Commons:Village pump/Archive/2013/03

Metadata

I was moving images from ITWN to Commons using For the Common Good while I recognized following case:

What happened to this file? n:it:File:I3010019.jpg --> File:Manifestazione.jpg

The Metadata are "broken" and somehow English Wikipedia wikilinks were added(!)? mabdul 07:01, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

commons tries to link certain metadata fields to 'pedia by hacking up the mediawiki namespace. this fails in a non graceful way if the field has special chars in it. in this case it appeats an extra newline in the exif field is causing problems.--Bawolff (talk) 19:47, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, ok, and so how to fix that? Does that mean we can delete the image at ITWN? mabdul 07:21, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Easy, download and edit the metadata of the file and remove the extraneous new-line character. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 07:44, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Commons compatible science journals

Do we have a list of such? As in journals where all the content is CC licensed for free use? Those are immensely valuable resources, and it seems like an oversight that we don't have them listed somewhere, under free media maybe. I can think of Plos[1], Pensoft[2], and it seems Acta Palaeontologica Polonica[3] fits as well. Others? Polonica seems a bit iffy, as it is so old, and the license is hardly retroactive. Anyone know when this new license was implemented? FunkMonk (talk) 00:09, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

See Category:Media from scholarly journals & the Open Access Media Importer, a bot operated by Daniel Mietchen which uploads content from these sources. Jean-Fred (talk) 00:51, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Nice. I see Acta Palaeontologica Polonica is absent though. Maybe their change is very recent? I've dropped them an email asking about this. FunkMonk (talk) 01:09, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

http://www.doaj.org/ Sinnamon (talk) 04:17, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Nice! As for Acta Palaeontologica Polonica, their change was in 2012, and they said they think it works retroactively, but they will come back to me about this. FunkMonk (talk) 14:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

New search extension enabled

Following previous discussions, mw:Extension:SearchExtraNS is enabled on Commons as of yesterday. Try and do a search in a namespace non searched by default by prepending your keyword with the name of the namespace. --Nemo 09:30, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

For example Special:Search/Bioinformatics → Category:Bioinformatics. Jean-Fred (talk) 10:27, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Hmm .. it's slightly better than now, but does anyone need search to reach a page that matches the search term? Shouldn't it actually "search" by default? --  Docu  at 11:16, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

It seems to work. The Go button leads to matching page name if it exists, otherwise to matching category name if it exists, or if neither exists to search results. The Search button always leads directly to search results. Vector skin is a bit unclear about Go and Search buttons (bugzilla:24248), but you get the same results when you realize that magnifying glass is the Go button and "Containing... " is the Search button.

I preferred like it was some time ago, when you got search suggestions for exact matches in category namespace. Writing "Sweden" in search box would suggest Sweden, Category:Sweden, Swedenborg, Emanuel, ... Now you have to write "Category:" first to get suggestions in category namespace. /Ö 21:01, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Need help with a template

Given the fact that the Russian-orthodox Christmas holidays are actually the time between the New Year's Eve and the Old (Julian) New Year on January 14, with the Orthodox Christmas itself on January 7, the Template:Christmasyear-Russia should be adjusted the way that, for example, Category:Christmas 2012 in Russia will be sorted both in Category:December 2012 in Russia, and in Category:January 2013 in Russia. Is there any possibility to integrate the January categorization into this template? --A.Savin 11:23, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Technically this is easy. Ruslik (talk) 15:33, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Could you please help to adjust it? --A.Savin 16:28, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I adjusted it. Ruslik (talk) 14:53, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. --A.Savin 16:10, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Inappropriate categories

I have a general question about categorization which is not answered in Commons:Categories. The picture File:Annette Howell Turner Center for the Arts 1.jpg has a lot of categories but non of this features is very prominent in this picture do we still keep them or is this cluttering those categories. Thanks --Saehrimnir (talk) 18:46, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest removing categories that refer to minor elements of the photograph and keeping only those that refer to major elements. — SMUconlaw (talk) 19:00, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

This is definitely in too many categories. If a photo is to be categorized by what is depicted in it, those things should at least be prominent. The main purpose of categories is to help people find usable media. I would not be satisfied with this picture as a "photo of a flag of the United States" --moogsi (blah) 21:02, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed with the above. I would suggest keeping only Category:Annette Howell Turner Center for the Arts, Valdosta, Georgia, Category:August 2012 in Georgia (U.S. state) and Category:2012 photographs, as well the meta categories. The street light category *might* be okay, since they are reasonably large in the image, but not the street sign category as it is tucked to the side and fairly small. Certainly none of the others. — Huntster (t @ c) 21:27, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

March 02

Request for comment - press photos

I've posted an RFC regarding the public domain status of press/publicity photos produced between 1923 and 1977. Comments are welcome. – JBarta (talk) 22:54, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

This is related to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Heidi Brühl (1942-1991).jpg. Yann (talk) 23:35, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

March 03

Empty language templates

I occasionally find empty language template on file description pages: For example, is used as a title (see e.g. File:00 Uetersen Schenkungsurkunde 1234 (Lateinisch).jpg, File:Burte-Tagbuech-Iitrag.jpg or File:2011-07-17-hechingen-by-RalfR-047.jpg). One reason, why such a usage is unwise is that {{en|1=Some sample text containing a = somewhere}} is displayed the same way as because the first part is interpreted as a parameter name. To what should be converted best?

• {{en|1=Text that previously was behind}}
• {{en-title}}
• {{en|1=inline=no}} (see e.g. File:2013 Wikidata item creation EN.svg for opposite example)
• …

--Leyo 23:29, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

{{En}} is used to mark that text is in English. When there is no text there is no need for {{En}}. and it should be just removed. --Jarekt (talk) 00:09, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Please have a look at the examples given above. There is text behind (=outside) the template. --Leyo 00:14, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry I should have read the question more carefully. {{en|1=Text that previously was behind}} is the proper fix, or how user:Denniss fixed File:00 Uetersen Schenkungsurkunde 1234 (Lateinisch).jpg. --Jarekt (talk) 01:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree generally, but it seems that some users do not like that, perhaps because they like the line break after e.g. “English:”.

Category:Template:De with no text displayed lists files and categories without a parameter one. I fixed a few hundred file pages, but the above described usage of language templates makes it difficult. --Leyo 01:24, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

As with any effort to standardize template or license or category or almost anything, there will be always people that very loudly object and defend their unique ways of misusing standard templates, creating confusing personalized licenses or noncompliand category names. Just ignore, and keep on good work. --Jarekt (talk) 01:54, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

{{en|1=Some sample text containing a = somewhere}} (providing a parameter name) will allow you to have text with an = in it:

English: Some sample text containing a = somewhere

moogsi (blah) 00:16, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I know, but this is not the question here. --Leyo 00:47, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Oops, sorry. Wasn't reading carefully enough. I misread what you said as a reason why it shouldn't be the first one. I'm baffled why anyone would think otherwise :( --moogsi (blah) 03:52, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

If they really want the description to start on its own line (maybe it's a paragraph or something) you can always do something like {{en|1=<div>This is another paragraph</div>}} or even {{en|1=<br/>This is another line}}. That at least gets the text inside the template. Normal paragraph breaks should work inside a div. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:28, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Is any of these options to be preferred?

And what about templates like this, this or this, where {{en|}}, etc. is used as titles? Create and use {{en-title}} anyway? --Leyo 16:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

March 04

File:Pornography laws.svg.2012 09 02 05 30 42.0.svg

I think we should reverse the use of orange and red colours for this map. Indeed, red is a symbol of a more strict situation than orange, therefore orange should mean "Possession of child pornography illegal" and red "Possession of any kind of pornography illegal". --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 12:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. Next time, consider visiting Commons:Graphic Lab/Map workshop. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:23, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

New Commons beta app for Android available at Google Play

We just published a new Commons beta app for Android at Google Play. You feedback is welcome! Check mw:Apps/Commons and (this week) mw:Mobile QA/Commons uploads.--Qgil (talk) 19:37, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

This seems to be the first picture uploaded with the new app: File:Lion walking at the Nairobi National park.jpeg.--Qgil (talk) 21:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

This file has no description. I hope that's not a new trend. --Dschwen (talk) 21:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

We'll see. The app allows you to add a description, another things is what mobile users do (especially in their first attempt). The picture comes from an experienced contributor (from Africa, I hope that is a trend) that had published other pictures, including File:Global forest.JPG (nominated as a finalist in WLM12).--Qgil (talk) 21:28, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I have filed an enhancement request: Bug 45453 - Title and description should be required in Commons app. Your feedback and help is welcome there.--Qgil (talk) 22:45, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Seconded and commented. GPS data should be added to the uploaded images. Preferably in the form of a {{Location}} template. Note that there is a possibility to fill out the heading field using compass data from the device! --Dschwen (talk) 22:55, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

This is a separate issue. Enhancement request filed at Bug 45510 - GPS data should be added to the uploaded images. Thank you!--Qgil (talk) 18:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I seconded the GPS data, which would give me a reason to use the app. Bennylin (yes?) 11:20, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll note that (at least for Android) you can simply enable 'GPS Tag' in your camera's options and the GPS data will automaically turn up :) Yuvipanda (talk) 22:33, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Drawing methoxy groups

What is the best way to draw methoxy groups in chemical compounds, when the image shows the group in the order H-(CH₂)-O-? I've seen many ways, and I'm uncertain which one is the "best":

• 
  As H₃CO
• 
  As CH₃O
• 
  Showing the H₃C-O bond
• 
  Showing just the C-O bond, but withou the CH₃

I've drawn a lot of compounds recently, and I fear I have added to the confusion. Albmont (talk) 17:21, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Commons talk:WikiProject Chemistry would be a better place for this discussion.

–OCH₃, H₃CO–, –O–CH₃ and H₃C–O– are all fine, but e.g. CH₃O– is not. --Leyo 22:35, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I copy-and-pastied the discussion to the Chemistry Wikiproject. Albmont (talk) 13:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I report a problem

Hi to all, you can check why some subcategories of Category:Built in 1495 (England, France, Germany) do not come automatically in the mother category than Italy and Switzerland? There is a problem in the template?--Threecharlie (talk) 22:44, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

The upload wizard

I don't know where to post this, so I'll do it here.

Two things:

• When adding the first category, fine. When you click "add more categories" the cursor doesn't focus on the next category input box. You need to click there first in order to type. That could be fixed.

• The "copy all of this to all the images you are uploading" option defaults to all ticks. That's a bit risky because even the auto-sequential filenaming is ticked. If some dumbdumb (like me the first time) doesn't notice, then a whole bunch of files gets incorrectly named.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:11, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

What browser/operating system do you use? Ruslik (talk) 06:46, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Massive upload of public domain pictures kept in a font database ?

Hello,

The Taiwan .edu site has this 下載古漢字字型2.4版 link， which leads to an unpacking .exe file containing four fonts :

• 收錄 小篆字型7,475字、 = font 北師大說文小篆 = small seal font from the Beijing Normal University, 7,475 glyphs ;
• 金文字型1,533字 = font 中研院金文 = Academia Sinica bronze style characters, 1533 glyphs ;
• 甲骨文字型760字 = font 中研院甲骨文 = Academia Sinica oracle characters, 760 glyphs ;
• 楚系簡帛文字字型1,095字 = font 中研院楚系簡帛文字 = Academia Sinica Bamboosilk characters, 1.095 glyphs.

All these glyphs are very interesting, and I would like them to be preserved somewhere.

Apart maybe for the first one, these fonts are digital reproduction of ancient Chinese pictures (more than 2000 years), thus have no author's right attached. This is why some of these characters have been uploaded and turned into .sgv equivalents (see 馬 character).

But the fonts can be considered as a picture database, which as such may benefit from the fifteen years protection (starting from publication date) given to databases.

Seen from this page, these files are available since 1999. So the protection (if any) ends in 2015. Is it OK to upload these fonts at the end of next year ? Or to upload them right away ?

Michelet-密是力 (talk) 10:30, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Micheletb -- according to the laws of the United States, the abstract shapes of characters in a text font are considered to be "functional" or "utilitarian" and uncopyrightable, but the computer code contained in a computer font file which is used to produced such a shape can be copyrighted as computer code. This means that a rendered raster of font characters is always safe ({{PD-font}}), while vector SVGs including vector font character shapes are probably OK most of the time... AnonMoos (talk) 07:16, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Generally speaking ok, but these are not real fonts but picture collections. No code has been involved in that case. Michelet-密是力 (talk) 09:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

For svg representations of ancient script there is {{PD-ancient-script}}, which suggests that vector code representing something PD is not subject to copyright. I'm not sure about this, though (I just read this properly and it doesn't apply here. Carry on) --moogsi (blah) 17:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion transferred to Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Copy right protection of a picture database kept as font file. Michelet-密是力 (talk) 08:07, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Guideline on models

I've been concerned by the inconsistency with which deletion discussions related to (scale) models have been handled and have thus tried to assemble support for the "right" answer at User:Elcobbola/Models‎. It's been suggested that this essay be moved into the project space, so I was hoping to get consensus here for it to become a guideline. General discussion and input of comments or concerns would no doubt be helpful as well. Эlcobbola _talk 21:13, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

PD question

Would this image qualify for upload to Commons under PD Austria as taken in 1919, and PD-US given that is a private photo which after the death of Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky in 2000 was donated to the University which published it in an exhibition in 2007. --ELEKHH^T 21:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Depends on if the author is known or not, but I would discount {{PD-Austria}} on the grounds that it's not a Lichtbild --moogsi (blah) 22:12, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. Does the fact that the publishers do not credit a photographer be interpreted as evidence of unknown author? Would this other image from 1927 be considered a Lichtbild? Is there any chance for any of these images to be PD-US? --ELEKHH^T 22:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

If it is anonymous and first published in 2007, then the copyright expires in the United States 120 years after it was taken. If it is not anonymous and first published in 2007, then the copyright expires in the United States 70 years after the death of the photographer. We have no evidence that the photographer is identified and that he died before 1943, and the photo is not yet 120 years old, so it would still be protected by copyright if anonymous. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:18, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

March 06

Please help me!

Hi, can you please delete this picture here:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:A_nice_picture_of_a_nice_girl.jpg

I uploaded it by mistake, I was just testing.--Metaphysicaltransfer (talk) 00:02, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done --Leyo 00:28, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Jmabel ! talk 16:31, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Categories "by x by y"

I don't encounter these very often, but I need help because they make my brain hurt.

example: Llamas by century by country.

Should I expect to find in this category:

[+] 17th-century llamas by country

[+] 18th century llamas by country

[+] 19th-century llamas by country

[+] 20th-century llamas by country

OR

[+] Llamas from Belarus by century

[+] Llamas from Belgium by century

[+] Llamas from Bolivia by century

[+] Llamas from Brazil by century

?

I'm sure I've seen both, but one of them is obviously "Llamas by country by century"  :( --moogsi (blah) 21:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Intuitively, since "by country" is the "outer layer," it ought to be the one to go first, so I'd say the latter. For "Llamas by country by century," the former. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:50, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I just want to see that 17th-century Belorusian llama. - Jmabel ! talk 01:22, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that seems logical. I just thought I'd better check, it's kind of confusing to have the keys in "reverse" order in the name of the category. I am officially an anti-metametacategorianist. One meta should be enough for anyone --moogsi (blah) 21:08, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I still want to know if anyone's intuition points the other way, though --moogsi (blah) 21:15, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Mérite national chevalier FRANCE.jpg

Hi, can an administrator please have a look at this file: File:Mérite national chevalier FRANCE.jpg. It is a duplicate of File:Chevlaier de l Ordre Nationale du Merite AVERS.jpg and therefor should be deleted. I have tried adding the duplicate-template, but the filepage seems corrupted, because it cannot be saved. I hope an administrator can fix this. Thanks, NormanB ^(talk) 04:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

already tracked. --McZusatz (talk) 17:08, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T42178

When should deletion reviews be admin-only ?

Is there, or should there be, any guidance on when admins should exclude everyone else from a deletion discussion of an image ? Penyulap ☏ 23:52, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

• Is there any case where this has occurred? Because I've never seen it happen. - Jmabel ! talk 00:40, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Well I've also never seen it occur before. Here is the case that prompts my enquiry in answer to your question.

It looks every bit like a normal Deletion Review with comments about scope and so on, but everyone is not invited. Unless you're an admin, you can't see the image or know what the H you're talking about. I'd actually like to discuss the image, as I think it has little educational value, but I would have thought that it's not the proper venue for the DR so I hesitate to comment. Penyulap ☏ 03:07, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Penyulap, can I suggest Commons:Undeletion requests might be what you're looking for? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 06:02, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

In a recent very sensitive case (image of a child's genitals) I deleted the image and then opened a UR at Commons:Undeletion requests. The discussion was open to all users but the image was not. I think this is an acceptable compromise in cases where urgent removal is prudent. Dcoetzee (talk) 11:43, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

That sort of thing makes perfect sense, should it also apply in cases where there is someone hysterical over a belly-button or the colour red ? Penyulap ☏ 01:45, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't like leading questions. If you have a grievance, air it openly and directly, or else I'm not listening. Dcoetzee (talk) 11:13, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

March 01

Proposal to create Commons Teahouse!

Wikipedia is celebrating one year of Teahouse assistance. A very succesful project that addresses questions concerns and problems at Wikipedia in an extra friendly and helpful manner in an effort to retain new users and help experiance editor learn more. It is different from the Help desk as it strives to go beyond just answering questions in a technical manner, but to follow through and assist any way possible by assisting the editor with specific needs. I propose that we create a sister project here with the same goals. See: Teahouse Project. Thank you.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

The Teahouse is a good idea. My only concern is to have enough helpers to answers requests in many languages. Regards, Yann (talk*) 08:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

In this day and age I just use auto translaters. Seems to work enough, but I was unaware that was an issue at commons.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:56, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, autotranslaters work for understanding a foreign language message. They do not work to answer to it. Yann (talk) 09:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

There is a question sitting at the Help Desk written in Japanese. The question is understandable, but it's impossible to answer :( --moogsi (blah) 17:46, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea. However, I think it should be a bit different than ENWP and should replace the help desk somehow. Mono 16:35, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

We should add some more languages to Category:User needing help as well. I added Arabic but I remember it being a pain.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I object to implementing Teahouse here primarily on the basis that I believe it would be understaffed and, as a result, unsuccessful. If you can round up a sufficient list of contributors who can commit to participating I'd consider it. Dcoetzee (talk) 07:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

+1 with no discouragement intended and with full recognition of the good intentions of those that want to give it, or something similar, a go on Wikimedia Commons. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 06:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

For some languages other than English, their village pumps might already suite the mission. E.g. on Bybrunnen (Swedish) my impression is that those asking questions are being taken care of. If the Teahouse could take care of English speaking newcommers, that would be enough. Users without a strong community in their own languages would not be worse off. --LPfi (talk) 11:24, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

So...the help desk here has someone that speaks and types all these languages?--Amadscientist (talk) 13:40, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, we have all these skills within the wider Commons community. If our volunteers with language skills are not interested in helping answer questions at the well known and well linked central help desk, a more content-relevant noticeboard, after a call on the IRC channel, after direct requests for active volunteers with with the language needed in their babel boxes, or after a call on the mailing list, then putting a request on a special Teahouse page is unlikely to change that situation. Replacing volunteers with paid employees is (a) likely to ensure that any unpaid volunteers quickly lose interest unless we start paying them an hourly rate for every question answered, (b) unlikely to remain sustainable over the life of this project, or (c) appear to the general public to be a poor use of donated funds. However even though I think the particular approach as stated would be likely to fail on Commons, I would support testing the rationale to give us hard data and running a low or zero cost experiment. (Writing with my personal viewpoint, rather than as a charity trustee or Chair of the WCA.)

P.S. if the past teahouse experiment gave an equivalent cost of $50 per question answered or $200 for every new volunteer "coached", then we might get quite a few volunteers if we just honestly and transparently offered these rates for all volunteers with suitable demonstrable skill and experience (speaking a a volunteer who happens to have some skill and experience). Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:56, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

To what do you refer with « the well known and well linked central help desk » ? Commons:Help desk? because it exists in many languages, so I am not sure it can be qualifed as “central”. Jean-Fred (talk) 15:50, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Old upload wizard

Why is it not optionable anymore? The new one is annoying, because it prevents one form copying entire filled out templates, which I often do. Wikipedia has a "plain form", for "experienced users", which I also use, and I need one here. FunkMonk (talk) 20:49, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Try using Commons:Upload or Special:Upload. Also try looking in your gadget settings for some JS stuff. Mono 21:05, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Previously they were easier to find, they were on the "new" upload site too. Why are they removed? FunkMonk (talk) 21:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The UploadWizard has essentially replaced the old one, so clicking the sidebar takes you right to it. It is redundant to have most editors click 'use the upload wizard' thus adding another step to a rather complicated process. It's the general consensus that UploadWizard is better (after all, it cost the Ford Foundation something like $4 million) but the old one also still works. I think it was removed after UW left beta testing stage. Mono 04:18, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Four million!? Seems pretty damn simple to me. FunkMonk (talk) 13:35, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

The "Upload file" link on the left takes us to the modern wiz. We can simply keep a link on top which takes us to the old wizard. Keep it small in tiny fonts if wanted so that Ford isn't annoyed. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:59, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

^I agree. Something like that. Experienced users don't need that slow run through. FunkMonk (talk) 16:21, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• I've created a script that can help out. If you add the following to Special:MyPage/common.js it will add a link labeled "Old upload" in the toolbox. Note that it will be in the toolbox, not in the participate menu. In any case, clicking that link will take you to the old form. Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:43, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

importScript ('User:Ryan Vesey/Old upload.js'); //Add a link to the old upload form to toolbox

Commons also has a minimal upload form for experienced users, without the annoyingly big info block at Special:Upload. Its at http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Upload&uselang=experienced .--Nilfanion (talk) 22:24, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Can the experienced link (directly above) be an available opt-in to have appear on the left (toolbox)? I'm fed up with the $4 million upload that doesn't work (for me; for unknown reasons). – Kerαunoςcopia^◁galaxies 03:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

There already is a gadget to deactivate the link to UploadWizard, in your preferences (or rather, the gadget which activates the link is activated by default, but it comes to the same). Jean-Fred (talk) 13:17, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

• Correction: UploadWizard was built thanks to a limited $300,000 grant from the Ford Foundation. Not $4 million. Mono 17:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

March 07

DR close?`

If there's a formal process for this that I'm not following, I apologize. Could someone with the know-how and authority close the deletion request here? I don't see that the deletion rationale has any validity, and I'd like to use it over at the 'pedia if it's going to be kept. Thanks!Evanh2008 (talk) 19:46, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• Not an obvious case to me. Probably worth a discussion at Commons:Village pump/Copyright if someone wants speedy action. - Jmabel ! talk 00:36, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

You know a backlog is bad when people consider two months "speedy" . -- Asclepias (talk) 02:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Changing PD to free license

I noticed Philkon (talk · contribs) has been systematically changing the license on his own-work uploads (example) from PD to cc-by-sa. Clearly both are acceptable on Commons, so I don't think it should be reverted.

However cc-by-sa is much more restrictive than PD, and I'm not sure if this is best practice (and therefore should be discouraged). I'd suggest the change may be unenforceable in practice, as downstream users could always claim they obtained it as a PD work if they wanted to ignore the cc-by-sa conditions and it would be near impossible to prove otherwise.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:14, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I added a "Credit Phil Konstantin" to my photos when they were first uploaded. A few days later, a "know-it-all" Wiki user told me I was not allowed to require people to credit me when they use my photos. The Wiki user said Wikipedia REQUIRED that all photos by Public Domain. Since there were no options on the upload page, I had to choose the unwanted PD. Later, I discovered the CC 3 designation. All I want is my name credited as photographer. Other than that, I have made asked for no limitations on use. If someone says they downloaded it before I changed it, that's OK with me. Phil Konstantin Philkon (talk) 23:26, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think you have done anything wrong, and are just trying to ensure your work is credited in the way you'd prefer. Its the general principle that's more of concern to me (re-licensing works in PD under more restrictive conditions). Your case is probably an acceptable example of such a change, but it may not be appropriate to do the same in all cases.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd say, under the circumstances — a novice who wanted something close to CC-BY, but was being given on-wiki advice/demand that was totally inappropriate, and yet was still willing to concede in order to share with others — this change should be allowed, particularly since (1) the copyright holder says he is OK with people who still claim PD; (2) asking for attribution is not changing the file from being eligible to ineligible for Commons; and (3) as long as the file exists on Commons, the original circumstances will probably be more easily traced than most PD works in the world if someone does insist on asserting prior PD use. This is not just the usual circumstance we encounter on Commons, of a contributor wanting to retroactively withdraw open use of their works and turn them proprietary again. --Closeapple (talk) 08:08, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Under the circumstances it's okay for them to change the licenses, but the fact remains that the images have already been released under PD and this is irrevocable, so the terms of the CC-BY-SA license cannot be enforced. Nevertheless, most people will be unaware of this and comply anyway. If this were an experienced user who knew very well the meaning of their license when they chose it and what the alternatives were, I would revert the changes. Dcoetzee (talk) 11:17, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

March 08

SVG. Validator?

I recently received a message on my talkpage regarding RDF data on the images I upload. I noticed that the file specifically mentioned has a note that I've never seen before under the file summary that indicates that the source code is invalid.

Besides vacuuming def's before saving the document, which I always try to do, what should I be doing to clean out the unused information in these files? I'm not sure how the manual changes work, that were referred to.--Glasshouse (talk) 02:04, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

All 40 are semi-stupid but not fatal -- Inkscape including a vector path (explicit curve) along with the center and radius measurements of a circle or ellipse. I would not give this a very high priority as a substantive problem when fixing the file (though technically incorrect SVG); I can fix these if you really want it, but it's not likely to cause problems with using the file on Commons. The biggest problem with the SVG wasn't mentioned at all by the syntactic validator -- an embedded raster which contributed over 1/3 of the file's size, but served no purpose... AnonMoos (talk) 02:56, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but how would I fix, or prevent these myself? What do I look at to see that I have 40 errors and how would I clean them up?--Glasshouse (talk) 03:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I really have no idea how to do it within Inkscape -- I have a rather outdated version of Inkscape on my own computer, and only use it to test and convert SVG files (almost never to actually edit SVG files). Saving as "plain SVG" within Inkscape can cut down on the size of files, and eliminate some of the useless constructs which serve no real function, but it doesn't fix problems as such. I would fix it by using a text-processing tool to elinate d="... lines occurring after <ellipse... lines. The W3C validator catches formal syntax errors, but for a more practical check for some of the substantive problems that may affect the usability of SVG files on commons, go to Commons:SVG Check. AnonMoos (talk) 12:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

P.S. I left some comments at User talk:Sarang... -- AnonMoos (talk) 12:50, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

picture of patent papers

I have a copy of a prewar diagram of Surchauffeur "Belge" Brevet Flamme. What are the rules for copyrigths of a patent diagram? I try to google the dat of the patent, but get no succes so far. (Long before 1938 when it is applied on certain locomotives) There is no patent nr or author visible. Only the mention Imp. Bénard, Liége. Can this be treated as a public domain paper?Smiley.toerist (talk) 14:40, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Which country was the patent filed in? -- AnonMoos (talk) 02:30, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I think in Belgium, but probably also other countries.Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:03, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

German postcard from 1945

Wikimedia received a photo of Heinrich Freiherr von Lüttwitz, which would be a nice addition. However, I want to make sure about the copyright status.

Per copyright length it lists for Germany, Life + 70 years based upon authors death but "25 years from first publication or first public performance if copyright has expired before such publication or performance, or if the work has never been protected in Germany and the author died more than 70 years before the first publication" based upon publication and creation dates. While a personal photograph may never have been published, I think a postcard, by definition, was published when created. As this post card dates to approximately 1945, is it safely in public domain now?--Sphilbrick (talk) 23:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

No, it is life + 70 years. Or 70 years in the unlikely case that the author truely never disclosed his identity... And +25 years from publication granted to the inheritor if the work was never published previously and the copyright did expire alredy 70 years pma. So the 25 years is not a general protection time, its only an extra protection time for publication of inherited works. --Martin H. (talk) 15:41, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

March 09

overwriting files

I have a newe version of the File:Journal de Bruxelles nr 167 1800 (613).png wich is cleaned up. However I can no longer overwrite the present file with the new one. I used to go back to the old upload script, where it was posible to ignore the message that you are overwriting a present file. No hassle. Why is this posibility no longer allowed? Or is there a specific upload script? It is very messy to upload the new file under a new name. ( the old one has no posible use and would need to be deleted.Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:10, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I found a script and it is done.Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Luxo's derivativeFX fails to recognize license tags

As of the last few hours, Luxo’s tool derivativeFX fails to recognize license tags. At 1st I thought it was a bug, possibly old and known, restricted to {{PD-old}}, but just now I tried it with another file which is tagged with {{PD-user-de}} and it says it cannot be used, too, which is something I had never come across in several hundred uploads I made with this tool. Even though Luxo has been away for long, this tool is apparently in heavy use, and without an alternative. Any ideas? -- Tuválkin ✉ 19:30, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

PS: Yay, {{PD-shape}} and {{CC-zero}} seems to be unaffected! -- Tuválkin ✉ 19:30, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I am unfamiliar with the tool, but It looks like the tool often produces totally nonsense metadata for slightly unusual files. For example it messed up metadata of many Bundesarchiv images with cropped watermark. Lately I also corrected dozen images which were cropped from images using {{PermissionOTRS}} where derivativeFX stuffed {{PermissionOTRS}} into {{Self}} template and removed ticket number. I assume that it is usually user error, since that tool might not be appropriate for all the files, and I do not think it makes sense for cropped images. --Jarekt (talk) 19:52, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Is the source available and freely licensed? If so, it should be modified to allow an "advanced user" option that just warns you about potential problem, but nonetheless allows you to proceed. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:41, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The maintainer of the script only fixes minor bugs, but the source code is available to people with Toolserver accounts. If someone wants to update it, I can get them the code. Mono 16:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

AFAIK you do not need to ask mono but simply go to https://fisheye.toolserver.org/browse/luxo/derivativeFX -- Rillke^(q?) 22:54, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

February 27

Uploading a previously deleted file under a new name

I'm not sure how this works. File:Cover from Mamadou Diabate's album 'Courage'.jpg was deleted for copyvio. The person on whose article that was being used wrote asserting that he actually owns the right to the photograph, and is prepared to release it under a free license. However, in preparation for getting the release from him via OTRS I tried to upload the file, which turns out is identical to the deleted copy, and so it was blocked. So my question is, do we undelete the file and place an OTRS ticket to it, or do we upload a new version with a different name? For clarification, I am uploading it just so I can place the URL in the release form template as I've done before. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:55, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I suppose it's better to just undelete the file that is already on the Commons server, unless there is a compelling reason to upload a duplicate. -- Asclepias (talk) 00:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I can't see the previous image, but the upload form is telling me they're identical so I suppose it's OK to undelete it. I can request a move later, I guess. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I restored the file. Please send email to OTRS, otherwise it will be deleted after 15 days. --Jarekt (talk) 01:58, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! I will as soon as I get the release from the user. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:35, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I received the release from the user, split the ticket and forwarded to premissions-commons. File is also tagged now. Thanks for the help. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

March 05

Notability and the naming of user categories

I made a suggestion concerning the notability and the naming of user categories on Commons talk:User-specific galleries, templates and categories policy. Please add statements there. --Leyo 18:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

The outcome is intended to be included to COM:USER. Hence, I would appreciate a wider participation. --Leyo 09:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Where can I find more information about Wikimedia's data centers?

