

First off, the text in that image was not produced in the 19th century, and was not produced by a typewriter. But it is an integral part of a historical document, and to attempt to remove it would be falsifying a historical document to suit some random person's inclinations... AnonMoos (talk) 16:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The point is not to suit some random person's inclinations. The point is Commons:Project scope. Historical documents should be uploaded to wikisource, not to commons. The text in the illustration has no educational purpose and does not serve any other purpose within Commons:Project scope except for the metedata, which should be removed from the image and saved in the description-section. /ℇsquilo 12:15, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Historic documents should indeed be uploaded to Commons. If a file is used for an educational purpose on any of the WMF projects, then it is in scope on Commons. If uploaded on an individual wikisource it is much harder to find and to use - and the historic document might very well have use outside the individual wikisource project (regardless of whether the uploader thinks so). --LPfi (talk) 16:37, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

In cases where the signature itself has educational value, the version with the signature should be retained, and any edited version should be uploaded under a different name. Signatures of non-notable individual uploaders are another matter and should be treated as watermarks. Dcoetzee (talk) 13:39, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Keeping the signatures (in this case "J Smit" and "H & M Hanhart") is fully understandable. But the captions "P.S.Z 1866 Pl.X", "1/3" and "Pterodroma Caribæaa" should be removed and added to the {{Information}} (which has been done already). /ℇsquilo 13:59, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

No, they should not. It's part of the plate, which is an historical document in the whole. In the case of this plate it may (still) be low resolution, but there are a lot of high resolution plates here that, besides the historical value as documents, are quite commonly subject to reprints who are then sold/used for decorative purposes, as already referred, which usually print the entire plate and not the illustration only.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 02:17, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Cropping out unreadable text from old plates

There is a somewhat heated discussion on my talk page[13] about this issue, I would be thankful if anyone could chime in, since User:DarwIn seems to be riled quite up over it. We're both admins, yet he threatens to block me over the issue for whatever reason. FunkMonk (talk) 14:14, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

See the section #Watermarks above. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

No one notified me of its existence, even though it discusses my edits. FunkMonk (talk) 14:19, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

September 4

Potential deletion of all deep space objects

Recently a number of deep-space files were nominated for deletion over claims of copyright because NOAO has unfree copyright even if works aren't exclusively created by NOAO or even if NOAO never claimed ownership of the works. There are multiple nominations with the same rationale which in my view makes false assumptions.

This creates a number of problems. Most notably:

• Legally speaking any faithful recreations of public domain works is considered in the public domain per case law. There was a conflict between UK and US over this matter where WMF got involved and resolved the issue. This is no different from such claims. I do not think Commons:Deletion requests is the right median for this discussion, this involves legal questions only WMF can handle.
• The 3-D objects (galaxies, nebulae, and any other extra-solar objects) themselves are in the public domain as they are natural objects. One cannot claim intellectual ownership of a mountain by taking a photo of it.
• It is entirely possible NOAO is working on PD material provided by NASA with NASA through a contract which would void them of any intellectual property claim. It is also possible they are merely using PD NASA work and creating a new work which looks similar enough to retain the PD status.
• Pictures of deep space objects will (more or less) always look the same from Earth for the next hundred+ years. While the entire universe at a constant motion this happens slow enough for works to be virtually identical as our perspective will remain fixed. The photo of File:Iridescent Glory of Nearby Helix Nebula.jpg or the more nearby File:NGC 7293.jpg will look identical if taken by a similar or better camera. Therefore any PD/free work may have an identical-looking unfree variant. In other words if I were to take the photo myself, it would look identical regardless of which country or planet in the solar system I take it from. I do not believe such a copyright can be upheld in any court. It takes no intellectual effort to create any of these files as lighting shadows remain the same.
• I would also argue that Berne convention doesn't extend to space but this would merely be speculation on my part.

-- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 00:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• Legally speaking, straight-on photographic reproductions of two-dimensional works like paintings have been ruled uncopyrightable, since they amount to a copy of the painting and no more. The angle, framing, etc. is basically chosen for the photographer in that case. A picture of a mirror in a frame *has* been ruled copyrightable.
• The stars are not copyrightable by themselves, true. Photographers do not gain copyright over the objects they photograph; other photographers may photograph the same objects (each photographer having the copyright in their own photo).
• NOAO has their own observatory, and any images they take through that observatory is *not* NASA work and is not PD-USGov. Whether work on a particular contract mandates public domain depends on the wording of that contract. I would certainly not assume that for work on noao.edu; work distributed on nasa.gov might be a different case. Might.
• I can't fathom photographs of space being ruled uncopyrightable. The photographer chooses the subject, the framing, the exposures, and other things -- just like any other photograph. The fact that other photographs can look similar does not mean the first is uncopyrightable -- the same is true for two press photographers standing right next to each other, but each gets their own copyright in that case.
• The Berne Convention applies to distributions and other acts of copying performed in member countries, regardless of where the work was taken. The "country of origin" is the country where they were first published. The NOAO photos are taken from Earth anyways.

In short, I would easily presume photos of the stars are copyrightable, just like most any other photo. The NOAO would have copyright over their images. However, if they allow those images to be distributed on other websites with different terms, there is a question if they are then giving permission under those terms -- the noao.edu terms would apply for anything distributed on that site, but not necessarily for their own images distributed with permission elsewhere. That would be a rationale other than PD-USGov-NASA, but it may well be viable. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:41, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

If you point your camera towards the moon and snap a picture you would hold copyright of the object, no doubt as photos of the moon will differ. Constellations would differ, you would have planets entering the frame, you can even snap the picture with buildings, mountains and other features. There is artistic creativity involved. However, with deep space objects (anything beyond the w:Oort cloud more or less) concepts such as "subject, the framing, the exposures, and other things" quickly become meaningless. An object such as File:Iridescent Glory of Nearby Helix Nebula.jpg will always look identical in your life time. You can leave your exposure for days if you like and the picture would be the same. For most deep space objects you only have one object in your frame so even arrangement isn't much of an issue. There could be a copyright argument if photo includes more than one object but even in that case the arrangement will remain the same and if I point my camera at it even years apart I would snap the same picture. How would you argue about a copyright for an object that will always be photographed identically? Who would be the author since both photos are millimeter by millimeter indentical?

The pictures were taken by the w:Hubble Space Telescope. At least File:Iridescent Glory of Nearby Helix Nebula.jpg is. The telescope is not on US soil or soil of any country. The telescope is owned/operated by NASA / ESA / STScI and it is safe to say applying one countries copyright on it would be problematic. Say we used US copyright, multiple people have worked on this picture some (maybe all) on duty US Federal Government employees. These people are paid for their work and (corporate) copyright goes to the organizations they work for.

I do not know how NOAO fits in to how these images are generated but I'd wager their contribution did not go beyond providing staff. After all the actual image actually is a mosaic of lots of images taken by Hubble and putting these together requires some effort. Also NOAO may have merely provide clerical service to receive signal from Hubble without any intellectual contribution (equivalent of me taking a photo with my camera but asking you to burn the contents of SD memory to a DVD).

Why do we assume NOAO owns the copyright? They do not even operate Hubble. Also on a unrelated note, NOAO should be asked to release their works with a free license.

-- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 05:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

While interesting, White Cat's comments about copyright of deep space objects are quite speculative. More to the point is the argument made in the last paragraphs. It is clearly mentioned in the copyright information page [14]: Unless otherwise specifically stated, no claim to copyright is being asserted ... And I don't see any copyright notice on the source page, although there is a lengthy description of the picture. If there would be a copyright, a affirmative notice would be needed here. Yann (talk) 06:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, I am speculating. I think my logic is sound as a general idea. However, it has no legal basis as I do not have case-law to back my argument as no one has ever attempted to sue over deep-space objects. As for your point, I agree with it completely. Nothing suggests the files are copyrighted as no assertion of copyright is made. NOAO was merely credited for their contribution whatever that may be. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 06:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Well they claim copyright on their material on their own website (forgoing the fact that copyright is automatic, so the only relevant question is wether or not they have stated to relinquish (part of) their copyrights) , and the paragraph later on in the STScI page seems to indicate that they have only explicitely cleared rights on material produced after 2008. I'd not like to see this image go, but I do still have some doubts about their legal status (though less than before). TheDJ (talk) 08:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

First line of the hubblesite.org/STScI copyright notice reads:

“

Material credited to STScI on this site was created, authored, and/or prepared for NASA under Contract NAS5-26555. Unless otherwise specifically stated, no claim to copyright is being asserted by STScI and it may be freely used as in the public domain in accordance with NASA's contract.

”

As stated, typically unless otherwise specified STScI only hosts PD-NASA works. This extends to all their content. Copyright isn't as automatic when attribution of copyright is handled by complex treaties and agreements that are structured strictly to avoid an ownership situation. Neither NASA nor ESA wants to give one or the other exclusive control of the material gathered form Hubble Space Telescope (HST). ESA used to force "non-commercial" clause into join projects but they have amended their approach (years ago) as you can read on their copyright notice at least for images they create. I don't know if that makes the files free enough for commons (free commercial use is implied but not explicitly stated), but this is a contrast to the previous "all rights reserved" border-lining ESA stance prior. In the specific examples mentioned here there is no assertion that anyone has exclusive control over copyright. Credit is given to parties such as NOAO whom do not normally release their works available with a free license but this doesn't grant them exclusive control over copyright. NOAO cannot just join NASA projects without some sort of contract that would typically require them to release copyright. When there are exceptions to this, copyright is noted. For all we know NOAO had no intellectual input at all. Being credited at the creation of a work does not necessarily mean you have any creative input.

We have had bogus and/or invalid copyright claims in the past. I too want the copyright issue be resolved so that images stay on commons forever. I am thinking foundation could perhaps take an active role in handling this issue similar to how it had taken an active role with the UK PD-art restorers. Perhaps a law can be passed to handle deep-space objects. I do not believe COM:DEL is the right median here since we are trying to establish precedent on all images of deep space objects.

-- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 04:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The NOAO has their own Earth-bound telescope. Photos they take using that telescope have nothing to do with Hubble or NASA and are not PD-USGov. Derivatives made using those photos are subject to their copyright (if it exists, but I think it does -- the "similarity" argument you are using has been explicitly rejected by courts as a standard for copyrightability). The image in question combined photos from Hubble and the Earth-bound telescope. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:17, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

You are wrong assuming that because images are taken by NOAO telescopes they are automatically copyrighted to NOAO. A camera owner is not necessary the author of an image. Modern telescopes usually take images requested by outside astronomers who specify all necessary parameters. NOAO is just the owner of a highly automated camera who "lends" it for short periods of time to outside people. Ruslik (talk) 09:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

That is a good point. Carl Lindberg (talk) 11:43, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

It is not a good point at all. You are assuming anyone can walk into Hubble's control room and decide to observe any object in space. This is not as simple as taking a snapshot with your phone. Any image generated by Hubble require complex calculations of its orbit. Operator would have to be making sure HST is not hit by meteorites, have HST point towards the Sun, HST's orbit decay and crash on Earth. All this is handled by multiple people. Working with NASA means you would be under a contract (unless stated otherwise as stated by STScI website) they release that right. Even then, NOAO would not be handed over Hubble's orbital controls (how Hubble takes snapshots). It is more likely that NOAO worked with STScI whom observed the Helix Nebula (for months) and provide NOAO with the data. NOAO would have helped verified the validity of that data with their own telescopes. NOAO lacks the hardware that can take as detailed measurements as Hubble. No earthbound telescope can match Hubble's clarity being inside the atmosphere - at least not in 2004. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 00:10, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The photograph in question is a combination of photos taken by Hubble (those are fine) and photos taken by the Mosaic telescope at the Kitt Observatory in Arizona. That latter one is run by the NOAO, and is where the license complication comes in. But yes, the identify of the operators of that Mosaic telescope is indeed an important question (the ones who make the creative choices when it comes to taking the photograph), as that is where the copyright would derive from, not the owner of the telescope. That was Ruslik's point. If the STScl researchers were those operators, then even those images clearly come under the STScl usage terms, which are fine. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:22, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

NAOA in fact sells one of their telescopes in quite a direct way, for money. They only "reserve the right to use all images taken with NOAO equipment for publicity and educational purposes" meaning that the copyright remains with their visitors. So, if a person claims that (s)he is the author of a NAOA image, such a claim should not be treated as implausible. Ruslik (talk) 09:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

---

とある白い猫 -- A large number of deep-space photographs are "false-color" (i.e. spectrum-shifted) and highly-enhanced... AnonMoos (talk) 08:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

You need to understand, practically all data of deep space is handled in a complex manner. Any detailed image of deep space objects such as File:Iridescent Glory of Nearby Helix Nebula.jpg is actually thousands of images stitched together. It typically takes significant effort to preform this task similar to how restoring a PD-old artwork takes significant effort. The end result isn't really creative since the created work itself is in the public domain.

False colored images are merely alternate representations. I do not see how they would impact copyright for being false colored alone. File:169141main piaa09178.jpg is a false colored infra-red photograph of the Helix Nebula taken by the Spitzer Space Telescope. If it were in true color it would be entirely in infa-red. Human eyes cannot see infra-red, your monitor most-likely cannot emit infra-red therefore you would not be able to see anything. Therefore we are forced to represent objects with a false color. This is achieved by taking the telescope data, inputting it into a software and enter values for colors and wavelength margins (which would typically be 1 to 400 THz for the entire infrared spectrum). This isn't creative work. I can carry out exact coloring using the exact software without creative effort. If I put a green filter on a PD-US gov work, I do not magically gain copyright.

-- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 04:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The more scope for individual creativity in image manipulation and enhancement, the less likely your arguments are to have any validity. AnonMoos (talk) 05:41, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I also think, that working with the photographs is an act of creativity, the finished image is indeed an interpretation of a human being.--Funfood ␌ 10:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Sure. For a photograph of a person or a scenery or even photograph of closer objects like Jupiter all that would matter. After all where the eye of Jupiter is could grant you creative control alone. With deep space objects interpretation is not a matter of creativity as all objects always look the same. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 00:10, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I might buy the argument that a regular photograph of a particular constellation is not copyrightable, since timing is irrelevant (provided orientation and framing are not a sufficient creative spark, which I'm uncertain of). But once they decide to introduce false colours, the selection of which software to run and which settings to use constitute additional creative choices that seem more likely to cross the threshold of originality in the US. In light of this uncertainty and the lack of case law to guide us, I think we have to count on the author releasing the work under a free license. One other possibility would be for a third party to take their original raw data from the telescope and crop/orient and process it on their own - provided the original data is not copyrightable they could then release it under a free license. The cropping would do away with the creative choice of composition. Dcoetzee (talk) 13:34, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Not quite. I would argue that you would have reached to the exact same colors. This is like attempting to copyright a graph. The false colors represent values in the graph. The deep space object emits the same data constantly so if you were to spend the effort of recollecting it it will be identical. False coloring isn't an art. As for the author, we have nothing indicating they have made any copyright claims. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 00:10, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

False coloring certainly is an art. Say I take a multi-spectral image of a star-forming nebula. I decide to map the near-infrared image to the red channel, the visible image to the green channel, and the far-ultraviolet image to the blue channel; I then decide I want to emphasize the new stars, so I boost the blue channel by 50% and reduce the red channel by 50%. Someone else might decide they want to focus on the overall shape of the nebula, so they replace the far-ultraviolet image with the near-ultraviolet image and adjust the color curves to strengthen the faint areas. A third person might just want a pretty picture, and they find that swapping the green and blue channels gives something they like. All three people started with the same raw data, but they produced very different images. --Carnildo (talk) 23:05, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The US copyright office tends to view colorizing a B&W image to not yield a new copyright, so I'm not sure they'd view those types of actions as worthy of copyright. Even registrations of the first colorized B&W films were held up until they held hearings and decided that colorizing a whole film was enough to earn a new copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:57, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

File is in an inconsistent state within the internal storage backends

I am trying to overwrite one of my graphs, which I do once a month. It works fine for other files, but for File:EnwikipediagrowthGom.PNG I got an error message: The file "mwstore://local-multiwrite/local-public/e/ea/EnwikipediagrowthGom.PNG" is in an inconsistent state within the internal storage backends. At the first attempt I got an other message that sounded like an error on moving the image on the commons server. I did not capture the exact message. Should I wait until it resolves itself (in a few days or so), is there an action to be taken by the technicians, or should I upload it under a different name? HenkvD (talk) 18:27, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=39221 --McZusatz (talk) 18:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Does it work now? Aaron Schulz (talk) 04:32, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks. It worked now. HenkvD (talk) 13:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

CORS is there!

Hello, since today, “cross origin resource sharing” (CORS) is enabled among Wikimedia Wikis. This means:

• Other Wikis could directly upload to Commons
• Other Wikis can now easier fetch Commons categories and other stuff from Commons
• Commons users could automatically distribute messages to other Wikis, e.g. one uploader's home wiki
• Commons users could skip Commons Delinker and perform its tasks under their user account (perhaps not preferred but perhaps faster, especially when moving files we could try this first)
• A create-your-profile-wizard could access all relevant wikis and create/update a user page
• [...]

