This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Using text from Wikipedia or promoting conspiracy theories?
I have a small edit was over at Category:Islamophobia. The long standing consensus have been to use the into text from the corresponding article at the English Wikipedia and also include it in Category:Racism as several very reliable sources (papers in peer-reviewed scientific journals) support it. Attempts to discuss it have so far only resulted in insults. // Liftarn (talk)
Oh boy, both of you guys have been around long enough, to know not to get into such edit wars. I do not think we need whole article on a subject there, so I just copied first sentence from the English Wikipedia and provided link to EN WIKI article. I also locked the page for a week. --Jarekt (talk) 17:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
And it will start over again when the clock ticks over since we all know he can not be reasoned with as the talk page already shows. // Liftarn (talk)
We haven't been very motivated to do renames because a new system is being introduced in May, June, July, August. Anyway, I've been through most of them. Most were invalid through not following instructions. --99of9 (talk) 02:20, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
July 03
20,000 high quality photographs for Art History enthusiasts
122.9%
completed (estimate)
Summary: Go to this backlog, pick a photograph of interest, add some categories, improve a description, or enjoy reusing the image on another project.
20,000 22,000 high resolution photographs of works of art from the Los Angeles County Museum of Art are being uploaded, starting with art from the Ancient world. The upload should finish by the end of next week. Discussion and testing started back in March 2013; you can read about the project at Batch uploading.
The photographs are described using the basic metadata information from the LACMA catalogue, so please help by adding categories such as date, materials, artwork style or descriptive text, or transcriptions for inscribed objects. The top level hierarchical category for the artworks is Collections of the Los Angeles County Museum of Art (LACMA) and a backlog of images to check and keep track of this project has been created here, which you can remove from the image page if you have reviewed and improved it. Please drop a note on my talk page if you spot a pattern of errors that might need fixing.
If you are interested in working on the Wikipedias, these images are high resolution photographs of artworks that will engage readers when illustrating articles, and are representative of a wide range of art topics, from early Egyptian pottery through to Modernism in the 19th Century.
I would like to take the opportunity to thank LACMA for making so much of their on-line catalogue and images available on a public domain licence for the widest possible public benefit. --Fæ (talk) 15:24, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
As an art history student, this is why I love Commons. Especially now our university no longer has a license for ARTstor. I'll see what I can do. Lemmens, Tom (talk) 09:22, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
By the way, I find some treasures and my own surprises in these images. The dress in the thumbnails at the top of this thread is a boy's dress and the lacy frock inserted left is also for a boy to wear. To the modern eye, it's amazing to think that English boys routinely wore fancy dresses of this sort in the mid 19th century. Some might be puzzled by the photograph above that looks like someone forgot to put a page in the scanner... it's not what it appears to be, though the description in the LACMA catalogue does not seem right either... --Fæ (talk) 16:49, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Before the age of "breeching", there often wasn't too much difference between boys' and girls' attire. The idea that the clothing of babies should make gender absolutely clear doesn't seem to have started to take hold until the 1920's (in the U.S. at least)... AnonMoos (talk) 03:53, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Multiple views of the same object
The LACMA catalogue has some artworks where several photographs have been taken (these are displayed as multiple views on their website in an embedded viewer), often these show different views of a 3D object, or interesting detail from a larger 2D object. I am uploading these as distinct images to Commons, though a small number are near duplicate images. As an example, I would like some views on whether we should keep all the images of Lustration of a Jina Rishabhanatha (Adinatha), there are 6 uploaded which appear to actually be 3 images in pairs. Taking one of these as an example:
Image 3: 2,000 × 1,238 pixels
Image 6: 2,100 × 1,300 pixels
Interestingly these are not simple re-sizing of the image, possibly they were taken as distinct physical photographs with different settings and differences in lighting (sharpness?) can be seen, unfortunately the EXIF data has been lost on one of these. I am unsure of why the curator has decided to keep such near-identical photographs in the catalogue, however it could be that they are trying to bring out slight variations in detail for future research purposes. --Fæ (talk) 11:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
I've seen a number of quasi-duplicate images which appear to be scans of different physical copies of the same printed artwork. Probably shouldn't automatically delete any of these until a human decides which is best. AnonMoos (talk) 03:53, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Please do go ahead, just ensure the "LACMA <accession number>" stays in the title as this is handy for ensuring that we avoid accidental duplicates, though it may be useful to mention the original sequence number, where this exists, in the text if removed from the filename (i.e. "(1 of 6)" above) as this indicates which of the original images this was in the catalogue entry where there are multiple views of the same object. LACMA's website has the capability of adding comments to the images, I suggest we make the effort to provide feedback where their catalogue entries are incorrect or poorly written. I have done this for a couple already but have yet to get any replies (it could be that this has little staff cover and may go unnoticed for a while). Try to remember to add images with requested corrections to Category:Images from LACMA uploaded by Fæ (corrections at source needed).