Hello, I am a graduate student in Computer Science. If this is not the right place to ask this, could you please let me know where I should post it? I am looking for specific information about the network topology of Wikimedia's data centers. Is this information available anywhere? Basically, I would like to be able to model at a low level the paths of various communications through switches and between servers. Thank you. - unsigned

Hello, maybe have a look on wikitech:. Jean-Fred (talk) 16:57, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

if all else fails you could also try asking on the #wikimedia-tech irc channel on freenode. Bawolff (talk) 21:27, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Soccer.ru permission?

How does it work? I mean, I'm a fan of Llevant UE football team and I have uploaded lots of files about this team to Commons. As Yesterday We played against Russian team Rubin Kazan, and I know that lots of files about football taken from Soccer.ru have been uploaded here, I ask What I must do for Uploading this great photos about Llevant footballers. Thanks.--Coentor (talk) 23:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Also here.--Coentor (talk) 23:36, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Upload the file as you normally would, and use the license template {{Soccer.ru}} --moogsi (blah) 22:31, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

You won't be able to uploaded these photos as they are credited uefa.com. The photos from this link are credited to "Фотогалереи "Соккер.ру", zimbio.com, uefa.com, trivela.uol.com.br", so you need to ascertain which photos are theirs before uploading. russavia (talk) 22:36, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for your help: ¿Do you believe it's a good idea to wait until the second match is held and then send an e-mail to soccer.ru asking for which files were taken by them in all the news?--Coentor (talk) 12:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Ways to add sign language as annotation to clips

In consideration of File:Sextortionagent interview.ogg I wonder if someone can program an American sign language display to accompany the sound clip. Is there a program where one can make a freely licensable automated sign language display (like an animation of a person doing sign language) to accompany an audio clip? WhisperToMe (talk) 20:29, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Upload Request project?

On English Wikipedia, there exists w:en:WP:FFU "Files for Upload", is there such a thing on Commons? And if not, could such a request board be created? COM:FFU/COM:Files for Upload -- 65.92.180.137 01:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Signing posts

Hi, I've noticed that many newcomers forget to sign their posts especially on pages like the help desk. Perhaps we could set up an edit filter to warn them if they forget or how about a bot? Mono 04:48, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Searching for a substring across deleted files/pages?

I noticed that a photo from a source that has a general CC-BY policy on their website was deleted for non-free license, which led to the discovery that their flickr account has an NC-SA default tag. I've asked whether they could revise the license on their whole photostream.

Is there a way to search through deleted contributions to see how many photos from that source may have once been on Commons? --SJ+ 05:40, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Classifying text by typeface

I noticed in cleaning up File:Journal de Bruxelles nr 167 1800 (613).png the typical typeface (probably for the French revolution). Some thin lines get swamped by noise. In the dutch article about typeface is seems similar to "Didonen of classicistische letters". What is the english name for this typeface? Is there are classification of text by facetype? There are some file but only as an example set of the letters. Some journals could be classified by facetype used.Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:41, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I can't really tell from that image, but the French typeface which is famous for having a lot of thin lines and contrasts between light and dark is Bodoni. It's sort of a specialty face in the English-speaking nations, but was commonly used for ordinary book etc. printing in France... AnonMoos (talk) 15:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Request for help to all toolserver users

Many tools used by Commons are still out of the radar, people should help list them if they want them not to die. --Nemo 11:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

If you want to help, you can add the tools you use / know to be useful on this list: mw:Toolserver/List of Tools. --Dereckson (talk) 13:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

The page the link points to does not exist. Is this intention? -- Rillke^(q?) 22:42, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

No, it was just the wrong interwiki. The correct one was linked from the Meta page. --Nemo 11:46, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

A roundup of better sites than this

( cross-promotion and other simple business principles may not be familiar to you, so please try to AGF. -Pen )

This is (almost) the upload wizard at the moment, Yep there are much better repositories out there, that's for sure. Can we make a broader selection of places to steal work from ? you know, all those sites that make artists actually feel at home. Penyulap ☏ 05:57, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

What's with the push to make commons second best to any other site ? Anyone can copy stuff, any site can copy the 22TB of images on commons directly or through proxy sites and replace commons.

The push to rid commons of artists and photographers removes the only thing that would be able to support the site long-term. Penyulap ☏ 06:35, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Commons has a scope. If your images don't fit the scope, perhaps there's a better place to upload them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:43, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

anything commons can do, flickr can do better, plus a dozen other sites will own commons arse in a few years max if they don't already. Penyulap ☏ 09:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

No it can't -- Commons deliberately does not welcome a number of types of files welcome at flickr ("all rights reserved", personal snapshots and artwork, etc.). -- AnonMoos (talk) 11:56, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, this is getting tiring. What is your purpose with this section? None? If so, please refrain. Jean-Fred (talk) 10:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, I guess it is not completely obvious to many people, after all, it slipped through and who knows how long it will last, but this is absolute blatant promotion of flickr. Hello product placement ? undermining the commons project. Ha, but then again, there is so much wrong with en.wiki that the wmf can't see, that I see no hope of lending them a hand even when it's as obvious as this is.

Trying to save commons or wikipedia from it's imminent marginalisation is a bit tiring, and sure, why bother at all ? You clearly don't care, so why should I ? Penyulap ☏ 10:51, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

If you don't like Commons, please kindly fuck off and quit whining about it. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

(!) better idea, how about you leave and take your foul mouth with you. Penyulap ☏ 05:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, now you are making a point − over presence of Flickr over alternate hosting websites (though I’ll doubt it is really your purpose, but anyway) − next time, please clearly state it in your first message instead of “snivelling” (as you put it yourself).

I do not think it is much of a problem, nor much different from the way it was before (Flickr always had a proeminent place in our uploads forms − though that clearly slipped through your observations). Which other web services would you like to support? Jean-Fred (talk) 13:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Is Commons competing with Flickr (or any other for-profit company)? WMF had better sell it to Yahoo pronto, or get some ads up. Unless we want to be marginalized --moogsi (blah) 17:17, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

another great business decision brought to you by the WMF

Competition doesn't need to be commercial, sending out editors and contributors from here to other sites instead does the very obvious, it kills this site and bolsters other sites. Putting the idea to go somewhere better into peoples head every single time they upload is just idiotic in a commercial setting, if it wasn't the fundamentally half-arsed Wmf, someone would get the sack over it. This is advertising 101, simple suggestion. 'Don't think of the pink elephant'. I am amazed that people can't see this, but the appalling lack of viable business sense at wmf is nothing new. Penyulap ☏ 05:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Now DerivativeFX doesn't work

I'm struggling to wrap my head around how difficult it's become to upload an image around here. The new shiny $4 million dollar upload page doesn't work for me. I'm sure it works for everyone else, so that's my problem. Now I've linked myself to Commons:Upload so I can go about doing things the normal way, and now DerivativeFX only reads me as an IP address. Is this, again, just me? Is there some reason why Commons hates me so much? – Kerαunoςcopia^◁galaxies 07:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Slightly tangential, but could someone explain where the $4 million dollar figure comes from? I'm taken aback if that is how much was spent in upgrading those webpages. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 07:39, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

It's nonsense.--Eloquence (talk) 07:49, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

"it cost the Ford Foundation something like $4 million". Who knows. Anyway, I use DerivativeFX as far as I need, then copy the info and paste into a new upload window on another tab. Not professional, but faster than manually doing everything. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁galaxies 07:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Works for me (DerivativeFX does see mee as logged in). Note that DerivativeFX is an external service kindly provided by User:Luxo, but not strictly part of Wikimedia Commons. Jean-Fred (talk) 13:33, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I found that it works for me on another browser, but not on Firefox. It was working last month, so I don't know. Once March hit, DerivFX and the Upload Wizard stopped working for me—Upload Wizard works as of today. I don't know what happened. Logging in on two browsers is annoying, so I'll probably continue to use DerivFX up until the final save, just to get the text ready. It's still faster than doing everything manually. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁galaxies 11:14, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

How much has the UploadWizard cost?

Okay, so to put this to bed, can someone supply the correct figure? As the WMF is transparent and open about the investment in these projects, this number must be public somewhere. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 07:57, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I believe UploadWizard was developed as part of the Multimedia Usability Project in 2009-10; you can see the project report on Meta. The grant was for $300,000, running slightly over a year, and covered user research and the development of a visual licensing tutorial as well as the UploadWizard software itself. (As experienced users we tend to underestimate the value of the visual tutorial, but IME it seems to work pretty well - certainly better than the wall of text we usually face people with at Special:Upload) Andrew Gray (talk) 10:59, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

UploadWizard has been and is developped beyond the end of this project − see mw:UploadWizard. Jean-Fred (talk) 13:33, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Jean-Fred. So the minimum cost must be the $300,000 grant that was spent (which appears to debunk the claim of 4 million dollars), but we need to add in the on-going staff costs of development. Where is the total figure to be found? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:27, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

There probably isn't one covering the period after it became a "normal" part of the software. I don't believe WMF total staff time costs on a per-extension basis; I've certainly never seen one quoted before. However, it's unlikely to be that much - we certainly haven't had people working full-time on extending it for the past two years! Andrew Gray (talk) 18:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Direct editing of SVG?

Since SVGs are just text files, can they be directly edited on the wiki? They should be able to be reverted/edited/previewed like a normal wiki page, should such an extension be available for MediaWiki -- 65.92.180.137 01:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

That would make a lot of sense, but I do not know if there are plans to go in that direction. --Jarekt (talk) 01:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

There are plans for deploying an extension for in-browser creation and editing of SVG files, which includes a source editor. See bugzilla:38271. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I'd prefer it if I could directly edit the SVG code. If that extension had a "source mode" it would be better. -- 65.92.180.137 01:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Unexpected response from server iipsrv.fcgi

I asked this on the Graphics Village Pump, but was redirected here. I've been trying to use the non-Flash image viewer that works with large images like File:El Tres de Mayo, by Francisco de Goya, from Prado in Google Earth-x0-y1.jpg, but I've only been getting the error message "Unexpected response from server iipsrv.fcgi"

The Flash image viewer never loads the image, either. -- Veggies (talk) 20:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

March 11

Inter-Wikipedia links

Is Wikidata phase 1 active here? Rmhermen (talk) 02:11, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• Related to that, I believe: now that we can no longer go to the "edit" function on (for example) en-wiki to get a list of interwiki pages for an article that corresponds to a Commons category, where are we supposed to pick that up? - Jmabel ! talk 03:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I know that feel bro. russavia (talk) 04:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Good question, I filed bugzilla:45975. --Nemo 05:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
• See Wikidata:Wikidata:Project_chat#Wikimedia_Commons. They speak of an hypothetical phase IV, which is not among currently planned m:Wikidata phases. I don't know when phase III is expected to finish, but my guess would be 2014? In theory the planning of such phase could happen before the end of previous phases, but looks like it won't. I might have misinterpreted though, because I'm very confused by the answers I got. --Nemo 05:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I've been copy-pasting the table from the Wikidata page in Firefox into a plain text editor with regex search-and-replace support, and doing the following replacement to convert it:

• Search pattern: ^.+ \t([-\w]+) \t(.+) \t\[.+$
• Replacement: [[\1:\2]]

You might be able to even get rid of the ^ and $ on the ends. If you have a program that only supports "basic regexes" (which is rare anymore) I can probably rewrite it to shove backslashes in there before every parenthesis and plus sign. --Closeapple (talk) 04:45, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

It would be great if someone could write a simple tool which editors who are not tech geeks (such as myself) could use to generate a list of inter-wiki links. Dcoetzee did such a thing for me to create galleries. Perhaps someone would like to do something similar for IW's? russavia (talk) 05:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Very much agree, this would be great. Regex is like text in a book of magic to me...totally incomprehensible! :D — Huntster (t @ c) 05:21, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• Agreed. It's pretty stupid to take something that used to be mostly a simple cut-and-paste and turn it into a piece of advanced tech. - Jmabel ! talk 05:50, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

There used to be a tool for that on Toolserver — I think it was called "Interwiki-Link-Checker" — but it's been gone for years now. I guess with Wikidata activated on all Wikipedias this week, it would have become obsolete, but would still be useful just on Commons. --Closeapple (talk) 05:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

User:MerlIwBot is still doing its thing. Wikidata doesn't seem to affect it, but how it chooses what to do is somewhat mysterious. In the case of new categories at least, it seems to always come along and fill in the rest of the interwikis if you just add one --moogsi (blah) 08:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Can't you just use d:Special:Export/Q307 and then do some simple transformations of the link? --Stefan4 (talk) 12:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I do not know inner workings of User:MerlIwBot, but in general if you are a bot than getting your hands on interwikis is as easy or easier with wikidata as it was before. Commons is one of the last places that uses Wikipedia links but is not integrated with Wikidata. User:Moogsi had the good advice: just add one wikipedia interwiki link and wait for some bot to fill the rest. --Jarekt (talk) 13:11, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• Good news (?) for Commons, bad for all the others: «Personally, I regard Wiktionary as the third priority, following Wikipedia and Commons».[4] Again, help needed in interpreting: looks like "a bit of thought" for some months of planning are asked to the community, but I've no idea about what yet. --Nemo 14:33, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I drafted Commons:Wikidata to keep track of ideas and discussion. Feel free to expand/delete/redirect stuff :). Jean-Fred (talk) 16:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Solution is here

Hey all, User:Legoktm threw this together for us just now:

https://toolserver.org/~legoktm/cgi-bin/wikidata/copypaste.py

Enter the Wikidata ID (including the Q) and it will give you the list of interwiki links.

So say for this, you enter "Q88870" and it spits out this list read to copy and paste.

Cheers, russavia (talk) 14:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks! - Jmabel ! talk 15:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you, but, there's gotta be an easier way to do that than doing it manually like that. Even a semi-automated or fully automated function would be really useful in the future. -- Cirt (talk) 16:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Sum-it-up in preferences/gadgets still seems the most practical one, but works only for categories for some unknown reason, while we have more and more toolserver availability problems. Anyway, interlanguage linls are not used in the search database, so we loose half of the potential advantages. --Foroa (talk) 18:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Vector extension FooterCleanup

Bug 45946 – Enable vector.footercleanup on commons.wikimedia was fulfilled this night. The feature is not documented: check carefully the edit window for changes. --Nemo 04:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Great. Kudos to Mono for requesting that. Jean-Fred (talk) 10:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks! - Jmabel ! talk 15:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
• Yes, it looks better. On ENWP, the templates transcluded are somehow collapsed. We could try doing that; I don't know how. If anyone has ideas for improving the interface or enabling a feature, just suggest it. Mono 17:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Unsuccessful imagecrop

I tried to crop http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Thompson_1921_and_Semi-Auto_Rifle_Red.jpg , but as can see, goofed up the whole thing. Now I dont find way to revert my edit. Could someone repair the mess I made? Thanks. --M62 (talk) 13:46, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done. If you want to upload a crop of that image, use a different filename for it. --Túrelio (talk) 13:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. --M62 (talk) 13:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Commons App - Campaign workflows for Android

Posted at the Wikimedia Design list by Notnarayan, pasted here for convenience:

Hello Everyone,

I have been working on the Campaign workflows for the commons media upload app. The flows have been made to allow the user to look for current running campaigns, subscribe to them, and contribute media to them. Looking for feedback/comments to improve the workflows.

I have also been exploring alternative ideas to getting a title for an image from the user as expecting him/her to enter a unique title, a description and categories would become stressful. Also, titles being a technical requirement, im unsure if we should burden the user. One of the ideas i had is to ask the user to describe the image he is uploading and extracting a title from it. Users who share images to their social networks are adept at describing the images they post and this may just about work. looking for ideas around this too.

--Qgil (talk) 15:55, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Renaming files

Actually, this is a complaint - but I don't know where to leave it. Several users have been renaming files with French names to English names citing 'rule number two; renaming completely meaningless names is allowed'. I'm sorry, but this is completely unacceptable. It is quite rude to say that a file with a title in another language has a meaningless name. These files should be returned to their original names and this kind of arrogant monoglot behaviour must be prevented.--عبد المؤمن (talk) 20:48, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Such a motive is indeed not okay, and it is actually specifically stated so in COM:RENAME. You may ask these users to please stop such renames. If they continue to rename files with bad rationales, they may have their renaming rights revoked.

Please remember though that in the end the name of a file does not matter much − either way. It is the renaming itself that is disruptive − as it breaks links, have bots universally replace files across projects, etc. So, maybe these files should not have been renamed, but now that they have been, there is in my opinion little value in renaming them back. Jean-Fred (talk) 22:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, it is not acceptable. There are some exceptions to look for, like in what I think is one of the cases which prompted the enquiry. If duplicates are being merged, then the name is up for grabs or discussion.

The place for the complaint is the Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems with a link or list of the users or files, after you ask the user about it on their talkpage. Sometimes you can fix it yourself if you're friendly enough. Penyulap ☏ 23:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your useful replies. I didn't realise it was to merge files; I just noticed it happening a lot to files on my edition of Wikipedia. Perhaps better edit summaries would help. Anyway it seems there was a valid reason for renaming so many files but the reason given by the bot was inaccurate, so there's no complaint in order any more. Thanks :) --عبد المؤمن (talk) 03:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

March 10

Request

Please review all request of Category:Commons protected edit requests. --Vivaelcelta {discussion  · contributions} 21:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

March 12

File without file

How can the page File:Nancy Storace Portrait By Pietro Bettelini.png exist without a file of that name? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Just create it like a page with a name of a file, like [5] which redlinks if you use it like an image, but links ok File:Image of 12 amps.png. I nominated it for deletion at GL/I, it should go down like a Wham-bo !. Penyulap ☏ 11:11, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

well, the deleted requests for deletion were deleted, so the file pages remain, I hope that explains everything ! Penyulap ☏ 13:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

[OK] Adam Cuerden has put an image onto the page. Penyulap ☏ 03:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Freedom of Panorama consensus unclear

Could the community please look at whether Commons:Freedom of Panorama correctly describes the current consensus for Commons?

The keep result of Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Rose_Rotana_Tower_Under_Construction_on_12_May_2007_Pict_4.jpg has me quite confused. One claim was that "US law is controlling", what does that mean? If that is indeed how Commons is to treat photographs from now on, could that be added to the FOP article? Does this mean that newish buildings in Belgium and France are now acceptable in Commons? What about the correctness of the license tag added to these images? Am I missing something here? The two appear contradictory to me. -84user (talk) 02:40, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Both UAE's and US copyright laws are controlling in this case. Ruslik (talk) 07:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, contrary to BMK's bold statement. Case should be reopened. --Túrelio (talk) 07:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. I have reopened the nomination here. -84user (talk) 19:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Wiki collaboration image

Does anyone know if there is a CC/PD version of the image in this blog post?

Doing a Google image search for "wiki collaboration" shows many variants on the theme but I don't really know about the status of the image.

Given that the image was created by an employee of the US government, is it actually public domain anyway?

Yaris678 (talk) 14:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

"wilsonml" mentions creating this graphic in this post. They mention working on Intellipedia so it's possible s/he is/was a government employee but may also have been a contractor --moogsi (blah) 23:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

"wilsonml", will be Manny Wilson, of US Central command, mentioned in the blog I've already mentioned. Looks like an employee to me. Yaris678 (talk) 09:06, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Haha yes of course it's him... I didn't quite 'close the loop' on this one :) - I think it's reasonably safe to say that the image is {{PD-USGov}}. Another easy way to get a PD version of a diagram is to crack open Inkscape/Illustrator/whatever and have a go yourself, as long as you're not tracing anything anyone owns :) --moogsi (blah) 18:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Deathbed portraits

I'm not shure, but should there be 2 categories like Category:Deathbed portraits and Category:Lying in repose, or would one be enough. -- Cherubino (talk) 19:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Category:Deathbed portraits suggests that the portrait may be done before they're dead (to be "on one's deathbed" may only imply someone very near death). Category:Lying in repose is when the body of someone is viewable by the public before it's buried (popes, kings...). I guess the main difference is someone is usually "on their deathbed" at home/hospital, and may still be alive, whereas you can "lie in repose" only at your funeral service after death --moogsi (blah) 19:56, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with moogsi, that's the distinction I would make, too. Gestumblindi (talk) 00:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Notification of DMCA takedown

Please see Commons:Office actions/DMCA notices for information regarding a DMCA takedown executed today. Best wishes, Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 06:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

It's about File:Racetrack Playa, Death Valley, CA.jpg, which had been uploaded in 2008 by Flickr-upload-bot from a Flickr account which is no longer existant. --Túrelio (talk) 06:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The file comes from the Flickr account 11923090@N03. Maybe we should check all other images from that Flickr account too. Maybe we should also check other files from that Flickr account. Looking at the account using the Waybackmachine, it seems that a lot of his files are from other sources, often {{PD-USGov}}.

Interesting observation: the webserver tells that the image at the URL in the DMCA mail was last modified in 2012. On the other hand, the log entry on Commons says that the file was uploaded to Commons in 2008. It seems that the infringing website predates the original. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Karta2.PNG

File:Karta2.PNG transfer to a slow removal. In the United States, many maps are in the public domain. The most common cases are:...As a result of the court decisions, following parts of a map are in the public domain, and may be used freely: ...Geographic or topographic features. Those are facts, and facts aren't copyrightable. U.S. author and the source of the U.S. (Bruce Rogers. Grutas de Balancanche. // AMCS Activities Newsletter, № 27, May 2004. P. 79.), so the full effect In the United States, many maps are in the public domain. Strannik27 (talk) 09:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Helping translator's contributions on POTD

Hello, I tried to do my "Good Action of the Day" by translating the POTD in French (with wikilinks)… and it did not work… and THEN[6], I noticed that it was required to use a template (with an edit notice not very simple).

Since all pages of that kind are generally accessed through a red link on POTD (or +/- link under the image), would not it be simpler to just ask volunteer translator to enter the text (and optionnally wikilinks) of the translation in the right window, and when saved, insert it in the right template, with automatic retrieval of the right language and date (which appear in the page name).

No Edit notice would be necessary, and it would be much simpler to contribute for occasional translators, and perhaps, easier to obtain translations in all languages… I guess that kind of template discourages many people unfamiliar to Commons editing (and even me, while I'm quite used to templates ).

Is it feasible ? it would be much nicer, and I would certainly contribute more often to the "Translation Of The Day" if it was simpler to use --Hsarrazin (talk) 10:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Template:Closed_cap: Migrate to Translate extension?

A user said that Template:Closed_cap should be migrated to the translate extension. Is anyone willing to do this? Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 16:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Conclave announcement license

How is this freely licensed? Both Vatican news and Vatican radio websites claim "protected by copyright" and "all rights reserved". See [7] and [8]. -84user (talk) 19:29, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not. I nominated it for speedy deletion as a copyright violation. — SMUconlaw (talk) 21:06, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

ResolvedThanks, I had nominated it for deletion/discussion on the off-chance that we could get permission, but anyone can always re-upload the file after getting permission - this section can now be archived. -84user (talk) 11:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

March 13

Convert complex templates to Lua to make them faster and more powerful

(Please consider translating this message for the benefit of your fellow Wikimedians)

Greetings. As you might have seen on the Wikimedia tech blog or the tech ambassadors list, a new functionality called "Lua" is being enabled on all Wikimedia sites today. Lua is a scripting language that enables you to write faster and more powerful MediaWiki templates.

If you have questions about how to convert existing templates to Lua (or how to create new ones), we'll be holding two support sessions on IRC next week: one on Wednesday (for Oceania, Asia & America) and one on Friday (for Europe, Africa & America); see m:IRC office hours for the details. If you can't make it, you can also get help at mw:Talk:Lua scripting.

If you'd like to learn about this kind of events earlier in advance, consider becoming a Tech ambassador by subscribing to the mailing list. You will also be able to help your fellow Wikimedians have a voice in technical discussions and be notified of important decisions.

Guillaume Paumier, via the Global message delivery system. 19:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC) (wrong page? You can fix it.)

And there was much rejoicing :)

And so it works: {{#invoke:Bananas|hello}} does give Hello, world!

Jean-Fred (talk) 22:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Hop → Commons:Lua. Jean-Fred (talk) 23:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I guess we have new undocumented namespace: {{ns:828}} gives: Module. --Jarekt (talk) 00:57, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

One down: {{ISOyear}} --Jarekt (talk) 03:45, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

DMCA takedown notice: Mujeres y Hombres

In compliance with the provisions of the US Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA), and at the instruction of the Wikimedia Foundation's legal counsel, one or more files have been deleted from Commons. Please note that this is an official action of the WMF office which should not be undone. If you have valid grounds for a counter-claim under the DMCA, please contact me. The takedown can be read here. 

Affected file(s):

• File:MUJERES Y HOMBRES.pdf (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Thank you! Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 19:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

From a quick glance, this looks like Women are from Venus and Men are from Mars in Spanish. Clearly copyrighted.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:30, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

March 14

Commons:Scope and Category:Polandball (and related subcats)

This discussion has been linked to on a non-Commons project.
We welcome all editors here on Commons, but please remember to stay mellow.

I'll begin by pointing out that I am not arguing for the deletion of all files in Category:Polandball and its subcats. I would, however, like to open discussion on how to deal with files in that category. The fact that some projects have determined that Polandball is notable enough for an article on the meme, does not mean Polandball memes are within the scope. Specifically, a large majority of the memes (File:2012 Russian floods (Polandball).png picked at random) are not educational and are not useful. Commons has made it clear that it is not a repository of free files and regularly removes noneducational personal photos and even blurry pictures. Considering this, a concerted effort should be made to restrict the category to files that are within the scope. I don't feel the regular deletion process is conducive to this, instead, would it be possible to have one centralized page examine all of the images? Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:44, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, please!--Amadscientist (talk) 04:52, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Ummm, no. How about not. We are a repository of free media, and we allow editors to choose which images to use. It's as simple as that, really. russavia (talk) 05:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

No we don't. If it doesn't have some encyclopedic use it should be removed. This one is just ....well, hateful in my opinion and does a diservice to WMF, Wikipedia and Commons.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

How are you an administrator on this project? Consider Commons:Welcome, which states "Wikimedia Commons is a media file repository making available public domain and freely-licensed educational media content (images, sound and video clips) to everyone, in their own language." (emphasis mine) This same wording is used in Commons:Scope. If you feel that commons should be a repository of all free media, feel free to open a discussion on changing that policy to that effect (obviously some exceptions, considering the unfinished Commons:CHILDPROTECT). In fact, I don't think it would be a terrible idea; although, I doubt it would pass. Until that point, Commons is limited by its scope. Can you explain how images like File:Camouflage World Games - Group A.png are within that scope? Ryan Vesey Review me! 05:18, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, we do. Polandball is a user-generated internet meme. Therefore, we host user-generated content on this meme. I don't really care for the trolls as seen at en:User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Please_enjoy_this_joke.2C_which_is_obviously_not_anti-Polish_at_all. That English Wikipedia doesn't have an article is not our concern here on Commons -- it actually shows more where English Wikipedia is a failure in this regard. As to encyclopaedic value, they can illustrate any of the 60+ articles on Polandball. End of discussion as far as I am concerned. russavia (talk) 05:24, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

As to how I am an administrator, it is because I am trusted by the community to hold the tools. And they are tools that I have not abused on this project. If you have a problem with me being an administrator, then go request my de-adminship. I'm not entertaining trolls any longer. russavia (talk) 05:24, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I know nothing as to how you have used your tools, what I do know is that you don't understand the policies of your project. You clearly have no understanding of commons' scope. It is not a repository of all free media and your logic is not sound. "Polandball is a user-generated internet meme. Therefore, we host user-generated content on this meme." Seriously? That's the best argument you can make? Part 3 of Commons:Project Scope, in regards to files, states that a file "Must be freely licensed or public domain". That is fulfilled by these images. The fourth part, however, states that a file "Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose". Furthermore, it states that we don't use "Files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject". That means we can host a few files to illustrate the concept of Polandball on those projects that have articles but we do not host all available polandball images. File:Advent calendar - 15 December.png is not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Ryan Vesey Review me! 05:35, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm, I don't understand our policies? Understanding of policies is the domain of a bureaucrat. Know any bureaucrats on this project? I do. HELLO, HERE I AM! It's a great image that you have selected -- did you know that it one of part of a series of the only freely licenced Advent calendar here on Commons? russavia (talk) 05:40, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, if you wish to know how to deal with files in Category:Polandball how's this for a solution? I continue to expand it, and keep uploading freely licenced materials, and keep furthering the expansion of free culture. For, you see, each comic is different -- they are not all the same. They reference different historical events, news events, stereotypes, and are useful for a range of education purposes. Take File:Austria can into near space.png for example. Useless, right? No, it's used on this and this article on Wikinews; yes, believe it or not it was the only freely licenced media for such a highly visible news event. Who are we to tell those projects that we are not allowing them to use freely licenced media which may be relevant if left up to their own discretion. So yes, I will continue to upload freely available materials to Commons, and that you can bank on. russavia (talk) 06:14, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

It's funny how you point out how all polandball comics are totally different here, while you at the same time tell me at Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Russia_can_into_space.jpg_and_File:Poland_can_into_Wikipedia.jpg that it makes absolutely no sense to nominate a polandball comic individually and I might as well nominate the entire category. --Conti|✉ 11:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh that's great, the existence of this on commons convinced some wikinews editors to use a trashy illustration on an article. It's all fun and games until someone tries to use it on a "serious news site". In any case, Commons keeps images if they're used in a project, so your point fails there. You have yet to make any compelling argument that these images fall within commons' scope. If you think commons' scope should be expanded to make an exception to include all free polandball imagaes, you can propose that somewhere. Finally, my proposal here is to create a page to go through each of the images. Some may be in scope, most won't, if you're so confident that every pollandball meme ever made is within the scope, surely you have nothing to worry about. Ryan Vesey Review me! 06:21, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't need to make a proposal to expand Commons scope to include freely licenced files -- all I need to do is get permission, go to upload form, upload and submit. Also, you should know that bulk pages to go through images are very nearly always doomed for failure. All that is needed is for a Commons inclusionist such as myself to come along with the exact same arguments as has been used in every single DR thus far on this topic. If you don't like them, then ignore them. But acting no better than a troll and comparing this issue to an alleged over-abundance of "porn" on Commons, and basically insulting me (as you have in your latest posting to JW's talk page), is making me ignore anything that you have to say on this matter. You have said I above that you know nothing of any abuse of tools, etc here, but elsewhere you suggest that I be removed from any position of authority on this project. Like I said above, and as I will repeat now, if you want me to removed from any position of authority on this project, then you are now being asked to put up, or shut up. And that goes to all of JW's talk page trolling regulars. Commons:DESYSOP is thatta way -- it is one policy I am full bottle on. russavia (talk) 07:08, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Russavia, I don't agree with your interpretation of Commons:Scope. Just because a particular subject falls within the scope of some Wikimedia projects doesn't mean that all freely licensed images concerning it fall under Commons's scope; Ryan Vesey correctly points out that the images must be realistically useful for an educational purpose and must add something educationally distinct to the collection of images we already have. Many of the Polandball images you are uploading fail to meet one or both of these conditions. I don't think it's feasible to claim that any free drawing which references a notable current or historical event has a realistic educational use connected with that event. If that were true, what's to stop anyone from uploading dozens or hundreds of poorly drawn stick figures which briefly or indirectly mention some news story? (In fact, what's the difference from that scenario and what's going on now?) Clearly some sort of editorial judgment is necessary. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

We can disagree on Commons:Scope, but I always have had, and will continue to have, a loose interpretation of scope on this project. Unfortunately, many of you who don't speak a language than English, will not likely have a grasp on the subject. But let's look at this reliable source used in the some 60 article translations thus far. This source basically states that "the comics do not have a specific author. Anyone can make their own Polandball (user-generated) according to the following rules: you have to have something to say about history or international politics and translate it into a simple comic in which balls symbolising different countries (painted in the colours of their national flags)." So herein lies the difference with your "poorly drawn stick figures" analogy; Polandball has articles on Wikipedia; backed up by solid reliable sources which defines it's scope for us. Just over 300 actual comic images is nothing in real terms. But which images would one cull? OK, let's say we kill some of comics relating to Spain. That would mean that id:Polandball could possibly be without an image that editors specifically chose for that article. We have sources which define scope of the subject; we are merely a repository which hosts freely-licenced media, and so long as there is a defined scope, we can host 2,000 Polandball comics, and leave it up to editors on others to decide what files they will use --- just like we do for photos of pigeons, or buildings in New York City, or any other in-scope subject. russavia (talk) 13:34, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Do we really do this for photos of pigeons or buildings in New York City or any other in-scope subject? Pigeons are certainly in-scope, and we've got lots of indisputably reliable sources defining exactly what pigeons are. But if someone here uploaded 2000 photographs of their own pet pigeon I'm pretty sure all of them (or at least those not legitimately in use) would be deleted under the provisions of the first and fifth points of Commons:Project scope#Examples. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:14, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

That Wikinews used some of these in an article is not an argument against their existence on Commons, rather the contrary.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:43, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Is commons running out of new space for assholes all of a sudden ? Maybe some of those licence plates categories can be expanded. Hmm, I should build a bot with my image manipulation capabilities, to create every possible licence plate alpha numeric combination and upload that. THEN we can delete all this so called more educational free stuff. MORE Licence plates, MORE assholes, whose with me ?

and before I forget, is polandball anatomically correct and would it help if I made it so ? Penyulap ☏ 10:59, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

May be we need {{Nopolandball}} template to go with {{Nopenis}} and {{Nobreasts}}. It seems like the supply of porn, Polandball, kittens and possibly many other types of images is much higher than the demand for such images. We should keep some but we definitely do not need all of them. --Jarekt (talk) 13:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Not sure about how the Scope policy applies, but I've noticed that the majority of the multi-panel flagball cartoons that I've come across are painfully unfunny and pointless. AnonMoos (talk) 20:08, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

When I went through third grade in P.S. 6 – at that time considered one of the most prestigious institutions of public education in the United States – one of the permanent fixtures of the classroom was the book by Victor Vashi, Red Primer for Children and Diplomats. The book is the ultimate example of American anti-Soviet propaganda and hate speech, yet the New York City Board of Education had seen the educational value of this work. I have to thank them for this insight, most of what I understand about politics I learnt from this book.