Requirements:

• JavaScript enabled
• Logged-In with a CentralAuth-session
• A modern browser that understands CORS-headers.
• People who want to write the code and have ideas

-- Rillke^(q?) 21:38, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand. Are you just reporting that en:Cross-origin resource sharing has been enabled (might be nice if mw:Cross-origin resource sharing had some details), which makes various things possible, or something more? Rd232 (talk) 21:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I am just reporting this "milestone" and just showing some possibilities how it could be of use. -- Rillke^(q?) 22:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, cool. Direct upload to Commons stands out - maybe it would help with bugzilla:1552, requesting upload to Commons from other projects. Rd232 (talk) 23:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The bug was falsely marked as duplicate. The request was to allow uploading from a page within Wikipedia and not transferring files. Transferring files needs $wgAllowCopyUploads enabled, uploading new files from within another WMF-wiki needs CORS for obtaining the edit-token. -- Rillke^(q?) 09:31, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

This seems interesting, but I don't understand what's needed to be working. What would be great is a tool which would allow copying files between wikis in 2 clicks. In the upload form, select an file in another wiki, review the description/license/etc., upload. Probably "UploadByURL" is needed for that. Dreaming... Yann (talk) 04:59, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

September 6

It's not just rapid, it's in a tunnel !

What do you say about my move proposal? Express your (dis)support at the talkpage. Orrlingtalk 22:54, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Wrong extension

SELECT
  CONCAT("[[File:",img_name,"]]") AS file,
  CONCAT(img_major_mime, "/", img_minor_mime) AS MIME
FROM image
WHERE img_major_mime="image" AND img_minor_mime!="JPEG"
AND (img_name LIKE "%.JPG" OR img_name LIKE "%.jpg")
LIMIT 200;

File name	MIME
File:203w-ama-DD+AMAB-2.jpg	image/tiff
File:CAD Modellation der Infix®-Krone1.jpg	image/tiff
File:Bartošovice znak.jpg	image/svg+xml
File:Coat of arms Emmaste.JPG	image/svg+xml
File:06F2007-08.jpg	image/png
File:Brown bear (Ursus arctos arctos) smiling.jpg	image/png
File:Agajli carpet.jpg	image/gif
File:Alle state d'mensche als geestelic en waerlic.jpg	image/gif
File:Badalbey Badalbeyli.jpg	image/gif
File:Capt. Ezekia Smith, 370th Infantr Regiment. 92nd Division.jpg	image/gif
File:CardiacMarkerComparison2.JPG	image/gif
File:Cartella projet Quebec 2.jpg	image/gif

Above is a sample of the 983 JPEGs with the wrong file extension. The thumbnails paths of the above images are slightly complicated as they need to use the correct extension. Are there any plans to fix this? —Dispenser (talk) 17:10, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

{{Rename}} won't work. So the only option would be reupload? --McZusatz (talk) 17:17, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh what a mess. Honestly, for most of these, the format that the files are in isn't ideal (spot check of the tiffs says that they should have been jpegs in the first place). I suppose I could take a crack at it this weekend. At the very least, theoretically this type of error shouldn't be possible anymore. The upload wizards are, thankfully, rather insistent on the matter. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:46, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Why won't rename not work ? I just moved File:Cartella projet Quebec 2.jpg to File:Cartella projet Quebec 2.gif. As long as the new extension matches the mime type, moving is allowed. TheDJ (talk) 09:55, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Now all the mentioned images above seem to be fixed. --McZusatz (talk) 13:10, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you could post those 983 files in a list outside of Village Pump (in your user space). So we can have a look. --McZusatz (talk) 08:59, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

1,957 MIME Types mismatching file extension. —Dispenser (talk) 15:28, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Now down to 1599. Could somebody file a bug about class="mw-redirect" missing for file redirect links? —Dispenser (talk) 19:11, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

September 3

Category:Taken with Nikon D5000

What is the point of Category:Taken with Nikon D5000? Should I be adding this to all of the photos I'm uploading that I shoot with that camera? I notice occasionally that someone has added it to one of my shots. - Jmabel ! talk 21:23, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

A bot should be able to read this information from the EXIF data and add such categories. --Leyo 21:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm still curious for the answer to the original question. What is the point of this category? /ℇsquilo 12:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Some users like them, the majority doesn't need them at all. Pure cosmetic/statistic cat. --Denniss (talk) 12:32, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

If I am interested in a specific camera model, I can just browse through this category and have a look what kind of photographs are possible with it and how they look. Of course it's questionnable if the pics there will match your own results with the same camera.--Funfood ␌ 12:36, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Has anyone looked into writing a bot to do this? The first step, it seems to me, would be to associate the categories with the EXIF name for the cameras. This would probably have to be done semi-manually. InverseHypercube 21:52, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

My current project requires picking out "good" images. The hypothesis that people who own expensive cameras are more likely to upload good images. I ended up prototyping a tool a few weeks ago to let people rate images by camera make and model. The camera model data is available under u_dispenser_p on the toolserver, but I've been too busy finding thumbnail problems to finish it. Dispenser (talk) 03:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

This kind of categories are especially interesting for exotic and antique cameras. --Jarekt (talk) 02:20, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

More interesting is the kind of lens used. Many camera's have many different objectives to click on. Fish-eyes lenses or mirror lenses should be different categories. Besides the images depend on a lot of other settings. By the way: the most expensive camera's do not necessairily take the best pictures. Some of my better pictures are taken by a mobile phone.Smiley.toerist (talk) 07:07, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

September 5

Need help: File:Making of lavash.ogg

Hello all,

I uploaded the file File:Making of lavash.ogg. But I believe the file type here is wrong. Can anyone help me change it to .ogv please? Thank you very much.--Wing (talk) 05:49, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I get You do not have permission to move this page, for the following reason: The new file extension does not match its type. The MIME type is video/mp4, which is not allowed on Commons. I wonder how you got this file in. Yann (talk) 05:53, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Fixed, and uploaded a working OGV file at File:Making of lavash.ogv. odder (talk) 14:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

@Yann. This is why I hate all these video formats. Yes the stupid phone took it in mp4. I tried to convert it into ogg with VLC (Media / Convert/Save and then format oggs), but obviously it fooled me. How did you find out that it is still mp4? @ odder: Thank you very much for the help. If you can post somewhere how you did this it would help other people.--Wing (talk) 15:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

If you managed to upload the file to commons and it is not ogg, it will give you another mime-type (e.g. mp4). Another option would be to open the video with VLC and press CTRL+J. To convert the video to ogg (ideally before uploading) see Help:Converting video. --McZusatz (talk) 16:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ting — I used ffmpeg2theora which is listed on the page linked by McZusatz. You can also see a help page about that tool at Help:Converting video/ffmpeg2theora; most of the time, I use ffmpeg2theora -v 7 -a 6 --optimize, because there isn't too much difference with setting the video quality at 10, and the file difference is huge. I use the Wikimedia Polska toolserver to perform the task. odder (talk) 20:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Russia photos

[15] These are just amazing, high res full color photos from Russia from 100 years ago. They were made by shooting 3 separate black and white glass plates with color filters, then recombining. Someone should please collect and upload them. 67.119.15.30 07:25, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Enjoy--Ymblanter (talk) 08:59, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Иркутская Крестовоздвиженская церковь.JPG

Is this a potential deletion candidate? I have never seen such distorted files on Commons, on the other hand, I would not know how to argue for deletion.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately the Exif lacks data of the used lens, but it looks like an image taken with a fisheye lens. This photographic effect may be intented and would not be a reason for deletion. --Funfood ␌ 10:12, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

This photo should not be deleted. I also agree with User:Funfood, a fish fisheye lens was used to get the total building within a very short space, the distortion occurred by a fisheye lens is very common.-- Biswarup Ganguly (talk) 13:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Script to transfer videos from YouTube/Vimeo to Wikimedia Commons

Hi,

I wanted to let you know that I extended youtube-dl [1] to allow upload to Wikimedia Commons.

Youtube-dl is a utility written in Python to download videos from a variety of websites. It handles the actual download and extraction of metadata − thus most of the work.

The extension adds:

• License retrieving from YouTube and Vimeo (AFAIK the only services providing CC-licensing).
• Converting the extracted video to Ogg Theora (using ffmpeg2theora)
• Formatting the metadata to {{Information}}
• License checking to see if compatible with Wikimedia Commons
• Upload to Wikimedia Commons using Pywikipedia

In the end, my extension merely glues together youtube-dl (with added license handling), ffmpeg2theora and Pywikipedia.

It is called from command line like this :
./youtube-dl --wikimedia-commons-export --convert-theora --theora-audio-quality 8 --theora-video-quality 8 --theora-optimise http://vimeo.com/46348011

Code is available on GitHub : <https://github.com/JeanFred/youtube-dl/tree/WikimediaCommonsPP>

And some test uploads on the TestWiki: testwiki:Category:Uploaded_with_youtube-dl/WikimediaCommonsPP

Afterthoughts: it certainly makes more sense to have a dedicated pywikipedia module only relying on youtube-dl for the video and metadata extraction, and taking care of the rest, and not the other way around like here. I went for this because it was the most straightforward way to do it, maybe I will rewrite it if I find the time.

Any feedback is welcome! :)

Jean-Fred (talk) 12:23, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

internal_api_error_MWException

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T42048
RESOLVED

I'm getting "internal_api_error_MWException" while trying to upload images with UploadWizard. It's unfortunate that this is occurring during Wiki Loves Monuments. InverseHypercube 19:45, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Can you check whether you have chunked uploading enabled in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-uploads? It looks like this (experimental) feature is at fault and currently broken; I'm unable to reproduce the issue after disabling it. The good news is that no new user coming through WLM is likely to have it enabled--Eloquence (talk) 23:38, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah, that seems to have fixed it. Thank you. InverseHypercube 06:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The issue should now be fixed and uploads should work again with the chunked preference enabled, but please note that it's still an experimental feature.--Eloquence (talk) 07:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Does Commons not preview edit summaries?

Maybe I'm confused, but I don't see the previewed version of the edit summary when I look at a revision preview on Commons. This is useful on WP as edit summaries allow links, so the preview quickly shows that you wrote the code correctly. Is there a reason that this isn't enabled here? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 21:09, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Works for me (same as on WP). Maybe you have some gadgets on WP that make it look different? Rd232 (talk) 23:07, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any of the gadgets causing this. Does WP not look like the picture at the right for others? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 23:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

You aren't using quick-preview (with AJAX), are you? -- Rillke^(q?) 08:51, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

...apparently I was. It didn't occur to me that a Commons gadget would lessen functionality, and I never remembered enabling any Commons gadgets. Thanks. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 19:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

This problem has been addressed. Thank you for bringing this up. -- Rillke^(q?) 22:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Category autosuggest

I am not sure about how the category autosuggestion works when I hit the + button at the bottom of the upload form and enter letters but would it be possible to allow an expansion button before the suggested categories that shows sub-categories or perhaps to show indented (level 1) sub-categories below the main list of suggestions - this could be an aid to categorization especially to those that do not know the category tree structure ? Shyamal (talk) 03:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

This is actually not a bad idea, but I doubt it would be easy to implement. The tool is called HotCat, and you may want to bring it up on the talk page MediaWiki talk:Gadget-HotCat.js, or on the corresponding talk page at en:Wikipedia talk:HotCat (which might have more eyes on it). ▫ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 20:57, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Currently you have to click OK which adds the category and then (↓) which opens a dropdown with sub-categories. Please suggest this to Lupo, if there isn't already such a feature request. -- Rillke^(q?) 22:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Rillke, I was unaware of the function of that downward arrow. Shyamal (talk) 04:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

There's a crab in my asparagus! Standard way to disambiguate taxons?

Acanthocarpus was made for the plant genus but there's a genus of crabs of the same name. Is there a convention used to distinguish, e.g. Acanthocarpus (Arthropoda)?, Acanthocarpus (Malacostraca)? for the crab genus? Mcitsci (talk) 04:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Should be something that one can easily recognize, I guess "Asparagaceae" and "Arthropoda" are ok.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 04:27, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe this is one case where a disambiguation page might be best, otherwise I could see it becoming confusing in taxonavigation boxes. Mcitsci (talk) 17:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

LOL! Wikipedia disambiguates it as Acanthocarpus (plant) and Acanthocarpus (crab). InverseHypercube 17:52, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I think it's a bit silly, if you are looking for Acanthocarpus, to find common and very generic names as "plant" and "crab" disambiguating it. Anyone who needs to disambiguate a Acanthocarpus certainly know what "Asparagaceae" and "Arthropoda" mean, or else it should be better left alone. Anyway, I agree that Acanthocarpus itself should be a disambiguation for both terms.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 20:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

September 10

Threshold of Originality of Keep Calm poster

There are many derivatives of the now public domain "Keep Calm and Carry On" poster made by the crown. Most of them consist of nothing except that crown and some text. See example here. Do these meet the threshold of originality in the US?--Ultimate Roadgeek (talk) 06:30, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Fine for me. The text is too short, and the crown is an old symbol. Yann (talk) 10:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Category:Commons licensing

shouldn't we gather all the related stuff, Category:Commons licensing help, Category:Licensing templates, Category:License review needed & other maintainance, etc..? including main discussion pages like Commons:Village pump/Copyright - would help W!B: (talk) 11:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikidata is getting close to a first roll-out

(Apologies if this message isn't in your language.)

As some of you might already have heard Wikimedia Deutschland is working on a new Wikimedia project. It is called m:Wikidata. The goal of Wikidata is to become a central data repository for the Wikipedias, its sister projects and the world. In the future it will hold data like the number of inhabitants of a country, the date of birth of a famous person or the length of a river. These can then be used in all Wikimedia projects and outside of them.

The project is divided into three phases and "we are getting close to roll-out the first phase". The phases are:

1. language links in the Wikipedias (making it possible to store the links between the language editions of an article just once in Wikidata instead of in each linked article)
2. infoboxes (making it possible to store the data that is currently in infoboxes in one central place and share the data)
3. lists (making it possible to create lists and similar things based on queries to Wikidata so they update automatically when new data is added or modified)

It'd be great if you could join us, test the demo version, provide feedback and take part in the development of Wikidata. You can find all the relevant information including an FAQ and sign-up links for our on-wiki newsletter on the Wikidata page on Meta.

For further discussions please use this talk page (if you are uncomfortable writing in English you can also write in your native language there) or point me to the place where your discussion is happening so I can answer there.

--Lydia Pintscher 13:11, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Distributed via Global message delivery. (Wrong page? Fix here.)

Insuficient memory to create a thumbnail

I just uploded a new version of File:Fort Irwin National Training Center - Army rock - 1.jpg, and can not see the new version. If I click one of the "other resolutions" in "Size of this preview: 1,280 × 386 pixels. Other resolutions: 320 × 97 pixels" line I get "Error generating thumbnail. Error creating thumbnail: convert: Insufficient memory (case 4) `/tmp/localcopy_3caae21925f8-1.jpg' @ error/jpeg.c/EmitMessage/235. convert: missing an image filename `/tmp/transform_7547e4e96b71-1.jpg' @ error/convert.c/ConvertImageCommand/2970.". I have never seen this problem before. --Jarekt (talk) 16:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Even if this file looks like baseline due to its size in my browser, it is saved in JPEG progressive mode for which MediaWiki/ImageMagick needs a lot of memory to create thumbnails. Save it in baseline mode. -- Rillke^(q?) 16:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, it is fixed now. Progressive mode was the default in GIMP. --Jarekt (talk) 18:34, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Hordes of uncategorized files in the limbo uploaded with UW (again, this time "en" version)

I've just found this: File:Erebus & terror.png, plenty more of them here, almost all those I checked were uncategorized *and* unmarked. Hordes of copyvios as well. More than 13 thousand files to check, if you don't know what to do with your Sunday. *sigh* -- Darwin ^Ahoy! 01:00, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The category page lists where you can give feedback. TheDJ (talk) 18:56, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

It sends to wiki en, which I rarely follow, while this is a problem of Commons. Nevermind, let them there. Who cares, anyway? :| -- Darwin ^Ahoy! 19:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Well since that is where the upload tool is hosted and developed, that will be the only place where you can correct the root cause. TheDJ (talk) 19:56, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe there is a root cause here, that tool apparently doesn't care about categories, as the UW, and apparently it is supposed to be like that. It's here in Commons that things fail. A bot or something else should be run on that cat adding the proper tag to all the unmarked files, so they would be added to the uncated media cats. Apparently Ogrebot or whatever it is called surveys the new uploads and adds the tag after a day or two, but apparently this sometimes fails, or there are lots of old files which have not passed through that. That's what needs to be fixed, not the tool, IMO.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 21:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Cable ... salad?

To native speakers of English: I stumbled upon Category:Cable salad, which contains pictures of a mess of cables that we call "Kabelsalat" in German. But would you really call it "cable salad" in English? --131.152.41.173 10:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Should be renamed (see http://www.dict.cc/deutsch-englisch/Kabelsalat.html ). --McZusatz (talk) 10:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest a neutral term like "tangled cables". — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 11:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

wouldn't you like to adopt a new loanword ;) W!B: (talk) 12:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

en:Cable spaghetti might be more common and speaking for itself. --Foroa (talk) 13:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that expression is in common use in English. People for whom English is a second language might think it is a type of food. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 20:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about other places, but we do call it cable spaghetti in Portuguese (or, more exactly, esparguetada and other variations). :) -- Darwin ^Ahoy! 21:34, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

So they do in en:wiki, Dutch and French. Sometimes, cable nest is used too, but looks even more confusing. Anyway, I never heard the "cable salad" expression before. --Foroa (talk) 05:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I suggested the neutral term proposed by JackLee using Template:move. --131.152.41.173 16:54, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

File content extraction and storage

Hello all!

As some of you might already know User:DrTrigonBot does file content based categorization. This is this in a very early stage so please do not expect miracles. ;)) The question I have to bring up here is the following: If some large bunches of file content (e.g. text from PDF with 100+ pages) have to be extracted and stored (see User talk:DrTrigonBot/JavaScript#PDF content extraction for a possible example), what would be the best place for this? Personally I would suggest a sub-page or the same page in another namespace since the file description page itself does not look to be appropriate (but may be a hideable box could also do the trick).