The uploads seem nearly complete now (at a total of ~21,500 images). It is possible that some uploads have been skipped due to partial matches of accession number (for example "M.22.73" would match to "M.22.73.44" or "M.22.73a-b") and there are a number of apparent duplicates that need a careful look and possible re-naming of sequences as a result. If there are skipped sequences, I would be happy to upload these, or for others to raise Deletion requests on duplicates and we can discuss which to keep, or if there is value in some of the near duplicates (for example some may be images with subtle differences in exposure or lighting). --Fæ (talk) 07:55, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Not sure about the category, but someone could inform LACMA that their English translations of the titles of these paintings are of very little use in their current form... AnonMoos (talk) 14:39, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Well spotted. I'm travelling now, but will look at renaming these next week if nobody else does. Again, worth reporting these to LACMA via their on-line comments as a catalogue error and adding to the error category on Commons as above so that we can keep a tally on how often this occurs (I think these database errors by the curators are rare, based on what we have noticed so far). --Fæ (talk) 07:55, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
I have created Category:Images from LACMA uploaded by Fæ (errors) to hold these as a backlog. Please add any others you notice to this. The images have obvious educational value, we just need LACMA to correct the identification at source, or perhaps if there is a pattern to these errors, we might be able to work out a solution to how accurately to identify these ourselves, eventually. --Fæ (talk) 08:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
A few others in the "Buddha Shakyamuni LACMA M.91.90 (X of 11).jpg" series aren't of the same statue, but I'm, not sure what they are of, or whether they're errors... AnonMoos (talk) 15:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
I am finding these 'solvable' by some smart detective work. It looks like case by case investigation. I am adding the cases on the above errors category talk page and leaving notes on the LACMA catalog as I go along. I suggest that the erroneous identification is noted on any new descriptions as this will help avoid duplicate uploads in the future, or indeed confusion if the LACMA catalog is not updated. --Fæ (talk) 17:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Missing images in a series
Several hundred images show up in Category:Files with broken file links because one or more files of a series are missing, often duplicates or website error linking not to the intended image but a previous version of this series. Please check and fix. --Denniss (talk) 09:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
I count 482 by using catscan2, mainly due to groups of multiple images all including broken links if two were duplicates; so probably about a hundred different cases which is not so terrible for an upload of 22,000 photos. I may be able to automate a fix to pluck out the non-existent links in the other_versions sections, rather than churn through these by hand; I'll ponder on it for a while.