Most of the comics may be unusable to illustrate the English language Wikipedia because of their narrow point-of-view. Wikipedia's WP:NPOV however does not apply to Commons. The Polandball comics are anti-Polish and anti-nationalist propaganda political satire. The difference between propaganda and education (as in Commons:Policy) is always subjective. In fact, propaganda = education! -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Not a vote

 Delete all not in use on projects. If COM:SCOPE means anything (sadly, it doesn't really), then user-generated cartoons are not in scope; this is exactly what COM:ALTOUT is for. The only reason the Wikipedia articles exist is because there was a concerted campaign to create them; but for simplicity's sake, I'll nonetheless buy the usual "it's used in projects" exemption for what would otherwise be scope violations. Rd232 (talk) 18:29, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• • COM:SCOPE does not say anything of the like. User-generated comics which support articles on our other projects, which are on a user-generated internet meme, are clearly in scope, and we could have an unlimited number hosted to support those articles. As to the articles existing, how they came to be is of no consequence to us -- the fact is, they exist, there have been numerous kept after deletion requests, so they are within our scope. As to being in use, this has never been a requirement for in-scope images. But this can clearly be organised if people really want to push the issue. russavia (talk) 12:50, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
    • COM:SCOPE says "Artwork created by the uploader without obvious educational use." under "Examples of files that are not realistically useful for an educational purpose". So in fact it says exactly that, unless you're claiming the Polandball files have "obvious educational use", which is surely even more of a stretch than "realistically useful for an educational purpose". Rd232 (talk) 17:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
      • That's exactly what I'm saying. They have obvious educational use on illustrating Polandball on any of our many projects in which the article exists. I really don't know how one can make it any clearer. Unless of course you are simply trying to delete stuff you don't personally like (judging from your previous nominations). russavia (talk) 06:39, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
        • Have you ever bothered to read COM:SCOPE? I mean, ever? Your argument is precisely excluded by it. Quoting: Not all images for example are realistically useful for an educational purpose, and an image does not magically become useful by arguing that “it could be used to illustrate a Wikipedia article on X”, where X happens to be the subject of the file. Unless, of course, you're deliberately ignoring parts of COM:SCOPE you're well aware of because you're simply trying to keep stuff you personally like (judging by your uploads and edit history). Rd232 (talk) 19:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
          • Meanwhile back on planet Earth some people are trying to illustrate articles that exist on a gazillion projects. The hypothetical refers to subjects that don't exist as articles and never will because they suck as topics. Delete every picture of Prince Charles because they fit to scope as pics of Prince Charles that can be used to illustrate his article. Reminds me of people who murder in the name of their holy scriptures after they find some idiotic way to totally twist whatever Budda or Jesus said into Kill Kill Kill we have to Kill because Budda said so right here on page 41 verse 30. Penyulap ☏ 19:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
•  Delete I support Rd232's proposal. --High Contrast (talk) 20:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

This image uploaded by High Contrast was used yesterday bu Polish media as an example of what is wrong with Commons. Read question to High Contrast for more.

• •  Question I came across this in the Polish media yesterday, which uses (albeit without correct licencing) this image that you uploaded. Now here's a question. There is nothing in the media (troll's blog posts do not count of course) that uses Polandball comics as an example of what is wrong with Commons. But here we have an article which uses one of your uploads as such an example. Upon further inspection, I see Category:Bikini car wash at Twin Peaks, Round Rock, which has 192 photos of chicks in bikinis at a car wash. Can you please answer two questions. 1) Can you point me to an article on Wikipedia which covers this particular bikini car wash, which would give any of these scope. 2) Given that media, rather than trolls, have publicly used some of your uploads as an example of what is wrong, don't you think we should be deleting every unused image that you have uploaded which fits into one of these problematic (for the media) categories? This is not the only category that I see from your uploads which are full of such images -- you obviously have a liking for girls in bikinis and the like. I particularly don't see the need for so many such images here on Commons -- this includes all "Sexuality" images, including OMG penis photos. However, even though I am not in agreeance on a personal level with so many such images, on a "Commons" level, I recognise that we have our scope, and that the scope includes diversity on a large scale. I honestly can't see why you would be for deleting a single Polandball image on scope issues, when your own uploads are being presented in the media as problematic - a presentation that I am willing to defend against on a policy level, but if our attitudes are changing, then I will shift my "Commons" attitude in alignment with community attitudes; but I won't allow double standards to creep in onto our project. I await your response.russavia (talk) 04:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
•  Delete I support Rd232's proposal as well. How would this affect the advent calendar mentioned above? I would propose including those images in the deletion. Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  From your comments I infer that you have absolutely no idea what an advent calendar is or what it looks like. I cannot blame you, as Wikipedia offers little help here. It does not have a single illustration of a typical calender. It is also unlikely it will have one anytime soon, as the ones that exist are still likely to be under copyright. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:40, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

  I honestly don't know if you're serious or trolling here. Are you saying that File:Advent calendar - 15 December.png could be used in an article about advent calendars? Sure, the file name might imply so, but have you actually looked at that image? Could you explain to me how and what this image could illustrate in an article about advent calendars? This is just confusing the hell out of me right now. --Conti|✉ 02:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

  You too seem not to understand what an advent calendar is. The category Category:Advent calendars (Polandball) – as it now stands – is an advent calendar. More important, it is the only free advent calendar known to exist.

  An advent calendar is a collection of 24 useless and worthless pictures, plus some way of presenting them. It would take some hacking to make these into a useful presentation for the Wikipedia article. For user space here and on Wikipedia we would need to create a template {{Advent calendar}} which would present one of the images from 1st to 24th of December and hide itself on other days. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 03:08, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

  We already have User:Russavia/Advent -- I had help from an editor to do the coding for it, but for some reason when it was attempted to be used on other projects, it didn't work. This was used by myself (and others) on various userpages during the Advent season just gone. russavia (talk) 03:33, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

  I had inserted code for a section on Christmas into the english ISS article, a section (which was never finished even though the code was) would appear on selected days leading up till Christmas. The code was too complex to be maintained in my absence and has since been removed. There was also an idea in development to show the position of the space station on a ground-track in the article, and to make it a current live position. The circus of en.wiki killed all such ideas, it's too bleeding edge for people who want to argue what colour lipstick the pig should wear (ENG:VAR). Penyulap ☏ 09:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

  NOW, that I have actually looked at File:Advent calendar - 15 December.png for the sixth time I finally get the point: The picture is highly educational and definitely within scope. Its function is to educate the user of the advent calendar that when it appears on December 15th Australia and New Zealand are enjoying the best part of summer – something even Wikipedia fails to properly explain in the article Season. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 04:03, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

  The most amusing thing about this is, of course, that advent calendar and most other language articles do have more than enough pictures. But I'm sure that we would create a much better encyclopedia by deleting all those images and instead slap 24 polandball images on them. Every article gets so much better with a polandball comic! --Conti|✉ 11:53, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

•  Delete Sure, it's a start. Call me a pessimist, but if we'll develop a consensus for that here, all these comics will spontaneously find themselves being used in various articles on smaller wikis and most of them will be kept anyhow. --Conti|✉ 21:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• Does Commons have a gaming the system policy? (I'd check myself, but my computer is incredibly sluggish right now) I don't consider myself a pessimist, but I see the same future as you do. If that occurs, the coordinator of such an attempt should probably be blocked here. Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:01, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

•  Delete Per Rd232.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:48, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
•  Keep wtf is COM:ALTOUT ? it's not policy, it's not scope, it's just a bluff to tell people to fuck off and make it look as though it was policy. What's needed here is an outlet for the people who either don't have a sense of humour at all or those who have trouble with other people's strange senses of humour. That way, they wouldn't go tearing images out of other projects where those images are in use and in scope.

I find it funny that across many of the WMF projects the same people who have gone overboard from a hunger for 'power' are the exact same ones eroding the very project they want to control. Hilarious. Think about it, when you vote everyone else off the island, you have an empire of one. The images are exactly what commons outlines in COM:SCOPE, a policy that is becoming worthless and irrelevant by the day. Penyulap ☏ 01:28, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

• • I didn't say COM:ALTOUT was policy, nor mean to imply it. It (a listing of alternative outlets) exists precisely because Commons' scope is narrower than "everything that's not a copyvio". Rd232 (talk) 17:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
•  Keep, forms of parody and political satire in general topic of comedy to illustrate a position with regards to historical commentary. -- Cirt (talk) 01:36, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

If a large number of them are dumb wannabe-satires which don't end up saying much of anything about much of anything, then I'm not sure what real purpose they serve... AnonMoos (talk) 03:00, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Maybe a similar purpose to Category:License plates by country, it's just a collection for people to look for what they want/need or whatever. I think bringing out pitchforks and torches for everything that is not Featured quality destroys the project, but then, that's the point, to drive away good editors.

The comment "If COM:SCOPE means anything (sadly, it doesn't really), then user-generated cartoons are not in scope" seems poorly expressed. That appears to be the flipside of the idea that if a cartoon is created in response to a request at the Graphics lab, then it's out of scope automatically.

Why such a push to make commons the bottom-feeder of the Internet ? No user-generated art, no humour or parody, no memes, just stolen art and whatever script kiddies can find and steal from other more respectable collections. Penyulap ☏ 03:39, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Whatever -- humor is fine as long as it has some relevance to the purposes of Commons (I myself created category Category:Science humor). However, a large proportion of the flagball "cartoons" are low-quality and often just kind of plain dumb and pointless (if something strives to be funny, but conspicuously falls far short, then the overall effect is not good). Why are we supposed to ignore this fact? AnonMoos (talk) 12:16, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

•  Keep Polandball as articles in 56 languages on Wikipedia. How can this images not being in scope? Tm (talk) 04:57, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Your argument is not grounded in policy. London has articles in 208 languages on Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean that every photo of London is in scope. Indiscriminate collections of images on a single topic (for example, albums of holiday snaps in London) get deleted here all the time, precisely because COM:SCOPE says they should be. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:35, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
    • You are actually very wrong here. Holiday snaps may get deleted. However, files which illustrate an in-scope subject are never deleted if all other policies (i.e. copyright, etc) are in compliance. And different images of the same subject are never deleted from this project. Commons is a media repository, meaning we have a large collection of images, and we simply allow people to choose the images they wish to use. I am saying this, not from the standpoint of Polandball, but in general, and there is ZERO reason to make an exception here, and an exception will not be made. This is not a deletion discussion, each image will be judged on our scope -- and I am saying here, right now, that the images are clearly in scope. russavia (talk) 08:41, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
      • "However, files which illustrate an in-scope subject are never deleted if all other policies (i.e. copyright, etc) are in compliance." Er.. no? That's just flat out wrong. Pictures of penises are deleted all the time around here, simply because we have more than enough pictures of penises already (mostly uploaded from throwaway account and questionably sourced, but that's another story). --Conti|✉ 11:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
        • Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat? Penises are deleted around here all the time? You are kidding me? Don't you read the trolling "Commons is broken" threads on JW's enwp talk page? We don't delete any penises around here...we just love penis...penis...penis...penis. russavia (talk) 18:08, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
          • Well, most penises are kept, and the penises that are deleted are deleted in an entirely arbitrary fashion (at least I was not able to figure out any kind of pattern so far), but they are being deleted indeed. Some of them, anyhow. :) --Conti|✉ 18:32, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
          • Russavia, please stop referring to me as a "troll" or to threads that I start as "trolling". It is unacceptable conduct for someone who wishes to remain an admin and bureaucrat here. I think everyone else here (with the possible exception of Penyulap) is trying to have a productive discussion - can you at least try to act like a reasonable adult? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:11, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
•  Comment 56 and counting -- there are a couple of dozen more in progress. There could possibly be hundreds of articles. But let's put this into some perspective. Polandball is the most translated meme article on Wikipedia. And it has roughly 300 full comic images on Commons. Using the current number of articles, there are approximately 6 comics on Commons for each Wikipedia article. Lolcat has articles in 21 languages, and there are approximately 130 Lolcat images on Commons - this means that there is 6 Lolcat images (all user created of course!!!!) for every Lolcat article. Interesting numbers, isn't it? Perhaps we can delete ALL unused Lolcat images as well -- this would include userpage usage only images too. russavia (talk) 08:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Good idea. For reasons I've expressed upthread I would support a  Delete of all Polandball images unused as of 04:44, 7 March 2013. And per your fine argument I also advocate deleting all unused Lolcats. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:44, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
    • And how about all unused images in Category:Buildings in New York City? Surely they are all surplus to our needs to? Hell, why stop here? Let's delete the whole image database. russavia (talk) 09:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

what about license plates ? are they safe for now ? Penyulap ☏ 09:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

 Support format C: drive (I'm assuming anything that sucks so much must be windows) and redirect to flickr. Leave commons to script kiddies and dicpics. Penyulap ☏ 09:19, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

 Comment To be within scope a file need not be used at Wikipedia, it need not even be of use to the other wikimedia projects. Scope is that it has an educational use to someone as it is or as a basis of a derivative work, one of the reasons why we insist on licenses that allow third party reuse. Can all those voting for deletion (not that this is the right forum for votes) be sure that these files are of no use whatso ever to an unknown third party? The example of lolcats is a good and illustrative one, as quite by accident I came across files unused by any of the wikimedia projects being used by a third party re this link the actual print version of the magazine used more files than are now at the website, I can't recall off hand which ones appeared but added used by templates to the talk pages of those files at the time of publication. These unused by wikimedia lolcats that Psychonaut advocates the deletion of, have been of use and value to a third party. So can anyone really be sure that a file, any file, is not of use to some article writer or academic researcher, may be not even in the context the creator or uploader intends.

One of the undercurrents in this debate is that these files are somewhat unworthy of our purpose, yes I agree, that they are crudely drawn and the humour is base, but that is the nature of the beast, they would no longer be countryballs if you clean up the humour and polish up the art, and it is as they are that they have a value. Need a file be brilliantly drawn and of a refined nature to be of value. As an example imagine a crudely drawn graffiti of a penis on a wall with the implications that so and so has a big cock, if such a file existed it may offend your sensibilities you may decry it as base and worthless, but this is probably one of the oldest memes around, being old even when the volcano preserved the examples in Pompeii. If you were to gather such examples from cave art, ancient graffiti, hill figures, the doodles in the local toilets, and our own ever increasing store of penis pics. Would they not be a resource for a third party? WP discourages OR, but one of my own interpretations of Commons scope is that we are both an archve and repository of material for OR by third parties. In the discusson above with regard to scope to much emphasis has been placed on being useful to Wikipedia we are not wikipedia.--KTo288 (talk) 11:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Referring to "our own ever increasing store of penis pics" is an argument for deleting, not keeping (refer to past debates). I'm not entirely sure why we need thousands of images to document that flagball cartoons are by and large pointless and dumb and painfully unfunny. A few low-quality useless cartoons would be adequate evidence of the low-quality uselessness of the rest... AnonMoos (talk) 12:26, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

"Can all those voting for deletion be sure that these files are of no use whatso ever to an unknown third party?" That's a commonly used argument around here, and I'm never sure if the people making are serious about it. If this were an actual criteria for inclusion, COM:SCOPE could be replaced with "Everything is within scope. The end." And that's simply not true. We do not (or should not) keep image on that basis, because we might as well abolish COM:DEL then and have copyright be the sole criteria for deletion. And that just doesn't make any sense. I'm not saying that you cannot reasonable disagree on whether all polandball comics are within scope or not. But the argument of "Someone somewhere at some point in time might hypothetically find it useful. Possibly." is nonsense and should be treated as such. --Conti|✉ 11:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it is serious. Wikimedia Commons is not just a media repository which serves WMF projects. Whilst the WMF projects are our key purpose, we actually serve the entire internet community. So yes, I would imagine he was very serious when he said that. russavia (talk) 13:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

You know, I wouldn't even be opposed to that concept. But as long as COM:SCOPE directly contradicts that philosophy, I'm not going to support it. If copyright really is the sole reason to have anything deleted on commons, ever, then make COM:SCOPE say so, and I will shut up about these issues. --Conti|✉ 13:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

•  Delete per Rd232. Worth repeating: The only reason the Wikipedia articles exist is because there was a concerted campaign to create them. — Hex (❝?!❞) 11:50, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

the phrase "a concerted campaign to delete Polandball" rings with truth. Penyulap ☏ 12:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure a conspiracy theory is gratifying to believe, but news of this crud is actually starting to get outside of the buddy-buddy environment of Commons into the wider community, all of which has a say here. — Hex (❝?!❞) 14:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

•  Keep Polandball can into Commons. Kilopi (talk) 12:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

The above vote is obviously useless.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:47, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

•  Keep – Joke images seem to be in peril lately. I don't see how hosting unused files hurts Commons. In addition, just because one image appears worthless doesn't mean that all related images are worthless. If these images are deleted, feel free to upload them onto Encyclopedia Dramatica in order to preserve them. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:27, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, tempting, but do you have admins that turn up and shriek vague threats like a homeless man and then disappear when you ask what was that all about, leaving you none the wiser ? What about a belly-button policy and Toddlerphobia, and the broader issue of anything to do with men and women kissing and making babies and such abominations ? Questions, I have questions. Penyulap ☏ 14:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

ED's sysops are rude, but they don't have any problems with images of belly buttons, public displays of affection, or sexual intercourse. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:50, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

•  Delete Per Rd232 and Ryan Vesey. Andreas JN466 14:45, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
•  Keep Polandball can call me Country ball meme name. Country ball meme can into political, historical, language, art, humour, education place.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

The above vote is obviously useless.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:47, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

We can read articles in 56 languages and still have no clue what polandball looks like. useful. Penyulap ☏ 00:10, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

•  Delete Per Rd232, Hex, JN, several others. The existence of Polandball articles on non-major Wikis is Russavia's (who's all throughout this discussion) POINTY effort to piss people off and troll en-wiki. That's a very bad reason for them to be there in the first place, and it's even less of a reason for the images to be hosted on Commons. Additionally, it's a little mind boggling how much a Commons admin and bureaucrat (which, true Russavia is) does not understand or feels they don't have to abide by, policy. Mistakes were made, Russavia became an admin and bureaucrat, but there's not reason why the mistakes need to be compounded. Delete.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:47, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
•  Delete Clearly out of scope. As a side note, isn't Russavia prohibited on one Wiki because of this exact thing and thus violating his ArbCom restricting in pursuing this? After all, other Wiki activity is considered by everyone else, so it must be considered regarding Russavia, so I think he is treading some thin ice here. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:07, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Ottava, you as well as anyone knows that English Wikipedia Arbcom has no authority, nor bearing here on Commons. That is why we unblocked you here (which was probably a mistake, given your continued trolling), but yet you are still indef blocked over there. russavia (talk) 00:24, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Did you forget that the above thus makes me an expert on the matter? ArbCom has used "other Wiki reasons" to keep me banned for 4 years. Why would you think the above discussion wont be considered if they look at rebanning you? That seems kinda naive. If you think this is trolling by stating the obvious that you seem unwilling to hear, then that is a problem. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:34, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

•  Keep – Misguided attempt to impose Wikipedia's WP:NPOV on Commons. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:10, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

• What has any of this had to do with Neutral Point of View. This is all about a commons policy COM:SCOPE. All you guys have to do is choose to a) enforce the policy or b) change it. Since it's essentially unenforceable, changing it is probably the better option. Ryan Vesey Review me! 05:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

• What passes for hilarious varies greatly according to the cultural group. A Sunday school joke doesn't go down well in a prison and visa-versa. Russian jokes don't work so well in Brazil, and so on. Every cultural group has it's own ideas of what is funny. Judging what is funny and what is not funny is easy enough on commons. First, you, whoever you are, are a minority in the world so you'd have to accept that MOST comedy may not appear funny to you even though it probably is to it's target group. Second, this polandball thing is a nobrainer because it has such a well established public profile. What's to decide here ? that everyone in Europe is wrong because they aren't American ?

Imposing a narrow wikipedia-bias viewpoint and judging everything from an american viewpoint has nothing to do with scope, it is indeed a misguided application of npov on commons. Penyulap ☏ 09:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Hm, well maybe now is the time to start the Commons:Requests for comment/scope I've been thinking about for a while. There are various issues around defining scope, such as the key "Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose" phrase. More broadly, Commons can't indefinitely suck up every media file on the planet without a massive increase in its ability to organise its content - an increase that doesn't appear forthcoming. At some point for instance we might need to contemplate an Archive namespace to allow some things we don't want to delete, but also don't want to present as likely to be useful to the average visitor either. (That's not strictly part of defining COM:SCOPE, but management of Commons' ever-increasing scale is all the same ballpark "why do we ever need to delete anything that's not a copyvio?" issue.) Rd232 (talk) 17:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

That may be due. Category:License plates of Alberta is an example but may have use in the future. My dad bought some property once with a 1949 Ford pick up on it. The plate was over 20 years old. Someone traced the owner and took the truck away one day after buying it from the owner of 20+ year back. All my dad had to do was remove the plate to stop the truck from being transfered. The government keeps records that long. Should we as well?--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:25, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

That is probably the best thing you've said thus far here Rd232. Start an RFC on scope if you desire, because I really don't see how anyone would think that a single image could be deleted in an out-of-process discussion like this. So sure, go ahead and do a general-scope RFC -- then revisit any issue after that russavia (talk) 18:00, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

•  Delete Move to Encyclopedia Dramatica as suggested above. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:40, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
• I'm getting in a bit late here, but I'd support moves to delete these images: they don't have any useful educational value and are useless. Nick-D (talk) 07:30, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

---

What are we voting on here? This isn't a deletion discussion page. There are some fools on at least one side of this discussion, and maybe on the other: We don't need to be giving any of them more ammunition in the form of out-of-process deletion requests without notification to the authors. This is a survey before we do a real deletion request, right? --Closeapple (talk) 21:17, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

• Nope, it's a village pump chat, not a survey that could produce a number to be quoted elsewhere. If there needs to be a consensus, then a more reliable process than a chat of indefinite duration, and that has potentially been biased by off-project canvassing, should be created. Pretty much as suggested during the meandering chat above. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 21:28, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

If someone wants to start an RfC on clarifying or changing the scope policy then that is the next step and resolved here.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:40, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I am against deleting Polandball drawings. I also don't think it is a good idea to change or create new policies about the scope of Wikimedia Commons now. If the scope hasn't been clear from the beginning, it's a bit late to try to make it clear now, some 9 years after Wikimedia Commons was created and 12 years since the start of Wikipedia, taking into account the huge amout of files that we have here, and with Wikimedia Commons being used as much as it is.

That being said, it is clear that a lot of useless files get uploaded here every day. I am far from being a prude, but it is limited how many photos of sexual organs we need. We also get whole series of photos that are almost identical. We get mass uploads of photos from Flickr and possibly other sources with little or no information about them and with little use in Wikipedia articles, where the uploader mostly leaves to other users to categorize and find relevant information about the images. It seems to me that some experienced people upload huge batches of photos they have found on the web just because they can, and not because the photos add anything to the value of Wikimedia Commons or Wikipedia.

We also get lots of images that are little more than attempts at self promotion, and we have lots of images with improper licensing.

I think Wikimedia Commons would benefit from a slight bit of quality control. However, deleting Polandball drawings is not the way to start that. Blue Elf (talk) 21:09, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

---

Oh God -- I found out that a new pope had been chosen by seeing File:Argentina is finally of Europe!.jpg on the new files upload list... AnonMoos (talk) 13:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh god, this Polish news article has used a Polandball comic from http://reddit.com/r/polandball as an example of how internet users have responded to the chosing of the pope. russavia (talk) 10:43, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Licenses on derivative works

It appears that the licenses on some of the "countryballs" may be incomplete. For example, File:Afghanistanball.PNG and File:CCCPball.png incorporate elements taken from flag illustrations. There are dozens of images like this. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:49, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

The two you list incorporate public domain flag artwork, so attribution is not required. However, there do seem to be others which contain copyrighted artwork where the licence requires attribution, and where the attribution is incorrect or missing from the derivative work. For example, UNSAURball.png is derived from Flag of UNASUR.svg but the author is not credited in accordance with the licence. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

File:UNSAURball.png is now licenced as it should be; I've done that for the author. russavia (talk) 09:18, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Project scope as weapon in deleting pictures we don't like

The problem is that scope is based not on criteria, but on opinion. I could prove polball comics are educational and I really think that. I could find same count of arguments against it. Educational value depends strongly on use of picture, our point of view, our liking of user and picture theme, not picture itself. Picture of masturbating guy could be just pornography if it's used in porno website. If it's used in Wikipedia as vandalism it's not educational. When it will be added to article masturbation it will become educational. Then how we could say it's educational or not if it's not used yet?

How could be that an argument? I've got it some time ago. this image was said to be educational. So let's say I'm bored all days and I like porno. "I like porn" isn't valid argument, so what could I do? I could go to del req and say "The quality of the photo is really quite good and the pose, in the context of Category:Naked female buttocks is quite unique. That should make it a very usable image." It's usable, nobody uses it. But did he prove it's inside scope? Yeah. And have I proved it's ouside? Yep.

I remember when del req on pl.wiki was voting. Later they've changed rules and one had to write arguments. De facto it was still voting, but people started to say generic stuff like "not notable enough", "we had similar case", "I don't think we need it". COM:SCOPE is the same generic reason. If you would write in del req

• COM:SCOPE

it would confuse people - do he thinks that's inside or outside? It's hard to tell. Do you already know why? Yeah, because it's an opinion and by liking picture we decide if we should delete it. Why porno stayed and photos of friends who agreed to upload their pics here are deleted? We could use their photos in articles, no problem with that, we could prve it's educational. But they are usually not nude, they aren't showing pussy to camera, it don't make guys hot, so we could delete it. In this case reason of uploading photo makes us to choose if it's inside scope or not. Not real educational use, as every pic could be both educational and not educational. Porno stays because geeks like porn so they prove it's inside scope and they may even think it's really inside it. If it's not nude guy it gets deleted. So, this case - our actual libido makes picture in or outside scope.

We have to give reason to "vote" in del req. When we like something we could find reasons why it should stay, even if it shouldn't. I've got a little game for you. Check recent deletion requests based on COM:SCOPE. Find arguments it's inside scope. Find arguments it's outside scope. Please, try. If you can't find argument from one side give here a link and I'll tell you.

I remember when Joymaster uploaded a lot of photos of his kids. Part of it were deleted as it's not inside scope. Yeah, it's not family album. But hey, it could be used in a lot of articles. Parenting, twins, child, smile etc. etc. So when admin deleted some of his pics, why he deleted some, some were kept? They were very similar, it was random. It wasn't ok, as they weren't for educational use, it was for his userpage as "kid album". We have a series of photos, like Category:Feral pigeons of the United Kingdom. Of course it's educational, because it's bird. If it would be a human, then it wouldn't be obvious. If nude girl then it would be educational. If fat guy, no. If it's a comics it's... claptrap in discussion. And if I'd upload a lot pigeons photos, will be it educational? Yeah, as every other pic. But it will be "abuse of project", as I for sure do it to abuse it - to flood it with pigeons. Educational means educational use! There could be many uses, some educational, some not, some aren't obvious. Why judge pic if they are educational, not use of pic? Nonsense.