Thanks for any suggestions and hints! Greetings --DrTrigon (talk) 15:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Traditionally, 100 pages of text has been considered far more appropriate for Wikisource than Wikimedia Commons, and as automatically extracted from a PDF file, it's likely to be unformatted and in a form not too immediately useful to most people. AnonMoos (talk) 16:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Note, Mediawiki extracts the text content of pdfs (via the text layer. it does not do OCR), and does nothing interesting with it, but it can be retrieved via the api. Bawolff (talk) 17:19, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the answers so far! The point with Wikisource is a good one (mentioned in bugzilla:6421 too). What about storing the extracted texts on wikisource with link to the source document? This would be intended as starting point for that document and could initially be hidden from e.g. users not logged in.

Regarding the hint to API, I was not aware of this option - could explain what query/parameter do this job? I was not able to find any docu about this feature.

Greetings --DrTrigon (talk) 16:10, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

look for <metadata name="0". So no extraction by bot required, I guess. Wikisource has it’s own OCR. -- Rillke^(q?) 19:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Aaah... I see - thanks for the link! About Wikisource OCR; as I can see there is no OCR included in mw software but it is done by toolserver scripts (tools) and bots, ... am I right? Thanks and Greetings --DrTrigon (talk) 23:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Just for completness; the metadata are inserted by PDF Handler which uses e.g. poppler for extraction (like User:DrTrigonBot does... ;) --DrTrigon (talk) 22:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, I missed they are using toolserver for their OCR-button that now has disappeared. -- Rillke^(q?) 11:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

So... in my oppinion (as mentioned there) this should be solved in bugzilla:6421 by "simply" including the metadata into the search/indexing. But there was also mentioned any change could easily take 5+ years... So what to do meanwhile? I would like to implement a work-around - this would not be that complicated - but I would like to do this now (this week) because of my private schedule. ;) Thanks and Greetings --DrTrigon (talk) 09:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Another more technical question; can someone explain to me how PDF Handler is able to add or modify metadata?? That would be really great! Thanks in advance --DrTrigon (talk) 19:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

So it looks like I have to postpone this task until next phase (when I have time again ;) and until I got more feedback and in the best case a consensus... :) Greetings --DrTrigon (talk) 21:48, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

September 5

Over-categorization

With WLM running, we will get lots of new pictures not only under- but also over-categorized. It's often hard to run through the category-trees to find all occurences for some files, especially when they have +10 categories. Is there a toolserver script that can do this work? Or better a bot which automatically removes the top-categories? --Funfood ␌ 13:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

This depends on the country. I see that for instance for the Netherlands and for Belgium, the bot removes the top category (Cultural heritage monuments in ...) and places the image in one of its subcategories. Still, other categorise (like Churches in... or Buildings in ...) have to be added manually, and it is hardly done. One obvious categorizations is for streets (... Street), and even this is not being done on a regular basis. For Russia, the organizers do not care (they seem to not care about every aspect of the contest, including copyvio uploads), and I categorize images single-handedly, obviously avoiding overcategorization.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:25, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm working on the automatic categorization of WLM images, see Commons:Monuments database/Categorization. For some countries it's fully functional (for example the USA and the Netherlands) and for some countries things need to be done. This are my current notes:

• Category talk:Cultural heritage monuments in Argentina - subcategories need to be created  Done--Ymblanter (talk) 16:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Category talk:Cultural heritage monuments in Belarus - merge rename and needs Commonscat links  Done Multichill (talk) 20:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
• Category talk:National monuments in Chile - subcategories need to be created and needs Commonscat links  Done Multichill (talk) 20:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
• Category talk:National monuments in Colombia - subcategories need to be created and needs Commonscat links  Done Multichill (talk) 20:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
• Category talk:Cultural heritage monuments in Estonia - subcategories need to be created and needs Commonscat links  Done Multichill (talk) 20:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
• Category talk:Cultural heritage monuments in Panama - subcategories were created, needs commonscat links now
• Category talk:Cultural heritage monuments in the Philippines - subcategories were created, needs commonscat links now
• Category talk:Cultural heritage monuments in South Africa - subcategories were created, needs commonscat links now
• Category talk:Cultural heritage monuments in Portugal - mess

Multichill (talk) 14:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

In the case of Portugal, the main mess there is because the tags made for the categories for some strange reason were appended to every photo of a monument uploaded under WLM. I really don't know why that happened.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 04:33, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Assuming that by "tags" you mean the equivalent of {{NRHP}} for the US, I was explicitly told to use these for every image, not just for the categories. I believe the last of several discussions was here. See also Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2011/10#NRHP_refnums. - Jmabel ! talk 18:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Created all the subcategories. Now the images can be sorted out. This can be done by a bot if you add {{Commonscat}} to the lists of cultural heritage monuments at Wikipedia. Multichill (talk) 20:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, sort of... Except that tags like {{NRHP}} were made explicitly for photos, while {{SIPA}}, for instance, was thought to be used in categories, or photos of buildings missing a category. I've removed it from a few photos uploaded under WLM which came into my way (I recall at least two), I hope that would not mess this even more, but I really thought that tag was there by mistake, since it was not conceived for that.

Multichill, please tell me what you need respecting to Portugal, that I'll do what I can to sort that out.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 21:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

COM:Essential information and User:BrooklynMuseumBot

Hi, User:BrooklynMuseumBot uploaded all files without licenses (you can use VisualFileChange to browse through its uploads and see whether they have a license without having to open each image, or use the Toolserver tool (if it works) or gagdet Gallery Details on the category. Everyone who feels boring and is knowledgeable might add appropriate license tags so our Filbot and COM:Essential information will be satisfied. -- Rillke^(q?) 11:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

It seems {{PD-Art}} is OK for most of them. This should be done by bot, then reviewed by humans. Yann (talk) 13:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

{{Brooklyn Museum-no known restrictions}} was discussed previously here at VP and here. I agree we do have to add proper licenses to those files. Initial batches had them, but I guess not all. I will add the licenses to files that use creator templates which indicate that authors died more than 70 years ago. Than we should look at the remaining files. --Jarekt (talk) 03:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, that sounds good! -- Rillke^(q?) 11:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not finish yet but a first batch of files is ready for decisions. Category:Media contributed by the Brooklyn Museum: needs license review contain files with artworks of paintings by artists that died less than 65 years ago (not 70 yet so we have clear cut cases). All files were marked by the museum with "no restrictions" template similar to {{Flickr-no known copyright restrictions}}. The files are not {{PD-old}} but they might be {{PD-1923}} or some other US license. If we assume that {{Brooklyn Museum-no known restrictions}} is not a license (the way {{Flickr-no known copyright restrictions}}) is than those files need some other license or need to be deleted. We can also rewrite {{Brooklyn Museum-no known restrictions}} as a license. Any opinions? Shall we even discuss this in this forum or should I put those in DR pipeline for further discussion? (I will probably vote "keep"). --Jarekt (talk) 13:44, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I think there is no need to hurry as long as we don't make wrong claims. -- Rillke^(q?) 09:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Donation of a collection of files

Hello, yesterday I met with a person who has agreed to donate his professionally recorded narrations to Commons for use at Hebrew Wikisource. The donated collection includes hundreds of audio files, which are currently on my personal disk-on-key and hard drive.

Uploading a collection like this involves things I have never before dealt with despite years here at the Commons, and I would appreciate any advice or assistance people can give regarding permissions and uploading.

Permissions: I don't fully understand OTRS. It there a way he can write a general permission letter stating that he allows the use of the entire set of recordings with a free license? It seems inconceivable to me that the letter would have to list the entire set of file names.

Uploading: Is there any way to upload such a large collection automatically? Doing it manually one-by-one at the upload page would be many months of work...

Thanks to any and all who can offer assistance, Dovi (talk) 17:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Dovi, don't get too confused with OTRS. These are just volunteers like you and they are very friendly. At least I had very good experience with them.

First make a sample upload using your account or the bot's account, you are going to use. Present this sample upload to the person who gave you the files.

You need something that would prove consent by the copyright holder to publish his audio files under a free license. At Commons:Email templates#Declaration of consent for all inquiries, there is a very useful template text. I tend to say, fill-in the gaps, print it, let the person read it carefully, sign it, scan it and send it back to OTRS and start your first real folder for Commons. When filling the gaps, you could e.g. create an account before: Special:CreateAccount (do this while you are logged-in please) and describe the works as e.g. "audio files uploaded with account ABC".

Create a custom template, if there are more than 200 files to upload. Either this template contains the whole {{Information}} (see e.g. Template:Flora Batava) or just the permission/credit part (e.g. Template:PVGIS-jrc-EU-upload). This your decision and should be based on the structure of data you've available at your machine.

Then it's time to code the bot. If you run a Windows machine, you could set up a bot with MS-Office (really, this works!); there is also a .NET wikipedia bot, if you like .NET framework, but I don't like it, if you are on Linux/Mac, there is a powerful framework: mw:Pywikipediabot, (which you could also use under Windows). Further reading: en:Wikipedia:Creating a bot -- Rillke^(q?) 18:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I am going to try to tackle the permissions first based on what you wrote. Regarding upload, there are many hundreds of files and a bot will be required. But coding it is really beyond my abilities (I am on Windows). Is there any extant bot that could be used for a purpose like this? Dovi (talk) 05:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps one of these bots could help you? --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 08:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Dovi (talk) 12:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

September 11

Request for picture portfolio examples

Can someone direct me to an example or some examples of a userpage in which someone presents a portfolio of their work? I want to build on what other people have done and I am looking for recommendations based on other people's experience. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:59, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Here? Yann (talk) 13:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

These are worth a look: User:Pi.1415926535/Best images, User:Lviatour, User:Optimist on the run/Gallery, User:CLI/Gallery, User:Richard Bartz/portfolio. Otherwise there's plenty in Category:User galleries... Man vyi (talk) 15:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

My user page would be another example. - Jmabel ! talk 15:38, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. Of the galleries you all suggested, only User:Lviatour uses the gallery template. The rest of them use the gallery tag (<gallery></gallery>) except for User:Richard Bartz/portfolio which uses tables. I will think about all of these - I really appreciate the feedback. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Photos uploaded from Android app not appearing in the lists

Hi.

These are my Android app uploads: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:ListFiles/Vygr

This is the list of monuments http://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spisak_spomenika_kulture_u_Južnobačkom_okrugu_-_Grad_Novi_Sad) where under code "СК 1586" is the photo I already uploaded is now missing. Uploaded photo can be seen in the first link as the photo on the top.

Only photo I uploaded that can be found as visible (as in "attached to a monument") is the third one in my uploaded list (that's the one currently in the middle). That one is visible here http://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Кућа_Милутина_Миланковића

What might be the issue is that only that photo was taken directly from the camera and uploaded, all other's were a bit color corrected and then uploaded (chosen from the Gallery).

The newest issue is that now I cannot upload anymore any photo from my phone's gallery (nor from the new uploader on the web, and I lost patience so I did not try the old one), nor my previously uploaded photos can be seen in the heritage lists.

Can anyone shed some light on this?

Thanks.

Mario

• The photos do not make it to the lists automatically. Some users will eventually add it manually. If you want, you can help and add your photos to the lists manually yourself.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

September 12

Laboratory page

Hi!

On the Commons Laboratory page is a "Cite error: ... tags exist, but no ... tag was found" message which I would like to fix. However, in "edit" some of the language text makes no sense with my browser. As such I would like to ask advice on fixing this error before attempting to do so. Marshallsumter (talk) 00:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Georgian text referring to some medical laboratory, according to Google Translate. I reverted the edit that added it. ghouston (talk) 03:01, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Strange upload problem

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T42178

I uploaded a revised version of File:Audio-mp3.svg, and when I did, the previously-existing image description page, and image description page history, mysteriously disappeared. Not sure what to do... AnonMoos (talk) 01:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Reported, and I'll try to poke a sysadmin when they come online, though it's the allstaff meetings of WMF, so they are not as available as other weeks. TheDJ (talk) 08:06, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Donating my Presentation on Youtube

In December of 2011 I have given a lecture on the topic reconstruction (architecture) and friends have created a video for me on the basis of this lecture. I am the copyright holder though , and I would like to donate this video to commons, but I did not succeed so far. The lecture was given (in German) at a book presentation, but it was not primarily a p.r. event, and even though the quality of the videeo is more than mediocre I would consder it eligible for commons. How to go about it?

The video in question is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFjrpQMgmAs --Robert Schediwy (talk) 20:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• The key is to send an email as described in COM:OTRS. - Jmabel ! talk 01:28, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

• • Another way to do this would be to ask the copyright holder of the video (YouTube user elkendaron I suppose) to change the license to Creative Commons Attribution licence (reuse allowed). The YouTube user could do this from this page (the owning user must be logged in to YouTube first). -84user (talk) 10:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Eriosyce_napina_pm.JPG

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T42037

I get this error instead of the file page:

[21a84683] 2012-09-12 08:30:02: Fatal exception of type TimestampException

--McZusatz (talk) 08:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, the API output seems to be OK. After deleting the file, I was able to view the page. Editing is still possible appending ?action=edit to the page. Perhaps some Metadata in the file are causing this error? Anyway, a bug that should be forwarded to bugzilla or someone in IRC. -- Rillke^(q?) 09:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for having a look. It really was something with the jpeg file. It should be fixed now. --McZusatz (talk) 09:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

There are plenty more corrupt files from this user: File:Echinocereus_fendleri_BlKakteenT143.jpg, File:Eriosyce_subgibbosa_wagenknechtii_pm.JPG, ... --McZusatz (talk) 17:28, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The files are not corrupt, it's a bug in MediaWiki. It will be fixed (not sure about the timetable though). TheDJ (talk) 13:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Transferring a discussion from user problems noticeboard based on an admin's request

Request by user to rename against our generally accepted naming conventions regarding non-English names

My friend has requested renaming of a file which I've refused to rename twice. I look for opinions of others on this issue. I'm reproducing our dialogue from his/her talkpage:

Please read this guideline for which files should not be renamed? # 2. We cannot rename a non-English file into English. Regards, Hindustanilanguage (talk) 10:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC).

Well I totally understand this rule, but it was for harmonizing as a set of images:

• • File:NATO Medal Yugoslavia ribbon bar.svg
  • File:NATO Medal w Służbie Pokoju i Wolności BAR.svg
  • File:NATO Medal Eagle Assist ribbon bar.svg
  • File:NATO Medal Active Endeavour ribbon bar.svg
  • File:NATO Medal non-article-5 Balkans ribbon bar.svg
  • File:NATO Medal ISAF ribbon bar.svg
  • File:NATO Medal Macedonia ribbon bar.svg

as you can see, this one is the only "non english" filename, for this set of images. And as english is the official NATO language I thought its "better" if its english. I just want to highlight this fact. If I cant change ur oppinion its ok as well :) --Flor!an (talk) 10:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Harmonizing a set of image names is an accepted reasoning for file renaming. I don't believe there's a over-riding and absolute rule that "We can't rename a file from one language to another" even when it's in the best interest of the file(s) and is acceptable under the 7 renaming guidelines. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Fry1989, for your opinion. I now look for the opinions of at least two admins / fellow filemovers before deciding on the rename request as I see a conflict between the harmonizing rule v/s honouring non-English filenames. Regards, Hindustanilanguage (talk) 05:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC).

There are plenty of files in other languages in category:Ribbon bars of NATO; harmonisation is not desirable (and not feasible) in such case and has lower priority that the the respect of the uploader language. Harmonisation and/or extension of the file descriptions will be much more effective. --Foroa (talk) 07:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

@Foroa: FYI here I'm talking about the "NATO issued medals". Some nation wear different variation of these eg. Norway Version (File:NATO-medaljen Former Yugoslavia.svg) (with "fullsize" Plate on it) = Norwegian Name; or German Version: (File:NATO FORMER YUGOSLAVIA ribbon (Bundeswehr).jpg) (smaller size). And for allot images in this Category I requested a delete because there are simply wrong drawed. --Flor!an (talk) 08:48, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

See Commons_talk:File_renaming#Naming_convention_for_ranks_and_insignia. If you want harmonisation for templates, use a naming scheme that redirects to the best picture available in that class so that better versions/colors/formats don't need renaming of other files. --Foroa (talk) 07:41, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

So, as I see, Flor!an's rename request seems to be endorsed by Fry1989, whereas my cautious approach in not renaming the file straightaway is endorsed by Foroa. I still need one or two more opinions of at least two admins / fellow filemovers from this noticeboard. Regards, Hindustanilanguage (talk) 09:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC).

 Comment This has nothing to do on the ADMIN noticeboard, no admin actions are needed. Please Hindustanilanguage use the village pump (COM:VP) for this kind of questions. You are regularly posting this kind of question on the COM:ANU. Please avoid this when not needed. --PierreSelim (talk) 09:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Selim, my personal view on the issue is that status quo should be maintained. But Flor!an insisted on "harmonisation" principle over our guideline for which files should not be renamed? # 2. Since there is absolutely no ego issue involved, I felt let me take the "opinion" not "action" of you people on the issue. If this open, friendly and democratic approach causes you inconvenience, sorry. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 10:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC).