You are discussing here if your opinion is the truth. It's only an opinion, nothing more. It's the same as proving that redheads are worse than blondies. So could we use real arguments instead arguments based on liking pictures, user? Prove that redheads are better, find people that thinks the same, change your opinions into facts. No kidding, that's what you are doing here. Before you start to saying I'm wrong please take a place and play in my game for a while. Give me some links. Krzysiu (talk) 02:28, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Krzysiu, you always have that certain way of expressing yourself, and although I may not always agree with you, I will always respect that special Krzysiu-style that you bring to this project; I often sit here mind-blown by your insight. I'll just sit this out, and see what others think. russavia (talk) 03:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I also want to add that indeed russavia is gaming the system. Why he does that? Authors of pictures of pigeons don't have to do that, because they are not afraid of deleting their pics. Same with uploaders of porn stars. He have same right to be here, at least as long as you won't provide valid reason (i.e. facts, not crystal ball gazing) to delete it. He have to add it to wikis to prove it's educational. Let's say it again: you want to delete controversional pictures for no real reason, he have to game the system to have it kept. Forcing him to do it by making facts from you opinion - his fault or yours? Gaming the system is the result of problems with you, by wrong interpretation of "system", not with russavia or system. Krzysiu (talk) 03:31, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

You're quite right, and you point out the fundamental flaw in COM:SCOPE. Any picture can be of use, one way or another, and you never know for sure until you find a use for an image. So it's all subjective. Which is why those with power around here can decide in an entirely arbitrary fashion which images will be deleted and which images will be kept. And since a bureaucrat happens to be the biggest polandball fan of all time around here, we have an endless supply of polandball comics. --Conti|✉ 11:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I really don't like to see the "use" argument trotted out automatically. There are many good reasons why we would want large numbers of varied and diverse images of the same object, type or genus. For example, it would not be that hard to find a researcher prepared to donate high quality laboratory photographs of fruit flies, having 15,000 photographs of fruit fly mutations, parts of a fruit fly, fruit fly demonstrating behavioural patterns, fruit fly dissections etc., would be immensely useful and of educational value, but there is no doubt that we cannot claim they are all likely to be used (and apart from the most photogenic handful, a large number of these photographs certainly would only be of significant value to the specialist). We could do with far more volunteer time invested in exemplar case books rather than having the same old deletion arguments or vague references to COM:PENIS in every darn Deletion Review, at least then I could say, "this is sufficiently similar to case-book 3 to support a <keep/delete>..." One example in hand, are my uploads this week which include 150+ (good quality) photographs of Anders Fogh Rasmussen (NATO Secretary General), some might argue that as the English Wikipedia only needs one good portrait photo, maybe we should limit photographs of people to a handful. A well constructed and serious case-book showing how 100 or 1,000 photographs of the same person has merit, and should be useful in the long term for education and as preservation for the benefit of public open knowledge would certainly save huge amounts of volunteer time arguing the case from scratch in deletion reviews. A comprehensive case book of all the 'classic' rationales we see, from "penii" to "portraits" might easily counter weak arguments and time-sink discussions. --Fæ (talk) 12:41, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

That we seriously compare hundreds of pictures of a barely known internet meme or badly composed penis pictures to hundreds of pictures of fruit flies or well known people is kind of mind boggling. And the funny thing is that if I would upload hundreds of pictures of my front lawn or of my right knee, those images would be deleted, making the entire "We keep an indefinite amount of images of everything because education!" argument invalid and hypocritical, anyhow. That argument is used when you want to keep your image and have no other argument, as it can be used for literally every picture imaginable. --Conti|✉ 13:28, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Please take a few seconds to read the words of my comment, I am suggesting a serious set of case book examples to support reviews of any kind. I have made no attempt to justify keeping images of your knee or badly composed penis pictures. A couple of case book examples about photographs of people and body parts or of illustrative cartoons, would support such discussions when they occur. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:37, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Some case book examples might be quite helpful, yes. I'm worried what they might say about polandball memes or penis pictures, however. --Conti|✉ 13:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Blanking of comments by Volunteer Marek

A number of other editor's comments in the above discussion were blanked without their permission in this change by Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs), could someone please restore these? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 01:34, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

"Me too" on that: Fae and I are two of the people affected. In addition to blanking us, that edit also appeared to move or create comments by other users. Simple "undo" doesn't work on it, and I was going to manually fix all of it, but it turns out I'm too tired right now. Help would be appreciated. --Closeapple (talk) 01:41, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I've just dropped a note at User_talk:Volunteer_Marek#.3F.3F (in addition to Sphilbricks previous message) asking them to get it fixed asap. russavia (talk) 01:47, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to whoever restored these, obviously some kind of mistake either on my end or somewhere else's. Does a correction of a simple mistake really warrant it's own section? Hi, Fae.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:29, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

It was actually a mistake on your end, and the problem is still there. Text removed from this diff is still not present in discussion. Can you please re-incorporate all of the missing discussion as soon as possible. Thanks russavia (talk) 05:38, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek The comments you deleted have not been restored. Please promptly correct your blanking of other people's comments from the Village pump or explain clearly why you felt you had to censor comments from others. This is not a simple mistake, it is a serious problem. Right now, it appears that you would prefer to spend your time debating whether this section should exist, rather than getting on with fixing the serious problem you created. You appear be choosing to show no respect for the collaborative value of comments here by others, and have effectively replaced them with your personal views. If this is not corrected today, then this seems worth escalating to COM:AN for action rather than over relying on a mellow and polite request. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:54, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I tried to put everything back here (compare to removal here) I hope that fixed it. /Ö 14:32, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Looks good. I fixed a similar mishap during the SOPA discussions: en:Wikipedia_talk:SOPA_initiative/Action/Archive_1#RfC_page_is_busted_again. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:28, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I honestly have no idea what happened there. Is it fixed now? And why are (Russavia, Fae) freaking out about it? Obviously it's not my intent to "censor" anyone.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:10, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I found the problem. It appears as if Marek accidentally clicked the edit button while viewing this revision or this diff. Marek apparently forgot to return to the current version of the page before clicking the edit button. It's a simple mistake, not a serious problem. The mistake was fixed, and I don't believe that the mistake was intentional. Perhaps Marek was surfing through old diff's before pressing the edit button. Marek, try to look out for the MediaWiki:Editingold message whenever you edit a page. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:03, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

RFC

I think the above discussion has more than run its course. I've started Commons:Requests for comment/scope, let's see if that gets us anywhere. At least it will hopefully broaden the discussion away from the specific Polandball case. The RFC could be given a sitenotice, if anyone wants, maybe after the ball has been got rolling a bit. Rd232 (talk) 21:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Too many ships, a WWII challenge

I am in the process of uploading several hundred, possibly more than a thousand, images of WWII ships, submarines and other naval craft at Category:Royal Naval photographer, along with related photos of Navy life and war action (including various notable political figures from Churchill to the Queen Mum) from the Imperial War Museum's collection. There are over 2,000 in total now, and there's probably another day/1,000+ more until this finishes. These are Public Domain due to Crown Copyright having expired. Could someone waive a flag at an appropriate MilHist person/group as I'm sure many will be useful for illustrating WWII articles, and I hesitate to categorize further as I know this sort of this is rather specialized? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:34, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

w:WP:MILHIST and w:WP:SHIPS; I'll give them a shout. Is there a tracking "not yet categorised" category, & if not can one be added? It's tricky to dig through them looking for unsorted ones... Andrew Gray (talk) 12:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll add one now, before anyone goes bananas. ;-) ... Category:Royal Naval photographer (check needed) is being populated. --Fæ (talk) 12:46, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Do you want me to try doing the backlog en masse with hotcat? Andrew Gray (talk) 12:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I have a script running over it now, best to let it finish or we might be editing at cross-purposes. The backlog will fill itself up shortly. --Fæ (talk) 12:57, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

No worries - I couldn't tell if you'd switched to doing it by hand or not :-). I'll notify the projects now. Andrew Gray (talk) 13:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The uploading seems complete at 3,073 files and the backlog category is populated. Hopefully this will keep one or two Milhist people happily busy over the weekend or longer. --Fæ (talk) 09:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

It'll certainly keep me busy for a while. So many categories to create! Andrew Gray (talk) 10:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

No hurry, a week or a months now doesn't matter too much, considering most of these have been waiting for the open knowledge movement to make use of them for 70 years. --Fæ (talk) 10:41, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• I've just noticed there's no IWM tracking category on these. Should we try retroactively adding {{IWM Collections}} or something similar? Andrew Gray (talk) 13:41, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
  • No, please don't, all these are in a child of that category already. I am set against hidden categorization buried within odd templates such as the IWM Collections template; it makes it hard for anyone to understand why Hotcat, cat-a-lot and other tools suddenly fail to work as expected. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 14:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

PD-Art images missing permission

Category:Media missing permission as of 14 March 2013 contains a number of images with {{PD-Art}}, for example File:EditeMatildeEscócia.jpg and File:Eleanor of England.jpg. The file information page claims that the paintings were painted in 2012 and 2013, but it seems more likely that they were painted centuries ago. Does anyone know more about this? --Stefan4 (talk) 00:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

The first looks like a modern colorized version of an old engraving. I would suggest using the B&W engraving. The second definitely looks old. Of course, finding the correct date and author would be nice. – JBarta (talk) 00:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the link; as the engraving is from 1875, it might still be protected by copyright in the U.K. (e.g. if the artist was 25 years old then and died in 1945, aged 95...) Gestumblindi (talk) 00:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Other sources say the engraver died in 1871 (see below). I didn't list all the sources I found for this image (I found several) but once you know the name of the work and the artist, you can usually find all sorts of information. – JBarta (talk) 01:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I know nothing about these, except that the first one looks like a 19th or maybe early 20th century print on paper to me, the copy used for scanning shows some foxing (the yellow stains) typical for paper used from about 1850 and into the 20th century. The second one looks considerably older (16th, 17th century?), but may still be a modern depiction in "old style"... Gestumblindi (talk) 00:36, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

The first (Matilda of Scotland) engraved by W. H. Mote (1803-1871) after an illustration by J.W. Wright. Again, this colorized version is probably a modern derivative. Also, we have a copy of the engraving (though a better copy could probably be had) – JBarta (talk) 00:41, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

The source says that the colored image comes from this website. -- Asclepias (talk) 01:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Cannot find a lick of info on the second, though it does look old. – JBarta (talk) 00:57, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Category:Media missing permission as of 14 March 2013 contains a few other similarly colorized engravings. I think it would be wise that in the absence of better author/sourcing, we allow the colorized versions to go, and make sure we have the original b&w engraving with the author properly noted. – JBarta (talk) 01:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

There also seem to be a few similar ones in the undated Category:Media missing permission. --Stefan4 (talk) 12:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Is "TM" and "(R)" necessary?

Hi, when I make SVG versions of logos, should I include ^TM and ® if they exist in the original images? // WikiPhoenix ^[Talk] 12:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

If your intent is simply to depict the logo, then I don't see why you'd be obligated to include the trademark symbols. The symbols aren't part of the logos; they're marks applied to the logos by the rights holders in order to assert said rights. For registered trademarks, the official submission of the artwork to the trademark office wouldn't include the ® symbol. Of course, you're free to include the marks if you want—for example, if you want the image to show how the logo is usually marked by the rights holder. Some logos have unusual placement of the mark, or the rights holder varies placement of the mark over time, and I suppose this information might be of interest to collectors. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:21, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the help! // WikiPhoenix ^[Talk] 12:26, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Separate images

Hi, I was wondering if anyone could help with seperating two images I uploaded under the same name by mistake. It won't let me reupload either. (File:Drum and Monkey, Montpellier Gardens, Harrogate (25th February 2013) 001.JPG). Cheers, Mtaylor848 (talk) 18:17, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I see only one image. Try uploading the other image under a different name, making sure that you tick the "Ignore all errors" box. — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:41, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Bad news

Hello, recently I found a mass license change of WEF flickr images (unfortunately CC-BY-SA -> CC-BY-NC-SA), but we have a lot of their images now and even this OTRS tag. Is the OTRS permission tag no longer valid to uploading of new WEF images? (although the permission of old images is irrevocable) --Puramyun31 (talk) 02:23, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

a note on the template could be made to say it is for 'pre-(insert date)' images only. The licenses can't be revoked for existing images, but sometimes if there is a request it can be as a courtesy. Penyulap ☏ 03:27, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I think you should ask someone of the OTRS-team to dive into the exact wordings of the permission sent in. Lymantria (talk) 07:43, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I have an interest in this as well. I think this means I have to tag {{Flickr-change-of-license}} for all my WEF images, or will a bot go through and do this? – Kerαunoςcopia^◁galaxies 08:04, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I've made a request for the OTRS ticket to be explained. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁galaxies 08:42, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

There are three emails, which I will summarize. In the first email, they "have released these pictures under the Creative Commons - By - Share Alike" license. (It is not clear what "these pictures" refers to.) In the second email, they are saying that despite disclaimers in the EXIF, they do indeed intend to release under the CC-BY-SA. In the third email, they are requesting technical help for removing the disclaimers from the EXIF. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:08, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Just send them an email explaining why this is a bad idea, they probably didn't realized that when they changed the license. Multichill (talk) 14:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

"These pictures" in the first conversation referes to media files uploaded by en:User talk:World Economic Forum. The second conversation comes from discussions such as Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_8#World_Economic_Forum.2C_Flickr.2C_and_CC-BY-SA (and a deletion discussion, but cant find that) where people had doubt that indeed the organization is uploading that files to flickr and that they realy can and want to publish them under a free license. --Martin H. (talk) 20:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah, see Template talk:WEF for the old deletion discussion. The OTRS ticket in the template is only for confirming that they realy publish under cc-by-sa and that they realy can do so (suspected problem of copyright transfer or problems with their ability to sublicense, see Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Maria Bartiromo.jpg, take 2 for example). --Martin H. (talk) 20:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

If your interpretation is true, The OTRS ticket is no longer usable because WEF currently does not really publish their photos under cc-by-sa. although I'm not sure whether WEF does not perfectly understand their previous free-licensing or does intentionally deny the licensing, I think that means we may need to delete or edit the OTRS template unless they withdraw the license change. also we may need to contact and ask WEF for an explanation about their mass license change without any notice to us.--Puramyun31 (talk) 06:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

The ticket simply confirmed that they (and not some unauthorized advertising agent) published photos under free licenses and that they have the rights to do so. The OTRS ticket was never usuable to upload something from some external source that is not already published under a free license at that source. If they stoped providing content under a free license on flickr, we cant longer start reusing their content from flickr. But we must not stop reusing the content that we already reused before the license change, see §7b of the license. The last reviewed upload (bot reviewed) was on February 1. @Puramyun31: we must not contact them, its their decision and there is no reason for them to explain this or give notice to anyone. --Martin H. (talk) 21:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

question about PD tags

Hello,

When a file represents an old painting (17th century) and the uploader who took the picture as put it under {{PD-self}} or {{CC-by-SA}} while there is absolutely no frame, and it's just a plain 2D picture, is it alright to change the tag to the appropriate {{PD-Art}} ? if so, should I inform the uploader/photographer ?

I encounter hundreds of such files... Thanx --Hsarrazin (talk) 18:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

No. Use {{Licensed-PD-Art|PD-old-100|cc-by-sa}} (or equivalent) instead. If you change it into just {{PD-Art}}, then people in lots of countries won't know that it is legal for them to use the image. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Do the PD-old-* templates not contain an adequate explanation in themselves? Adding the license of the photo seems to convey that we think attribution is required in such cases (while there is absolutely no frame, and it's just a plain 2D picture). I thought the point of {{PD-Art}} is that we don't... --moogsi (blah) 19:18, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Stefan4 is right, {{Licensed-PD-Art|PD-old-100|cc-by-sa}} is the best if we know that the photograph was released under a free license. {{PD-Art|PD-old-100}} mostly explains why it is OK to ignore photographers copyright, if there are any. And just adding {{PD-old-100}} does not provide any information about photographer's copyrights. --Jarekt (talk) 20:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I was referring to {{PD-Art|PD-old-*}} being enough information, but after reading Commons:Reuse of PD-Art photographs I can see that adding whatever license the photographer gives (if any, if known) may make the image usable in situations where it would otherwise not be. Sorry for being a bit slow :) --moogsi (blah) 20:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. It is usually illegal to use files marked with {{PD-Art}} in my country unless the photo of the painting was taken before 1969. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, I don't really understand the point in {{Licensed-PD-Art|PD-old-100|cc-by-sa}}, but I will :) - until now, I have just left both {{PD-Art|PD-old-100-1923}} and {{PD-self}} or {{CC-by-SA}} on the concerned images… --Hsarrazin (talk) 22:06, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

If you do not understand this license than may be it needs some work, because others might have the same problem. The {{Licensed-PD-Art|PD-old-100|cc-by-sa}} template says that license of

1. license of painting is PD because author died more than 100 years ago
2. license of photograph (or scan) of a painting is also PD in US and countries with similar laws or it is cc-by-sa in countries where you can copyright photos of paintings, like in Scandinavian countries.

Can we make the license more clear? --Jarekt (talk) 01:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The template is clear as it is. It even has a link to Commons:Reuse of PD-Art photographs for more details. -- Asclepias (talk) 01:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

It's definitely confusing and unclear. In Scandinavian countries, is a painting SA or PD ? you can read this and have no idea because it's that confusing. It speaks of the scan or photo of the painting, but does it in a way that leaves some readers thinking you're talking about the painting itself. They are not the same thing, and that could be clearer. Penyulap ☏ 03:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Our templates do not, in general, presume to be able to clarify copyright status in every country across the board. In Scandinavian countries (and I see nothing that guarantees that we can take them as a group) it is entirely possible that qualified lawyers could give you differing answers, that there's no clear answer in law. It's certainly not possible to clarify the subject for all 200+ nations in the world in a small template.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:02, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Maybe words like

1. All artwork 100 years old, or more, is public domain.
2. More recent photos/images of those artworks may or may not be copyright, depending on the country in which they are created. {learn more link}

Something like that might avoid the mixing of concepts, though it would need expansion on a linked page, so that 'more recent photos/images' which is the approachable understandable language can be expanded to all image types, video and so on. Penyulap ☏ 09:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes Penyulap, that's much, much clearer

from what I had read —and I'm sure many many Commons images user do NOT take the time to read all the pages I've read — I had rested on the understanding that all 2D images were considered "non-original" and thus, that any licence other than PD was superfluous… well, obviously, it is not…

the biggest problem with Commons is that it tries to abide "all" country laws at the same time, which makes it very difficult to understand, and very frustrating when you cannot upload a work that has been PD in your own country for more than a decade, because of URAA --Hsarrazin (talk) 09:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The rule in Sweden is that a photo is protected by copyright for 50 years since it was taken simply for being a photo, whereas photos which are above the threshold of originality are protected for the standard EU term (PD-old-70/Anonymous-EU). Also, all photos below the threshold of originality which were taken before 1969 are already in the public domain, because the former 25-year term has expired. The good thing is that the threshold of originality is very high, meaning that a lot of old photos, including foreign photos used under a fair use claim on various Wikipedias, are in the public domain in Sweden. The bad thing is that this means that any photo, regardless of originality, is protected by copyright. The result is that {{PD-Art}} doesn't work in Sweden, and the legal situation for {{PD-scan}} is unclear. Other Nordic countries have similar laws for photos. --Stefan4 (talk) 12:59, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Would there be enough exceptions to add a {exceptions} note on number 1 ? if a 20 year old artist makes a work and dies at age 90, does the copyright expire 30 years later or 100 after that ? (I do not know myself) or is it a good enough rule of thumb with too few exceptions to outweigh the potential confusion on the template ? Penyulap ☏ 13:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

If an artist makes a painting when he is 20 and dies when he is 90, then the copyright to the painting expires in most of Europe 140 years after the painting was made and in Mexico 170 years after the painting was made. Is that what you meant? --Stefan4 (talk) 13:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

sure is, learn something new everyday.

1. 100 years after an artist dies, all his art becomes public domain. {sometimes sooner}
2. More recent photos/images of their artworks may or may not be copyright, depending on the country in which they are created. {learn more link}

so like that ? (hoping to fish another nice remark from Hsarrazin) Penyulap ☏ 14:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

- that's "quite" alright, but

(here, my minute of angry contributor ) I'm sure that, by digging in the URAA authors, we could find some that are PD in their own country but NOT in the USA, more than 100 years after their death, since the URAA added much more than 30 years to original copyright :(( the URAA is really a stupid act, that protects in the USA art or litterature that is PD in the original country, therefore abiding US-law to foreign countries

anyway, that does not concern 18th century painters - Thanks, Penyulap --Hsarrazin (talk) 17:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

US copyright law for older works is 95 years from publication and for newer works is life+70. Barring posthumously published works (which frequently have extended copyright periods in their source nations, too), the US copyright on a work with a known author will never expire more then 25 years after the life+70 copyright expires on the work. I know that we can find many published works that have been available to the public for 90 years and are out of copyright in the US--Picassos, Agatha Christie, Bertrand Russell--but will be in copyright in the EU for several decades to come.

I hate the rule of the shorter term. On one hand, it drags into courts the law from halfway around the world. US courts should be interpreting US law, not Chinese law written in a foreign language with foreign principles; they're not trained or competent to do that. On the other hand, the rule of the shorter term means that American copyright holders run to Congress and say that "look, in some cases we're losing copyright time in the EU because our laws give shorter terms" and Congress increases it, and then EU copyright holders would run to their parliaments and go "we're losing copyright time in the US because of our shorter terms" (because they never sync up exactly), and then the EU increases their terms, etc. Let each state pick the copyright terms it wants to enforce in its borders, and not worry about foreign law.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:28, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome :) The exception is true, (greedy pigs) but it's probably so rare that it is more effective to put it on the subpage. It's like fishing, to use the bait for the largest catch. If it is too long, people avoid reading, if it is too complex, or too confusing, they ignore or give up. Also, it might not be possible to improve, some people can read it and understand it and then think that everyone else must also be able to do the same, and not grasp that people think differently.

So, 100 years is 'most' work then ? how large a percentage is 70 years would people think ? What are the most pertinent points that require inclusion ? What things are people most often making mistakes on ? Penyulap ☏ 17:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

There's a map at the top of Commons:Copyright rules by territory that shows how long each country's terms are for known human authors. The U.S. is weird, though, and information on that map is for 1923–1977 publications that were still under copyright in 1978, not for new post-1977 publications. U.S. works first published between 1923 and 1989 have various rules, but post-1989 U.S. publications are pretty much like any other country, with the term set at 70 years after the author's death. (It's the earlier of 95 after publication or 120 years after creation if the "creator" is anonymous, pseudonymous in a way that their real identity was lost, or an organization instead of a person.) The U.S.-specific chart is at [[Commons:Copyright rules by territory#United States. --Closeapple (talk) 11:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, I see something discussed above about copyrights on photographs of public domain works. Remember that {{PD-art}} and {{PD-scan}} are explicit Commons exceptions to the "must be public domain in the country of origin" rule: Commons does not recognize claims that faithful direct reproductions of PD works are somehow protected. See Commons:PD-art and specifically Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag#The position of the WMF. Maybe we all know that now though. {{Licensed-PD-Art}} is for situations where {{PD-art}} would apply but the photographer/reproducer also has been nice enough to release the reproduction under a free license in countries where the photographer copyright might be valid. --Closeapple (talk) 11:39, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Template:ADRM2

Hi there, can an administrator please help me with the template {{Village pump/Archive/2013/03}}. It is similar to {{Village pump/Archive/2013/03}}, but the latter is an autotranslated template and the former is not. Furthermore, the latter has been locked since 2008, so I cannot transform it into an autotranslated template. Your help will be appreciated. FYI: I have already created {{Village pump/Archive/2013/03}}, {{Village pump/Archive/2013/03}}, {{Village pump/Archive/2013/03}} and {{Village pump/Archive/2013/03}}. Thnx in advance, NormanB ^(talk) 00:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I fixed {{Village pump/Archive/2013/03}}. However, be aware that this is not valid license on Commons. File can use it only if another license is used. --Jarekt (talk) 01:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Dear Jarekt, thanks for your help. Don't worry, I wasn't planning on using this licence, I was just taking care of translating existing templates. Thanks again, NormanB (talk) 00:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Category:Accademia Carrara, Bergamo

The paintings of the Museo Accademia Carrara are now in three categories:

Category:Accademia Carrara (Bergamo) and

Category:Galleria dell'Accademia Carrara (Bergamo)‎.

I suggest to put all paintings into Category:Galleria dell'Accademia Carrara (Bergamo)‎. I put a category move request from Category:Accademia Carrara, Bergamo to Category:Galleria dell'Accademia Carrara (Bergamo)‎ on http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CommonsDelinker/commands. 7 left files of Category:Accademia Carrara (Bergamo) I will move to Category:Galleria dell'Accademia Carrara (Bergamo)‎. 3 files concerning the building of the Accademia, and the Gallery page I will move to Category:Accademia Carrara, Bergamo after the move of commons delinker, and then redirect the then empty Category:Accademia Carrara (Bergamo) to Category:Accademia Carrara, Bergamo.--Oursana (talk) 11:26, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

What you're doing and how you're doing it is fine. Would it hurt to drop the "Bergamo" altogether while you're at it? There seems to be only one Accademia Carrara --moogsi (blah) 10:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Copyright issue

I have a scan of an 1892 illustration of Arthur Sullivan's Haddon Hall, by M. Browne and Herbert Railton. It's available on en-wiki here: en:File:M. Browne - Herbert Railton - Sydney Grundy - Arthur Sullivan - Haddon Hall.jpg

While the date of Railton's death is given as both 1910 and 1911 in various places, that's not a major issue. It's well within the timeframe to make him out of copyright.

What is an issue is that M. Browne is a complete and utter nobody, so far as I can tell. I spent 2 hours tring to research him or her, and, outside of the American Impressionist Matilda Browne - highly unlikely at best - I can find noone who it could be, and, worse, a century or so before this, an M. Browne made an artwork for the influentual Boydell Shakespeare Gallery, whose engravings are highly notable.

The artwork appears in the October 1, 1892 issue of the Illustrated London News, if that's any help.

Any ideas of what I should do next? Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I have a growing suspicion that M. Browne may have been the original artist of a work adapted or engraved by Railton, rather than a direct collaborator - and quite possibly the same person as contributed to Boydell. (Searching around for "after M. Browne" throws up a lot of similar cases of adapted engravings). If we go with this interpretation, we can reasonably assume he was safely dead before the mid-19th century. Andrew Gray (talk) 13:06, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Andrew, what's the logic behind why he would have been dead 40 years before the picture was published? Doesn't make any sense to me. - Jmabel ! talk 16:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I have a suspicion that this M. Browne is the same as credited in, eg, "Stipple engraving by Daniel Orme after M. Browne" (1794); "King Richard the Second, Act IV, Scene I (after M. Browne)" (1803); "frontispiece engraved by W. Skelton after M. Browne; dated March 26, 1786" (n.d., c. 1800). All of these are "after M. Browne", meaning a derivative work, presumably modified by the engraver - he apparently got around!

My theory is that Browne created an illustration for an early publication of the Vernon story (there were a couple of books around 1820), which got altered/reused by Railton for the 1892 engraving. As such, if it was the same man, he's almost certain to have been dead long before 1892 - he was producing works before 1800! I don't think we can prove this, but it feels plausible to me. :-) Andrew Gray (talk) 17:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I suppose the question is at what point these suspicions are good enough for Commons. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, wait, I bet I know: 1892 is late enough to have a photographer on staff, but early enough not to be able to print the photograph directly. If we presume M. Browne is a photographer, does that simplify copyright or make it worse? Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I believe 'M. Browne' is actually Mather Brown (1761–1831). Kaldari (talk) 21:44, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

This is an illustration of the première of an opera from 1892; it would be a bit strange to base it on something completely unrelated to the production being illustrated. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:06, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Well the 'M. Browne' credited in the works that Andrew Gray mentions are certainly Mather Brown. I imagine that the illustration was originally created for a work done before the opera (based on the same legend) and was just repurposed later. Kaldari (talk) 23:26, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

LACMA mass image download?

The Los Angeles County Museum of Public Art has released some 20,000 PD images of their collection ([9], example: [10]). Perhaps this could be the subject of a mass import by our bot operators? Sandstein (talk) 14:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Nice! I suggest you open a page at Commons:Batch uploading. Multichill (talk) 11:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Went ahead and drafted Commons:Batch uploading/Los Angeles County Museum of Public Art. Jean-Fred (talk) 12:58, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Upload Wizard redirecting to target article

Since we already support calling upload wizard with an url parameter for campaigns like WLM:

Would it be possible to add parameters like target_project, target_language and target_article in order to be able to specifiy the article the uploaded file is intended for (e.g. the article he visited when clicking an "upload picture here" link)?

After uploading the file the uploader should be redirected to the article. Maybe we could even show him some c&p example on how to insert the picture (e.g. via an edit-intro).

1. Do you understand, what I mean? Any questions?
2. What do you think about it?
3. How can we achieve this? --Flominator (talk)

1. Sounds reasonable.
2. The blessing and curse of UpWiz is it's encapsulation. This would even allow running it in the page the file should be uploaded to if the user is using a recent browser without any redirect (e.g. in a dialog). (New technologies like CORS + XHR Level 2 are required and perhaps even changes in UpWiz.)
3. -- Rillke^(q?) 21:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. Probably need to file a bug ([11]) on the general requirement, and leave the developers to figure out how to do it. Rd232 (talk) 22:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Filed Bugzilla:46242. --Flominator (talk) 15:20, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Prague tram categories.

Every tram in Prague has it's own category based on its fleet number, this means that the category for the "Škoda 15T in Prague" just has a list of trams with the photos in there, many only have one picture. The same is true for all "Trams in Prague" subcategories, it actually makes it really hard to find pictures, as you have to look through dozens if not hundreds of different categories. Is this really necessary? Can we move them into the category of model, and not have them all sorted by fleet number? Liamdavies (talk) 16:14, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I've brought this up at Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2013/03/Category:Trams_in_Prague, feeling that's probably a better place to discuss this. Liamdavies (talk) 05:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: add AbuseFilter to keep non-flagged bots from editing rapidly

Hi, I propose we create an edit filter to prevent non-flagged bots from editing rapidly. Recently User:Unauthorized Bot made over 30,000 edits without a BRFA - the bot is now blocked but this shouldn't have happened. An abuse filter could trip only when the bots were editing this rapidly and the logic would be fairly simple. When submitting an edit, the filter checks for the word 'bot' in the username and then checks for a bot flag, preventing this username abuse by stopping the bot's fast editing. This shouldn't be hard to implement, but it requires consensus. Thoughts? Mono 21:59, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I thought there already was a process to throttle over-aggressive bot behaviour? --Fæ (talk) 22:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Don't know, but it doesn't seem like it worked in this case. Mono 23:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Don't think this is a good idea. I expect lot's of problems (for one because the abusefilter doesn't play very nice with the api) and I don't really see a big problem. If a bot misbehave and is annoyingly fast we tend to notice it and block it. Multichill (talk) 23:19, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

This would clearly "promote" our bot-approval request page. While I wouldn't oppose, I think the throttle shouldn't be too restrictive; only to prevent serious abuse (>1k actions in 3 hours or so). The API does indeed not play well with AbuseFilter and the error returned will be "hookaborted" , "The modification you've tried ... was aborted by an extension hook." -- This doesn't explicitly tell you that it is AbuseFilter nor does it tell you which filter and why it was prevented. -- Rillke^(q?) 23:35, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

No need really, it'll be in the recent changes and the bot would get blocked. If it's possible to work out who operates the bot (this seems problematic on some projects) then the operator would be frowned upon unless it's a demonstration for the approvals process. Penyulap ☏ 00:51, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but I am sure that recent changes aren't watched 24h around the clock. -- Rillke^(q?) 11:32, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

why ? Penyulap ☏ 12:08, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

March 17

Teething trouble with Flickr upload tool

I was pleased to see you can now upload images from Flickr using just a link, something I have thought could be done and would be very useful for ages; I upload a lot of files from Flickr and lack the technical knowhow to set up and/or use a bot. Unfortunately I have found it not to work. Even though the images are free to use and appropriately licensed for Commons, the uploads fail on the first hurdle, can anyone explain this and is this a problem only I'm having. Mtaylor848 (talk) 15:32, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Which tool are you using? There are two tools: tools:~bryan/flickr/upload (currently gives me a w:504 Gateway Timeout error message) and tools:~magnus/flickr2commons.php. If one tool doesn't work, then try the other one instead. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:38, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm going onto upload file and then using the button that says 'upload more files from Flickr', it's a bit disjointed and I have to start uploading a file of my own in order to access this option. Mtaylor848 (talk) 15:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Are you on Special:UploadWizard? -- Rillke^(q?) 18:44, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Looks like this bug was recently introduced when the ability to add Flickr images after adding local images was added. Fixed in https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/54077/. Kaldari (talk) 21:17, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

To give more light into this, the flickr tool is currently only enabled for users with certain privileges. Showing it this way was unintended and a bug likely to be fixed soon --Nischayn22 (talk) 06:54, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I've approved this patch. WMF will next update Commons' copy of the code on Wednesday according to mw:MediaWiki_1.21/Roadmap. --Krenair ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:16, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

March 15

'Request rotation' not working?

Is there a problem with the 'Request rotation' script? I tried it earlier today on a friend's computer using Firefox and nothing happened when I clicked the link. I've just tried it again at home, using Chrome, and have experienced the same problem. Affected images include File:Friends Insitute Birmingham 16 - drainpipe.JPG and File:County Hall, Preston 09 - clock.JPG. Andy Mabbett (talk) 20:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Rotatebot has contact info, I think. If it is only the two images I can rotate manually an re-upload for you.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:02, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you; please do. The issue is not with the bot, but with the link under the images. Andy Mabbett (talk) 21:38, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I have the two images rotated. The issue with the bot button still needs a solution though.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:21, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

If you can't use the "request rotation" script, you can just add {{rotate|n}} to rotate the image n degrees clockwise. It has the same result as using the "request rotation" script. --Stefan4 (talk) 12:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The issue with the request button was a syntax error after an i18n update. This is Fixed now. -- Rillke^(q?) 23:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, both. Andy Mabbett (talk) 19:59, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Batch rename needed

All the images in Category:Friends Institute, Birmingham are misnamed. The names begin "Friends Insitute...", which is misspelled, and should be "Friends Institute...". Can someone do a batch rename, please? Apologies for my ineptitude. Andy Mabbett (talk) 20:52, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

LOL

 Done Commons:Bots/Work_requests is good for this sort of thing too. --Fæ (talk) 03:13, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

That page is new to me; thank you for the suggestion, and applying the fixes. Andy Mabbett (talk) 19:58, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

deleted files of User:Anamariasmith

Hi I am having my files constantly being deleted by a specific user and I think it might be for fun (although I don't find it fund to have my contributions being targeted for no reason). How can I make a formal complaint and maybe have the user investigated or on a watch list sort of thing? user:Anamariasmith

Ask about it here. However, I suggest you take the time to familiarize yourself with COM:SCOPE and COM:L. We don't take kindly to copyright violations around here. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:15, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

 Comment :These images were deleted per DRs such as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Marcio Delgado Interview 2010.jpg. The individual pictured in these images, Marcio Rodrigo Delgado, has no wiki articles, and none of the images were in use, so the uncontested DRs were a routine close as delete. This user's deleted contributions total 7, all DR nommed on March 5 by a fellow admin and deleted by me in the course of reviewing that day's DRs. INeverCry 01:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

To check who deleted your files, go to this listing and click on the red entries. Most of the time (except for some blatant "speedy"-deleted violations) there should be warning messages on your user talk page. AnonMoos (talk) 01:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

 Comment As for her uploads, this new one File:Marcio Delgado Studios East London.jpg states own work, but the EXIF states that the copyright holder is Michael Cheetham. This may call into question the files I deleted for being out of scope, as they were also professional portraits. This upload File:Marcio Delgado - Rede Record.jpg states in EXIF that the author is Simone Bello, so the user's uploads seem to be questionable. INeverCry 01:37, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback everyone. I will upload the pictures again, separately, and try to submit authorization for the files Marcio Delgado Studios East London and Marcio Delgado – Rede Record (I’ve got PDF’s for those). I see WikiMedia as a form of contributing and making material available for the general user and contrary to what User:Inevercry expect not all material uploaded has wiki articles. I've uploaded photos of landscapes, phone booths and flowers - to name a few - and they don’t have wiki articles. As per portraits I didn't know we’re not allowed to upload those so I will avoid in the future. user: AnaMariaSmith

You don't have to re-upload deleted images. If you submit COM:OTRS permission for them, and everything checks out, they can be restored, as long as they're in COM:SCOPE. As for images of people, the reason we require someone to be notable is that otherwise we would end up with millions of images of non-notable people, mostly for promotional purposes. Commons isn't Facebook. Landscapes and flowers have educational value as long as the images are of sufficient quality, but a photo of a non-notable person doesn't have educational value, which is the key requirement of Commons scope. INeverCry 18:08, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Preview image too high

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T13243

Visualization

Please go to File:Brunnenpfeife.png and click edit and then Show preview. The thumbnail shown there is clearly too high (1367px) to be useful. Is there no limit for the height? --Leyo 16:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The image preview when you're editing a file page is scaled down only in width (to 220px). The height of the image is ignored --moogsi (blah) 23:10, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

If one would like to change this, one would have to specify {width}x{height}px in MediaWiki:Previewnote (and sub-pages) but this would ignore the user's prefs completely. -- Rillke^(q?) 23:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I am aware that the limit is 220px in width, but I would prefer if both width and height are limited. I found an even more extreme example: 2429px. Isn't it possible to define the max. height relative to the user's pref for the width? Maybe the same or the double as the maximum? --Leyo 00:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I do not know any solution that would not involve bugzilla. So I suggest just ignoring the user's pref. Note that there is already a pending bug for implementing this preview image in MW without a hack. -- Rillke^(q?) 21:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. So, what about 220x220px? --Leyo 09:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

220px max. - A bit small, isn't it; if you want to describe some details? :-) -- Rillke^(q?) 18:55, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

What is your suggestion then? --Leyo 19:17, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I suggest more width; this isn't annoying because it doesn't add extra-scroll. At least not for non-mobile devices. How about 350x220px ? -- Rillke^(q?) 23:48, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I amended it (also for de). --Leyo 23:06, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Rillke^(q?) 10:30, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Commander Hadfield pics from ISS

Further to recent discussion here, I have now received an email from the Director of Communications at the Canadian Space Agency, confirming that pictures tweeted by Commander Chris Hadfield (@Cmdr_Hadfield) from the ISS belong to NASA and are therefore in the public domain.

Many of his pictures are fabulous views of places on Earth (see Category:Views from the International Space Station). Is there any way to automate or semi-automate their upload? Andy Mabbett (talk) 21:38, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

That's...confusing, but welcome news. Thanks for doing the legwork. — Huntster (t @ c) 22:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I had emailed the cabinet minister in charge of the CSA a few days ago about the same issue. I wonder if that helped clarify.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:31, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Another user has falsely tagged all three of images in that category, which I uploaded in the last hour, as "missing essential source information", and tagged them for speedy deletion. He also helpfully asked me in an edit summary to read Commons:Licensing. His initial explanation on my talk page is incomprehensible, and he has failed to clarify it. Andy Mabbett (talk) 22:51, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd rather say Mabbett is unwilling to cooperate. --High Contrast (talk) 22:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

You might say that; but then you'd be lying, in addition to having already insulted me on my talk page. Andy Mabbett (talk) 22:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Not true. Anyway, read my comment on your talk page. Bye, High Contrast (talk) 23:06, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, this information is going in the permission line of the description of all three of those photos, right? (Or better yet, sent to COM:OTRS so there's an OTRS ticket number and nobody bothers you about it anymore.) --Closeapple (talk) 01:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Someone might be able to hack up a bot to import all photos posted by a Twitter stream, if they have time, but:

1. Will there be larger versions of these photos later? (Or can we get to them now somehow?) Most of the picture tweets @Cmdr_Hadfield are larger that the ones uploaded here when I click on them, but they also don't have EXIF info. It looks like adding ":large" on the end of the .jpg URL gets a larger version, but it still doesn't have EXIF info. I wonder if there's a suffix that gets "real" file with the EXIF. My concern is that, if a bot does it now without knowing how to get the full versions, then the "more original" versions show up, matching the full version to the smaller version to replace is going to be difficult.
2. Hadfield is also tweeting images that were taken by other people on the ISS. See, for example, "Spaceship command. A huge personal and professional moment for me, nicely captured in a photograph." and "Inside the Cupola in the shadow of the Earth, our nighttime. Very cool photo by Kevin Ford.". I'm not sure that an automated process has a way of distinguishing who the photographer is, and uploading without giving credit to the proper astronaut seems a little ugly. --Closeapple (talk) 01:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't feel #1 is a real concern...if a bot is able to scrape from his twitter feed, it can append the ":large" to the end of the URL. However, #2 is a major concern. Images from other NASA astronauts would be fine (though crediting their images to Hadfield would be inappropriate), but if he tweets a Russian crew member's image, this would be problematic. You also wouldn't be able to guarantee that the tweet itself is going to be descriptive enough for the image description line, or for that matter, even on-topic. This isn't a "refereed" database that can be trawled, and so it is probably best that a human uploads any of his images. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The spaceship command photo doesn't look like Kibō to me, and it is not one of the Russian modules, if it's the US lab or a US node it is cool, but if it is Columbus it's not cool. As for the photographer it's credited to the agency that owns the module in this case because nobody is holding the camera, there is a remote possibly it's on self timer, which I think is less likely. I'd figure it is most likely a still from a HD videolink as they look like they are having a chat with GC. You can match up the hatchway in the background with a video tour of the station. I don't have the energy to do it for you. If it has exif info that would tell you it's self timer, there are heaps of flashy($$$) nikons on board, otherwise it's Video. Look for the video.

There are not more than 6 crew members at a time at the moment, from the time that the US government ended it's human spaceflight program and began relying on buying seats on Russian craft which was last year I think, until maybe next year or later when Russia increases flights and resumes privately funded travellers (tourism). So you can work out it's a machine shot or who takes the photo if 2 or 5 people are shown and you know the date it is taken, because the crew is always 3 or 6. There are no random overloads of visitors for the short 1 week stays anymore.

Copyright for the station, as far as which countries laws apply depends on the module. Kibō is Japanese law, all of the Russian segment including the station's bridge is Russian territory, Columbus is ESA, which is a few countries together, (NOT the same as the EU). NASA photos are free, no other country gives out free images. (is why I learnt to draw. For the Chinese/Russian stations and ships, after the ISS, there are no more free images, period.) You'd need to check each image's photographer, and see if it is a NASA published video feed out of Kibō, which is ok if NASA publish it rather than the JSA.

There are far too many ISS pics to be useful, and some of the NASA stuff, even the 'official expedition stuff' is only of interest to the humourless, like this inspiring STS-135 Shuttle mission imagery, Woo-Hoo, and WOW ! eye-popping eye-candy here, control yourself, plenty more where that came from. Maybe some of the twitter stuff is ok, but too much people shaking hands is mind-numbing. Penyulap ☏ 06:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

You will note that I referred to " fabulous views of places on Earth". Andy Mabbett (talk) 15:34, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah! well, I'd go with otrs + nasa-pd. Penyulap ☏ 00:44, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The question was " Is there any way to automate or semi-automate their upload?" Andy Mabbett (talk) 21:37, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I would assume it would be fairly easy (for someone else, not me yet) to cook up a bot run to grab the tweets and linked files, given a list of the tweets (or the tweets' URLs) that have been human-inspected to make sure they don't have license/attribution problems. --Closeapple (talk) 01:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes it is very easy to do. There are plenty of bots copying from other projects, you just find someone who likes to write scripts and ask. In my case, a new friend came out of nowhere with an offer to help with a project I outlined on a sub-page of a userpage and wrote a much more complicated bot just like that. 'Was incredible. The people at commons:BRFA would know, though they don't do much talking sometimes, there are category lists of bots, start on the userpage of a bot and click the categories.

or just check recent uploads on the left of this page, there are plenty of people who copy things from outside projects, click 'show bots' Penyulap ☏ 04:57, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

March 16

Automatic production of credit lines for Commons images

I've written some code to generate credit lines for any image on Commons. It's a bit like Gadget-Stockphoto but is designed for batch processing large numbers of images, so instead of scraping Commons directly, it goes through the xml and sql data dump files. The code is a bit messy, though! It's at User:HYanWong/imagenames2credits.pl if anyone is interested. HYanWong (talk) 05:35, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I do not know the details of your code, and I did not tried it, but any code trying to automatically make sense of often messy file descriptions will run into trouble. It is a little of "trash in trash out" problem. For example Gadget-Stockphoto suggested attribution for File:Deborah ReadFranklin.jpg is "By oil on canvas by Benjamin Wilson (Attributed)[see page for license], via Wikimedia Commons", which makes little sense to me. Gadget-Stockphoto attribution for File:Alexander Phimister Proctor - Buffalo - Walters 2815 - Side A.jpg is "Walters Art Museum [Public domain, CC-BY-SA-3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0) or GFDL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html)], via Wikimedia Commons", which is quite wrong since the photo is not in PD. It is hard for people to figure those things out, and it is even harder for automatic codes. --Jarekt (talk) 12:48, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Nice. Seems to me you are doing extra work as you do not take into account our Commons:Machine-readable_data (through which you can retrieve license URLs for example).

(relevant to this discussion is usecommons, a Python library written by User:skagedal which emulates StockPhoto).

As for the “trash in, trash out” problem Jarekt mentions, a solution is to enforce better standards in that respect − a relevant proposal is User:Rillke/Technical file description policy. We simply do not label complex media well enough. If we deem this a problem, then we can improve our labelling and the tools to take it into account (the template {{Copyright information}} is an interesting step in that respect).

But I would be curious to really know the extent of the problem. Lots of our media are straight Own work / CC-BY-SA for which there are no problems, for example.

Jean-Fred (talk) 13:52, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I am all for better standards, however they are hard to enforce. We have huge backlog of uncategorized images, 125k images with no author information, and plenty of images like this one that did not have a license since it's upload in 2008. I guess one think a process for credit line creation should be able to do is to recognize incomplete data and not suggest anything if license of author is missing. --Jarekt (talk) 11:53, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

New template

User:Canoe1967/Template:otrs-reponse. I find myself far too often typing out this response. Feel free to kick it around and move it to main space once we have consensus. It may be far easier to respond with a template such as this.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:49, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. --Jarekt (talk) 12:26, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

The grammar in the first sentence is a little strange; it makes it sound like the point is that the photographer is not the subject. Maybe it should be more like "Please note that the photographer is the copyright holder of the photo. The people in the photo do not get the copyright, unless the photographer has sold or transferred the copyright on purpose." --Closeapple (talk) 00:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Category:Media without a license: needs history check

I sometimes run CatScan2 queries to find images without licenses. Mostly older images that are on our system for years, and sometimes had no licenses for years. Most of the images I find require a careful edit history check, since most of the time they had a license at some point, but somebody removed it: by mistake, as undetected vandalism, as botched transfer from wikipedia, by introducing typo in license name, etc. So far I was trying to correct those by myself and restore the original license or add {{No license}} templates. However I was "fixing" some of them too fast and angering some uploaders by slapping too many {{No license}} templates. So I am trying a different approach and just add them into Category:Media without a license: needs history check category. See that category for more details on types of files that might get caught by this check. I would appreciate some help with fixing files in this category. --Jarekt (talk) 13:08, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

By the way if this query request ever gets through, we might have much more of those. --Jarekt (talk) 13:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I found now a few files where the editor has deleted the license while adding other info, so I was not enough warned.Wouter (talk) 14:03, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

There are several files which have a FlickreviewR license review confirming a free license but no actual tag (example). Is it possible to have a bot go through these and add the tag corresponding to the license that FlickreviewR confirmed? January (talk) 18:53, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I have seen quite a few of those. It is possible to bot process those, although it would be easier if we find all the files like that first. --Jarekt (talk) 19:27, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Feedback comments on selected images

Following a discussion back in January (here), I've opened an RFC on enabling a version of the "article feedback" tool on Commons. All thoughts and comments welcome! Andrew Gray (talk) 20:36, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Kirchner and the Pope

Are those images [12] elegible to Commons? As I know it images from Casa Rosada (Argentina's Government) are public domain. MachoCarioca (talk) 20:43, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Not public domain, but they are CC-BY-SA - you can upload them using the {{CC-AR-Presidency}} tag. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:49, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok thanks. MachoCarioca (talk) 22:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

March 19

New editor familiarisation ideas for professionals

I think there is a problem with the way that we drive professional photographers off the project. While I don't disagree with the flaming torch-bearing crowds who do so, I think sometimes they really get caught up and carried away. Jealousy mixed with 'self esteem' seems the main problem, when people think themselves brilliant sitting on the couch playing X-Box all day and using the project to prove how great they are, when they see someone with an obvious talent it drives them to the logic lock "They can't be better than me at something, because I'm the best at everything perfect in fact, must be their fault I feel this confusion, better to eliminate their existence". It leads to such nasty denial-based arguments.

The thing is, there are so many *nice* professional photographers out there who get the shaft when they come here. I'd go to great lengths to entertain such interesting well travelled people in real life, and I want to explain honestly how badly screwed their going to get on commons. Perhaps we can organise like a questionnaire to help them identify if they will attract the unwanted attention of the euphoric enthusiastic lynch mobs they just wouldn't find anywhere else, with questions like..

Assess your risk: the higher you score the more at-risk from witch-hunts your professional reputation will be on commons.

You like to photograph:

• your genitalia + 1 point
• someone else's genitalia + 2 point
• both + 3 points
• none of the above +10 points

your last trip involved:

• the kitchen + 1 point
• the bathroom + 1 point
• the whole day or more + 5 points
• a passport +10 points

and then recommendations for people according to how they score from say ten questions...

10 points - no problems

11-40 points - pretend you are just here to drop off the pics and are too busy to do anything else. Banner on your talkpage "I'm never here, go away, don't bother leaving messages"

41-70 points - if you insist on uploading a large number of high quality images to commons, don't incur the wrath of the rabble. Pretend to be stealing someone elses work at first, upload them as copyvio's until you get seriously chastised then pretend to have contacted the author and send your own OTRS ticket so you can continue to upload your own work as if you were just copying someone elses.

70-100 points - Just use flickr, someone will steal your work and upload it here, that's the best you can hope for. Don't use commons, you'll be happier, they'll be happier, everyone will be happy.

I do see more and more professionals with brilliant work getting badly treated, so I figure this is a good idea. Penyulap ☏ 04:12, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• I assume this is intended as sarcasm, but I have little idea what actual incidents you are referring to. - Jmabel ! talk 05:45, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

well it's a serious matter, and I am very seriously wanting to assist the shock and horror effect that editors experience. Look I know some people live to inflict pain on others, but wiki is not supposed to be therapy, so warning people of the problems they may face seems prudent. I admit the questions need work, how do you identify these poor blighters ?

Oh, to answer your question, I recall Dmitri, an exceptionally talented person had won a long list of awards from the likes of national geographic magazine and was hounded and even blocked as well for thinking that the project might like his images, (you know, without being copied from somewhere else) and now the exact same thing is happening to an equally talented but slightly more colourful character, who's facing even worse treatment, worse because I hear a lot of people claim that commons is different to english wikipedia which is where the last one started.

That editors name is Tomascastelazo and I can't see just why we need to drive these people away in such a cruel fashion. Surely there must be a more agreeable way to tell them to fuck off, I mean without saying 'fuck off' like some admins do, but a nicer way to say that jealous types don't like the competition, we'd rather these photographers upload their work to a site like flicker and then we can copy it across to commons and pretend we created it, and take credit.

I've been here a short time, and it seems to be forming a trend, I don't know if there have been similar cases, and I don't want it to happen to my friend Heather, she's quite agreeable. Penyulap ☏ 07:08, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

@Jmabel, while it may look at sarcasm, it's Penyulap's usual way of muddying meta discussions. It's nearly always a clever mixture of facts, completely unrelated issues, hidden insults, and twisted reasoning. Though he looks to be talented in photo-lab work, I never really understood the true intention for his recent massive involvement in meta discussions. However, after observing him for some weeks now on Commons, I can somehow understand why he was indef-blocked on :en.

The case of Tomascastelazo is dealt with here: Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#User:Tomascastelazo. It is surely sad to see productive and talented users follow such a path, but it was clearly by his own choosing. After 1 (one) of his uploads had been deleted in the 2nd DR for being a derivative of a copyrighted character, he ran amok. He accused the deleting admin and others of "unlawful deletion", "vandalizing"[13], "censoring", "racism"[14], threatened and opened revenge-deletions[15][16][17] etc. etc.

True, we give a productive user a bit more "leeway" than a user who has uploaded only copyvios or crap images. But there are limits even for highly-productive users. Tomascastelazo had earlier been blocked for the same behaviour issues already 3 times.

Just for comparison: this comment was posted by another talented contributor who got one of his featured-picture uploads speedy-deleted due to 2 consecutive errors in the assessment of the copyright status by 2 users, 1 an admin. Though the image was restored within 4 hours, he would have been fully justified to be angry about this undeserved temporary deletion. However, instead of running amok such as Tomascastelazo, he left the above linked polite, though clear posting on COM:AN. What did he get? 2 admins and another experienced user (all uninvolved) said Sorry, explained the underlying issues or answered his questions. Outcome: all are on good terms and the meta-working users got a reminder to look careful into every deletion request.

--Túrelio (talk) 10:11, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

That's outrageous, I have never, ever, ever, been accused online of being a professional photographer. Don't anyone dare tar me with that brush in an effort to dismiss everything I have to say. Find some other popular brush to tar me with if you're trying to dismiss everything I have to say and distract everyone from the topic at hand. Penyulap ☏ 10:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh (blush) sorry, I mis-read that, I thought you said I was a photographer rather than blocked on en.wiki. Sorry bout that, carry on tarring. you missed a spot. Penyulap ☏ 10:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Well the admin blocking has advised that the professional photographer "never come back again under his recent name" which is his real name, that fits in nicely with the 41-70 points advice

41-70 points - if you insist on uploading a large number of high quality images to commons, don't incur the wrath of the rabble. Pretend to be stealing someone else's work at first, upload them as copyvio's until you get seriously chastised then pretend to have contacted the author and send your own OTRS ticket so you can continue to upload your own work as if you were just copying someone else's.

This makes the whole process of fitting in a lot easier. We don't want professionals around here making people irrational with jealousy, and we should try to smooth the horrible arguments that result, because it clearly hurts the project where people are being de-facto banned using the Innocent prisoner's dilemma as a weapon to prevent their valuable contributions. Penyulap ☏ 02:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

March 18

What happened to Special:MovePage in the dropdown?

Instead of the good old "Move" link in the dropdown, there's this "Move & Replace". How do I get rid of it? It's a nuisance when working at COM:HMS (and surely at many other special venues as well). Rehman 13:37, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, for history merging and splitting, Move&Replace is not useful. That's why I added some explanation to the page you mentioned about how one can turn this feature off. It is my intention to split out Move&Replace from the AjaxQuickDelete so it can be disabled separately: MediaWiki talk:Gadget-AjaxQuickDelete.js#Split out tools requiring elevated privileges aka user rights

The background for the change I made can be read at an old version of COM:AN: Special:Permalink/85525017#File moving: "Move & Replace" vs. "Move". -- Rillke^(q?) 20:01, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Disabled AjaxQuickDelete in Preferences (didn't realize it was a separate gadget), but still there is this script thing loading with the green box. How do I completely disable these addons so that I only have the default features?. Rehman 01:22, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll make some changes later today so it is easier to disable the gadget(s)/ certain functionality. At this stage, the gadgets RenameLink, QuickDelete and Autodel depend on AjaxQuickDelete if any of them is enabled, AjaxQuickDelete is loaded (and unfortunately it messes with the UI which is very bad practise for a gadget that is reused). The plan is to break AjaxQuickDelete into a "core" (as invisible gadget) and creating separate gadgets for the links. -- Rillke^(q?) 10:27, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I've disabled all those gadgets you've mentioned, and things are back to how it should be. I seriously think all these addons should be disabled by default; only available as an option in Prefs. Not the other way around, where the user should disable addons... Not being a pest, but is there any consensus on whether or not these should be enabled by default? Because I for one would strongly oppose enabling them by default. Rehman 13:50, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

There are good reasons for the Nominate for deletion link and also for Move&Replace (which is generally accepted for quite a while) here at Commons. Do you really want filemovers manually adding their request to the delinker page or do you intend asking people to create deletion requests by hand? Or seeking for reasons why they do not have a move link on file pages? If you are not convinced, you are free asking the community whether they want these options disabled. -- Rillke^(q?) 23:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I guess you're right; there's more good to it than bad (considering the fact that we can easily disable it). Thanks. Rehman 00:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Noncommercial by the back door

This user's custom license template gives re-users two options: noncommercial use under CC-BY-NC, or commercial use under GFDL 1.2 with a copy of or URL to the full license - an impractical requirement that will almost certainly never be met in a commercial context. As if that wasn't bad enough, it even goes so far as to say "If you require a less restrictive commercial license please email me to negotiate terms".

This is a blatant attempt to evade our restriction on non-free images. If I understand our policy on acceptable licenses, even offering CC-BY-NC as an option is not permitted. — Hex (❝?!❞) 14:35, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but wrong and wrong. As GFDL is an accepted license on Commons, the licensor may add any other license of his/her choice. Please read Commons:Licensing#Acceptable licenses correctly: You can offer as many licenses for a file as you want as long as at least one of them meets the criteria for free licenses above. For example, files under a "non-commercial" license are OK only if they are at the same time also released under a free license that allows commercial use.. --Túrelio (talk) 14:41, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Túrelio is right that users may add whatever licenses they wish (free or unfree) as long as there is at least one free licence to pass COM:L − this is covered by Commons:Multi-licensing.

The catch is that the GFDL 1.2 is “unfree in practice”, and you are right Hex that these people use it as a loophole to have as non-commercial as can be here − all easier for me to claim as they do not even try to deny it. One might want to read the debate that took place at Commons_talk:Featured_picture_candidates five months ago, which eventually resulted in disallowing "GFDL only" and "GFDL and an NC-only license" for Featured pictures.

Jean-Fred (talk) 15:34, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed the text that you quote, Túrelio, which is from the multi-licensing section. You are correct that I am mistaken in that respect. I'll stand by my feelings on the matter, though, which I see from Jean-Frédéric are not unique to me. That the situation is actually explicitly allowed by Commons policy is, well... disappointing is one of several words I could use. — Hex (❝?!❞) 16:21, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

GFDL-only images, as everyone knows, will eventually be forbidden. However, the people disliking CC licenses have kept very vocal since 2009, and in general nobody cares, so it will probably require some more years. --Nemo 11:21, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Particularly since one condition the WMF set out for disallowing GFDL was the strengthening of CC's Share-Alike terms (see meta:Licensing update/Questions and Answers#Images), and CC seem to have decided not to strengthen these in their 4.0 license revision. Maybe in another 5 years (CC-5.0?) there will be some progress on that front.

Hex, the main reason I've seen expressed for disliking the GFDL is its requirement that a full copy of the license be attached, with a mere link to the license not being sufficient. The custom license you point to explicitly allows merely linking to the GFDL, which would seem to make the license's practicality similar to CC-BY-SA (which also recommends providing a link to the license). Do you have a different reason for disliking the GFDL? --Avenue (talk) 16:33, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Personally I don't see why we don't just open the front door. It may conflict with the "free licencing" idea, but then for many purposes so does the impracticality of GFDL. I'd rather have a CC-BY-NC only image than a GFDL-only image, and either is preferable to not having a good image at all. Rd232 (talk) 12:50, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, this is not really something that is opened for debate. See wmf:Mission statement. Jean-Fred (talk) 16:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm aware of that (though it's not actually written in stone). But explaining my approach to the issue clarifies why I'm fine with the back door. Rd232 (talk) 16:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Problems with new uploads

Hello all. For two days I am facing with some problems regarding new uploads of existing files. I am updating the maps of the municipalities of Macedonia, and yesterday and today when I upload the new version, I still see the old one. No traces of the new one. What's the problem? Example (you can see the small scale new upload, but not at the main image). Best--Никола ^{Стоіаноски} 10:14, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

They look the same to me. Try Ctrl-F5 on the page (in Firefox, Chrome or IE) to refresh the page from the server and not your browser cache --moogsi (blah) 11:14, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

This is an issue from a few months back reoccuring. No matter how much you ctrl+F5 it doesn't fix it. Just append ?randomtextstring to the end of the URL and it will reload it properly. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:21, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

You can always see the current version of any image by appending ?action=purge to the end of the file url. Not the image description page but the actual file:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d5/Map_of_Saraj_Municipality%2C_Macedonia.svg?action=purge

Eventually the Wikimedia software will catch up and things will display normally. – JBarta (talk) 11:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I tried refresh, Ctrl+F5, reuploading, and it still displays the old version. It started last night, until then I have updated more than 20 maps. Only on few maps, the thumbnails are correct, the map is still the old one.--Никола ^{Стоіаноски} 11:38, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Like I said, this is a software bug, and in time it will be fixed. Until then you can't do much about thumbnails (purge doesn't seem to work), but appending ?stuff will at least let you see the current version of the image. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:43, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

One other little "hack"... in an article, if you change the image width slightly (like from 200px to 202px) a new thumbnail is generated and always from the current image... and the updated image is displayed in the article. This works unless of course there is already a previous 202px thumbnail in the system. – JBarta (talk) 12:04, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you all. Have a nice day!--Никола ^{Стоіаноски} 12:12, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I had a similar problem today, even after all the tricks above and deletion + undeletion the thumb was still of n old version. I had to move the image to get it updated. I assume Wikimedia has some Database problems as I get frequent time-outs/database locks while deleting images - this may side-effect the thumbservers as well. --Denniss (talk) 21:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T48350

Possibly bugzilla:46350? --McZusatz (talk) 16:25, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Help needed with permissions

Can somebody please fix the permissions on my picture upload: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Eiskanal_passing_Corkscrew_entering_Carousel.jpg

The FlickreviewR bot found a problem, but I don't think there is one. Thank you. HowardMorland (talk) 14:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

You asked the Flickr bot to look for an image that is not on Flickr. That was the problem. Please see Category:Panoramio review needed. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:14, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I have now asked for a Panoramio review. HowardMorland (talk) 16:34, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

It's all fixed now. Thanks again. HowardMorland (talk) 12:20, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Los Angeles County Museum of Art collection

Hi, LACMA have more than 20 000 photos under PD. It's very lengthy to copy them to commons. Is existing some tool for easy upload like Flick2commons or some agreement with this museum about some mass transfer? Dominikmatus (talk) 22:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

see above :) Rbrausse (talk) 22:38, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

March 20

CommonSense not working

Does anyone know why the files transfered from Wikipedia using the CommonsHelper are currently not categorized automatically? It's really annoying. --Leyo 08:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

lols the title, I don't think commonsense has ever worked on wiki :D Penyulap ☏ 18:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikimedia is blocked on March 18th in English, for users who are not connected

Could you manage to unblock the main page and let users access March 20th infos ? Thanks a lot --77.196.32.124 13:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Could you elaborate, please? Try purging the Main Page. HF (talk) 13:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Category:Demolished buildings and the purpose of the category system

Further to this CFD. Note that "Demolished buildings" is a subcat of "Former buildings" and means "buildings totally not there any more because they were demolished" (the obliqueness of the concept is part of what got it nominated in the first place).