The approach is not the problem, but you'll get more answer from the village pump (which is the place for thoses kind of questions IMO). The administrator noticeboard is to be used when administrators are needed. --PierreSelim (talk) 10:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

 Comment: I'd say that this is an appropriate case for the harmonization rule to be applied. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 20:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Prestige oil spill

Having a look at your information about Prestige, the ship,.your data are not correct, at least in the spanish version; displacent and death weight can't be the same — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.62.233.162 (talk • contribs) 23:42, 12 September 2012‎ (UTC)

I think "Prestige oil spill" is the gallery being referred to. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 20:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Deletion

I'd like to report that there's File:Steve Wozniak at home in game room.jpg which was not considered in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Stevewozniak.jpg but appears to be in the scope of the DR. --151.75.10.39 18:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done: Thanks, I've tagged it for deletion. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 20:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Nogg hoax pictures

FYI: Hoaxer Special:Contributions/Ritterhahn has uploaded four pictures purporting to be photos of the Nogg hen from which eggnog is made (ar ar), in support of his Wikipedia hoax attempt w:Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nogg. Whether you wish to keep that sort of file is up to you... 62.147.58.130 13:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

• I've nominated them for deletion. --Trycatch (talk) 14:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Request to add Arabic to picture

I would like to add the Arabic to: File:Ambassador christopher stevens.jpg

From the Arabic Wikipedia: كريستوفر ستيفنز (John Christopher "Chris" Stevens؛ (أبريل 1960 - 11 سبتمبر 2012)، واسمه الكامل جون كريستوفر ستيفينز , ولد وترعرع في شمال كاليفورنيا ,درس في جامعة "بركلي" وكان سفير الولايات المتحدة في ليبيا منذ مايو 2012 وحتى وفاته.

Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 18:12, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

How to get corporate representatives to donate photos?

In my volunteer job as a Wikimedia press contact, I've been doing rather a lot of liaison with public relations people and other corporate representatives wanting to get their clients onto Wikipedia. (e.g. [16][17]) You can see how this is a rather conflicted area.

However, it occurs to me that one thing we could do with more of is high-quality imagery, and companies have a pile of this stuff. Often professional shots of whatever that they've taken for promotion that sit in a box forever.

So we can't really lose by at least asking. What good approaches, phrases, soundbites are there that could be spread to get them into donating this stuff to the commons? Let's say CC by-sa, it's simple and works.

(In my experience, the head-explody bit is "you relinquish control". But PR people are not stupid and know a PR advantage when they see one, and this is stuff they'll already have spent the money on.)

Durova's piece from a few years ago advocating SEOs give us pictures may be apposite.

Any other ideas? - David Gerard (talk) 19:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

You could say something like this: "Well, we'd love a high-quality image, but if this isn't something you feel comfortable with, a web-resolution version (72 dpi) is fine too." — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 19:48, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

That's a good idea, but I wouldn't bring up resolution or image size until they do (you don't want to negotiate for them). Remind them that giving up copyright on an image doesn't mean they give up patents or trademarks. Free images mean more exposure. You can show them Category:Pebble E-Paper Watch, who released their press pack under CC-BY-SA at our suggestion, and went on to have the most successful Kickstarter bid ever (en:Pebble (watch)). Now their images are used in articles like en:Smartwatch, giving them a commercial advantage over companies that do not release free photos, as their image is now associated with an entire category of products. Their image can be used worldwide (de:Pebble (Armbanduhr)), reaching customers who may have never even heard of them otherwise. Releasing free images allows fans of the product to do marketing and coverage for them. Stuff like that. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 20:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. The point to emphasize is that it would be in their interest to make some good-quality images available for free use in Wikipedia articles and other contexts. If not, then they cannot complain if people use less flattering photographs. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 11:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll probably start by floating the idea with the PRs I've been talking to, who are actually fans of Wikipedia, see what they think - David Gerard (talk) 15:16, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Corporations usually don't get their employees to take photographs, they hire photographers. Therefore, as I have experienced before, the photographs would be speedily nominated for deletion without a OTRS from the photographer. --Eternal-Entropy (talk) 15:30, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

September 13

Should Commons:Metadata redirect to Commons:EXIF or do we need a separate page?

Please see Commons_talk:EXIF#Commons:Metadata_redirects_here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

September 14

Upload Wizard additional copyright questions

A lot of the bad uploads Commons gets are from users not understanding what "own work" means. Special:UploadWizard seems a prime target to try harder to educate users, yet once we get to the "own work" rights page the user is simply asked to confirm "This file is my own work." I suggest incorporating more of the issues mentioned in the UploadWizard tutorial and at Special:Upload/ownwork. If the uploader claims "own work", we should have them clarify what they understand by that, and ask them to confirm (using checkboxes, so they actually have to answer the questions!) things like

1. this is a photo, and I took the photo myself
2. or it's an original digital work I created myself, without using or relying on any files created by other people
3. the photo doesn't include creative objects or images created by other people (eg paintings, statues, etc)
   • except where photo taken in a public place, in any of these countries where Freedom of Panorama applies (...list...)

This list isn't exhaustive, it's just a first idea of what sort of thing to ask, and nor can the final list be exhaustive. But we can try and ask the most common questions where the wrong answer makes it clear that it's not "own work" and that either the file shouldn't be uploaded, or it should be uploaded and tagged for immediately needing additional information and/or help from more experienced users. Also we can link to Commons:Own work, if we improve that. Rd232 (talk) 20:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I think you are not ever going to be able to explain this sufficiently to mortals. They will just click until something is submitted. TheDJ (talk) 20:05, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe. But we can try harder. And we can also try and set up the questions so it's not obvious (if you're ignorant of copyright) what the "wrong" answer is, and use the information collected to tag files for review. For example: "Did you take this photo yourself?" "no, I got it off the internet". If the user clicks the second one, get's told that's not OK and then ticks the other one, the wizard show know that and tag the file accordingly. (This is hard to explain and design quickly, but I hope my point is clear.) Rd232 (talk) 20:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I find the idea to tag based on questions a better idea then choosing a gated community model, but I still think the user will be thoroughly annoyed. This community however has chosen to uphold the values of our community, so I see little problem in putting a lot of burden on the community. As much as people don't like repetitive tasks, invalid uploads are like vandals. endless TheDJ (talk) 20:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "gated community". But if we can get developers on board to do something like this, we could hopefully do some split testing to see how different approaches, designs, question sets work. It would be great if at least some of the changes could be done via MediaWiki interface, rather than requiring developer action for every tweak. Rd232 (talk) 21:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

We can do a lot better without having people to tick checkboxes. There is no clue in the upload wizard about what to do with derived works. If the file is my own work, then I am supposed to be the rights' owner and no further questions are asked about the copyright status. No hints about FoP, PD or anything that would potentially allow me (or not) to upload my photo.

If the file is not my work, then there are a few options, but freely licensed works are restricted to CC-licences. You have to go to "other reasons" for a GFDL or PD-self file. And if you do not know the templates, then "Internet/unsure is" the only option for those (the template link leads to a non-existing page).

--LPfi (talk) 13:09, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The whole concept of derivative works is one many people struggle with. The UploadWizard should absolutely try and get people to address that if it's relevant. I think checkboxes are a good way to do that - certainly worth testing compared to just providing more options for people to choose from. Basically, we should try and make it a little more wizardy, i.e. try and guide the user through the very basic copyright issues, and not just try and leave out all the more complex issues and hope the user understands when the Wizard options aren't sufficient. Rd232 (talk) 13:34, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

No problem with checkboxes, unless you have to check "yes", "yes, really" and "yes indeed" to continue. I think a third option should be added to the two main ones "own work: yes/no", which would deal with derivative works. Derivative works are a complex issue of course, and I think our current template system does not work well for them, so there is a lot of thinking to do to make the wizard work smoothly. --LPfi (talk) 14:58, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Rd232 that such an approach would save a lot of work for later reviewers and admins. I won't prevent malicious people to upload files, but at least people just ignorant of copyright issues will get a better clue. Yann (talk) 04:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree with Rd232. I add that most innocent copyvios are by first-time users, so that any extra steps can be lifted once the user is a little more experienced. Ariadacapo (talk) 18:36, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Could the upload wizard automatically take account of the user's location? In terms of providing a relevant tip, this would help a lot by pointing the user to relevant copyright guidelines - for example photographs of 3D artworks in a public place in the USA versus the UK, or the public domain status of artworks created in Russia before 1917. --Fæ (talk) 08:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

It could make a guess, but it should not rely on guessing right. It could do something like "... freedom of panorama, as in [probable country]", adding warnings for special cases relevant for the jurisdiction, but not pretending it knows your situation. --LPfi (talk) 14:58, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed - the Wizard can certainly try to be helpful based on any information available, but should take care not to appear to be definitive. Rd232 (talk) 23:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Next question: if we collaboratively come up with some concrete design for the additional questions, is there any developer available who can actually implement this? Rd232 (talk) 23:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

My guess is that this isn’t the best place to ask. The bug tracker (product: MediaWiki extensions; component UploadWizzard) might be better. I was not able to (quickly) find an UploadWizzard-related mailing-list. Ariadacapo (talk) 17:14, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Worth a try. I've submitted a bug: bugzilla:40255 - Ask additional copyright questions of users claiming "own work". Rd232 (talk) 21:17, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

September 7

Process for SVGs where the canvas doesn't match the content

I've noticed a lot of the icons in Category:RRZE-Icon-Set are badly framed, with content disappearing past the left border, and often lots of white-space. Is there a bot that handles this sort of thing? Or at least a template/category for it? Or a bot that adds a template? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 06:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

More standard terminology would be "margin problems". A lot of them in that category seem to have 744 × 1,052 pixel dimensions (see my request under section "12.5 megapixel limit" above). There's no automatic way to fix this that I know of, but it can usually be fixed with simple edits to the file's <svg...> header (change to viewBox=, or addition of viewBox= if there's none)... AnonMoos (talk) 07:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

There are for sure some SVG bots which can do that COM:BR -- πϵρήλιο ℗ 09:16, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Can any Commons bot automatically determine what the margins should be? -- AnonMoos (talk) 22:17, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I guess "margin problems" is as good a term as any, but there are images like File:Footnote-edit.svg (first version) where the content isn't even in the frame. I don't know the capabilities of bots, but Inkscape has a button that automatically adjusts the borders to the content. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 22:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Long side	Short side	Count
512	341	49221
475	355	36681
660	600	22873
500	500	14325
375	375	11576
1052	744	7628
600	600	7406
1600	1600	7042
384	384	5871
450	450	5718
750	600	4957
512	427	4742
512	512	4190
601	601	3334
300	300	3138
600	520	3066
625	575	2972
900	600	2608
750	500	2540
600	400	2426
200	200	2140
385	385	2062
990	765	1998
48	48	1862
451	451	1842
128	128	1785
64	64	1634
800	600	1582
512	256	1544
751	601	1534
210	130	1521
700	300	1516
200	120	1500

/* Frequently used SVG canvas sizes */
SELECT 
  GREATEST(img_width, img_height) AS "Long side",
  LEAST(img_width, img_height) AS "Short side",
  COUNT(*)
FROM image
WHERE img_major_mime="image" AND img_minor_mime="svg+xml"
GROUP BY 1, 2
ORDER BY 3 DESC

There are about 7,600 files at the 1052 by 744 resolution, but the list at User:Ilmari Karonen/Queries/SVG 744x1052px needs to be worked on more than updated. —Dispenser (talk) 16:56, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but I wanted a list of some kind, not a count. I went through User:Ilmari Karonen/Queries/SVG 744x1052px two years ago and fixed a significant fraction of them at that time (not all of them -- some didn't need fixing, and others seemed to be low priority). AnonMoos (talk) 22:14, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Done Good luck figuring out what still needs to be checked. —Dispenser (talk) 07:47, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, have fixed some (in the first part of the alphabet so far)... AnonMoos (talk) 03:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

As suggested above, I put a request at bot requests. Commons:Bots/Work requests#Adjusting margins for SVG files ▫ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 21:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the "auto-margin" functionality of Inkscape puts drawing elements right on the edge of the frame, which is by no means desirable in all cases. Furthermore, this would involve Inkscape parsing the input SVG file, converting it to internal Inkscape in-memory representation, and then re-generating the SVG from scratch when the SVG is written back out according to Inkscape SVG conventions, and this whole round-trip process can create problems in some cases. We've already had problems with bots causing more problems than they solve (such as DieBucheBot's first run), and we don't need more... AnonMoos (talk) 02:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

It auto-sets the margin to whatever you tell it to. I generally set it to 5px. Besides, weren't the vast majority (if not all) of 1052 x 744 files created in Inkscape? And in the case of images that are cropped by the frame, it could only be an improvement. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 03:28, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't use Inkscape to edit SVG files (only to test and convert SVG files), but I've seen far more zero-margin Inkscape SVG files uploaded than small-consistent-margin Inkscape SVG files, so I wonder if the margin option to auto-resize is very intuitively obvious, or was only added with a relatively recent version of the software. And the great majority of 744 x 1052 SVG files were probably originally created in Inkscape, but some of them will have been subsequently edited in other programs, and this can sometimes cause problems when the resulting files are rewritten in Inkscape again (as also perhaps sometimes rewriting a file created in one Inkscape version using another Inkscape version). AnonMoos (talk) 05:14, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Well my hope was that someone could pull the algorithm out of the Python code (since a lot of bots are written in Python... I think) and use it with a bot, which would hopefully avoid the other issues. Either way, wouldn't it be better to have a bot do a run through problem cases and then fix the few that cause issues, rather than manually go through them? The category I mentioned above would make a good test-run, as they are new, mostly (if not all) unused, and more have serious issues than don't. As long as a list is kept of the files that are edited, we can skim through and should be able to see problems quickly. We could even have the bot skip over files that are in use. Even if we are only doing that one resolution of image, assuming that even half of them have good borders, that would still be 3800 SVGs to fix, which impractical manually. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 00:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if what I say sounds like quibbling, but part of what I do at Commons is troubleshoot SVG problems using a text editor (there are number of problems that are elusive to fix in a vector graphics editor which can easily be dealt with by opening the file in a plain text editor), and much of what I do in that role is to fix problems caused by Inkscape, so it's hard for me to be enthusiastic about an Inkscape bot... AnonMoos (talk) 01:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, but even a bot can edit text. Is there no way that you can see an automated bot editing SVGs on specific lists or in specific categories? Surely a bot can deduce where the content ends and where the margin begins without opening Inkscape. I was just trying to think of the easiest way. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 02:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

By the way, when you fixed File:Footnote-edit.svg, its size expanded from 558 KB to 700 KB. The file wasn't harmed that I can see, but it's one indication of the issues that can be involved when reprocessing files in Inkscape... AnonMoos (talk) 12:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not arguing that, I agree with you. You obviously know more about Inkscape and SVG markup than I do, which I why I was hoping you could think of a way a bot could help this problem. Despite the size, I don't think it can be argued that File:Footnote-edit.svg is slightly more useful when the content isn't invisible. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 20:19, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

With translations, rotations, "use" references, clipping paths, opacity settings, hidden elements, font width variations, and filters, it's not so easy to find the boundaries of the drawn-on part of the plane without fully semantically parsing the SVG file. Ideally, a margin-resize-bot would find the edges of the drawn-on rectangle like Inkscape does, and then readjust the margins by changing only the width=", height=", and viewBox=" attributes in the file header (instead of doing what Inkscape does when it reads in and writes back out a file). I don't think that such a thing currently exists...

Anyway, I adjusted the margins of roughly a third of the RRZE icons, which is probably about as many as I'm going to do... AnonMoos (talk) 21:53, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

September 8

Upload problems

For some reason, the upload window keeps hanging on me. No matter what I do, images just refuse to upload. It stays on the upload page forever and never puts the image up. TenPoundHammer (talk) 20:20, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Details? Are you using UploadWizard or something else; is the file large or small; what browser/OS are you using; what error message if any is there? This may well be an existing bug, but to be sure we need more details. Rd232 (talk) 21:05, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

It actually worked this time. Before then, it was just saying "Sending request to commons.wikimedia.org…" forever and the file never uploaded. But it worked now. TenPoundHammer (talk) 21:26, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Might just have been a generic server load issue then, rather than a bug. Rd232 (talk) 17:54, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Help wanted: nature videos for Wikimedia Commons

The Netherlands Institute for Sound and Vision wants to make 50 films from the collection of Stichting Natuurbeelden (Foundation for Nature Footage) available under a CC-BY-SA license via its Open Images website. This also makes them suitable for reuse on Wikipedia. The collection of Stichting Natuurbeelden contains many hours of video footage made in the Dutch nature. To make sure the 50 videos suit the needs of the Wikipedia community Sound and Vision would like to actively involve the community in the process. If you want to help, you can find more info on this page. Openbeelden (talk) 20:37, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to get an OTRS for Charging Bull (Wall Street bull sculpture)

I think we should get permission to use pictures of the Charging Bull sculpture on Commons, since it is such an iconic figure and derivative works will only serve to promote the image it evokes. 68.173.113.106 02:22, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

The article says the artist has sued companies for publishing images of it, so I'd guess he doesn't want a freely distributable image available. ghouston (talk) 03:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no "we", really. If you want to reach out to a copyright holder and ask them to release a work under a free license, you pretty much have to do that on your own as an individual. Don't let this discourage you, I've done it, plenty of other people have done it, all I'm saying is that we can't do it as Commons, the website. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:31, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

EXIF metadata for Canon cameras is making up a parameter

I have been using Canon cameras since I became a wikipedian. Recently, I began noticing the EXIF metadata. There are two fields presented that should mean the same thing, but always have different output. The Exposure time and the APEX shutter speed seem to always be very different numbers. Typically, the former is a fraction of a second while the latter is typically a seemingly unrelated number between 2 and 10.

I have asked several friends about this number. I have also asked at a weekend demonstrations and seminars at Calumet Photo in Chicago. I have also called 1-800-OK-CANON. The Canon rep told me that the APEX shutter speed is not a field/parameter of their EXIF data and is probably calculated from some of their fields. What is this number suppose to represent and why is it presented in the wikimedia metadata if it is not a Canon parameter. I have noticed that this field does not show in files from Nikon images, but it does show in files from other models from other brands such as the W:KODAK EASYSHARE Z1015 IS DIGITAL CAMERA.--TonyTheTiger (talk) 16:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

My Nikon camera gets "APEX exposure bias", and my Canon camera gets 3 APEX fields. These aren't present in the original files before upload to commons. ghouston (talk) 01:44, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The field names displayed in Commons are translated into the user's language, and it seems even the English versions don't necessarily match the field names displayed in other software, and the tags in one camera model won't necessarily be present in another (this is the Nikon vs Canon difference). But I don't see why the value for the shutter speed is getting modified. In a file I'm looking at, it's shown as Shutter Speed Value : 1/79 but becomes APEX shutter speed 6.3125 in Commons. ghouston (talk) 02:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I think what's happening is that the field value is coded in the APEX system, and Commons is displaying this APEX value, which is negative base 2 log of shutter speed in seconds. I guess my other software is converting it back to seconds for display. ghouston (talk) 02:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

What is the purpose of having the negative base 2 log of the shutter speed as a separate number? We should just remove that from the metadata display.--TonyTheTiger (talk) 13:50, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Displaying the raw APEX number doesn't seem particularly useful, but I guess the Commons uploader is just taking whatever it gets from whatever library it uses to extract the EXIF data. But it seems that when a camera is adding two different shutter speed tags, they may not even have the same value - see a discussion at [18], which also says that it's actually the intent of the EXIF standard that one should be presented in traditional terms and one in APEX. So I guess that's why it's coming out that way in Commons. ghouston (talk) 03:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The exif metadata stores both forms (which is stupid. Don't get me started on stupid things in the exif standard). We print out most everything in the EXIF data, even though some of it is useless. (Some of the super useless stuff we skip). Bawolff (talk) 17:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

...but some of the useful is skipped too; e.g. face detection data... ;)) Greetings --DrTrigon (talk) 10:38, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

MIBAC agreement for Wiki Loves Monuments in Italy

Dear all,

Great news from Italy! After over one year of talks between Wikimedia Italia and MiBAC, the Italian Ministry of Cultural and Artistic Heritage (MiBAC is a quasi-acronym from its official Italian denomination "Ministero per i Beni e le Attività Culturali"), we have managed to sign an agreement which will allow us to participate to Wiki Loves Monuments in a much broader way that we could before. MiBAC explicitly states in the agreement that «the Ministry considers particularly useful, in order to promote awareness of such goods [the ones managed by the Ministry - note that this is different from "owned by the Ministry", see below], the production of specific items about them on wikipedia.org, in all its languages, and the publication of images on Wikimedia Commons, at the site http://commons.wikimedia.org.» Moreover, it will explicitly ask to its local branches to give us the list of "lesser" monuments, those which are not usually known but are nonetheless beautiful... and poorly described in Wikipedia. Italian law however puts some constraints unrelated to copyright issues: this means that the pictures uploaded must bear the the template {{Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer}}[1]. The text of the disclaimer is shown below; to understand what it actually means we put up this text, which provides a bit of context about the history of the agreement and the Italian law.

As you know, Wiki Loves Monuments started in 2010, and went European in 2011. Wikimedia Italy wanted to participate to that edition, but we discovered a great obstacle to the project, a law called "Codice Urbani"[2].

"Codice Urbani" is an Italian law which states, among other provisions, that to publish pictures of "cultural goods" (meaning in theory every cultural and artistical object/place) for commercial purposes it is mandatory to obtain an authorization from the local branch of the Ministry of Arts and Cultural Heritage, the "Soprintendenza"[3]. The Superintendence can require the payment of a fee; moreover, the authorization granted is will be for the requester only (usually a publishing company) and only for a given publication. Personal use and use for study and research are allowed without a request for authorization. You certainly noticed that Codice Urbani is problematic for a smooth realization of Wiki Loves Monuments. In fact, I can make pictures of monuments I can give up my copyright allowing others to copy my image without requiring my explicit permission; but the Codice Urbani says that if I want to publish those picture a fee can be requested to me, so anyway a third party can't make profit out of my picture without asking in advance an authorization to the Soprintendenza. This issue is completely independent from any issue regarding copyright: Coliseum and the Leaning Tower fall (no pun intended) under Codice Urbani. So we were in difficulty in organizing a photocampaign in Italy and asking people to (potentially) break the Italian law, since the unclear points where many.

We started challenging this problems in Summer 2011: we contacted people from the Ministry, we set up a draft of the project, we met once in Rome to speak with high delegates. To make a long story short, we managed to obtain the promise of receiving the lists of the monuments which could be photographed: but then things slowed down, our contacts were moved to other offices, and the Ministry himself (who was aware of the project) was replaced or political reasons (unrelated to WLM, of course). Thus, we could not participate in WLM 2011.

In December 2011 we started working out a new strategy: meanwhile, as you can imagine, endless discussions were made in our mailing lists. We contacted NEXA Center for Internet and Society[4a], an institution from the University of Turin which supports and promotes Creative Commons: they are actually the official contact for Creative Commons in Italy! We decided to allocate some resources and hired Deborah De Angelis[4b], a lawyer specialized in Creative Commons and cultural heritage. Deborah, who is based in Rome, started contacting again the (renewed) Ministry of Cultural Heritage, proposing a draft for an agreement between the Ministry and Wikimedia Italia. Several months of discussions and bouncing of documents followed.

In January Wikimedia Italy also hired a Project Manager for Wiki Loves Monuments, Emma Tracanella. Emma started developing and pursuing another tactic developed by WMI to get permission for taking pictures of monuments: asking directly the authorization to specific municipalities and institutions. In fact, it is the "owners" of a monument who have the right to authorize pictures of it. It's Codice Urbani itself which gives them these rights, indeed.

Thus, we had two strategies: one top-down, that is discussing with the MiBac to obtain an agreement clearly stating that we could organize Wiki Loves Monuments in Italy, and explaining which were the boundaries of the law (the dream here would have been to change the law itself, but we would have needed to bring the issue in Parliament, and more urged matters pressed); the other bottom-up, that is asking the permissions to the single institutions. Note that the bottom-up strategy meant having to deal with 8000+ different municipalities, endless cultural institutions, uncountable churches (every parish priest has the right for is own parish, unless this is in some special list from the Ministry). We let you imagine the complexity of the landscape that was opening in front of us: it was a nightmare, but at least it could give us some "free" monuments.

Emma started making calls to everyone who could give us authorization for taking photo of monuments. We started spreading the word, calling friends of friends for help, starting a blog (our wikilovesmonuments.it), begging for authorization everywhere. We had a great ally in APT Services, the Tourist office for Emilia Romagna, with which we already partnered in the past for some Wikipedia-related projects; they organized meetings with mayors and regional politicians. In the end, we reached different regions and provinces, and several municipalities (here there is a list[5]). Our list of monuments counts in hundreds, and it's still improving everyday (here there is a map of the lists[6]). A drop in the ocean, if you think at the enormous Italian cultural heritage: but it is all we managed to get.

This up to yesterday. Today, we had finally an answer from MiBAC, and it was positive. The Ministry signed an agreement with Wikimedia Italia saying that:

• the Ministry, with the aim of promoting the knowledge of the Italian Cultural Heritage, finds useful that the monuments have an article on Wikipedia with photographs. (yes, it is *actually* saying that).
• the Ministry will send an internal communication asking to every Soprintendenza to send us a list of the monuments they control, along with a permission to take photos of them. Pics of these monuments can be released in CC-BY-SA, in the sense that the maker of the photograph can relinquish his own rights; no fee is needed to be paid to the monuments' owners by the photographer if he does not want to use them for commercial purposes.

As part of the agreement, we however have to add a disclaimer to the pictures; the one in {{Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer}}. The text of the advice is shown below:

This image reproduces a property belonging to the Italian cultural heritage as entrusted to the Italian government. Such images are regulated by Articles 106 et seq. of the Italian Code of Cultural Heritage and Landscape under Legislative Decree No. 42, dated January 22, 2004, and its subsequent amendments. These regulations, unrelated to copyright regulations, establish a system for the protection Italy’s historic and artistic heritage and its standards of dignity. Among other things, these regulations provide for the payment of a concession fee by those who intend to benefit economically from reproductions of property belonging to the Italian cultural heritage. Reproduction of this image is permitted for personal use or study. A further authorization by the Italian Ministry of Heritage and Culture is required for reproduction for any other purpose, and particularly for commercial use. Such commercial use includes, but is not limited to, use in (a) any form of advertising, and (b) any company name, logo, trademark, image, activity, or product.

Our lawyers (which are people from Creative Commons Italy) assure us that this license is compatible with CC-BY-SA, because the provisions of the license, which deals only with intellectual propriety, is saved and the limitation occurs on another, different, level. In other words, the photographer releases the picture in CC-BY-SA, the Ministry allows to put it on Commons waiving its own right to get a fee, but Codice Urbani keeps staying in force, protecting the pics from automatic commercial use by third parties. To be more explicit, please have a look the the section 5 of the Legal Code of Creative Commons CC-BY-SA-3.0 [7], which we quoted below: boldface is ours.

5. Representations, Warranties and Disclaimer

Unless otherwise mutually agreed to by the parties in writing, licensor offers the work as-is and makes no representations or warranties of any kind concerning the work, express, implied, statutory or otherwise, including, without limitation, warranties of title, merchantibility, fitness for a particular purpose, noninfringement, or the absence of latent or other defects, accuracy, or the presence of absence of errors, whether or not discoverable. Some jurisdictions do not allow the exclusion of implied warranties, so such exclusion may not apply to you

As you may see, it's true that the author of the photo cannot vouch for the merchantability of the images, since this is not a right of his/her; but CC-BY-SA explicitly takes into account that case.

To the best of our knowledge, this agreement is the first one of its kind in Italy, and sees an official recognition of the existence of Creative Commons licenses; moreover, it is a necessary step towards new regulations recognizing the importance of the free dissemination of information about the cultural and artistic heritage, which cannot just be "museum stuff". We are thrilled to see what will come out, and how Italians will answer to this challenge.

We are very proud to have obtained this. Feel free to ask us anything you think relevant, we'll do what we can to answer. We are also open to prepare some FAQ, if we see the need for them.

Best regards,

Cristian and Andrea

on behalf of the Wiki Loves Monuments organizing committee in Italy

References

[1] http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer

[2] http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codice_Urbani

[3] http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soprintendenze

[4a] http://nexa.polito.it/

[4b] http://nexa.polito.it/fellows

[5] http://www.wikilovesmonuments.it/istituzioni/

[6] http://www.wikilovesmonuments.it/monumenti/lista-monumenti/ ; also on wiki at: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progetto:Wiki_Loves_Monuments_2012/Monumenti

[7] http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode

Congratulations your great results. It is amazing how many quirky national laws one run into, and has to take into consideration. --Jarekt (talk) 16:35, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Jarekt :-) --Aubrey (talk) 19:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations, and thank you very much for your perseverance! MartinD (talk) 09:37, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Wiki software

Hello fellows!

The Wiki software has obviously a problem to show these two images: 1 and 2? Regards, High Contrast (talk) 23:21, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

It might have to do with MediaWiki parsing the image metadata incorrectly. 68.173.113.106 02:24, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

McZusatz did something that solved that problem. Thanks for that. --High Contrast (talk) 21:18, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

September 15

Why should we try to convince wikis to close for local uploads when admins on Commons delete files used on talk pages?

Is it just me or is it harmfull for Commons to delete files used on talk pages? Feel free to Comment... --MGA73 (talk) 17:43, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I think other wikis will delete files simply because they are unused. This doesn't happen at all on Commons. Instead, files are deleted because there's some reason why they shouldn't be on Commons, and usage elsewhere is irrelevant. ghouston (talk) 01:24, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Category:Bilateral maps of <country> should be a subcategory of Category:Bilateral relations of <country>

I believe that the 200+ categories that follow the pattern Category:Bilateral maps of <country> should be subcategories of the category for that country that follows the pattern Category:Bilateral relations of <country>. In other words, Category:Bilateral maps of Greece should be a subcategory of Category:Bilateral relations of Greece. There are no bilateral maps that are not also part of bilateral relations, IMO.

I wanted to get some feedback from everyone else though, before changing 200+ categories and all of the files in both of the categories. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:26, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Intersection of categories

Does anybody know of a way to find an intersection of categories, and if not, would anybody be willing to have a look at creating one? I'm going through Geograph images of the English West Midlands, and I keep stumbling across images that have been put in both Category:West Midlands (or subcategories thereof) and Category:Warwickshire (or Staffordshire, Worcestershire, Shropshire, Herefordshire). Ideally, I'd like to see a bot go through and remove images from Category:West Midlands (or the subcategory) where they also appear in a category or subcategory of one of the other counties, because in the vast majority of cases, the category refers to the West Midlands county and has been conflated with the much larger West Midlands region.

Anybody know if anything like this is possible? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:43, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

catscan2: http://toolserver.org/~magnus/catscan_rewrite.php?language=commons&project=wikimedia&categories=Warwickshire%0D%0AWest+Midlands&ns[6]=1&ext_image_data=1 MKFI (talk) 14:07, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

12.5 megapixel limit

Type	No. too large
GIF	122
PNG	4,216
TIFF	12,529

SELECT
  CONCAT("* [[File:", img_name, "]]") AS File, 
  img_width*img_height AS Pixels
FROM image
WHERE img_major_mime="image" AND img_minor_mime="png"
AND img_width*img_height > 12500000;

It seems the categories Category:PNG files affected by MediaWiki restrictions and Category:TIF files affected by MediaWiki restrictions are for categorizing images affect by Bug 9497. Should more be tagged by bot? List all affect images on a subpage? Or untag as the developers who can actually fix this can run the SQL query too. Also, I've got a another query that'll finds frozen and unthumbnailable animated GIF. Dispenser (talk) 16:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I think they should be tagged with the template mentioned in the categories. This is a convenient way to categorise affected images and also link to a jpeg version, if available. --McZusatz (talk) 18:24, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I suspect that the GIF count is wrong. By the way, if you could run a search to generate a list of SVG files with 744x1052 or 1052x744 dimensions, that would be useful, since such images very often have inappropriate margins, and the old list User:Ilmari Karonen/Queries/SVG 744x1052px is out of date... AnonMoos (talk) 01:07, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The gif count sound reasonable to me because it did not take into account the number of frames of gif (which would push the number quite high). --McZusatz (talk) 08:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I've responsed to the SVG question down at #Process for SVGs where the canvas doesn't match the content. —Dispenser (talk) 18:40, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Animated GIF
Average Framerate

Exceed	Count
100 FPS	83
30 FPS	490
20 FPS	1,052
All	11,167
Internet Explorer does not animate GIFs faster than 20 FPS (related WebKit bug)

I've built a table with img_framecount, img_looped, and img_duration for the 131,714 GIFs. From this we now know that 1,493 animated GIFs have are beyond the 12.5 million pixel limit, freezing all but 5 (A B C D E, all weather satellite images uploaded by User:Originalwana) GIFs. Of these only 45 animate as a 220px thumbnail and a further 996 show on the 800x600 file description page. That leaves 447 GIFs that users need to download to view the animation. —Dispenser (talk) 21:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone know why MediaWiki:File-no-thumb-animation-gif only shows on Commons? —Dispenser (talk) 21:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Could we automatically categories broken GIF with the MediaWiki message? —Dispenser (talk) 16:56, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Including Template:Information and licences through a template

I found this template on a user subpage. The purpose is to transclude an {{Information}} template and licences on file information pages. Looking at the history, the licences have changed a number of time, which looks troubling to me, as it changes the licence for certain files. How do we handle this kind of pages? I would say that templates such as this one have to be substituted, not transcluded, to avoid a sudden change of licences on lots of pages and to make it easier to modify the {{Information}} template. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:48, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

License templates should be at the file description page. Allowing all these user templates, we are already very permissive. But the license should be at the file in order to make it easier to see whether someone changed it. -- Rillke^(q?) 22:22, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Eu sempre uso o subst:, as duas imagens atuais (nas quais está transcluída minha subpágina) foram um descuido que já vou consertar. Luan ^fala! 23:49, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Pronto, licenças corrigidas e outras informações também. Luan ^fala! 00:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

That's good, thank you! -- Rillke^(q?) 10:44, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

You are right. Transcluding license templates is very dangerous for the reason you cite − as they could be changed and no one noticing the impact on files. COM:USER was meant to prevent that, among other things, but the fact is that this guideline is more than often ignored in both its letter and spirit.

(As Rillke mentions, there are other issues with transcluding Information-based user templates, but not as serious as the licensing one).

But in this case, though, the template is not used. Did you already proceed to the mass-subst: of it?

Jean-Fred (talk) 11:09, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

September 16

Authorship and date in file templates

As I understand it, in the case of copies of two-dimensional images, "author" in image templates is intended to refer to the author of the original work and "date" is intended to be used for the date of creation of the original image. After all, this is what is relevant for copyright.

Nevertheless, one often finds these fields used for the name of the uploader, who may be the person who scanned or photographed the original, or simply the one downloaded a public domain image from somewhere else and uploaded it to Commons, and for the date of the scan or even the upload. (Example: File:Montmartre télégraphe dessin.jpg.)

Not only are these things (photography excepted, depending on jurisdiction) less relevant for copyright, but it will appear as if the uploader is taking credit for a work they didn't actually create, even though that may not at all have been their intention when filling out the "form" presented to them by Commons.