The question it raises is: are we categorizing media so people can find it, or are we categorizing everything that exists? This category is for a characteristic of the building, and is only very vaguely related to the media in the category. Unless there is media of its destruction, which would be more easily found in Category:Building demolition.

The question isn't really about the category: I don't seriously think that this category can be pruned off, as it has grown into a lovely tree over time :P but rather, does it matter that the category is not useful for finding media?

The most obvious example for me is Category:People by date of death and its 12 trillion subcats, although I suspect they are a hangover from wikipedia, where they do actually serve a more obvious purpose.

Perhaps the only thing you know about a building is that it was demolished, or the only thing you know about a person is when they died? Maybe intersecting categories would make these categories more helpful for finding stuff? But really, if you are looking for a particular person/building, are you not better off doing your research somewhere else? --moogsi (blah) 04:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Although I have just noticed Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2012/10/Category:Dead_men, a discussion about people where the category is useless for a similar reason. In "Dead men" you find would have found many media of alive men, just as "Demolished buildings" is full of media of intact buildings --moogsi (blah) 05:02, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• I think Category:Demolished buildings and Category:Former buildings are mainly there as supercategories for other categories. For example, it's useful within a category of schools in a particular city to have a subcategory of those that have been demolished, and it's more or less our pattern that when we have categories like that with a commonality we build a top-level category to embrace them. - Jmabel ! talk 05:13, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Right down to the level of Category:Demolished buildings in Frankfurt-Höchst or whatever, these categories convey no relevant information about the media. You are imagining a hypothetical situation where any of the media in any of these categories have anything in common with each other beyond the fact they were demolished. It doesn't exist. And even if it did exist, if people are actually looking to find out which buildings in a particular school district have been demolished, then imo they are are looking for it in the wrong place in a media repository. We're not wikipedia (evidenced by having cats which would be useless over there, things by color, etc.) Where's the line here? :)

IMO you should expect the category system to help you find media, not help you find out about things. Browse and read category and file descriptions and you will learn stuff, but we shouldn't be putting information like this in the category system. I'm sure people have varied opinions on this, though. For example that we should act as a building database, or a database of everything, and the more information we can cram in, the merrier. But, general disclaimer: *other sources of information are available :) --moogsi (blah) 14:06, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• Maybe we could have a variation of the category header {{Categorise}} which says "This category mostly exists for organisational reasons; it's not really useful to categorise files into this category. Please categorise media as specifically as possible into one of this category's subcategories." Rd232 (talk) 12:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Media is so often categorized by what it depicts; for me there is sort of a hidden distinction between purely "organizational" categories and ones which help you find media:

• 12th century buildings, People of Italy: I can expect a category like this and its subcats to help me find media because the content of each category may be somehow otherwise related to each other (technology/material, style, function; culture, language, historical context). As you go down these categories, the distinctions become more helpful, as obviously builings in the same decade / city will have more in common.
• Demolished buildings, Dead men: I can expect a category like this and its subcats to help me find media because ____________________________________. As you go down these categories, the distinctions do nothing (people who died in the same county, buildings that used to be in the same town). Categories like this aren't helpful and I'd rather nuke them than have people try to work around them, or waste time populating them. But I have a feeling I'm in the minority :) --moogsi (blah) 14:06, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

It's true there are a lot of categories, many imported from Wikipedia, that aren't really relevant for a media repository. Tackling this systematically would take a lot of energy, not least because there will always be disagreements. So by and large I'd say we could try and identify the less useful ones for diffusion, but not worry about it too much. Rd232 (talk) 14:42, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I think that you need such categories as a place holder and era separation. If a number of famous buildings have been erased and made place for a nice park, we have problems placing it. Same if a building gets replaced with a new one. People tend to move it all in the category with the most recent name. Something similar is needed for example for a large school that used several buildings with different names and places spread over a city/area; people constantly try to merge it in the top level current name category.

While at the root level, Former buildings and demolished buildings seems pretty much equivalent. At the subcat level however, they are quite different as they refer to a former function. Many former train stations are now pubs, restaurants or shops. --Foroa (talk) 15:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Bah; where were you yesterday? :P --moogsi (blah) 19:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Earle House, Cane Hill, Arkansas

First of all, I'm a total newbie to Wikipedia Commons. I only discovered its existence last night when I tried to correct an error in a Wikipedia article. The property pictured as "Earle House" in Cane Hill, Arkansas USA is actually the house in front of the Earle House, which is in a severe state of decay. I tried to upload a picture I took of the ruins, but don't seem to have the right answers to the licensing questions. It asks for "creator" and I tried entering both my sceen name (Brezelfenster) and my real name. The "bot" likes neither.

The incorrect image shows up under Arkansas Historic Registry Arkansas Properties as well. I live in this town, and am an amateur historian. Can someone help me correct this? - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brezelfenster (talk • contribs)

• That seems weird. There are several ways people upload images. Can you clarify exactly what you did and where you hit a problem? - Jmabel ! talk 01:47, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

You have successfully uploaded the image, which I renamed to a more descriptive title and added missing information. Ruslik (talk) 06:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• The "incorrect image" Brezelfenster is talking about is File:Earle House (Canehill, Arkansas) .jpg, which he has nominated for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Earle House (Canehill, Arkansas) .jpg. I've now edited the description on that file; since it's a little blurry and isn't actually the historic house, it may or may not meet COM:SCOPE. Meanwhile, since his own photo File:Earle.jpeg is now at File:Earle House, Canehill, Arkansas.jpeg, he can use that as a replacement for the "wrong" house photo on en:Earle House (Canehill, Arkansas). --Closeapple (talk) 18:31, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Old RFCs

I've archived/closed a number of RFCs today. For the record, they were:

• Request for Comments on the OTRS system. (9 January 2012) - archived 21 March 2013
• this one is only for German interface users: - archived 21 March 2013
• Request for comments about how to improve Commons' Search. (28 February 2012) - archived 21 March 2013
• Request for comments about how to reduce the need for Commons and other Wikimedia projects to comply with US copyright laws. (1 March 2012) - archived 21 March 2013
• Request for comments on making Commons:Grandfathered old files an official Wikimedia Commons guideline. (4 March 2012) - archived 21 March 2013
• Commons:WikiProject Public Domain has been created to organise and review PD files (10 March 2012) - archived 21 March 2013

As a result of one of these RFCs, Commons:Grandfathered old files was promoted to guideline status. If anyone wants to pursue any of the issues, please feel free to do so (including discussing here how to if you want). Rd232 (talk) 13:08, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

images used in a category

Given a category of images, is there a way to determine which (if any) of those images are being used? (other than checking each individually) – JBarta (talk) 19:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

In your preferences, enable the gadget "GLAMorous". This will add a link to the toolbox menu on the left ("GLAMorous"). Click this link while looking at a category to see the file usage. --rimshot^talk 00:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

It's like I walk into a bar and ask "Is the beer free around here?" and the bartender says "Why yes, yes it is." Thanks bartender! – JBarta (talk) 00:30, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Help:Gadget-GlobalUsageUI - in some rare cases it seems to fail but generally it does it. Or simply click Usage of all files in the tool box (sidebar) which is part of the default extraTabs2 gadget. -- Rillke^(q?) 23:41, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Good to know this. Thanks! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:14, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

indicating file description language

I know descriptions can be and often are multilingual, but I'm wondering if there's any way to group or indicate images (template or category, maybe?) that are described in a particular language? I'm thinking this might be useful for maintenance, particularly for smaller languages -- for instance indicating uncategorized images that could benefit from review by someone who reads the language that they are described in; and perhaps for translation. Is there anything like this? Thanks, sorry if this is an old issue. -- Phoebe (talk) 02:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing... you need to be reasonably fluent in the language in question AND English to categorize things. Uploads in minority languages are pretty rare, people generally don't upload in African languages if they can do it in French/English/etc. The last images to be categorized are often in something like Malayalam, which is far from a minority language, but seems to lack good translation tools into non-Indic languages. Chinese text is also notoriously difficult to machine-translate. I think filenames and descriptions are pretty good targets for automatic translation, they often involve proper nouns and aren't complicated. Unless you are doing English ↔ German translation with Google, which is still shockingly bad :) --moogsi (blah) 04:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and the actual answer to the question, if I'd remember that, is "no", there is nothing set up to find "Media needing categorization with descriptions in [language]" or even "Media with descriptions in [language]", "Media with filenames in [language]" --moogsi (blah) 05:23, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

We do have Category:Categories by language and all her daughters, but probably not as comprehensive as described by Phœbe. Jean-Fred (talk) 08:38, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Sending it to the right category inside Category:Unidentified subjects by country might already help. --Foroa (talk) 14:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I was thinking about this because I came across a group of uncategorized images described in Hebrew, which is also notoriously bad with machine translation. It would be nice to have those in a place that we could point Hebrew speakers to in order to help out with! -- Phoebe (talk) 16:03, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

{{Description insufficient}} does this, categorising into eg Category:Media with insufficient description (mr). It's not widely used, but it's there. Rd232 (talk) 12:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

That's useful, but doesn't seem quite right for files that are described perfectly adequately but in a language that is not widely read. Phoebe (talk) 18:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

no, it's intended for such files: The description for this file does not provide enough information to adequately identify the subject to a broad audience. Please provide enough detail so that the subject can be identified by readers of at least some major language (from which others can translate further). A description in English should be added if possible. {{Description insufficient|he}} would be for Hebrew. Rd232 (talk) 21:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

It's certainly a much better idea than Commons:Requests for translation, which is a mess. {{Description insufficient}} is a fine idea, but the name isn't too great. Also what constitutes a "major language" is a problem - if I think it would be helpful for something to be translated from Chinese into English, there's no point in saying the description is insufficient because hundreds of millions of people already understand it. Unfortunately, English is kind of the de facto default language on Commons. (Of course I am saying that I should be able to tag stuff for translation into English (I'm too lazy to learn anything else :P). Or to specify a target language. --moogsi (blah) 09:55, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

If you have an idea for a better template name, let's hear it - we can rename it easily enough, or create a redirect. I'm not sure about requesting target language; I think that may be unnecessary complexification, at this stage anyway. Rd232 (talk) 23:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree, it's no good because you may as well consider every image on commons to be in that category, and therefore you don't need a tag. Penyulap ☏ 18:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The most "natural" translation will be there when the file is properly categorised by all its aspects. Don't count on all sorts of special templates and categories to get a translation going. If people find the file in a category that they feel concerned with, such as "unidentified things in yyy", they will notice that there is language problem and we have a good chance that they will improve the description. --Foroa (talk) 10:45, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Video file size limit

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T48432

Is there a maximum file size for ogv-files? I am aware of the maximum file size policy of 100 MB, on the other hand I saw videos here that are larger. Currently I am preparing a video of sled dogs which is (in ogv format) as big as 778 MB - at 6:23 minutes and 1920x1080. Eliminating the audio (wind and sounds of the sliding sled) does not reduce the size significantly. I could shorten it or reduze the dimensions, but that would contradict the policy of loading up the best possible quality. --Tsui (talk) 20:48, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

You may go up to 500MB using Chunked uploads. Bigger videos were uploaded through a Server-side upload − you are welcome to request one. :) Jean-Fred (talk) 22:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! I will edit the film, cutting it a bit to a size under 500 MB (it's no cineastic masterpiece, so this won't hurt too much), and try the chunked upload. --Tsui (talk) 23:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

You’re welcome. Note that if cutting to 500MB turns out too damaging for the video there is really no problem with requesting a server-side upload − folks here may help with the request if needed. Cheers, Jean-Fred (talk) 23:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Problem with requesting a server-side upload is that it requires a bugzilla-account. When beginning to create one, there appears the warning "Activity on most bugs, including email addresses, will be visible to the public", which keeps me from progressing. I don't want to make my e-mail public and I do not have a secondary or tertiary e-mail adress for which I don't care about spam.

So, after quite a lot of cutting, editing and re-editing I ended up with a film reduced to 1280x720 and 421 MB, which is sufficient for its contents. I tried - respectively am currently trying again - to load it up with the chunked upload feature. First time the progress bar increased for less than a tenth of the full bar, then stopped, while the estimated upload time kept growing steadily until I broke off the upload at "9 hours 3 minutes and 56 seconds remaining". Currently the progress bar stopped increasing at about a fifth of the full length and the counter for the remaining time started going up again, predicting 46 minutes and 33 seconds at the moment but still increasing rapidly. A bug report won't be filed for the above reason.

I didn't expect uploading larger movies to be that complicated. --Tsui (talk) 22:12, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd suggest splitting the movie into three parts (~250-300Mb) and using my my upload tool, Commons:Up!, to get the job done. Chunked uploading (and especially so with Upload Wizard) is still a broken little piece of shit, and I get the impression that the devs really couldn't give more of a flying fuck. Good luck mate. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I've seen that tool. But if I understand it right the movie (at 421 MB) would have to be splitted and we would end up with two or three separate files instead of one. Or is there a misunderstanding on my side? --Tsui (talk) 22:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, yeah, as Fastily says, chunked uploads can be a little shaky. It’s still an experimental feature. :-/

I understand the reasons you are not willing to create an account on Bugzilla. I can make the request for you, if you pass me along the requirements (mostly the file location on some accessible server). The upload will be credited to your username. Jean-Fred (talk) 23:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Getting complicated, I didn't want to make so much fuss about a "little" movie that is far from being a masterpiece, rather made of some wiggly impressions. But I will try to get some webspace somewhere that is accessible publicly and without password, where I can put the files (ogv, txt). Currently I do not maintain any webspace, but that should be no problem. When the files are online I will contact you. Thank you for the offer! --Tsui (talk) 23:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Sure :) Jean-Fred (talk) 00:08, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Just install Dropbox, upload the video there and let me know — I can help with the rest of the details, since I have requested server-side-uploads a lot of times already. odder (talk) 01:48, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

For a file as large as 778MB, I highly recommend using bittorrent software for efficient, reliable transfer. Modern bittorrent programs such as Deluge have support for DHT (AKA ‘trackerless’) and magnet links, which make this sort of task easy. So that means the process for transferring a file is to just create a ‘.torrent’ file or a magnet link, send that to the receiver, and leave your computer and torrent software running while they download the file. If anything interrupts the connection, the transfer will continue from where it left off (unlike HTTP, FTP, etc.), and when the transfer completes, the BTIH verifies that the files are 100% bit-for-bit identical. Files this large are what bittorrent was made for! —James Haigh (talk) 2013-03-21T07:50:17Z

I'd recommend uploading them to Archive.org. It's a rather convenient place for files like this. I don't know if it's one of your concerns, but Archive.org also has I believe a larger body of remixers who like to do cool things with uploaded Free files.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:05, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you all! Yesterday, before the hints to Dropbox, BitTorrent and Archive.org (I like the idea of creative remixing; have to take a look since I just started film making), I wrote in Jean-Fred's discussion that the files are available at (my) Google Drive for now. I don't know yet if this is a sufficient way of making them available. --Tsui (talk) 17:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done at bugzilla:46432. No idea either if Google Drive is okay for that − we’ll see what the devs say :) Jean-Fred (talk) 20:14, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

We need a multiple-uploading option with licensing in the Commons APP.

I've written here Why We need that. I asked for help some days ago, but no-one replied.--Coentor (talk) 21:34, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

You might want to comment at mw:Wikimedia Apps/Commons or enter a bug / request a feature. Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 22:34, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Userboxes - Languages

I noticed an anomaly in the languages last year and made a note on the discussion page. But nobody reads the discussion pages so nothing will ever be done and the anomaly will continue. The thing is, I do most of my editing here in Commons, adding blazons to existing coats of arms. I would like to add a babel userbox (like I have on my Wikipedia user page), which says that I speak Blazon. Over there the code is blz (as in blazon), but here blz produces Balantak, which sharp eyed readers will note, doesn't have many Zs in it. Is there any way to get this sorted out? It seems that an Administrator is required. Is it important? No, of course not. But it would be nice when I add blazons, people could check my userpage and see that I know what I am talking about. Kiltpin (talk) 15:25, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

blz actually is the ISO 639-3 code for the Balantak language. For Blazon (I think, am I correct?) you need to "invent" a new abbreviation. Rbrausse (talk) 16:05, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

So is it Wikipedia that is wrong? Which makes the anomaly even worse, because it works over there, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kiltpin Kiltpin (talk) 16:18, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

[second conflict] define "wrong"... Normally babel boxes are based on the ISO codes, using the standardized abbreviations for something different is IMHO a Bad Idea (tm). Rbrausse (talk) 16:26, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

On en:User:Kiltpin you use {{Babel|en|de-1|blz-3}}, while here you used {{#babel:en|de-1|blz-3}}. if you try {{#babel:en|de-1|blz-3}} on en wiki page than you will get the same result as here. Template {{Babel}} is older than {{#babel}} parser function, and they differ in order of execution: {{#babel}} first checks the list of languages and than goes through local templates, while {{Babel}} does it the other way around. It is quite a mess since both systems are being used and they are 99% compatible. Some years ago there was a push to switch to new {{#babel}} system, but a lot of people were attached to the old template. --Jarekt (talk) 16:54, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I see what you mean on your en:User:Kiltpin page. However I have to say that I do not like this kind of mixing of language userboxes with other skills userboxes. There is enough of exotic languages (like Balantak) to keep us confused without need to decipher if "Blazon" is a language or not. We do have template {{User blazon-2}}, which I moved from {{User blz-2}} due to conflicts with Balantak. I do not like the idea of adding more blazon templates, and find {{User Heraldry}}, much more informative. --Jarekt (talk) 16:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks All, for the input and information. I believe that Blazon is on a par with Morse Code and sign language for the deaf, if not a language in itself, then certainly a dialect. I speak it equal to, or above -3, so thanks all the same but I won't be using {{User blazon-2}}. I'll stick with {{User Heraldry}}. Thanks again. Kiltpin (talk) 19:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Patrolling

Is there a way to see patrolled and unpatrolled edits without being granted the patroller flag?

Or to have the ability to patrol edits without being autopatrolled myself? --Ricordisamoa 06:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

2nd question: No, see Special:ListGroupRights. Why don't you want to get patroller rights? --Leyo 07:51, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm terrified to be automatically patrolled, while on it.wiki I can see and patrol unpatrolled edits, but my edits aren't patrolled themselves. --Ricordisamoa 07:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

That's because on it.wiki everyone has "patrol" right. There's no need to see what's patrolled and what not if you don't want to/can't patrol. --Nemo 08:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Fund for collecting images?

The State Library of New South Wales has an old public domain photograph (PD in Australia, PD in the US) that I'd like to obtain, and they've confirmed by email that they're happy to oblige—if I pay. So I'm going to give up my efforts, but before I do, I wanted to ask if Wikimedia has run into this before and if there are either ways around this or if there is even a fund that allows for certain photographs to be purchased, perhaps if I can prove its worth in both encyclopedic value and whatnot. I thought I'd ask. Thanks. (Also, apparently I'd have to obtain permission to upload the file here, but there'd be no fee.) – Kerαunoςcopia^◁galaxies 01:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

You don't want to know how much I pay for old books and old newspapers while on disability pay. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Did I see a notice from the Wikimedia Foundation inviting applications for funding a while ago, or was that just my imagination? — SMUconlaw (talk) 11:03, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. I contacted WMF and they agree that (to use my words) the image shouldn't be held hostage. I've ordered the image from the library at zero cost to me (hehe) with an explanation and am fully expecting either a rejection email or no response at all. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁galaxies 20:08, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

March 21

Seeking opinions

I am seeking opinions on a couple of images I recently uploaded from flickr. [18], [19], [20]. Lots of different agencies of the US Federal government use flickr, facebook, and other social media to document their activities. Most of those images were also taken by employees of US Federal agenies, so they are in the public domain. Unfortunately some of the US employees who manage the images publish them as "all rights reserved". The images I am asking about today are:

1. marked as released under a CC liccense that does not allow derivative works.
2. explicitly credited to "Musadeq Sadeq/US State Department"

If Mr Sadeq was a full time State Department employee these image would clearly be in the public domain.

If Mr Sadeq was hired by the State Department for a week or a month or a weekend, just to record the Kajaki Dam when State Department officials visited it, would that be sufficient to make him an "employee" whose work was in the public domain?

I always try to leave a thank you note every time I upload an image from flickr. I didn't leave my standard thank you message in this case, as they didn't use a fully free license.

Since I uploaded these images I googled "Musadeq Sadeq". The Associated Press has employed a photographer with that name in Afghanistan. I think if there is just one photographer named "Musadeq Sadeq", who was being paid by AP, who provided these images to State as a courtesy, then I think the credit line should have said something like "Courtesy Musadeq Sadeq/AP".

Initially I thought it most likely that Sadeq was either an American State Department employee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geo Swan (talk • contribs) 22:03, 21 March 2013‎ (UTC)

There is a small profile page of Sadeq here. Sounds like he is an independent photographer who has licensed his work to AP and others. Definitely not a full-time State Department employee; as for the other possibility it may depend on the details of the contract. It's possible but I'm not sure it's something we can assume. The photographer appears to be on facebook and twitter; perhaps he could be contacted and asked. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:05, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

The credit line is for credit - it doesn't always imply part-ownership. It's a little counterintuitive, but a credit line of "NAME/Organisation" is often used where the organisation is a distributor for the author; they don't claim rights, but want to get their name in.

We had similar problems with the US Antarctic Program image library a few months back - every image in it was provided by private contributors, but their recommended credit line of "NAME/National Science Foundation" was mistakenly read as implying NSF were the authors/copyright holders. We ended up deleting several hundred images including a few FPs.

Given this experience, I would be very very careful in cases like this, especially if it's a known freelance photographer. Andrew Gray (talk) 13:00, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

[RenameLink] modification aborted by an extension hook

Just after uploading a file, I see sometimes the filename is not correct. Last week, I successfully used the RenameLink tool.

But today I did a major change: I changed many options within my preferences. And I cannot rename File:Vaut_mieux_un_mariage_GAY_qu'un_mariage_triste.jpeg. I got the following error message:

API request failed (hookaborted): The modification you tried to make was aborted by an extension hook

I have even restored all default settings, but still cannot use RenameLink!
I have not found the extension causing this issue :-(

Please answer this topic on MediaWiki_talk:Gadget-AjaxQuickDelete.js (I guess this is the right place to talk about that)

I have also explained the issue here: MediaWiki_talk:Gadget-AjaxQuickDelete.js/auto-errors#Autoreport_by_AjaxQuickDelete_179284447703

This is a copy-paste :

I had changed my preferences just before renaming the file.

When I saw the error, then I disabled gadgets and other settings and attempted again and again.

Until disabling almost all my settings! (I also empty the Firefox cache and restarted it)

I wanted to rename from

Vaut_mieux_un_mariage_GAY_qu'un_mariage_triste.jpeg to

Mieux_vaut_un_mariage_GAY_qu_un_mariage_triste.jpeg

in order to be more consistent with the panel text of the picture.

(I made the mistake while uploading the file)

Oliver H (talk) 09:45, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Replied at MediaWiki talk:Gadget-AjaxQuickDelete.js#RenameLink - modification aborted by an extension hook. Unfortunately I even can't improve the error message a lot because there are many different extensions that may prevent edits. It would be great if this could be improved in MediaWiki and Hexmode (Mark) was aware of this issue but I doubt the new Bugwrangler (Andre Klapper) is. One reason why I dislike this discontinuation at Wikimedia. -- Rillke^(q?) 10:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

We advertise for Getty Images now?

I was just scanning the watermarks discussion above yesterday about watermarks being used to advertise, and then today someone comes along and adds Getty Images links in the discussion page of two images I uploaded: here for example. It seemed to ring a familiar bell—are we advertising for Getty images now? – Kerαunoςcopia^◁galaxies 20:15, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I would have said "well that's regular ole advertisement spam if I ever saw me some" but then I saw the username, a well-known contributor to Commons. My second thought was "wow, that's a sophisticated Trojan"... but then it seems the user has only two such edits. I.e. Trojan infestation not so likely. What's going on?? --Pitke (talk) 20:53, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Pitke, for notifying me, which Keraunoscopia seems to have forgotten.

Both edits were a note for later action, as these original Getty-Images-photos were uploaded from Flickr (allegedly) under a CC-BY license, while at the same time they are offered per regular paid-for-license by Getty agency. Though formally the license on Flickr seems to be o.k., I wonder whether there is really no risk for re-users of our image version to be sued for litigation by Getty Images. In 2 similar cases, I have therefore filed DRs, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nicholas Gonzalez.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nicholas Gonzalez 2.jpg, in order to get this potential risk evaluated. So, Zero advertising. --Túrelio (talk) 22:29, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

"which Keraunoscopia seems to have forgotten" How about forgetting to write in the edit summary that would've have explained what the heck you're doing. How about forgetting to sign the talk page? I've never seen someone put advertising in a talk page before, so I am completely free to ask about it here. Then you go and put in the edit summary of your follow-up edits that you're keeping "keraunoscopia from getting nervous"—are you seriously this immature? I'm not nervous, and I don't mind what you're doing. But because you can't properly explain yourself in the edit summary, like a seasoned pro would be expected to do, I asked my question here, and I wanted unaffiliated responses. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁galaxies 23:36, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

The normal way if you have a question about what another user, admin or no admin, is doing, is to ask him directly on his talkpage. --Túrelio (talk)

Fine. And next time, please leave an edit summary. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁galaxies 01:33, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

3D models as a file type

Geometry-related media are better expressed with a 3D model you can rotate and move around.. polyhedra or anything with a particular shape.. types of buildings, molecules...

Depending on the filetype it may be easy to embed a viewer in wiki pages. This is pie-sky stuff - I recognise the cost of enabling such a thing may far outweigh the benefit, but I'm curious if anyone can think of any more uses for this. Are there anywhere near enough to make it worthwhile, or would it be gimmicky? --moogsi (blah) 23:26, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

a 3D filetype is on the wishlist: Commons:File_types#Unsupported_file_types. Don't hold your breath... Rd232 (talk) 23:32, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah, sorry. Clearly this has already been discussed many times in many contexts. If I were holding my breath for it I'd be dead 9 years by now.. --moogsi (blah) 23:59, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

This would be easier if there were a 3D type widely understood by web browsers, but there doesn't seem to be. Around 1996-1997, VRML plugins were available for a number of browsers, sometimes preinstalled in standard software distributions, and VRML seemed to be the wave of the future, but then somehow the wheels quickly fell off... AnonMoos (talk) 00:41, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

My understanding was that en:X3D was the one. If I understood correctly, through X3DOM, it is natively supported by any browser with WebGL support (ie any modern Firefox, Chrome or Safari), or with Flash 11, ou using a browser plugin (source). Jean-Fred (talk) 01:26, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

X3D support is being considered (on bugzilla:1790) for a mw:Google Summer of Code, given a project mentor steps in and there is community support. So two questions:

Would we, the Commons community, support the activation of this feature if it would be developped?

Do we already have concrete use cases?

Jean-Fred (talk) 15:08, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your help!--Qgil (talk) 02:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

March 22

fundraising

I would like to request wikimedia to allow vertical strips af advertisements at any one side of the page to raise the fund and meet expenses. no professional activity can exist in long run based only on donation. allowing advertiements need not nesseciate to compromise on quality.... -117.201.100.60

there are staff getting $4,000 a week, free air tickets and gravy-trains galore, there is by some accounts far too much money already. $30,000,000 USD in the bank accounts and they are looking for new ways to waste it all the time. Penyulap ☏ 05:41, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

WHAT?!?!? They should probably start paying all us editors maybe a half a cent per month at least. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:39, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

well, if I replaced wikipedia, I'd build a monastery in a distant (from everywhere? i guess) land, so people who do nought but improve the project can concentrate on it alone, with room and board free. Seems better than buying people SLR cameras, airfares, and tickets to concerts so that they can photograph the concerts, or paying people thousands to 'study editing'. Penyulap ☏ 06:48, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, as long as they're also planning on buying me an SLR camera (and perhaps a stripper + lap dance too), I really can't complain ;) -FASTILY ^(TALK) 08:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Well I had been thinking a for a long time that some admins need hookers so that they don't demand textual hand-relief from editors they block as a condition of unblocking, it is far too common. Come to think of it, it's about as common as the admin phrase "I'm not satisfied with the editors response", which has little, nothing, or even less to do with future disruption. Penyulap ☏ 09:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Unexpected response from server iipsrv.fcgi

I put this up a few weeks ago, but received no response.

I've been trying to use the non-Flash image viewer that works with large images like File:El Tres de Mayo, by Francisco de Goya, from Prado in Google Earth-x0-y1.jpg, but I've only been getting the error message "Unexpected response from server iipsrv.fcgi"

The Flash image viewer never loads the image, either. Can anyone help? -- Veggies (talk) 15:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I notified Daniel Schwen. He, as a volunteer, made this great tool available at Toolserver, a project by Wikimedia Germany that will be dropped in the near future. -- Rillke^(q?) 17:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

This is an issue with the VIPS version installed on the toolserver, which can run out of memory for certain large images. I have converted this particular image and manually uploaded it to the IIP cache. I'll open a ticked and request an update of VIPS. --Dschwen (talk) 19:23, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Hmmmm, seems to be a different issue. Requesting tiles from this partiular image causes a core dump (crash) of the iip server. --Dschwen (talk) 19:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, the error message is gone, but it still doesn't come up. -- Veggies (talk) 07:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/03/Category:Trams in Prague

I'm sorry for the cross posting both on the administrators' noticeboard and here, but I don't really know where to go with this (en.wiki has much more defined procedures and many more noticeboards than commons, here I feel a little lost). The discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/03/Category:Trams in Prague has been going on for about a week now, and I don't see a solution in the future without the input from others.

The problem comes down to the way the photos of Trams in Prague are categorised. Currently there are categories within Category:Trams in Prague for specific tram models such as: Category:Škoda 15T in Prague, but that category doesn't have any pictures, instead it just has one category for each individual vehicle (listed by number, a complete list is at: Category:Trams in Prague by registration number) this makes finding pictures incredibly hard. There are over 1000 categories containing 2000 pictures, most categories contain only one or two pictures, with many containing only other categories - another tram number that that vehicle has been renumbered as, but no explanation to that.

When I raised a proposal to upmerge all pictures it was opposed, I have tried to bring up numerous solutions where the categorisation by number system could sit side by side with a "all Tatra T3 photos in ONE category" system, but it is opposed no end. And all possible solutions I've brought up have been called "incorrect nor nonsensical" and "fundamentally incompatible with categorization principles". I don't feel that the editors in question want any change, and as such will argue tooth and nail against any change. This is why I would appreciate outside voices to weigh in, there has to be a solution in there somewhere, I just don't feel I can get one by myself. Can some admins have a look and maybe make a proposal or decision to solve this quandary? I hope that this dispute can be solved in a way that makes all happy, but don't see it happening without the input from others. I would also ask what precedent this highly detailed level of categorisation sets for the commons as a project (it really does make it unworkable trying to find pictures unless you are looking for a picture of a specific tram, which I'm not), it could/would apply to all rail vehicles by number as well as aircraft, ships etc, it is about on par with sub-categorising cars by colour ("Blue BMW M3s" etc) or by registration number. Liamdavies (talk) 16:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Some category templates on en.wiki and their equivalents here:

• w:Template:Category diffuse → {{CatDiffuse}}
• w:Template:Container category → {{Metacat}} or {{CatCat}}
• w:Template:Distinguished subcategory → ????????????????
• w:Template:All included → ????????????????