Clearly these templates need to be modified to be more precise in their intention. Perhaps splitting the author and date fields on two would be a good idea? --Hegvald (talk) 21:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

If you are the person who took a photo of a painting, even though there may not be copyright in the U.S., it may exist in other countries -- so having that person in the author field (in addition to the painting's author) may well be appropriate, and additionally if the photo has a free license it is good to keep that. See {{Licensed-PD-Art}}. For scans it's a bit more dubious, but perhaps credit could be given. For simply uploading it, no, their name should not be there. Granted, "credit" is a different concept than "author" -- the uploader could well be given credit, as part of the effort of making it more available. The upload date should not be there at all usually; we document all that stuff elsewhere. So yes... do fix things when there are mistakes. It is a collaborative project :-) The image you point out should not have the uploader in the author field, correct. Granted that was uploaded almost six years ago and some instructions have improved since. But, I'm sure they could be improved more -- it's hard to both be accurate and precise on the upload forms, but I'm sure there are instructions which could be improved. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:39, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

In general images with artworks should use {{Artwork}} template, which allows more precise description. And I agree that we frequently see names of uploades or people that scanned images in the "author" field, which is incorrect. Those are often added by both transferring files from wikipedia to Commons. Hegvald, if you see cases like that feel free to fix them. --Jarekt (talk) 15:43, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

September 17

Undeleted SVG file not downloadable

Any reason why I cannot download the SVG file at File:Birdwing.svg ? Shyamal (talk) 13:39, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I get "404 not found" error when trying to see the full resolution version. I suspect something has gone wrong when uploading the 12th september version. Reverted to previous version, try uploading again. MKFI (talk) 13:43, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Solved. Thanks. Shyamal (talk) 13:51, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to upload 3D models

I was going to make and upload a 3D model of one of our local monuments (I already have the about 500 images I took from different angles and locations, now all I need to do is run structure from motion and clean up the mesh). But, looking, I see no other model files. Is Wikimedia commons only for still photographs, audio, and video? If so, is there another place for open 3D models?

--BrotherE (talk) 21:29, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

3D model files are currently (still) unsupported. The only alternative I know of is the unofficial Commons Archive site set up by User:Dcoetzee which is exactly intended to fill this gap: cover file formats Commons doesn't (yet) allow. See here. So you can upload the 3D file there, and an image or video rendering of the model on Commons, and link the two. Rd232 (talk) 23:12, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the devs would be more inclined to do the work if a discussion was had about which format is most preferred? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 21:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I second that. Jean-Fred (talk) 09:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The brief discussion at bugzilla:1790 tends towards en:X3D, which is an ISO standard. The trouble with new file format requests tends to be that devs want to do server-side rendering (which Wikipedia needs to display the file), and not just host the file and let the client display it if they can (which would be OK for Commons - better than nothing, anyway). Server-side rendering means getting appropriate software on the server, which may or may not exist, and being very careful about security issues. But yes, agreeing on a file format is certainly a first step. Rd232 (talk) 10:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I have had this question raised by more than one GLAM organization (models of buildings, artefacts and archaeological ground surveys) and I have flimflammed on giving any advice and instead deferred real discussion until WikiData is available as a dumping ground for such stuff (and I have no idea if that would actually be a good working solution). If X3D is recommended and workable, please let's try and get an RFC or similar consensus done so we can get on with implementing some case studies on Commons as there are real opportunities passing us by to preserve, and give public access to, some great educational 3D models. --Fæ (talk) 10:32, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Commons Archive is available right now (though it may need specific filetypes enabling, that should be done fairly quickly on request). Files can then be transferred to Commons as and when that becomes possible. Agree to try for an RFC. Maybe it's worth having a BIG BIG BIG RFC about all the unsupported filetypes, and advertising it all across Wikimedia?? Because lots of filetypes are affected by this "nothing happening for years" issue. Rd232 (talk) 11:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Normally I'd advise against big consensus processes, they are so much less likely to converge than small and focused ones, but maybe this is worth a shot if it can be structured in a way that folks can express opinions against one format but support others. It will at least be good to capture questions, alternatives and catalogue issues and sources (assuming that people drop by to express an opinion!). I will look again at Commonsarchive, but hesitate to recommend a stop-gap solution that may be superseded within a year or two to cultural institutions that easily take 18 months to agree funding or commit to a programme. --Fæ (talk) 22:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I think it'd be best to stick to 3D format, as that is a totally new category of file, and they are increasingly more common. The other formats like JPEG 2000 or CML don't really add much, compared to the ability to host and render 3D models. Adding all of the other unsupported formats will make people less inclined to participate, and make the devs less inclined to implement any one feature. If we keep it focused we are a lot more likely to get positive results. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 22:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

To clarify, I don't mean that MW shouldn't support other formats, just that this RfC should be focused on 3D formats. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 19:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

@Rd232: Note that Commons Archive accepts any file type whatsoever and does not require enabling specific file types. If BrotherE has some models they wish to contribute today, I would be happy to accept them. It would be a great place to hold them while you guys deal with the bureaucracy of getting 3D model uploads enabled here, which could take a long time. It is very easy to move files from Commons Archive to Commons at a later time as they use the same software and templates. Note that as you mentioned earlier, to be eligible for upload at Commons Archive, images or video of the models must be uploaded here at Commons. Dcoetzee (talk) 17:01, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

September 9

Third opinion process

Commons doesn't have much in the way of dispute resolution processes compared to English Wikipedia in particular. Many of these processes are quite "heavy" and "bureaucratic", but one which we might consider adopting is a form of en:Wikipedia:Third opinion - basically a simple way to say "somebody else comment here please!". A page listing requests can be widely watchlisted, and then prompt people to enter discussions as needed. Thoughts? Rd232 (talk) 14:09, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

• Sounds reasonable--Ymblanter (talk) 14:56, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
• I'd argue that disputes are themselves rare enough on Commons that in the event of a major one people can just paste here on the VP. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:51, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment period on the Wikimedia United States Federation

There is a proposal for an an umbrella organization for chapters and other groups in the US called the Wikimedia United States Federation. A draft of the bylaws is now up at meta. There will be an open comment period on the bylaws 17 September, 2012 to 1 October, 2012. The comments received given will be incorporated into the bylaws and they will be put up to a ratification vote from 8 October, 2012 to 15 October, 2012. --Guerillero 21:50, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to enable the Slideshow by default

Hi folks,

There is currently on COM:VPP a proposal to make Gadget GallerySlideshow default.

You are invited to voice your opinion there.

Jean-Fred (talk) 23:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

September 18

RFC: Usurpation process

There is an RFC on the usurpation process for user names that would benefit from a wider audience. — Hex (❝?!❞) 09:22, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Merits deletion, or should stay?

Please voice your insights on Category:People by occupation by alphabet (on its talkwall better than here I think). Orrlingtalk 09:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Photography in Saudi Arabia

[copied from a note on my talk page .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:47, 18 September 2012 (UTC)]

Hi, I admit taking photos in Saudi Arabia can get quite exciting and over the years I have come to know a lot of nice police men trying to do their duty in an area with somewhat unclear regulations. Yet by 2009/10 I got arrested a lot less and have even had police men showing me the best photo points to take pictures of special buildings. Of course coming back some hours later on the same day to take photos from a different angle and changed sun light still got me arrested because I hadn't noticed a raised flag in the background indicating the region was now of limits because some royal had arrived in a nearby palace. I have found at last the documents that got me out of most of the trouble and put them on the web. Sadly I have not documented where I got them in 2008 or can't relocate the site. The Saudi Tourism Authority has changed its web page several times and seems to discourage deeplinking to the archives. So please have a look at these documents and copy them to a place where Wikipedia can use them. I am not sure how official they are but they are cited by several newspaper articles and at an Aramco site. As I understand the regulations they clearly allow taking pictures from public places to promote the image of the country. If there is no sign it is principally allowed to take photos, providing you do not violate security or privacy issues.

• KSA_photography_decree.pdf in arabic and
• Photography_System_Brochure_40888.pdf translated to english.

I don't know who translated the document so it may be good to have somebody fluent in arabic check the text and maybe find better sources. Maybe someone from here could help [19] If yoo know someone else that is better suited for this issue please direct the information there as I am only very infrequently on the Wikipedia site. --T.woelk (talk) 11:41, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I added those links to Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Saudi_Arabia. They could be useful. --Jarekt (talk) 16:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Request for file over permission

I'd like to get file mover rights, chiefly so that I can clean up my mistakes without relying on (and waiting for) the goodwill of others. Where do I ask? Andy Mabbett (talk) 13:11, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Does Commons:Requests for rights look right? --Rudolph Buch (talk) 13:24, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

September 19

Please close this COM:DR

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Apple iOS.svg 68.173.113.106 21:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• Done, but I don't see what was emergent enough about this to belong on the Village Pump. - Jmabel ! talk 22:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Jmabel ! talk 22:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Taiwan.jpg

Hi,

I am not sure if this is the correct place for this, but it looks like a user has uploaded a completely different image that overwrote the existing File:Taiwan.jpg, which has led to pages that use that image across Wikipedia displaying an image that does not match the associated text. Not sure how to go about reverting an iamge back to a previous version? --Sumple (talk) 14:34, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

• This image has now been reverted. - Jmabel ! talk 16:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Jmabel ! talk 16:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

September 20

Rising number of uncategorised images?

Am I correct in thinking that the number of uncategorised images is rising steadily? My impression is that the number of contributions from what economists call "emerging economies" is growing rapidly, which is something I am very glad to see. But I think that proper categorisation will enhance their usefulness. Being Dutch, I am reluctant to add categories on assumptions that amount to guesswork, on the lines of "this looks like India". May I call on Commons editors with the relevant local knowledge to assist? Best regards, MartinD (talk) 08:59, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

There are also some bots working on uncategorized files, e.g. User:DrTrigonBot... ;) Greetings --DrTrigon (talk) 10:33, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Excellent! Please thank your bot for the assistance rendered. ;) Best regards, MartinD (talk) 13:38, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I actually do categorize images based on guessing an googling if they are stuck in the uncategorized-category longer than a year. And I would support your observation that an above-average part of them is related to "emerging economies". But I´d see the reason rather in the lacking prevalence of english-speaking contributors in those countries than in the economic status. How does anyone come to expect someone from South America/Asia/Eastern Europe to identify the correct category? Even using a dictionary does not help much if you haven´t a deeper insight into the probable synonyms used by the english-speaking world based on their perspective of things and structures. Even one of the most active photographers of Wikipedia in Germany (hardly an emerging economy) has declared to refrain from categorizing his images on Commons because he had the bad luck to grow up in the part of the country that was educated in Russian rather than in English. Personally, I´m at peace with Commons being English and even consider it as part of the fun to be challenged by the language barrier (I´m german), but in terms of the files being accessible and well-ordered it will be an ever-increasing and one day an unmanageable problem. --Rudolph Buch (talk) 21:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

One of the problems may be that Upload Wizard doesn't show the categories form by default; you have to press "Add categories and more information ..." to access it. As such, it is quite possible to overlook it (I've done so in the past), especially for new users. I think it should be always visible, although not mandatory to fill out. InverseHypercube 22:18, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

@Rudolph Buch: I quite agree with the point you have made. It's just that I think that it would be a pity if images remain "under-used" for lack of categorisation. I would certainly not require contributors from these "emerging economies" to be fluent in English - which is why I was asking for assistance from (other) Commons editors. Best regards, MartinD (talk) 19:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the bug in question is 31292. A somewhat related bug is 30173. Ariadacapo (talk) 17:02, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

A snapshot of Ernest Hemingway & a young man with necktie, with a bridge on the left

Hello happy images pumpers ! I am looking for a B&W photo I saw in WP in a parodic article written by an user pretending he was the son of a celebrity (seems bad onirism, but I swear it's true). The photo featured Hemingway in his 40ies, with beard, crouching & holding by the neck (& so showing the label of) a western-european wine-bottle, the bottom of it poised on the ground; next to him is a lean, mediterranean typed young man, well dressed, with a white shirt & tie (I thought of Gustavo Durán  ???, or a torero ???) ; they are both smiling to the photographer. In the background, a bridge (railway-bridge rather than aqueduct), fashion Segovia aqueduct. Could you trace this photo (taken in Spain, or maybe Cuba, in the '40-'50 , I think...), and tell me who is the young man ? And BTW, the WP article Gustavo Durán needs a good photo, I'd be happy if you find one... . Thanks beforehand for your work, and t.y. Arapaima (talk) 09:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Was it this? Dankarl (talk) 12:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes ! Thanks a lot Dankarl ! Since I see you are interested in North-West, if you want to add a photo of a customised canoe named "Snookwis" at the end of the WP french article on Tilikum (boat) ), feel free ! T.y. Arapaima (talk) 07:39, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Monuments: Photograph a monument, help Wikipedia and win

While uploading an image for a monument you need to understand the licensing part.It is the most important where most of the people don't understand what kind of the license is suitable for them.I am among the one who finds it difficult to find that.Could someone please help me understand as to which license i have to give for my Pictures to be updated.The pictures which I am updating is my own and not from any website. i.e it is my own pictures taken from a digital camera. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vishesh.nov (talk • contribs)

• It would help if you would indicate which of several different tools for uploading to Commons you are using. E.g. are you using the Upload Wizard, or Special:Upload, or what? - Jmabel ! talk 03:45, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Assume good faith

After a year of requests at its talk page and no opposition to Commons:Assume good faith, I've promoted the page to a guideline. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 08:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

UploadWizard asleep

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T42380
RESOLVED

As reported on the French-speaking village pump (see Commons:Bistro#Assistant_import_qui_dors), the UploadWizard is "asleep" − the page never loads. Is it general?

Jean-Fred (talk) 08:46, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

yes :-/ Limojoe (talk) 08:56, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

It depends apparently on the interface language:

• uselang=en or uselang=de work
• uselang=fr or uselang=ro do not work

Jean-Fred (talk) 09:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Filed bugzilla:40380, please add your observations there.--205.168.23.154 09:37, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Crap, filed bugzilla:40383 seconds after >_< Jean-Fred (talk) 09:39, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Was fixes by Hashar (thanks to him!) Jean-Fred (talk) 11:32, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

Proposal for amendment of Commons:Signatures

→ Commons talk:Signatures#Requirement of linking user page or talk page --Leyo 12:14, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Category:Tracking categories

There are many files directly in Category:Tracking categories - shouldn't this category only contain subcategories (which are "tracking categories")? Or what exactly is the point of placing files in this category? Gestumblindi (talk) 15:32, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Seems to be accidental. The files could be removed en masse from the category with Cat-a-lot, but it may be worth checking them individually for other problems. Rd232 (talk) 16:16, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Looks like someone made a bit of a mess by starting some new system. The category was only created a month ago. Multichill (talk) 10:18, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Some bots seem to place images in this category. See for example this bot action, adding the category to an image uploaded with UploadWizard. Also, many files bot-moved to Commons from Wikipedia are affected, e.g. File:Harlemheights.jpg. Gestumblindi (talk) 14:23, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

See {{Tracking category}} for some clue about what this is (hopefully).-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 21:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, yes, but still doesn't look as if files belong directly into this category :-) Gestumblindi (talk) 19:09, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The number of files in this category has risen from something in the 300s (I think) to 521 - something's going wrong here... Gestumblindi (talk) 20:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Looks as it is inherited from en:wikipedia by the categorisation actions of User:Sz-iwbot using CommonSense. Does this CommeSense has no blacklist ? --Foroa (talk) 15:34, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Steles vs stelae

I've just come across the use of steles instead of stelae as a plural form of stele in Category:Steles and most of its sub categories, before I start a CfD am I over reacting in seeing this as a monstrosity, since it would seem to be an understood and understable (though wrong) plural formation.--KTo288 (talk) 11:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

It's understandable, but still a monstrosity; obliterate it. cmadler (talk) 15:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Ones killes themes with fires, evenes if understandables; theyes bes bad practices. No roome here for Shakespeares. --Fæ (talk) 15:29, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

After a check here, I think that the plural of stela is stelae, the plural of stele is steles. Foreign words become English in the long run with English rules; there are many such cases. --Foroa (talk) 15:49, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Problem with PD-art/1923

File:1922 0121 krazykat det 650.jpg is appropriately tagged {{PD-art/1923|1944}}; the artist died in 1944. So why is this showing "This work is also in the public domain in countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 60 years or less." when it's not 2015 yet?--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:24, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

1944 + 60 = 2004... it'll be OK for 70pma countries in 2015. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah, silly me. Then the question is why does File:Krazy Kat panel.jpg, which is tagged {{PD/1923|1944}}, say "This work is also in the public domain in countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 50 years or less."?--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:16, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the template code for that one, it's set to roll anything from 50 to 69 years down to 50. Are there any 60 years pma countries? I know 50 and 70 are the most common. cmadler (talk) 00:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC) Fixed the template; should now display PD-old-60-1923 when appropriate. cmadler (talk) 00:30, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, by population, 50 and 60 are the most common.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:10, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. cmadler (talk) 00:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

License for german coats of arms from german fraternities

Many coats of arms use elements that exist for centuries in common coats of arms (most are public domain). Coats of arms like the examples below, usually are a combination of several often used symbols (eagle, shield, checks, crown, oak leaves, etc.). Thus, the vast majority of coats of arms have no threshold of originality in german law. In de:WP i could use it with {{PD-German logos}} and {{PD-textlogo}}. The files, I’m talking about are coats of arms from german fraternities and they are more than 100yrs up to 5yrs old.
For example:
Where can I find the exact policy or conditions, whether a logo/coat of arms in the states has threshold of originality or not? The german law sounds very logical and comprehensible. Is the US law so much different in this topic? What do I need to upload it on Commons? TY --K4210 (talk) 09:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

According to the ordinary rules applying to coats of arms, the basic design could be very old, yet a recent artistic rendering of an old coat of arms could be still under copyright. In traditional European heraldry, the textual blazon description is considered authoritative, and many possible artistic realizations of the textual blazon would be considered heraldically equivalent. The basic description of the coat of arms is not really copyrightable, but artistic renderings of them are -- anyone who makes a new artistic rendering of a coat of arms owns the copyright to that particular artistic rendering.