Please look at the definitions of the last two and imagine if they solve this particular problem. I'd argue it's a problem all over the category tree: people like to categorize things as deep as possible without considering how different types of keys cross over (age, location, whatever other attribute), so it's possible for media to disappear down one particular diffusing branch, never to be seen again unless you follow it --moogsi (blah) 20:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but you've lost me a little, could you elaborate a little. Are the bottom templates ways of automatically loading a file into a parent category from a child? If so is there a template like that for commons? Liamdavies (talk) 05:00, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry if this wasn't clear. These templates don't automatically do anything, unless there is a bot patrolling them and making sure they are enforced. They are simply a way to mark a category as non-diffusing, i.e. images in that subcategory can also be found in the parent category. This makes it easy to browse for and find images in both a general and more specific way, without spreading them out everywhere by making every category a diffusing subcategory. In this example it would allow you to go to Category:Tatra T3 in Prague and see images of that vehicle, without having to flip through all the subcats. w:Wikipedia:Categorization#Non-diffusing_subcategories explains it better than I could. As far as I'm aware there is no equivalent to "all included" or "distinguished subcategory" on Commons. Someone has at least recognized the overzealousness of the categorization here, because there do exist Category:Quality images of trams in Prague and Trams in Prague, acting as sort of best-of lists --moogsi (blah) 13:42, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

March 23

A load of potentially out of scope uploads

Could someone take a look at this list. There are over 50 uploads of personal snapshots of this person and his wife, PDFs and scans of his CV, letters of recommendation, diplomas, etc. This person does not have an article on the English Wikipedia, and from a cursory check, not on any other Wikipedias either. Note that one of them, File:Open Journal of Optimization, Scientific Research Publishing,USA-Published Paper ID-2730005 of Dr. V. N. Maurya.pdf, is from a journal clearly marked "Copyright © 2006-2013 Scientific Research Publishing Inc. All rights reserved." [21]. More about that publisher at en:Scientific Research Publishing. - Voceditenore (talk) 11:42, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

The Pdf is ok because he is the author of the work, unless his is under contract and they ownz all Ur work. An OTRS ticket would help, and/or contacting him and/or them.

The images of people are brilliant for anthropological study, just great and right in scope if he's the photographer.

The diplomas are either nice examples of diplomas around the world or have the fastest educational content a printer can generate :D

I'd educate him about the OTRS system, it helps a lot, and categorising the images so they are useful are great, and the last few dregs he could use on his userpages if he wanted them or just delete. Penyulap ☏ 13:48, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

The people pictures go in Category:People of India it's not as spares as some similar categories in Asia, but it can use some more. The academic record is most likely out, and a bad idea either way, identity theft and so on. Penyulap ☏ 16:17, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

To quote COM:SCOPE about when PDF files are not considered within scope, "The content is essentially raw text (such files are not considered media files). Note that scans of existing books, reports, newspapers etc of historic or other external significance are not excluded on this ground, even if they contain no images". Unless there is some indication that these are historically important, they are out of scope. The personal snapshots could be considered personal images for a userpage, but if they aren't in use, they aren't in scope. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

No, the PDF is not magically okay because he is the author of the work. Publishers like that frequently demand copyright before publishing; just because someone is the author doesn't mean they have the rights to freely license the work they've already transferred the rights to.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The next winner of China's got talent ?

There is a request here six months old, all images of the performer that are on commons have to be deleted because they are not free. I could make a portrait to complete the request, but if you want to describe a Mongolian child visually for an article, you can't. What do Mongolians look like ? Category:People of Inner Mongolia there is not even one woman or child. So as for warping an existing image into a portrait to complete the request and illustrate the article, well, we can't. Maybe there are some 'personal' pictures out there over-zealously deleted, maybe not. These 'personal pictures' as you say are going to be on the server whether they are deleted or not, so what is the point of deleting them so they can't be used ? There are many singers, dancers, actors, for whom you wouldn't immediately recognise just by the name of their article without their face to go with it, in many cases no free images will ever be made available. So in my case, nothing to work with to complete the request, and as for the countless geography articles, well, how can they be illustrated properly, what is a land without it's people. Penyulap ☏ 17:40, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are trying to say here, but please stop littering discussions with unnecessary images. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:48, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

That's quite ok, you're not the only one in the chat here. I'd like to show a typical example of why we so totally need these 'personal' images. We need them to illustrate articles about the different peoples of the world, and I want to show just how empty our categories are. The picture is as close to a teenage Mongolian boy as we can get afaik. Not exactly close, I don't think I could convert that the way I can convert other peoples pics. Penyulap ☏ 04:09, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

March 24

There is no download link

This particular photo I want to download has no download link File:Jeff Porcaro Toto Fahrenheit World Tour 1986.jpg How can I use this photo?— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:|]] ([[User talk:|talk]] • contribs)

I've added a download link. If it still does not work you could click on any smaller thumbnail on the file page. Those are linked to the full resolution image. --McZusatz (talk) 10:21, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

[24] -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:43, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata and interwiki links

Wikidata for interwiki are not implemented on Commons and probably will not be implemented in near future (and due to page/category dichotomy maybe never). However interwiki links to categories are still being added, as they are usefull mainly if lack of non-english category description. But with wikidata it is not possible to simply cut+pase interwiki from wiki article. Any workround to this (i would welcome tool, that will produce "old" interwiki code from wikidata)? --Jklamo (talk) 11:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Why not link to the relevant wikidata page? People can follow the interwiki links from there. We can make a template for that, and/or do something (script?) to allow the wikidata link to be placed into the Toolbox. Rd232 (talk) 11:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Wouldn't it be easier if the project Wikidata itself somehow makes it possible to get the info in data format, like how Wikipedias make available the text of fully protected pages when you click on "view source" tab? (sample of East Germany article, fully protected.) They should do that. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

As it evolves, the sum-it-up gadget will become useless. What are the plans in that respect ? We don't only need links, but texts too to help the search and to find alternate/related/multi-language names. --Foroa (talk) 11:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, tools:~legoktm/cgi-bin/wikidata/copypaste.py was specifically created to handle this situation, and is self explanatory and dead simple to use. — Huntster (t @ c) 12:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for link, that is exaclty tool what i was looking for (though i can imagine integration straight to wikidata ui). I added the link to the Commons:Wikidata as well. --Jklamo (talk) 12:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

ffmpeg used for ogg thumbnails

I've switched ogg thumbnail generation from oggThumb back to ffmpeg for better performance for large files (e.g. most videos) and to reduce the occurence of 504/503 errors. Internally, the former requires downloading the whole file from object storage to render each thumbnail whereas the later uses RANGE requests with the file's object storage URL. Performance could still use a great deal of improvement (a small though significant portion due to file storage being in a different data center). For the files I sampled, ffmpeg was as fast or faster (except for File:¿Qué_es_Wikipedia?.ogv). Two of the files gave 503s with oggThumb that didn't with ffmpeg (though the client gets an error, the generation usually finishes server-side).

There might be some reduction in quality though. Any problems can go in bugzilla.wikimedia.org (TimedMediaHandler component). If there are quality issues, the change can be reverted or perhaps oggThumb can be used for smaller files but not for larger ones. One could also scale thumbnails from a pre-made large thumbnail. Aaron Schulz (talk) 23:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

March 26

Image name and text needing clarification...

The image name "File:Henry, Prince of Wales, presenting this book to John Mowbray. Thomas Hoccleve, Regement of Princes, London, c. 1411-1413, Arundel 38, f. 37detail.jpg" does not agree with the Description: "English: Detail of miniature of Henry, Prince of Wales, receiving a book from Thomas Hoccleve. Thomas Hoccleve, Regement of Princes, London, c. 1411-1413, Arundel 38, f. 37."

On top of that the Author is given as "medieval miniaturists" instead of a wiki identity, so I don't know who is responsible or how to clarify the discrepancies. Cheers! Shir-El too (talk) 15:54, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• Convenience link: File:Henry, Prince of Wales, presenting this book to John Mowbray. Thomas Hoccleve, Regement of Princes, London, c. 1411-1413, Arundel 38, f. 37detail.jpg. - Jmabel ! talk 16:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
• For the author, "medieval miniaturists" is simply correct. It would be a lie for a Wikipedia contributor to claim to be the author. If you want to contact the uploader, that would be Johnbod (talk · contribs), as you can see from the file history further down the page. He's active on the Commons, so it should be pretty easy to get hold of him and ask. However, the page history shows an anonymous change of the description, and I doubt you'll be able to track down who made that or on what basis.
• All of the information in the preceding bullet point is as fully available to you as it was to me. It did not, for example, require administrative privileges for me to look that up. - Jmabel ! talk 16:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• This is a surprisingly complicated case; according to the BL's catalogue, the miniature shows "Prince Henry offering or receiving the book (the kneeling man is perhaps John Mowbray, 2nd Duke of Norfolk)"; they don't seem to see it as likely that it's Hoccleve. I've updated the metadata accordingly. There is no known artist, so John's "medieval miniaturists" note was reasonable. (Hoccleve is the author of the text, but very unlikely to be the miniaturist) Andrew Gray (talk) 16:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

گلدشت

گلدشت یکی از خیابانهای کرمان است که به موازات خیابان میرزا آقاخان و عمود بر خیابان بهزاد قرار گرفته است.محمد رفیعی و س.خ از ارازل این خیابان بوده اند. -- 00:00, 24 March 2013‎ 37.98.101.214

Translation: Goldasht a street parallel to the street, Mirza Aqa Khan of Kerman, which is perpendicular to B Street. M. and S. Rafii. St. Arazl of the streets were. - 00:00, 24 March 2013 37.98.101.214

Uhm... what? -mattbuck (Talk) 16:50, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, you lost me at گلدشت یکی, (my Persian is so rusty!)KDS444 (talk) 06:36, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Strange problem with CSS

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T48575

Bizzaro strikes again

When I went to search for a template in the searchbox, at first I thought the drop-down with options to choose from based on what you've typed was missing...then I realised it was displaying, but way down at the bottom of the page. And, as I type this, I realise that the buttons that should be across the top of the edit box are text instead: "BoldItalic", "Signature and timestampLinkEmbedded fileReference" "AdvancedSpecial charactersHelpEdittools" in three rows. Seems the scripts might be choking? - The Bushranger (talk)

Checking shows the same behavior in Vector as in MonoBook - and Classic is showing no page formatting at all. - The Bushranger (talk) 06:13, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

And the "your edit was saved" notice is not correctly formatted as well, leaving a big white space between the tabs and the rest of the page, with small text in the upper left, when it appears. I think somebody borked a script somewhere... - The Bushranger (talk) 08:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I've been noticing this as well recently. Or similar things anyway. The edit box yes, edit notification too, and also problems with UploadWizard formatting. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:49, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

And it's started happening at en.wiki today. Apparently it's something to do with CSS? - The Bushranger (talk) 21:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

A similar report is at COM:FORUM#komprimiertes JavaScript kaputt?. Do you have errors (and only errors are important) in your JavaScript error console (if you don't know how to open it, search the web for open javascript error console+your_browser_name). -- Rillke^(q?) 21:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I am getting 'cssText.indexOf is not a function' errors, 16 of them just on one refresh on this page. - The Bushranger (talk) 00:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks folks. This is tracked as Bugzilla: 46401 now. -- RobLa-WMF (talk) 05:14, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Looks like Kringle on en.wiki fixed it. - The Bushranger (talk) 21:58, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: add link to Wikimedia Shop in sidebar

Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikimedia Shop

I propose we link to the Wikimedia Shop in the Commons sidebar like the English Wikipedia. Currently the shop sells a Wiki Loves Monuments calendar and will offer a Picture of the Year calendar (and more products) later this year. It'd be a nice way to promote the shop; proceeds from the products are earmarked for the community. —Mono 05:31, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Where do you have such a link on :en? I don't see it. Besides, what do you mean by "proceeds from the products are earmarked for the community"? I am not aware of ever getting even a simple "thank you" email from Sue or alike. --Túrelio (talk) 10:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

In the sidebar (navigation) like to the right. The money is used for merchandise giveaways through a peer nomination process; the WMF is planning to expand this past ENWP later this year. It has nothing to do with legal defense and the WMF's policy on whatever is irrelevant. —Mono 15:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks; though it doesn't appear on my :en userpage or the :en mainpage, when I visit it. Does one need to activate or change something in the user settings? --Túrelio (talk) 15:59, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

As users or other people eventually may search on Commons for WMF merchandise, we should discuss/consider whether to put on 1 Commons page a minimal information about WMF merchandise and a link to the WMF shop. However, I would prefer not to have it in the sidebar, i.e. on every page. Besides, we have already sort of catalogue pages: Wikimedia Foundation/Merchandise gallery and Category:Wikimedia Foundation merchandise. --Túrelio (talk) 19:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

hidden|1=(hidden) Good grief, this is absurd. —Mono 15:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)|2=

for the community my arse! (excuse my language) since when does anyone except the WMF employees and everyone who gets a seat on the gravy train get a piece of the cake ? The cash is being spent in the most appalling places, with no safeguards in place. There is no screening process to keep garden variety sociopaths and sadists from using sockfarms to get themselves onto arbcom or the WMF, and anyone can get an admin position. The cash is to be diverted from paying from servers (which it doesn't actually, they are donated) into paying for lawyers if anyone gets sued for their misdeeds. Like that girl who committed suicide from Internet bullying recently, people who do things like cause that kind of grief have no hindrance whatsoever to stop them joining up, and the donations are soon to be used to support and indemnify them in court if they are ever sued which makes the whole process of bullying a whole lot more attractive. The overwhelming consensus to deal with the problem is reminiscent of the car companies before they were forced to introduce seat belts in cars, they didn't want to talk about it and actively suppressed all frank discussion of it. Adding a shop button would make more people wonder where all the tens of millions of dollars raised is actually heading.. Penyulap ☏ 05:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I think everyone knows you are banned from the English Wikipedia. You can stop trolling on the village pump. We are not here to read your story each day. ~Pyb (talk) 08:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

What do you have against people knowing where their money could be going ? if we put a link at the side of the page to collect cash, then 'expenses' for the program, which are deducted from proceeds before profits, can easily go into the proposed Legal Fees Assistance Program. So pick any case in which any admin or arb has misbehaved, someone can't take it and kills themself like that recent case on the news, and presto. You've got your donations which are meant to help spread knowledge and light used to enable and indemnify sadism and bullying on the Internet because nobody paid a professional to evaluate the psychological health of these people before forking out serious cash on legal professionals to back them up. I know what servers cost, and I know what lawyers cost, and you can buy a s*load of servers for the same price as one legal case. Keep in mind that WM doesn't pay for servers generally, a lot of the infrastructure is donated.

I am not, and never have been, banned anywhere. fail. Attacking people who want to promote a safe working environment for everyone on the project by calling them a troll, especially when I've already given the classic example of the car companies resistance to seat belts is another fail. The car companies did all they could to cover up harass stalk and discredit the people promoting safety and where did it get them ? The only difference is I for some reason hope that some safeguards might be put in place PRIOR to a suicide or suicides (I don't think just one will motivate the WMF). So it's a fail to change the subject which is collecting money from the work that we do on here. Penyulap ☏ 10:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Yup, that's user:Penyulap for you. Every Village (Pump) has one. --Jarekt (talk) 15:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

A magician ? :)

Not wanting to know where the money is going ? I don't think that's it. Could it be a classic example of 'don't talk about bullying on the Internet when it comes to wiki ?' ah, why does this not surprise me. How about this for a deal, I'll try not to comment further if you try not to provide more 'oh it doesn't happen' hiding actions. Because putting in another link for money raises the question why is more money needed. enough said. Penyulap ☏ 16:42, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

•  Oppose There are already permanent 'Contact us' and 'Donate' links (I am looking at them now, taking up real estate in my browser), the shop can be advertised on those pages if needs be. I support the above question with regard to how "proceeds from the products are earmarked for the community", it would be great to see how that works, so that purchases originally coming from Wikimedia Commons can get earmarked for Commons related community projects (or the equivalent in proportion). I am unaware of any such system, but it sounds like a good idea. --Fæ (talk) 16:09, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Notes about shop

Hey guys, to answer a couple things that got brought up from my side at the shop (feel free to ask if you have other questions):

• There is in fact a sidebar link (under the donation link) on enWikipedia but it's currently geo targeted towards only North America (Canada, US and Mexico), most of the caribbean and Japan. I've been slowly increasing who sees it mostly because of shipping costs (we heavily subsidize shipping beyond the US) but would be happy to have it for all or some countries on commons if the community wanted it.
• The current store makes no 'profits' at all, it's all in the store and it will be a fair bit before it could actually see anything there. What profits it does make (and some of what it doesn't) isn't just earmarked 'for the community' but is very specifically earmarked for merchandise giveaways to the community. I have a giveaway page set up on enWiki that has been hampered by my availability to process the giveaways but have wanted very strongly to work out a good way to get volunteers to do most of the processing so that I can send out a lot more. At this point there is no limit to the amount of nominations I'd take to give away things. I would be very excited to work with commons to set up one of those pages where volunteers can help me process (whether you want a shop link or not). Right now the merchandise is very Wikipedia centric other then the lapel pins (which are really pretty actually I love the commons lapel pins), buttons/stickers and calendar. However we're working on a new theme now and one of the things I really want to get in place is at the very least a really nice WM general shirt and hopefully one that we can do batches of for projects. Jalexander (talk) 19:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I've got to say I don't like the manner in which the give-aways occur, 'all the usual suspects' equates to a simple animalfarm style gravy-train and no doubt others will also see it this way once you get away from the usual systemic bias. A lottery system or contributions-based system would be less repulsive. Penyulap ☏ 19:58, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Linked projects in Wikieducator

Hi folks, I run several projects over in Wikieducator. Using some inter-wiki magic, the folks at Wikieducator can use Wikimedia images simply by using the file names that are used here. My digital coyote project: http://wikieducator.org/Digital_Coyote and my streams project: http://wikieducator.org/Streams/home are both critically dependent on images that are hosted on Wikimedia Commons. The system has not failed me yet, but I do have questions: Other than pointless pornography being removed, are there criteria for removing images that I should be aware of? For example, my students have uploaded literally hundreds of images of coyote and dog skulls; different angles; different specimens from different locations and breeds. Are there administrators looking at the collection of images and deciding that perhaps Wikimedia Commons does not need 320 coyote skull images? Or can I happily continue to build these OERs secure in the knowledge that the images will be hosted here? ThanksDmccabe (talk) 02:18, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

If they are not copyright violations, your dog skull images will be safe. Ruslik (talk) 07:49, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

In my personal experience with a new wiki called www.thewik.net the feed from commons was cut at commons without warning, explanation or notification (still to this day). The images all went dead one day and the reason turned out to be here on commons behind the scenes someone decided to stop the images being used there. It was rather confusing as the site had only half a dozen pages and users and I though couldn't pose any credible threat to wikipedia's market share. (shrug)

Images can be enabled in the localsettings.php file so that flickr images can be used in the same way, otherwise it's a bit of a fiddling on the server to allow images to be stored locally, which is the ultimate safe option because only you can delete them. Penyulap ☏ 08:39, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Assuming a) these images are in scope for Commons; b) the licenses are fine, and c) everything works technically, this sounds to me like there won't be any problems. Direct hotlinking can pose some issues (it's fragile and breaks easily) but if wikieducator is using something like InstantCommons, that won't be a concern. Andrew Gray (talk) 09:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Seconding Andrew and Ruslik0. Unless there are copyvios, your files will be safe, given they fit our scope − and your dog skulls sure are educational. Thanks for using InstantCommons − this is precisely what it was made for − and for contributing to Commons :) Jean-Fred (talk) 10:22, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for the replies. There are no copyright issues. All students taking photos in my lab are informed that their photos will be placed here and have the right to decline to share. We negotiated with a blogger for some insect images and he agreed to share them under licensing that is compatible with Commons and Wikieducator. We also felt that this use was exactly what Commons was for and that placed here they might find use more broadly than if we put them only in Wikieducator (as I did with my earlier project: http://wikieducator.org/Biology_in_elementary_schools [cheap lesson plans for science in schools]). Thanks again; WC is a great resource for educators everywhere. Cheers! Dmccabe (talk) 14:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

It would be nice if they used proper and existing categories for their Category:Dog skulls see history of File:Specimen_12103115_left.JPG and File:12041222 Right Side.JPG, 0, and not all sorts of capitalisation variations. I had to move hundreds of them. It might be a good idea to read COM:OVERCAT. --Foroa (talk) 14:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree! I took a look at the suggested link...dense! I'll make some cheat sheets for the students working on my projects. Thanks for all of your efforts on this. Try messaging me or my students and we can handle this sort of thing with less aggravation for you. I typically recruit a student for a few years so it's worth the effort to have them doing things as well as can be done. Cheers 23:58, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Can't we have just one correct picture of something? (Coat of arms of Pope Francis)

Copied to Graphic Lab, Sentausa would also like it discussed here. Penyulap ☏ 16:13, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if we can have only one correct representative of the coat of arms of Pope Francis. There are now 10 images in the category, and now none of them look exactly like the one in the official Vatican page. Previously, there were 3 files (this, this, and this) which looked very similar to the first released coat of arms, and all the file creators seemed to want their pictures present in Commons and try to change the pictures to be very similar to one another. I mean, why can't we have just one file for this? Sentausa (talk) 16:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

We always want more :-) It's not Commons' position to edit down to a "best" one, as that can be different ones depending on the situation. So, we try to provide as many alternatives as possible. Besides, when it comes to coats of arms, it's not like logos -- any drawing which conforms to the en:blazon is a "correct" drawing. There are usually going to be many valid versions. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:33, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

But the problem is that at the end they would look very similar to one another, meaning that as if we have image duplications. Is it not redundant and a waste of storage space? Sentausa (talk) 08:51, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

To answer just the storage space question, it makes no difference because deleted images are still on the hard drive, they are stored and you can make un-deletion requests. The only things that get erased from the hard drives are illegal pictures like childporn and so on. Alternative images, duplicate images, different versions, they are all still there on the drives just a click away. Penyulap ☏ 09:28, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

As I said on the other page, in traditional European heraldry, there's not necessarily only "one correct picture" of a coat of arms -- many different artistic renderings based on the authoritative textual blazon may all be acceptable. In any case, there is a poorly-timed and poorly-supported deletion nomination which complicates clean-up until it's resolved... AnonMoos (talk) 06:57, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Report a file (feedback) tool

Hi,
I proposed an alternative soluton to the ArticleFeedbackTool that is currently being discussed in an RFC. In fact, I forgot that AFT was proposed there (even though I read the discussion a few days ago), but I guess we can use this opportunity to discuss this lightweight alternative to AFT. Comments are welcome at /Proposals#Report a file (feedback) tool. Thanks, odder (talk) 17:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer! I think they could happily coexist - they seem to be solving subtly different problems. Andrew Gray (talk) 23:02, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Leon, and ThatPeskyCommoner

For anyone who know her and may not have heard the news, ThatPeskyCommoner's grandson Leon lost his battle to live. Penyulap ☏ 23:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

March 27

Smaller dr notifications

The templates for DR's are pretty big, can a switch be placed on the talkpage or on a sub-page that the template detects and just leaves the name and the link to the discussion ? Is there support for something like this if it can be done ? Penyulap ☏ 09:43, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

They're intentionally prominent, so that they won't be overlooked... AnonMoos (talk) 12:09, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

That's what the switch is for, the templates are the same except for the few of us who don't like to remove so many from our talkpages, we'd just add something on a subpage and be done with it once and for all. Penyulap ☏ 12:27, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Urgent: Italicisation fix needed on main page

Please see Talk:Main Page#Urgent: Italicisation. Andy Mabbett (talk) 12:05, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Hopefully it will get fixed soon. I'd not normally describe a formatting improvement urgent in the same vein as defamation or copyright violations, but perhaps the relative importance of correct taxonomies falls into the same difficult area of religion, sex and politics. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done by ~Pyb Penyulap ☏ 12:35, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

"Summary" header missing

Is there a reason the == {{int:filedesc}} == header is not added automatically with the basic upload form? The "license" header is added, so what's the issue? -- Orionist ★ talk 07:25, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I remember seeing this being asked for a while back, but nothing seemed to come of it. No idea why. I would support this change being made. — SMUconlaw (talk) 17:13, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I hope we get an answer before this gets buried under the heap. It's a simple change that will save a lot of avoidable maintenance. -- Orionist ★ talk 10:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, these headers are basically useless. I, for one, wouldn't sweat it. - 15:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Well it adds an edit link, and it's always useful to know by looking at the watchlist if someone edited the summary or the license. It also spaces out the info template from the image links so they don't look like a bunch of random stuff thrown at the page. Yeah I know it's not a big deal, it's just one of these small niggles, a niggle I hope is easy to fix. -- Orionist ★ talk 04:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Request for help for User:Microtoerisme to express the facts of their donation to Commons, without accusations of spamming

Hi, this following text has been deleted (along with similar attempts to express the facts) from the user page at User:Microtoerisme:

Microtoerisme has kindly donated thousands of educational images from microtoerisme.nl, and it would be of great benefit to this Wikiproject if there were a consensus of how they can express the facts on their user page, without a remorseless bad faith series of accusations of being a spammer. I have attempted to intervene, but have been accused of being so ignorant of the Dutch language that I am not qualified to express an opinion on what is spam and what is not on Commons, so I have brought the matter here to build a wider and positive consensus of how best to handle this. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Jan contacted me through e-mail after I voiced my disdain from the whole blocking debacle on his talk page. I've offered to create a template similar to the one used by the Tropenmuseum (see for example here). He is considering resuming uploading of watermark-free photographs if there is some sort of peace gesture from the community. I can't remember how I came across this issue, but I'm glad I did. We might find occasion to meet at a WikiZaterdat. I'm coordinating an OTRS ticket with Edo --Vera (talk) 14:43, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

So if I'm not mistaken, Microtoerisme won't stop uploading, but will stop adding watermarks to their files? There are some great files so that's perfectly fine, but adding watermarks saying: gratis stadswandelingen & fietsroutes - www.microtoerisme.nl (meaning: free city walks and bicycle routes - www.microtoerisme.nl is indeed pure advertisement. Dqfn13 (talk) 21:16, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't see this userpage as spam, although I'm less sure about watermarks. I think we need a clearer policy about userpages, because problems of this kind arise quite often - for example, we had a similar issue with a professional photographer a few weeks ago.--Pere prlpz (talk) 21:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I think such issues are influenced by a sense of "piling on". That is, a simple blurb on a userpage by itself seems tolerable. But then add a similar blurb on image description pages. Then add a watermark on all the images. Then tell the community you only uploaded images to advertise your web site. Then tell the community "screw you, I'm going to upload even more". By then the blurb on the userpage doesn't seem so tolerable anymore. – JBarta (talk) 12:29, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I think that's perfectly reasonable on a user page if they are being a substantial contributor. It would not be alright to put that amount of promotional text on every image page they upload. - Jmabel ! talk 15:42, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

His intention was not to say "screw you, I'm going to upload even more", his intention was to point out that he has still lots of more valuable photographs, and that he wasn't being treated like he was making a substation contribution to the project, which he was. If you had to choose between having 12.000 useful photographs that have the nuisance of having to crop/blur out a watermark or not having 12.000 photographs, would you really prefer not having that? Because that is what you're doing and it's not helping.--Vera (talk) 19:42, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I would prefer not to have to remove 12,000 watermarks. I would prefer to say to people either upload unwatermarked images or don't upload at all. Believe me, if they want their images here, most will comply. The reason we even have this problem is because people are afraid to be firm. People want to be everyone's buddy instead of trying to do what's good for the project. – JBarta (talk) 20:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I attempted positive and encouraging discussion with Microtoerisme, as they wish to freely share educational content for the public benefit, and have chosen to work with Wikimedia Commons to achieve this. This is not because I am desperate to be everyone's buddy, as many of my critics will willingly attest. I understand the aims of this project, and anyone who wishes to support that, should be welcomed here. The problem of watermarks is not insurmountable, and if Microtoerisme were to help out, it could be a straight-forward job for a bot to replace the current images with non-watermarked versions, whilst at the same time adding a legally enforceable attribution that fits with Microtoerisme's expectations, the same expectations that they were trying to satisfy using image watermarks which unfortunately got them blocked and repeatedly accused of being a spammer. An unnecessarily adversarial and hostile welcome to this project in my view. Anyway, if this works itself out, perhaps you will let me say "I told you so" a couple of times. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 21:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The logic escapes me. "Supporters" of Microtoerisme's upload of 12000 pictures with watermarks will accept the 12000 pictures of this company with the watermarks added but immediately state that these will somehow (how?) have to be removed before usage because the watermarks are not acceptable. When this company is so keen to upload these pictures when they know that these watermarks will be removed immediately why then even bother to watermark them? --VanBuren (talk) 21:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I've been e-mailing with Microtoerisme and he is willing to upload watermark free images. Especially since I tried to draft a custom license. His technical skills however, are limited. If you check his contributions you will see that he uploaded all of his photographs so far using the UploadWizard. He suggested starting all over again, uploading 50 pictures at a time, but that's not ideal either. What I'm lamenting is how the whole discussion leaded to him being blocked so quickly. He isn't unreasonable or unaproachable. It seems that one statement by him has been misinterpreted, leading some people to still not move forward.--Vera (talk) 22:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

It seems like everyone may be satisfied with this solution (or the I told you so outcome). I would be happy to help if a simple bot can help upgrade watermarked images and add the credit template. I have a few things going on, so if this relies on me, it may take a few weeks, perhaps until May; until that's done, I hope everyone can stay mellow. In particular it would help if the current images are not deleted, as I would like new images uploaded to benefit from whatever categories and detail has been added by the community. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 22:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, congrats guys, he left. He is looking for a community where his pictures are welcomed. --Vera (talk) 16:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

If you are saying here that Microtoerisme is not interested anymore in uploading and wikipedia is thus missing out on many good pictures, then why the "congrats"? Meant as a cynical remark to all those that were involved in discussions? Uncalled for. Rather blame the unclear acceptance policy of Commons with reference to advertising in watermarks or blame the mistake not addressing the watermark issue right from the start, blame lots of other issues but not those who expressed their honest opinion on this issue. --VanBuren (talk) 21:46, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I understood the remark, and it was obvious sarcasm in a way. The frustration is that it is perfectly perfectly obvious what the result of the hounding of editors in the most irrational manner will be. It is perfectly obvious to some what an irrational dislike of great images with trivial watermarks does for the project. I personally have only seen ONE watermark which I thought was too time-consuming to remove, I challenge anyone to find another.

There is a 'scientific thinking' position that is this: Clear, rational evidence and reasoning all points towards watermarked images being good for the project and welcome. Once those clear rational arguments are subtracted from people's dislike of the watermarks, the only thing left is a desire to hound people. To simply play cops and robbers for nothing but the sake of playing cops and robbers. Blocking people simply because you can, not because it in any way relates to anything that is good or bad for the project. Following misinterpretations of non-existent or muddled rubbish because it gives someone a trip to block someone else. So the phrase 'congrads' makes perfect sense as an alternative to 'I told you so' or 'is that what you call a good result ?'.

I understand this viewpoint, and I understand your viewpoint as well. You say it's the fault of the rabble that they haven't made up their minds and written it down yet. Makes sense. But how do you shout over the top of people who have no interest whatsoever in the project and an unwavering interest in hitting that adorable block button ? Why on earth would they a) listen or b) give up a reason to hit the button ? That's part of the game, so just like polly who wants a cracker, no matter how many times you ask, you're always going to get the same frikkin response that 'watermarks are no good because watermarks are discouraged because watermarks are no good because they are discouraged' ad infinitum. How would you get people to switch on their minds and go one step past repeating the existing muddled crap and say why they are discouraged, rather than parroting 'because it's policy' ? No, I think a short 'well congratulations' is in order here. Give them a barnstar for protecting the project against thousands of high quality images that a bot would have de-watermarked. Phew, what a close call that was, lucky they have gone, watch out for socks eh? gotta play the wack-a-mole game next.

Sorry, how's my version of the cynicism, a bit too thick ? Penyulap ☏ 23:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

It is perfectly obvious what the result hounding of editors will do, and yet you do it to admins. Lovely.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I am human and I do make mistakes I admit, but I do my best to fix mistakes, make apologies and will always try to speak up polite if I can, or gruff if people aren't listening, to protect the project, and protect the editors. I know it is perfectly normal, acceptable, and even safe in the literal sense for people in the United states to watch or look away from an innocent person getting the shit beaten out of them, gitmo, the lynching traditions, prisons over there are full of innocent people as well as others and y'all do nothing (not you personally, the wiki systemic bias generally). That's not the same as people in the rest of the world. So I hope I will be forgiven for asking if it is really necessary, or objecting to, anyone getting the sh*t kicked out of them when I see it happen. I surely ask nice as I can, but when it is very very clear someone doesn't listen, well, I don't talk to myself, I'll speak to us all. I raise the frikkin alarm. Penyulap ☏ 08:42, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

@1Veertje/Vera: "I'm taking my ball and going home" is the oldest and lamest attempt at control and punishment in the book. Try not be so affected by it. From my perspective I welcome his unwatermarked uploads, properly attributed/categoried and hope they get used and he gets the recognition he wants. And I hope Commons once and for all gets firm and clear about NO watermarks so we don't have go through this sort of asinine crap, and uploaders will be clear on the rules and admins will stop embarassing themselves with eratic and arbitrary blocks and deletions. – JBarta (talk) 08:20, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Don't you think it would be more enjoyable for you to troll them by writing a bot that rips all the watermarks out ? that'd both teach them, and it would not f**k up the project by blocking people who upload 100 good images and then upload one watermarked image and get a mark on their blocklog for it. Of course, people need both the time and the smart to write such a bot and not everyone has both, I don't.

Calling good contributors leaving the project may be something 'lame' in your book, but enough people leave and you'll be here alone. But you know, I'll still make insect porn so you all have something to look at and categorise.

People leaving, regardless of how you write it off, is NEVER a good outcome in any dispute. Penyulap ☏ 08:42, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Know that all he asked was a rectification (via e-mail) for the tribunal that was started. --Vera (talk) 12:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

• I've downloaded and cropped the photos contributed by Microtoerisme. Looking for feedback for use of a bot to re-upload them. Rybec (talk) 05:12, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

InstantCommons file usage from non-Wikimedia wikis, 3D files

See also #3D models as a file type

The Wikimedia Foundation is planning to participate again at Google Summer of Code. The deadline is March 29. We have several possible projects, but so far we have found only 3 in good shape to be listed as GSOC project ideas. We are working to include more, and you can help. We need more feedback, concretion and mentors. There are some candidates related to Commons / media e.g. Add support for x3d 3D files to MediaWiki or Build an interwiki notifications framework and implement it for InstantCommons.--Qgil (talk) 01:59, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

What about having a catch-all entry at mw:Summer_of_Code_2013 for unsupported file types in Commons/MediaWiki? We could explicitly point to KML, x3d and link to the full list here at Commons. Are there other formats that we should highlight there?--Qgil (talk) 01:14, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

There are tons already filed and discussed on bugzilla, plus several ideas on strategy: and in some pages here. --Nemo 13:25, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Replacing files

Is there a protocol for simply replacing a file? As we QC our images and subject them to measuring and testing we are finding that in some cases measurements taken from the calibrated images are off by a few millimeters. Our preferred option would be to replace the offending images with retakes that pass our calibration tests. But I also understand that there may be a preference to just keep the duplicate image and if it's simpler we'll go with that. I'm working on a project where teachers and students can measure from images like this one: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:12041222_Right_Side.JPG. CheersDmccabe (talk) 01:47, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

If they are substantially different photos such that each may be interesting, they should be different uploads. But if it's virtually the same photo just better, then I would upload over the original. The uploader of the original probably has a lot more leeway on that kind of thing -- I don't think anyone would question someone uploading an improved photo as a new version of their own existing image. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:28, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Dmccabe (talk) 00:02, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Sue Gardner to leave the WMF

Sue Gardner, executive director of the Wikimedia Foundation, has announced she will leave. More at [25] —Mono 00:54, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Flickr Commons

There's an overview article in the British Journal of Photography talking about Flickr Commons, which is of course a major sources of PD images: Shared history: The Commons initiative celebrates its fifth anniversary. Perhaps of some interest! Andrew Gray (talk) 13:35, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Watermarks

Some need to be kept, some need to be stored and removed later, and too many people have been blocked for uploading watermarked images. Some images are supposed to be watermarked. I would be high time there was a consensus on this contentious issue, because the confusion is, and knee-JERK reactions are, causing damage. Penyulap ☏ 07:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

The proposal is Commons:Watermarks. Do you see any glaring issues with it? --moogsi (blah) 08:14, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Well one glaring issue is that at least half of it is not guideline material - it's "how to" stuff which should be moved to a separate page. It's also not clear enough; the approach of COM:OVERWRITE is a lot clearer. Rd232 (talk) 13:16, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I did notice that :) How-to content is now at Help:Removing watermarks --moogsi (blah) 17:31, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Not enough community input, it's dragging on and destroying contributors unnecessarily. Penyulap ☏ 08:34, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Can you provide any example? --Ecemaml ^{talk to me/habla conmigo} 08:56, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

There are two examples at the moment at blocks and protections and they are scattered everywhere else too. We should find some example pics as well, so we know what we are talking about. Penyulap ☏ 09:57, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

examples

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
  user blocked
• 
  user blocked
• 
  user blocked

discussion

I think it needs to be put into text somewhere for the people who can only follow text, and it needs to be done quickly. Wherever the spam rules are, they have to be clarified as well, because a lot of spamming or advertising, which is supposed to mean like a page that is nothing but advertising was taken to mean that an acceptable, even trivial, link on a massive amount of uploads equated to massive spamming, resulting in tragedy. Penyulap ☏ 10:14, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Watermarks should be clearly against policy (not just "discouraged"). While timestamps and occasional watermarks from 3rd parties are unavoidable, an uploader believed to be deliberately uploading (especially mass uploading) images with watermarks should risk a block and have those files deleted on sight. It's harsh, yes, and we might lose some decent images, yes, but unless the policy is clear and consequences are firm, we'll just continue to have the same sort of unclear willy-nilly "enforcement" we've been having thus far. The alternative is to continue with the policy that watermarks are "discouraged" and take no action against watermark uploaders and continue to put those images in the ever growing "images with watermarks" category and collectively stop complaining about it. – JBarta (talk) 16:27, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

•  Support The alternative. The only determination should be whether the media can be useful for any educational purpose. Most watermarks do not actually invalidate the educational value of the image/video. Of course, there is a problem if the watermark is unfree (thus making the aggregate work containing it and some free media non-distributable), but that is the problem with the specific case, not with watermarks in general. Sinnamon (talk) 19:08, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

The general problem with watermarks is twofold... 1) Commons should not be an advertising vehicle for every shutterbug trying to advertise his website. Attribution yes, watermarks no. Not to mention watermarked images look quite unencyclopedic. And 2) Watermark removal is normally a time consuming process. I should know, I've spent a LOT of time removing watermarks. Graphists here in general have spent a HUGE LOT of time removing watermarks. And the watermarks keep coming... and coming... and coming... much faster than we can get rid of them. – JBarta (talk) 19:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I too have experience, and it's a trivial matter which becomes more trivial by the day. Penyulap ☏ 04:23, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

@Penyulap: I've now seen some of your work, and am truly amazed at some of the watermarks that you managed to remove, where I would have said: impossible without pixel-by-pixel editing. I would sure like to know how you do it. If we can duplicate your skills, we can work on our backlog faster. Whaledad (talk) 04:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for you kind words. On the subject of the guidance pages on commons, they are incomplete or archaic to the point it harms the project. Software advances make it ever faster and ever easier to do this work, and I found myself looking at ways to automate the process and I can clearly see this can be done to the point where the casual observer cannot notice the removal in most circumstances. The idea that we should block people over this may have been an idea long ago, but it's as much sense today as blocking people for uploading Jpg images, which is just as trivial. Writing a bot is not useful if the current blocking continues, or if people cannot be educated about modern techniques, because there will be no images to work on. The Graphics lab exists to do this work, and if we have enough of this work to do, then tools can be found to do it faster than the very short time it takes now. Penyulap ☏ 04:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

The practical reality is that Commons has over 55,000 watermarked images (more if you count those that are not templated) and the number is going up. This is where idealism is run over dead by practical reality. Until that number goes down dramatically, we still have a problem and all the talk about software advances and what you can clearly see etc etc is just ethereal chit chat. In other words, like many things in life, if it was really that easy someone would have done it already. – JBarta (talk) 05:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

'etheral chit-chat' ? show me any image that can't have the watermark removed, and I'll show you 10 fast and easy completed requests at the GFX lab. If we have 55,000 then it's obviously not enough of a proportion to inspire people to write full automation tools is it ? We just take requests as they come and are not in the least bit overloaded. There are other factors involved in the 55k, how many are time-stamps that make no difference ? how many are in articles that everyone is fine with ? how many watermark templates have a link to the Graphics lab written on them ? You can't claim convincingly there is some burgeoning waiting list when there is no list and the Graphics lab is running smooth and fast.

If there is a policy established against watermarks then there is no point in writing automation tools. If there was a policy saying 'timestamps are welcome' then that would be first cab-off-the-rank for automation.

"if it was really that easy someone would have done it already" sheesh, that's harsh, I'd picture you as the guy in the office with a sign on the door 'research and development grants' for a company that is serious about not doing any research and development at all. Penyulap ☏ 06:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm reminded of a quote by Ross Perot... "The activist is not the man who says the river is dirty. The activist is the man who cleans up the river." I suppose that fits in here somewhere. – JBarta (talk) 06:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

@JBarta: I understand you desire to stop advertisement. If I would run a personal project sharing some images I might decide to state that there are no advertisements allowed, but Commons is not my personal project. Commons exists to provide freely licenced educational media, it also has created community consensus that advertisement should not stay here, but as I see it, this consensus exists within the scope of the project. Thus if we have two media files, both showing something, and one of them has some advertisement in it, it's quite appropriate to remove the "damaged" one. However, if we will stop new educational content because of advertisement through watermarking, then we are forgetting our original goals. It sort of reminds me of some ecological groups, which got so worked up about burning oil, that they began to support atomic power stations. The single issue can often seem very important, but isn't it important to stand back every so often and ask oneself "Why do I find this issue even worth thinking about?" Now, I will not claim to know for sure why you feel so passionate about this, but my guess (assuming good faith) would be that you want to maximise educational value of every media on this project, and when you see somebody adding watermark you get angry at that person, because they've taken something away from the whole world by doing so. However, you then propose to completely disallow watermarking. In a sense you are saying "If we can't have a perfect image/video, we should have nothing at all." I, on the other hand, see it a little differently. In the past those, who wanted to advertise on a popular site, looked at the way to post a banner or a pop-up ad on there, today some of those groups/individuals are forced to create freely licenced educational content. (P.S. I have tried to see what you are saying from your perspective, sometimes such an attempt may seem dishonest or patronising, please be assured that this is not my intention, and if I put something into your keyboard that you wouldn't typed, I do apologise) Sinnamon (talk) 05:49, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

My reasons for opposing watermarks are:

Watermarks demean the project... a photo with some promotional blurb or url scrawled across it looks unencyclopedic, unprofessional and juvenile.

The Wikiproject does not exist to promote any and every dope with a camera phone who takes pictures of bridges and buses.

Watermarks waste a LOT of other editor's time. Remove a few, and I promise you'll get sick of doing it after a while. Is it everyone else's job to clean up what arguably shouldn't be there in the first place?

As far as making watermarks acceptable, is that what you really want? Even MORE people uploading watermarked images? Quite often not even their own images? Even more users from Whateverstan plugging articles with his images not because they add anything useful to the article but because he put a watermark on the botton of those images and in his delusion he thinks that will be the road to his fame and fortune?

Most people are uploading watermarked images because they think they can, and they see that we don't have the backbone to simply say NO because we're so worried about losing their precious images. On this point we're pathetic. If we made watermarking against policy and were clear, consistent and firm about it, most of those people would stop doing it. Many (if not most) would instead upload UNwatermarked images and use more suitable attribution... because if they want their images used here, they would have no other choice.

We're like weak pitiful parents who are afraid to be firm with their children... so their children run all over them.

– JBarta (talk) 20:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

•  Support "against policy" and thus a "clear policy". At this time, we give the "watermarkers" the illusion that they can effectively advertise for free on Wikimedia. While the end result (after countless hours on our end) is that their pictures are only used after watermark removal. The only hope they have is that they will enjoy a period of free exposure through the "commons cat sister links" under many Wikipedia and Wikiquote articles (this goal is sometimes reflected in over-catting). I think having a clear policy is in everybody's interest as it avoids any kind of unjustified expectation by the advertiser. Obviously an exception must be made for archival material of which no watermark-free copies exist. And we could and should spend our editing time, skills and resources on those. Whaledad (talk) 01:29, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

what about camera time-stamps ? seems if something is written into the image, it doesn't automatically make the image worthless, if it is spam, there is a spam policy, if the images were ruined, why do camera manufacturers have timestamped images ? Penyulap ☏ 04:23, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, I think camera manufacturers added that at the request of users. In the digital camera age it is of course utter nonsense to "burn" the date/time into the image, rather than using file date/time and exif. Anyway, again, if the original has the date/time "burned in" and no clean original is available, it should be accepted (and cleaned), provided the picture is worthwhile. Whaledad (talk) 04:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

•  Comment I see people supporting here. But can someone please highlight the proposal that is being supported? Maybe in some different colour? This is difficult to understand exactly which statement is being supported. Its just a matter of one "no" and the whole statement turns opposite and then its a whole mess. Please! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, and this is not just a problem here, but is rather indicative of the chaos of blocking that is going on over watermarks in general. I shall need to restructure this whole thing, because 'discussion' is not clear enough for some. Penyulap ☏ 12:21, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

policy proposal:time-stamp watermarks

May be easier to go type by type so that the watermark page can be cleaned up sooner rather than never.

typical example

Propose that time-stamp watermarked images are welcome on commons. Penyulap ☏ 05:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Propose instead that timestamp watermarks are not the issue, and while not "welcomed", they are a minority of watermarks and no one really has a problem with them as they are different (and largely accidental) than the attribution watermarks causing all the uproar. – JBarta (talk) 05:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Claims that policy is too obvious to write is fine when nobody is arguing and blocking people. In this case, each block becomes a defacto policy discussion page. You say it's ok and everyone should be smart enough to think like you, then 5 minutes from now you'll be wanting to block someone over an issue equally trivial as a timestamp. So it needs to be written AS policy, and to do that we need something to LINK to, a discussion, a consensus. Or just argue forever more, whatever is good for you. Penyulap ☏ 05:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Nobody is arguing and blocking over timestamp watermarks (well, other than you... and now me thank you very much). So let's not make an issue where none exists. Concentrate the discussion on attribution watermarks. Preferrably the ones where some dear sweet soul uploads a thousand images with "Eat at Joe's" scrawled across each one. – JBarta (talk) 06:49, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, they are, and just answer the question with support or not if you want to help. Spam has it's own policy page, it should have a link to it from the watermark pages. Penyulap ☏ 06:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

New guideline draft

I thought the old guideline draft was really rather poor - far too wordy, far too unclear. So I made a new one, at Commons:Watermarks (the old one is at Commons:Watermarks/old draft). What do people think of that?

Incidentally, I can't find any reference to spamming or promotion in policy or guideline, including COM:BLOCK, which seems a bit odd. Am I missing something? Rd232 (talk) 15:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

re spam, (facepalm) people are getting blocked for more policies that don't even exist. The draft is great, however, it still has too many harsh and unrealistic ideas in it. The word 'discouraged' equates to 'blockable' in many admin's minds, and the draft clearly links datestamps with 'discouraged'. I can't see Juliette Average uploading good pics to commons and getting herself blocked as a good outcome.

The most important thrust of the argument here, is what effect if any do watermarks have on education ? I would say in the case of timestamps none whatsoever and so they should be welcomed with open arms. What is the worst case scenario here ? that someone intentionally uploads tens of thousands of images after adding timestamps ? 'oh the humanity' of tens of thousands of good quality educational images. Penyulap ☏ 16:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

The other problem is an operational problem, there are watermarked images out there that exist in no other form or will never be available unwatermarked. Those images can easily have the marks removed. That can't happen if they can't ever make it to the graphics lab and the person can't do it themselves. Penyulap ☏ 16:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

• Rd232's latest draft says "uploading of files with visible but relatively unobtrusive watermarks is merely discouraged, not prohibited" but this is in a section called "Unacceptable watermarks" and in the summary at the top, this type of watermark is listed as "not acceptable". Something that is not prohibited is accepted, hence it is acceptable. At least, that's how I'd interpret it. Where it says "continuing to upload media with these watermarks after warnings may be treated as a form of spam, which may lead to contributors being blocked from editing" it is clear and it's an improvement over ad hoc blocking. However, I think further improvement is possible. I'll write up a different proposal. Rybec (talk) 23:54, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I like the question mark icon and the "discouraged watermarks" section Stuart.Jamieson just added. Rybec (talk) 23:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

My alternate proposal is at User:Rybec/watermark_crimes_proposal. The main points are in the "Visible watermarks" section: uploaders are responsible for adding the watermark tag, images can be deleted for having difficult-to-remove watermarks, and re-uploading watermarked images can count as spamming. Rybec (talk) 01:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Suggested move for image

Commons has a picture File:Scrotum.JPG (warning, contains an image of a scrotum that has been inflated to much more than normal size) which most definitely does not show the normal appearance of a scrotum, and is therefore misleading. I suggest that it should be renamed to something like File:Inflated scrotum, and any links to it on Wikipedia changed, leaving the original name free for a more normal depiction of a scrotum, thus fulfilling the w:principle of least surprise. -- Karada (talk) 17:34, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

just the sort of thing we throw overboard the professional photographers to make room for. Penyulap ☏ 17:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Moving files breaks hotlinks (see Help:File redirect). Until this and some other renaming bugs are fixed, renaming should be done to old files only when really necessary. Rd232 (talk) 23:30, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

See also Commons talk:File renaming/Archive/2012#Policy on very short filenames. The file can't be moved simply because the name is very short. It does display what the file name suggests. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Final Challenge international de Paris 2013-01-26 193155.jpg

Is this really taggable as {{Personalityrights}}? --Ricordisamoa 13:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I would call it "not necessary" in this case. --Túrelio (talk) 14:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

No way. No how. Penyulap ☏ 14:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

You are probably right, I think You probably should discuss it with Jastrow, she takes pictures for the fencing world cup events in France (near Paris) and she will probably continue. I guess it would not be the same for podiums and picture with glass masks (where we can see people's eyes). --PierreSelim (talk) 13:53, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

According to the text in the template, {{Personalityrights}} means that you can identify one or more of the people on the photo. In this case, you can clearly see the surname and nationality of one of the people by reading the text on the back of that person, so that person is presumably identifiable. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Wrong link to main page in Quechua

For Quechua, there is the main page Qhapaq p'anqa, but clicking onto the Wikimedia Commons logo (with Quechua as user language) leads to the Spanish Portada and not to Qhapaq p'anqa, though the Quechua main page was added in 2009, see Template_talk:Lang-mp#Please_add_Quechua. -- AlimanRuna (talk) 17:16, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Now it works correctly! :-) -- AlimanRuna (talk) 17:37, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Canis stew

There are multiple ways to say 'coyote'. Three of those ways have been turned into categories: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Canis_skulls any suggestions for resolving this? Keep them all and cross reference? -- 01:52, 27 March 2013‎ Dmccabe

In this situation, we redirect (using {{Category redirect}}) alternate names into any one single category. Be sure to recategorize any files in the categories you're redirecting to the main category. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 07:33, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I've put instructions on Commons Delinker to move them all into Category:Canis latrans skulls - MPF (talk) 17:59, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!Dmccabe (talk) 00:01, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

OK! I think just one more thing is needed. Although the wolves and the domestic dogs are technically one species, it would be very useful to have an easy way to locate actual wolf skulls without wading through all of the domestic dog skulls that my students and I uploaded. I propose a sub category "Wolf skulls" to go along with the existing sub category "Dog skulls". If there are no objections I'll work on that. I started but it was reverted so some brief discussion is needed. If there is a compelling reason not to do it please let me know. Cheers 00:42, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Doing this by subspecies (or subspecies group, so "dog", "wolf", & perhaps "dingo" rather than "dog", all 37 wolf subspecies, etc) seems perfectly reasonable to me; C. latrans skulls could then be kept for unidentified or ambiguous cases. Andrew Gray (talk) 19:01, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes! We need C latrans for the coyotes and there are no sub species that I'm aware of to worry about. I'll set up the "Wolf skulls" category if no one beat me too it. "Dog skulls" already exists. I don't know enough to mess with additional wolf sub species and I doubt we'll ever get enough dog skulls of known breed to mess with breeds.22:36, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually it's great as is. The wolves fall out in the root category; domestic dogs are in their own category and it looks fine.Dmccabe (talk) 22:44, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Assistance with No Source tag on File:Scallop Diagram.jpg

Am hoping for a little guidance here. A couple of days ago I uploaded an image I created and titled Scallop Diagram.jpg. Not long after, another editor tagged it with the {{no source since}} tag, even though I had marked |source={{own}}} in the image's information template. Two things: the other editor (User:Moros y Christianos) was certainly correct to doubt the image as having been created by me, as it is really a very nice picture-- I want to be clear that I am flattered to have my work doubted. Having said this, I am hesitant to remove the no-source-since tag myself as this seems obviously inappropriate. I have tried to contact the other editor through his/ her talk page, but so far have gotten no response. What is the policy/ procedure when someone uploads an image and another editor responds with, "That can't really be YOURS"? How do I handle this? Please advise. Thank you! KDS444 (talk) 06:51, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Just curious, is the diagram based off of any existing diagram? Or did you use a pre-existing diagram/template image which you then modified to create the final product? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 07:29, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I studied a set of 5 or 6 different photographs and drawings before beginning my own. I did not use any parts of those photos or drawings in generating this image-- I occasionally referred them to make sure I was putting the correct organ in the correct place, but nothing more than this.KDS444 (talk) 01:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

As long as it's your own original interpretation it's not a problem. I removed the tag from your file. I'd advice that you put a list or a gallery of all the diagrams you've done on your user page, this way anyone checking your files will be less inclined to think you just grabbed them off the web, as they will see that a) you have the skills to do this and other diagrams and b) these diagrams have a similar style. By the way, your account on enwiki (KDS4444) is not unified. You should get it unified, as there's no point of logging in with another account each time you come to Commons. -- Orionist ★ talk 00:19, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

A curious problem

There are dozens of pictures here that have been released by the National Archives in the UK to Flickr with a relaxed license. I usually load pictures in from Flickr using Bryan's tool, FLINFO or the standard Wizard but they are all complaining when they are directed at these particuar pictures. I guess that the pictures are corrupt in some way, but its a bit subtle as the pictures display OK. Are there any budding Digital CSI experts? So for example if I load in this from Flickr then I get this ... which lacks the actual picture. There are 183 interesting pictures here. Can can anyone suggest whats wrong? Victuallers (talk) 22:11, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

March 29

Floating buttons on editing bar?

So I was editing just now (well, sort of) and used Alt+⇧ Shift+e, which, upon going to the edit page, showed the toolbar which is seen at right, with a floating redirect and table button. I doubt that was intentional...so...could this be looked into, please? (@devs) Thanks, HF (talk) 16:46, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

This happens to me sometimes, but can you reproduce the error after a hard refresh (Ctrl+Shift+R)? —Mono 16:50, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I've noticed it reappearing several times on two different machines in the past day, but never before - both times using Chromium on Linux, and going to the edit page as normal. (In fact, I'm seeing it now...). Closing the "advanced" tab and reopening it again puts them back in place. It seems to persist after purging/refreshing. Andrew Gray (talk) 17:00, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Strange, I'd guess it's resource loader but I really have no idea. —Mono 17:08, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Bugzilla:27698. — Edokter (talk) — 09:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

March 25

Blocked template page to move

Hello, I presently need to move {{Translation possible}} to {{Translate}}, where should I ask for that ? Yug (talk) 19:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Redirect deleted. Go for it -FASTILY ^(TALK) 05:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I'am not an admin for years, can you move it from {Translation possible} to {translate} Yug (talk) 17:49, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see.  Done -FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:46, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

March 28

Emmy award question

I started to process the permission statement for Brian Keane, but I see Stefan is questioning the status, given the award in the photo.

However, I recall there being a debate about the copyright status of someone receiving the award. In the case of the Oscar award, here uploaded as a non-free image. That rationale includes language indicating that photos of the statue are limited with respect to licensing, but that language does not seem clear whether it refers to a stand alone picture of the statuette or of someone holding one.

The more relevant award Emmy, is less clear.

I tried searching the Village pump, and found this, but the implied restriction may apply to a photo of the statuette by itself.

I see File:Ernest Borgnine-oscar.jpg, File:Dana Delany 1992 Emmys retouch.jpg and File:Bruce Kennedy.jpg which do not constitute proof, but suggest that a photo of an award recipient and the award, as opposed to only the award, may be acceptable. Many others at Category:Emmy Award statuettes

Are such photos acceptable?--Sphilbrick (talk) 18:53, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I would say acceptable on commons as Commons:De minimis. It would be a bad thing if we delete images of people receiving awards. We have Template:De minimis for such images.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:23, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

NB: The image is on Wikipedia, not Commons, so perhaps I should have asked at MCQ, but I assumed a bot would be along to move it to commons, if acceptable, and this is where the image experts hang out. I cannot add the the de minimus template now, as it is a commons only template.--Sphilbrick (talk) 19:53, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Someone should just upload it here and add the correct tags. It should survive DR if anyone wants to try that route. We should also create a tag that images like this can only be used in performer articles and not award articles. That would violate the rights that copyright on 3D images is trying to protect.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:15, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I think that the status of the image is unclear. It all depends on how de minimis is defined in US law. In my country, this screenshot was found to be a copyright violation when the photographer who took two of the photos in the list to the right sued a person who placed that screenshot on his homepage. The Swedish supreme court finally decided that the photos on the screenshot weren't de minimis. In this case, the statuette seems to be even more prominent than the two photos, so the photo with the statuette photo would presumably not be OK in Sweden. Other countries might define de minimis differently, though. The same problem also exists with w:File:Brian Keane and son at Emmy Awards.jpg. In this case, the purpose is to show the people together with the statuette, so the statuette is a lot more prominent than in for example File:Grammy and Multiple Emmy Award Winning Composer Brian Keane.jpg where the statuettes are unimportant details in the background. Although I can't remember what the outcome was, I think that we once had a deletion request for one or more similar images of people with statuettes.

Another problem: Both photos credit Brian Keane as photographer, but he appears on both photos, so he is unlikely the photographer. Wouldn't photos like this usually be taken by a person employed by whoever arranges the award ceremony? Is the permission from the award ceremony organiser? --Stefan4 (talk) 21:01, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the photo is a derivative work of the statue, as the statue is not the primary focus of the photo. That is basically what the Ets-Hokins decision states -- the statue is incidental to the main purpose of the photo, which is to photograph the ceremony. The ruling basically stated that a work must be the primary focus for a photo like that to be considered derivative. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:14, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, so it seems that US law differs a lot from Swedish law. COM:DM should really be expanded with national variations to explain this. Does de minimis even exist in all countries, or is it something like FOP which exists in some countries and is absent in other countries? --Stefan4 (talk) 21:29, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Joining images

copied to Commons:Graphic Lab/Photography workshop#Joining images Penyulap ☏ 14:13, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

With photoshop elements 10, I have problems joining File:Journal de Bruxelles nr 142 1800 (414).png and File:Journal de Bruxelles nr 142 1800 (415).png to create a downsized File:Journal de Bruxelles nr 142 1800 (414, 415).png (middle white space removed). The fotomerge options seem to demand a common merge area to work. Under elements 8 it was no problem as I could manually align the two before joining. Has anyone handy solutions? I dont know if the mentioned paint solution would work with png files. (make a big empty file and paste the two files in it). Smiley.toerist (talk) 13:11, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

A much bigger ambition is to join the files File:Borinage SNCV.png, File:Hainaut centre SNCV names.png and File:Charleroi SNCV SNCB maximum extend.png or File:Borinage SNCV openstreetmap.png, File:Hainaut centre SNCV openstreetmap.png and File:Charleroi SNCV-SNCB openstreetmap background.png. They are exactly the same scale, precisely aligned and the same colour lines. They have different heights. Smiley.toerist (talk) 13:11, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Question: Inbound from a strange Wiki

I hope now the true point ;-) Perhaps here can help me someone and can tell me, what the cause, that this image does not appear correctly in Wienwiki in origin or in a a Wikimedia wiki it's working correctly. All the other images on Wienwiki works correctly too. many thx.--K@rl (talk) 12:13, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

crossposted at COM:HD#Inbound from a strange Wiki -- Rillke^(q?) 11:15, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Image rotated 90 degrees by uploading program, how can the error be corrcted?

A few minutes ago I uploaded the image Madonnina Basiglio 01, but the program rotated it 90 degrees. Is it possible to correct the error without uploading another file? Thanks for you help, --Gab.pr (talk) 11:09, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

The file page has at the end of the line starting with "Full resolution" a hotlink "rotation request". Follow this link and choose a 90° rotation. --maxxl2 - talk 11:28, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Yes, you can ask the rotatebot to do it, use the link just under the image itself called '( Request rotation)' Penyulap ☏ 11:37, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

If you are looking for reasons why your digital photo appears rotated in MediaWiki/Wikimedia, consider reading COM:ROTATEFIX#EXIF-based rotation. Please do not use (most) Microsoft Software for rotation before uploading if you would like to avoid this issue. -- Rillke^(q?) 12:58, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, someone already did what you suggest. Thank you all the same for the information ...though I must admit that if I read carefully the page I should have seen the "request rotation" sign. --Gab.pr (talk) 13:42, 31 March 2013 (UTC)