If only one visual form of an emblem is considered acceptable, and no artistic variation is allowable, then the situation is more that of a corporate logo than a traditional coat of arms, and logo rules would generally apply... AnonMoos (talk) 13:03, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

My understanding matches what AnonMoos wrote. If you're looking for the specific legal basis for this (I think this stems from the en:Idea–expression divide, but I have no idea if there have been any court cases specifically relating to heraldry), perhaps someone at Commons talk:WikiProject Heraldry could help. cmadler (talk) 13:22, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

By the way, whenever I see the curly "F" monogram (small and blurry in those images, but visible in File:IgelWappen.jpg etc.), I always think of dueling scars and Prussian junkers with monocles clicking the heels of their jackboots, and wonder why someone would want to perpetuate such a dubious historical legacy... AnonMoos (talk) 03:37, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Cat change by anon: how to proceed

67.100.127.147 (talk · contribs) appears to have unilaterally changed a category to a redirect (and made a set of edits to remove the category) where I think there was a meaningful distinction between the two. Since this is an anonymous account with no edits prior to today, I have no confidence that the person in question will ever see the message I left on his/her talk page. Any idea how best to proceed?

(The substance of the matter, for what it's worth: Category:Allotments in the United States was effectively merged into Category:Community gardens in the United States. A community garden is not necessarily allotments: it can be a collective garden. It is only "allotments" if different individuals each have an area of their own in which to garden.) - Jmabel ! talk 15:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I suggest tagging the category with {{Move}} and putting your reasons on the category talk page. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 16:30, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I noted the difference in the descriptions of the two (top-level) categories, perhaps that will help. ghouston (talk) 00:15, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

It may be the case that (some?) allotments are known as community gardens in the US. However that's just a local naming difference and doesn't affect the split into two categories. ghouston (talk) 00:19, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

From personal experience as a US-English speaker, I would normally take "community garden" to mean what Jmabel described as an "allotment" -- that's what they all are around here (southeastern Michigan), at any rate. cmadler (talk) 00:49, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Quite a few community gardens are not allotments, nor are they at all food oriented. See en:Community gardening. - Jmabel ! talk 01:45, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

September 21

Special:Upload

It looks like Special:Upload is no longer showing the {{Information}} template in the edit box. Anyone know why this would be? - Jmabel ! talk 02:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Showing up for me, what internet browser are you using? Bidgee (talk) 02:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Firefox 15.0.1 on Windows 7. - Jmabel ! talk 04:44, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Using the same versions but no issue at all. I wonder if you've got a javascript issue or something is blocking the code. Bidgee (talk) 06:57, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

No bueno for me either with Safari 5.1.7 on Mac OSX. There's probably some javascript breakage somewhere in the software. I'm sure a dev will get around to fixing it within the next few days, but if not, I'll open a bugzilla report. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 07:45, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

It's because of this change that User:Rillke made. It removed the loading of MediaWiki:Upload.js for those that don't have ImprovedUploadForm gadget enabled. TheDJ (talk) 08:42, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Fixed: ImprovedUploadForm is default and I moved the importScript for MediaWiki:Upload.js back to our MediaWiki:Common.js, right now (I missed that it was always loaded despite the enhancements were disabled. I regret that.) Purge your client's cache, please. -- Rillke^(q?) 08:46, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks. I didn't even need to clear the cache. - Jmabel ! talk 15:46, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Jmabel ! talk 15:46, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Are these categories the same?

Hello, are these categories the same thing? Category:Sunnism and Category:Sunni Islam. I'm not sure, but if they are, one should redirect to the other one and the files inside should be in just one of the categories. Thanks, --UAwiki (talk) 09:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I think Category:Sunnism should be merged and redirected to Category:Sunni Islam. - Jmabel ! talk 15:47, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Audio from Brazil, 1939, uploadable?

Would a music, published first in 1939, uploadable in its original 1939 version under {{PD-Brazil-media}}? Cheers, OAlexander (talk) 04:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

You mean an audio recording? Audio recordings made after 1927 in Brazil were restored to copyright by the URAA and are still in copyright in the US; and in a sense any audio recording is in copyright in the US until 2046.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't that date be 1935? Copyrights before 1936 in Brazil were not restored by URAA, including those of sound records, as the term of protection there for those works in 1996 was 60 years.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 15:21, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Change user name

I see this question in the FAQs but none of the posts make any sense to me. I created a user name that is not my real name not realizing that I would not be able to post my real name under the credit for a photo. Can I now change this? Please advise. Thank you! -- 15:46, 22 September 2012‎ Aadair24

There's nothing preventing you from adding your real name on the image description page -- "Credit John Smith (User:Aadair24)" or similar... AnonMoos (talk) 16:17, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I credit my photos as [[User:Jmabel|Joe Mabel]], which works nicely: links to my user page, shows as my name. - Jmabel ! talk 16:27, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

September 23

Pictures of identifiable dead persons

Is it OK to publish pictures of identifiable dead person in general on Commons? One could argue that such photographs are unacceptable as per Photographs of identifiable people, but this is not clearly stated, nor is the opposite. And more specifically, are pictures of identifiable dead soldiers acceptable? -- Piisamson (talk) 10:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Moral issues both refers to common decency and the UDHR, I would therefore not limit it to the living, but the reasonableness of "common decency" may need to be tested by consensus for any particular contentious image. The situation may also not be clear if the photograph is taken in a public place or can be judged as released by an institution for which PD automatically applies. In this latter situation, a complaint would have to be judged on its merits and I doubt that a hypothetical complaint would be sufficient to remove such an image or advise against their upload.

Personally I see no particular reason why COM:MORAL would be limited to the living as our recognition of common decency and "unreasonably intrude into the subject's private or family life" would be very much in focus for a recently deceased person. --Fæ (talk) 11:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll rephrase: Is it OK to publish pictures of corpses of identifiable dead persons in general, and more specifically, pictures of corpses of identifiable soldiers? One could argue that it goes against common decency. -- Piisamson (talk) 21:30, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

(My personal opinion) yes. Commons has plenty of photos of bodies of dead people both in battle and laid out for a wake, many of these are identifiable or identified. The issue of COM:MORAL would only arise if the photograph were judged to be unfairly obtained, used for ridicule of the family of the deceased or intrusive (e.g. for the family of the dead person) and for that to be the case there would have to be a legitimate complaint or a case history to refer to. If you have a concern about particular photographs then you would have to point them out, or write to OTRS in confidence if you do not want to draw public attention to an issue of privacy. As an example, I uploaded File:A post-mortem portrait; young man three quarter length on a background of a white knit shawl with tassels 2.jpg from Yale University, a remarkable photograph of an identifiable dead person from the 1850s. For many comparison examples of dead soldiers, I suggest you cautiously consider browsing Category:Soldiers killed in action in World War II, though personally I find these images too moving and distressing to want to look at, even though I know they have enormous educational value and comply with policy. --Fæ (talk) 21:39, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

In short, ruling out identifiable images of dead persons entirely would eliminate a broad range of educational materials. If you're concerned about a particular file, feel free to nominate it for deletion and express your moral concerns, which would be weighed against their utility. Where necessary, it is possible to anonymize photos by blurring or pixelizing the face and identifying marks - but I would not do this either without prior consensus. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:00, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Please update this image

Image http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-sa.svg is used as logo on Sanskrit Wiki. We have decided to change it (as sa.wiki community). Please change it to this image: http://sa.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%A4%9A%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%AE%E0%A5%8D:135px-155px-Wikipedia-logo-v2-sa.svg . I am not able to do so because it is protected here. The relevant bug can be seen on bugzilla at: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=40222
Please inform me if this is not right place for such request. Thanks. -Hemant wikikosh (talk) 05:06, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• Done. Please either confirm here that this is now as you want it or indicate what might still need to be done. - Jmabel ! talk 15:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Bug 40479 - File extensions should be automatically decided by MIME type at upload

Just a heads-up to anyone interested, I've filed a new bug "Bugzilla: 40479 - File extensions should be automatically decided by MIME type at upload". This is a split from another bug which split from another bug. The benefits, if they aren't obvious, are discussed in the linked bugs and linked discussions in those bugs. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 17:01, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Image not found as being used in template

On de:Kochertalbrücke the image File:Kochertalbrücke02 2011-04-17.jpg is included/transcluded using the template de:Vorlage:Infobox. Template use is as follows:

{{Infobox Brücke
|BEZEICHNUNG=Template:RSIGN Kochertalbrücke
|BILD=Kochertalbrücke02 2011-04-17.jpg
...

That use is not listed in the File usage on other wikis section. I think this is a bug.

I also note that the template directly links the image to the commons description page. Maybe this helps understanding the issue.--KlausFoehl (talk) 16:14, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Shows up now, null edit on the article fixed the matter. MKFI (talk) 07:17, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I see. Thanks -- KlausFoehl (talk) 13:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Google Search screenshots

Are screenshots of autocomplete results or search results produced by Google Search eligible for upload to Commons?

There are a number of such files in Category:Google, and more in Category:Google screenshots, that are claimed as "own work" and listed under GFDL, PD and/or CC-by-SA 3.0. For example:

• File:1st part of google search key2011-02-11.png
• File:2nd part of Google Search key 2011-02-11.png
• File:3rd part google search key 2011-02-11.png
• File:Abel Tschopp.jpeg
• File:Cerca con Google.png
• File:Google add.JPG

The copyright claims for these files almost certainly are incorrect, but I am interested in the greater question of whether these types of files are permissible (if correctly licensed) at all. Thank you, Black Falcon (talk) 20:30, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The question is what copyrighted material are you worried about? File:Google add.JPG I absolutely see nothing copyrightable to Google, and the ad is only questionably copyrightable. Computer generated results aren't usually considered copyrightable; I'm mostly concerned about the icons in File:3rd part google search key 2011-02-11.png, not the results.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:09, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I concur with Prosfilaes opinion, if anything is under copyright there, it is the few icons on the left side on some of the images.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 15:05, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I had not even considered that copyright could apply to the icons; in hindsight, however, I see how one could argue that they are creative works (of art or branding, like a logo). My original concern was that copyright might extend to one or both of the following: the appearance and organization of the search page (e.g., the appearance of File:Cerca con Google.png is, as far as I know, unique to Google) and/or the search results themselves, since they are produced by a search algorithm that probably is copyrighted. Of course, I do not know whether either factor presents a copyright issue; hence, my inquiry. Thank you for your responses. Black Falcon (talk) 22:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

September 22

Should tutorial screenshots of the Wiktionnaire be on Commons ?

Hi everybody. I know I'm a bit rare (in the 1rst meaning, or may be in the 2nd, who knows ?) on Commons these times, but I still love you.

I just uploaded wikt:fr:Fichier:Masquage de versions.png, and I was wondering : should such images be uploaded on on Commons ? My policy up to now is to keep such screenshots on Wiktionnaire only, because :

• The licence problem : screenshots are a very difficult question, even when, like I always do, most of graphic things are not shown.
• The relevance question : such images are only for Wiktionnaire's contributors ; all texts are of course in French.

So, I would like to have your opinion : should I transfer such images on Commons? (around 20 images ; I am aware of Category:French Wiktionary screenshots, created by a Wiktionnaire's contributor I know very well -- and work with) --Aʁsenjyʁdəgaljɔm¹¹⁶⁷¹ 19:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes we should, just to avoid to each language speaker to upload the same file. JackPotte (talk) 19:58, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Quand on parle du loup, on en voit la queue.

But, please, just answer my question above. --Aʁsenjyʁdəgaljɔm¹¹⁶⁷¹ 20:05, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Every freely licensed file should be on Commons. Wiktionary doesn't allow non-free content so no files should be uploaded locally.

And yes, screenshot licensing can be a PITA, but that's independent of the fact where you upload it. Multichill (talk) 20:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Wiktionary doesn't allow non-free content : NO, there is no clear policy about that on fr.wiktionary, even if I personnally try to keep the standards there as close as possible as those on Commons (for example, fr.wikipedia has several exceptions to Wikimedia's copyright policy, wich fr.wiktionary doesn't have). --Aʁsenjyʁdəgaljɔm¹¹⁶⁷¹ 20:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC) PS : wikt:fr:PITA

If a project doesn't have a policy which allows non-free content, then the project doesn't allow non-free content, per wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy. However, "free" may be defined differently in different countries. See for example en:Template:PD-US-1923-abroad. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

September 25

Flickr review tags

Could the ones listed here be re-checked? The bot doesn't like the set (all CC-BY-2.0). Thanks, Hurricanefan24 (talk) 00:19, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Would you please go through and provide individual links to the entries? This is your job as uploader. If you do, the bot should work fine. If it doesn't, move the other 2 links out of the source field. Dankarl (talk) 00:57, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

14 millionth file

Hi. What was the 14 millionth file? I can't find it in Commons:Milestones. --Meno25 (talk) 06:03, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Most probably a copyvio. .-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 06:45, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

We usually take the liberty of adjusting it a bit to choose a decent quality file anyway. I think we just forgot to do it, or didn't think of 14M as a big milestone? Dcoetzee (talk) 20:25, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Most probably a monument ! Jean-Fred (talk) 14:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe or may not be part of WLM 2012, would take a fair bit of time to work out what file was nearest to the 14 million file (due to copyright vios, duplicates ect). Bidgee (talk) 15:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

That's the trick,(mode BOFH) we choose it >click< >click<. --PierreSelim (talk) 14:41, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

September 24

2 edit wars with the same user

Hi everyone. I have an editing conflict with user Orrling who, IMO, does not understand the logic of category trees.

1. The first problem is about Category:Horse-related road signs, for which Orrling persists to add Category:Horse transport even after I showed him there were files that deal with horses but not horse transport (for instance File:Attention chevaux 1.jpg, File:CH-Gefahrensignal-Tiere (2).svg, File:Trnová, pozor přechod pro koně.jpg or File:Singapore Road Signs - Warning Sign - Animals.svg).
2. Orrling also persists to make Category:Videos of nudity a subcat of Category:Videos of human behavior while nudity doesn't always concern sexuality (for instance File:Nude woman washing face, animated from Animal locomotion, Vol. IV, Plate 413 by Eadweard Muybridge.gif).

Orrling now seems to accept my point, but can anyone arbitrate before it may become a stupid edit war ? See our talk pages and the history of the concerned cats for more arguments. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 12:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Can I suggest that you move the discussions to the talk pages of the categories in question? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 17:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done. See Category talk:Horse-related road signs and Category talk:Videos of nudity. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 12:08, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Page view stats vs. Media view stats

We have page-view stats under the History tab, but do we have media-view stats? Specifically, I am wondering how many times this audio file has been listened to, it was in an article featured on the Wikipedia front page DYK today: File:Letter from a Freedman to His Old Master by Jourdon Anderson read by Winston Tharp for LibriVox.ogg. Thanks. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 04:10, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we don't have this kind of statistics (yet). odder (talk) 07:57, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

There's a request on Bugzilla for this information to be made available somehow - Bugzilla: 40271. Andrew Gray (talk) 11:53, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Adding translations to "picture of the day" other translations

Hi! About File:HomelessParis 7032101.jpg I found the Chinese for the image, but cannot add it to the picture of the day translation list. How do I do this?

Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 07:12, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi WhisperToMe, what chinese did you found? The POTD message is stored at Template:Potd/2006-03-09 (lang) (where lang is the usual 2 letters(-sublang) code) and Special:WhatLinksHere/File:HomelessParis_7032101.jpg lists all of them. -- Rillke^(q?) 16:49, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see you are wondering why Template:Picture of the day/layout does not include Template:Potd/2006-03-09 (zh-hans). -- Rillke^(q?) 16:56, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. -- Rillke^(q?) 17:05, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Coal loading, handling? categories

I took the following pictures during the steam festival in Mariembourg: (File:Coal loading Mariembourg I.JPG, File:Coal loading Mariembourg II.JPG, File:Coal loading Mariembourg III.JPG) This is a installation for fast and efficient coal loading of many steamengines. How do I classify this? (the coal element). Coal handling? coal loading? Coal transport? Another picture is File:Loading coal into rancher's truck at the mine. Boulder Valley Coal Company, Centennial Mine, Louisville, Boulder... - NARA - 540459.jpg Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:43, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I have added the category Coal loading. There are similar categories: (Coal transport), (Coaling plants for steam locomotives), (Coal silos).Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:30, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

At what point hosting one's comic images / sketches stops being in our project scope?

If you look at Category:Polandball, you'll find hundreds, perhaps close to a thousand of images based on an Internet meme. The meme in question was decided non-notable on English Wikipedia (en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polandball), through I believe it survived AfD on some others. *shrug* - I did not participate in that AfD, and might have even voted keep if I did, I like net memes. But is it in our Commons:Scope to host all images published (freely licensed) at http://polandball-news.blogspot.de/ ? In other words, are we going to host all freely licensed webcomics and meme pictures out there? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:20, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

At least, for this case, we cannot decide it's not in project scope as long as many different versions of WP still have an article about Polandball. But in any case, I think a comic image or sketch is pertinent as a cultural illustration - even if some cannot be used in any project, it adds some choice for users who want more illustration on a subject (since I repeat that Commons has to host more illustrations than those used in sister projects). --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 11:59, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Questionable Flick user ?

I'm wondering if we can trust this Flickr user. Two of his files have been uploaded on Commons for now : File:Samantha.jpg and File:Anal Bliss.jpg. I'd say it's Flickrwashing. What do you think ? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 11:52, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Definitely not OK, possibly Flickrwashing, but in anycase, not the copyright owner and with no right to relicense those files. Both were copyvios, taken from porn movie ads on the web.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 12:24, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to be Flickrwashing, but rather uploads in good faith, both in Flickr and here. Check the Flickr uploader declaration. Last images added to the stream seem to be "all rights protected", it is possible that the relicensing was a GF mistake. In any case, they can't be uploaded here, therefore I added the photostream to the Flickr blacklist.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 12:37, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

September 26

In need of a bot

Who do I talk to about getting a bot to run a monthly (heck, annual might do) date-based category creation routine? -mattbuck (Talk) 11:12, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

For creating the daily subcategories of Category:Files moved to Commons requiring review by date? If not, a bot is lacking there, too. --Leyo 11:42, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

A bot is creating those again. Was that the only category you needed? Multichill (talk) 15:20, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually I was looking for a bot to do the numerous [month] (year) in (something) categories, eg Category:2012 in Nottingham or Category:August 2009 in London. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:00, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Any takers? -mattbuck (Talk) 22:56, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

@Multichill: There is obviously no bot, at least for some of the subcategories (created by a user, not created yet). --Leyo 07:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Mistake to be corrected (protected file)

Hi. Can anybody correct the mistake in the description of File:Castelbouc gorges du Tarn.jpg (protected file) ? In French, it has to be "en ruine" instead of "ruiné" (the translation of "ruined" is not "ruiné" for this case). Moreover, it would be useful to add Category:Château de Castelbouc. Thanks in advance. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 14:14, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I've made the corrections, I'm just wondering why Myrabella used "ruiné" (Myrabella is fluent in French). The file is protected as being picture of the day. --PierreSelim (talk) 14:31, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

It's indeed a mystery to me to see that a person whose mother tongue is French has written "ruiné" instead of "en ruine" ! Thanks for the correction. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 09:08, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Jmabel ! talk 15:37, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Watermarks

Could anybody remove watermarks from this and this pictures? These images were made hundred years ago and they are very useful for the articles about Khan's Palace in Shaki. But watermarks... --Interfase (talk) 20:34, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I started removing these, but User:DarwIn noticed that higher res images without watermarks are available from the same source, so watermark removal isn't necessary. I'll let them update the other one as well. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done. :) -- Darwin ^Ahoy! 23:33, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot )) --Interfase (talk) 06:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

People by name:what's happening?

Please anyone can answer me in this discussion Category_talk:People_by_name#This_is_flat_list--Pierpao.lo (listening) 18:08, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

September 28

Models and art in state funded US museums

There is no freedom of panorama in the US, but in some cases images of art made for and placed in state funded museums have been kept, since they would be public domain.[20] Is that right? Because I'm currently wondering what to do with the image of this model.File:Frog_anatomy.JPG FunkMonk (talk) 12:35, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The main reason would be work done by a federal government employee, or as work-for-hire for the federal government. AnonMoos (talk) 12:43, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

How can we be sure it is either? FunkMonk (talk) 12:45, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

(ec) It's not, as you say "art made for and placed in state funded museums" that can be kept, but specifically works created by an employee of the US federal government in the course of the employee's official duties. It's the employer-employee relationship that makes it PD; it has nothing to do with where the work is placed. In this case, I don't know what "NMH" is, but you could ask the uploader what museum it was in. I would guess that most such museum displays are made in-house unless otherwise indicated (the most common exceptions would probably be travelling exhibits and items/exhibits on loan from another collection), so if it was in one of the Smithsonian museums, this would be a similar case to the other you linked. cmadler (talk) 12:58, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The NMH is the National Museum of Americn History in Washington, which is the same as the Smithsonian. FunkMonk (talk) 13:00, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure? I'm not saying it's not, but if the en-wp article describes the museum accurately, that seems like an unlikely display. This seems more like a display in a natural history museum, maybe the National Museum of Natural History, but we shouldn't be guessing. cmadler (talk) 12:39, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I left a note on the uploader's talk page and, since he hasn't contributed here in a while, used the contact form on his website. The best way to solve this sort of puzzle is often to just ask! cmadler (talk) 13:02, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Metadata deletion

Hello,
Is there any way to remove the metadata from these files:
File:Pioneer PD-4100 disc tray 1.gif
File:Pioneer PD-4100 disc tray 2.gif
I was hoping that the metadata could be removed in such way, that after the deletion the metadata is nowhere to be found, not even in file history. In other words, removed completely.
Hoikka1 (talk) 14:29, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

• You'd need to download, use exiftool or something similar, then re-upload. As long as you don't mind that admins can see the old versions, it's easy enough to delete them from the publicly visible history. - Jmabel ! talk 15:21, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

All right, thank you Jmabel. That's exactly what I did, and it seems now that the metadata doesn't show in the older revision or anywhere. That's a good thing, although I think I would have a complete peace of mind if the metadata wouldn't exist at all anymore, or the older revisions would not exist.

Hoikka1 (talk) 16:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I've deleted the old versions and now it's only accessible for admins. please see COM:REVDEL for more information.  ■ MMXX ^talk 18:25, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thank you very much MMXX, now I'm glad about it ! But I have to ask, what that copyright violation thing was ? Because I have made those animations from start to finish myself, I only used GIF Construction Set Professional to put the photos together to GIF.

Hoikka1 (talk) 04:31, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

That was my fault, sorry about that.  ■ MMXX ^talk 13:30, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

No problem mate ! Thanks again !

Hoikka1 (talk) 13:55, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

An amazing phenomenon

Just see an instant example of what I come across here now more and more often:

• Category:Demonstrations and protests in South Africa –>
• Category:Demonstrations and protests in South Africa by subject –>
• Category:Demonstrations and protests in South Africa by subject supported (only this one. No brothers) –>
• Category:Demonstrations and protests in support of human rights in South Africa (only. No brothers, no files) –>
• Category:Demonstrations and protests in support of LGBT in South Africa (as above) –>
• Category:Gay Pride in South Africa (only) –>
• File:Lesbian Angels.jpg (only file..)

Judge for yourself. As for me, after Wowing and finishing being annoyed, I typically speedy the intermediative single-child parents to that the bottom (few or one) items meet directly the big parent and there striving to eliminate a tiring patently useless hierarchic thread where instead of our familiar pyramid flow structure we see a thin-column structure featuring a single subcat that fathers a single subcat that fathers a single subcat and-so-on, sometimes, as in the example given above, to a 5 or 6 levels each consisting of no content other than one sub-sub whose sole essence is to justify the next level down... Trying always to look from the average end-user's angle, I'd like to request that these spectacles of "oh, what's next? oh, what's next? oh, what's next?" be less common. They can wear out a good mouse. Orrlingtalk 18:13, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Somebody just copied the categories from the top level, where you have Category:Demonstrations and protests by subject supported and Category:Demonstrations and protests by subject opposed, under Category:Demonstrations and protests by subject, which turns into the likes of Category:Demonstrations and protests by subject opposed by country etc. The South African categories were only the tip of an iceberg. ghouston (talk) 00:07, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The usefulness of this would depend on the case. It can't be measured in some fixed way, such as "you should only create new categories when you have more than a few images for them" - No, this is wrong. If you happen to know that some object is a Victorian bracket, you might as well create that category for it, under the proper parent cats, even if it only has one Victorian bracket inside. People do not realize how those actions help others in categorization, as well as those who want to find those specific objects, and how vicious it is the notion that categories are only justified when you can already populate them with more than a single item.

On the other hand, the "by" categories should only be created when there is a reasonable expectation that they will be populated in the near future. Creating a "by century" category for a building built in the 19th or 20th century is stupid, as is creating "forts by municipality" for a region that has one municipality with 30 forts, and the other 10 municipalities averaging 1 or 2 forts each.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 01:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Just one thing : if someone is searching trhough Category:Demonstrations and protests in support of LGBT by country, it's normal to keep the category tree for South Africa with the same logic as for the other countries, or the user may think we have no file on that subject for this country. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 09:12, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

After some re-creation of this category tree and after some few researches, it appears that we already had some files to fill them with more stuff. And of course we have to think about the future files. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 09:40, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I was the editor who tidied up this category tree. Ghouston surmised correctly that I replicated the structure in the main category into the "by country" categories, because that seemed to be the most logical categorization. And, yes, I did have in mind the aim of laying down a logical structure which future editors can follow when categorizing files. By the way, there are more than 400 files in "Category:Demonstrations and protests" which could be placed into subcategories, so if anyone is looking for stuff to do ... — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 09:56, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Not all people manage to create a systematic and long term view. Those cats will probably be recreated within one year as South African contributions seems rising. --Foroa (talk) 12:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Obviously, when there is some content the subsubs can be created – when this happens we (may) have a point in replicating that empty structure pattern. Oh, and I personally object the petty concept of classifying demonstrations by "subject opposed" and "supported". Why not "by colour of trees in the background"? As I stated explicitly my motive in rasing this topic is helping poor readers wishing to just simply navigate to their image of interest without crossing four or five systematic hurdles that are unhelpful in cases when no tangible choice is there but a lonely link to another lonely link. As one of the commenters mentioned, any particular example is only the tip of an iceberg. Orrlingtalk 17:07, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Classifying demonstrations by the subject opposed or supported actually makes sense, while classification by "colour of trees in the background" does not. Having a proper category structure is better than just dumping random categories into, for example, "Category:Demonstrations and protests in South Africa". If a category structure is not established, a category tree will soon become a mess to sort out. By the way, I don't create empty categories. I only create categories when there will be some content in them. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 15:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

No. You're creating MASSES of empty stracture patterns sometimes just to lead at the end to a single file or a single sub-sub-sub-cat which could be introduced far higher uptree neglecting the long-way flowing "<<logic>>" which has nil importance for our readers. Having a proper category structure means that first there's content = i.e, files that populate at least most levels; and you're wrong again assuming that first comes the structure and then the content. When there's traffic that justifies the establishment of very winding and entangled roads then we may lay the base to them. I can propose you a testing-question: "Is there two or more consecutive levels each with a single subcategory and no files?" to determine whether to proceed developing such environment. I understand that your way of managing categories is your best as a dedicated editor but it may be extremely counterhelpful for our end-users. Orrlingtalk 17:49, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

We will have to agree to disagree on this. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 01:21, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Help needed for Tramlink categories

I created (Tramlink in the London Borough of Croydon) and (Tramlink in the London Borough of Bromley) to localize the tram pictures. There are tram stop categories but they didnt have a Borough link. There are also pictures along the road with no tram stop connection. I also decoupled the tram and train pictures with (Beckenham Junction station (Tramlink)) and (East Croydon station (Tramlink)). I wouldnt decouple Wimbledon station as this is one integrated building, but all other railway/tram stops can be decoupled. I have started this reorganisation but there is still a lot off work to do. Help would be appreciated.Smiley.toerist (talk) 08:17, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Alpine tundra, France.JPG

Hello,

This image isn't free, it's a mistake, I'm beggining. It is necessary to delete her. Thank you. Buisson38 (talk) 12:19, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

done TheDJ (talk) 14:22, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Jmabel ! talk 16:26, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Illustration by Auguste André Lançon?

Without further information, I think File:Louis Pasteur in Pouilly-le-Fort (Illustration - 1881).jpg would be a candidate for a deletion request. The image description doesn't mention its author (it says only Nach der "Illustration"), and so we wouldn't know whether the creator died more than 70 years ago (besides, the copyright tag used is unsuitable for the purpose, see this related DR and this discussion at COM:VPC, but this can be fixed if the image is indeed PD). Well, but there's a signature in the lower left corner, and the name reads distinctly like "Lançon" to me. If this is fr:Auguste André Lançon, then we would be fine, as he died in 1887. I wouldn't have read the letter before "Lançon" as an A, however - first I thought it a D. Then I tried Google Image Search and found only quite different signatures by Lançon, but it seems he hasn't always signed the same way. What do you think: Is this A. Lançon? Or maybe a different Lançon? Gestumblindi (talk) 21:04, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Get real. The Lancon creator must be at least 20 by 1881, so at the (2012 - 70) = 1942 deadline the creator must have been at least 81 years old. Very old in those days. If it wasnt signed it would certainly be PD, (contractor/employe work for an publishing organisation, idem as the numerous postcards without signature) Smiley.toerist (talk) 22:40, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Is 81 years a safe line? Life expectancy after adulthood wasn't that much different in those days; you can find better numbers, but based off US (MA) life expectancy for white adults, he would have had an expectancy (a 50% chance) of hitting 60 if he was 20 in 1890 (closest year I have).--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:40, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I also read A. Lançon there. Seems to be close to the signature of Auguste Lançon in this engraving. The style seems to be of Auguste Lançon as well, compare with this one, for instance.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 00:45, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

IMHO 81 years isn't a "safe line" and if this image weren't signed it couldn't be assumed to be certainly PD... but I think we can now be certain that it's indeed a work by Auguste Lançon. I asked over in the German Wikipedia's portal for visual arts, too, and two experienced contributors agree that it's Lançon's signature and style. By the way, we can't be sure that the illustration is exactly from 1881 - it depicts an 1881 event, but was taken from a reproduction in a 1927 book. However, as Lançon died in 1887, it must have been created between 1881 and 1887, and was probably published shortly after creation (to illustrate a then-recent event). So I'm going to update the image's description and copyright tag - thanks for your contributions :-) Gestumblindi (talk) 01:43, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

September 27

Time format in Template:Information

Where is it possible to set time format to use period instead of columns to separate hours and minutes (HH.MM.SS instead of HH:MM:SS) on file pages using {{Information}}? The Slovene uses period. Thanks. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 10:59, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I think that this is handled by {{ISOdate}}. --Stefan4 (talk) 12:41, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure? Can you fix this (I don't have the rights)? --Eleassar ^(t/p) 13:16, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the source code, it seems that {{ISOdate}} might be outsourcing this task to {{Time}} instead. However, both templates are extremely complex, so I don't understand exactly how it works, or where to change anything. Besides, both templates are fully protected. Someone else will have to figure out what to do. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:42, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Looking at {{Time}}, it doesn't seem that the separator would be specified as a parameter at all. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 17:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I will look into it. {{Time}} seems to be a template used in probably every Commons image, which is overcomplicated and never modified after creation. It is only called with 3 parameters (+lang) but internally it deals with additional 2 parameters which are never used. It might be time for some cleanup. --Jarekt (talk) 20:19, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't really get the issue? Could you explain it? The time format used by {{ISODate}} is supposed to await a few possible syntax, but I believe one should use YYYY−MM-DD format to avoid issues with 02-01-02 being interpreted as 1st february or 2nd january (1902 or 2002 here too ?) - I think hours/minute/seconds might be irrelevant in most case here anyway :/. I don't think that modifying this overused template without a serious reason is a good idea here. Esby (talk) 20:30, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I was looking at this image and thought that it was great to have the date translated, but why not also have the time written per Slovene language standard. I don't know, perhaps this must be done manually, but there is also a comma written that is not in the wikitext, therefore I suppose the time is also parsed by a template. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 20:41, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Did you went in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-datetime ? Because the date in your example appears to be correctly handled. Esby (talk) 20:56, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I didn't. Now I've tried different settings there, but they have no effect. The same with File:Lunar eclipse on December 10, 2011, in Japan.ogv, featured today on the main page. It would be great if one could have the separator according to his own language standard here (not even mentioning that the symbol for minute is min, not m; the latter refers to meter). --Eleassar ^(t/p) 02:01, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

This sounds like a mediawiki issue to me, not a template issue to me or maybe I am missing something here. Esby (talk) 10:43, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

If this is handled by MediaWiki, then it probably goes deeper still. I suppose MediaWiki uses the standard operating system functions. Here on a Debian box (glibc 2.11.3) and a Fedora box (glibc 2.12.2), "LANG=sl_SI date" gives "sob sep 29 22:19:07 EEST 2012", with colons. If it is wrong, it should be fixed by the GNU libc maintainers. --LPfi (talk) 19:20, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Category:Images from the Geograph British Isles project needing categories by date

I'd like to discuss how to handle these more than 700.000 uncatecorized images from the Geograph British Isles project. It's impossible to do this task manually. Furthermore I don't think it is useful to have them "(un)categorized by date", the "by grid" categorization is a much better way of sorting. I propose to remove the "by date" category and ask for a bot-experienced user, how this amount of images could be categorized in an automatic way. --Funfood ␌ 09:56, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I stopped automagic categorization some time ago because some users insisted on doing it by hand. Do you think it should be started again? Multichill (talk) 22:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I reckon some categorisation is better than none.

On the subject of 'by grid', Category:Images_from_the_Geograph_British_Isles_project_needing_categories_by_grid_square seems to be full of references with one of the grid letters missing, e.g. Category:Images from the Geograph British Isles project needing categories in grid D0135 --Robert EA Harvey (talk) 06:57, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes Multichill, I think that an automatic categorization would do no harm - the amount of files is too big for some few individuals to handle. Even if 5 people would spend a lot of time in it and everyone does ~500 pics a day, they would need about a year. And I don't see those people around. --Funfood ␌ 13:56, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

+1 I loved that categorization. --Nemo 15:24, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm also in support of initial categorization by a bot. --99of9 (talk) 03:51, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Category:Cultural heritage monuments overwhelmed by weeds ?

A "Cultural heritage monument overwhelmed by weeds"?

Hello,
I wonder whether Category:Cultural heritage monuments overwhelmed by weeds is correct, in order to tag pictures of this kind. --El Caro (talk) 14:21, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Category:Overgrown structures exists for those kind of images. --Funfood ␌ 15:33, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! --El Caro (talk) 15:36, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Funfood ␌ 17:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)