List of licenses in the new UploadCampaigns and hint for JSON editing
I'm not really sure if this is the correct place to ask, but I haven't really found any places more suitable. After the Update to UploadCampaigns on 22 July 2013, I have been tinkering at bit with it today. Mainly because I noticed that the header seemed to have vanished on the Danish upload campaign. Besides my initial struggles with the ever present Invalid JSON answer, I found jsonlint.com and did the editing in there. That may be of use for somebody else :)
I do seem to have one "issue" with the licenses to be selected. I have tried adding a number of third party licenses that seems to be ignored, I have tried with only pd-usgov-nasa, which also seems to be ignored. The MediaWiki page on the subject doesn't provide much clue either. Can I find a list of the accepted licenses? And is it possible to add custom licenses? --heb [TCE] 08:32, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
I've put a snapshot of the default config to Commons:Upload Wizard/defaultConfig. Writing a JavaScript user interface for creating campaigns should be possible, but I don't know anything about the WMF's plans for UpWiz. If they don't have any intention, I would be inclined filing an Individual Investmet Grant proposal as this is nothing I or someone elso should do during their spare time. The licenses available are listed at "licenses": { in Commons:Upload_Wizard/defaultConfig. One would have to ask at bugzilla: in order being able to add custom licenses. -- Rillke(q?)10:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello Heb! Thanks for playing with the newer UploadCampaigns! JSONLint is also what I tend to use sometimes to make sure my JSON is valid, although the inbuilt code editor in mediawiki itself works most of the time. I do intend on adding an easy to use GUI+more to UploadCampaigns at some point, but I do not know when that will be - can be months off. There are no concrete set dates, but towards the end of the year / beginning of next perhaps. I'd highly recommend Rillke applying for an IEG for this, and would heartily endorse such a thing. Yuvipanda (talk) 09:30, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Invitation to help with WLM 2013 in the US
Dear Commoners,
Wiki Loves Monuments 2013 in the United States needs your help to assist new contributors, plan contest details, contact the press, and help promote the contest through our online presence. If you live in the United States and are interested in helping to organize the contest, please learn more about the event and sign up to assist us. Remember to subscribe to our mailing list - if you have any questions, please ask there.
We are looking forward to making this event successful and we appreciate all your assistance in this matter.
My uploads are being deleted continuously, i did not upload any improper material, Last time i uploaded 48 images of copy of a Constitution (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:ListFiles/Social_Informer). That was deleted by a user named "Magog the Ogre" in Wikimedia, He states himself as an administrator on Commons and English Wikipedia on his user page.
I have seen pictures of stones, walls, papers, and other things uploaded by users on Wikimedia, how come the images of a constitution gets cheaper than the other images to get deleted from Wikimedia.
What is happening in Wikimedia, you state one thing clearly and do something else, If you say this person stated as admin "Magog the Ogre" did is correct. Change the promotion statement that appears on the main page of Wikimedia commons to save the precious time of innocent people around the world.
It makes me feel very disappointed, if there is a good space to store the images of the constitution let me know.
Did you write the constitution? Did you illustrate it? Has it been released under a free license? Is the organization who's constitution you uploaded notable (e.g. does it have an article on en-wiki?) --99of9 (talk) 02:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
That category is interesting; it has 2 DRs both of which I would not have deleted on the basis of the nomination. Both are from IPs. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Montreuil - Salon du livre jeunesse 2011 - Frédéric Petitjean - 001.jpg is a photo of the guy at a book signing in his official capacity as a public figure in France, and there is another photo from the same event by the same photographer in his category here on Commons. The other is an IP claiming to be to subject, and would appear to be, again, taken in her role as a public figure. These are not good examples of what we should be using to discuss courtesy deletions. :( russavia (talk) 13:44, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
IAR. I do it sometimes for unused/unlinked images out of respect for an uploader (who used their valuable time and effort to find/create the picture) who wishes it to be removed. IMHO, if it can be done, it should be. Just my two cents -FASTILY20:03, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
I created this category − indeed to try to surface some “case law” − and put there the few DRs I knew about because the pictures happened to have been taken by a fellow French user − feel free to add more DRs. Though I believe many courtesy deletions actually happen without DRs, after discussion on whatever village pump. Jean-Fred (talk) 09:24, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for creating this, Matt. I don't think IAR is sufficient, especially when the topic is discussed as though it were a policy. I encourage people with experience of when this has been done (either informally or through DR) to help flesh out the page. Colin (talk) 09:47, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Location template by default
Can we please do something about all uploads having {{Location}} now? I must have seen 100 images which apparently were taken at 0,0 just in the past day. Maybe make the template commented out if 0,0? Not like many people will be taking photos there. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:46, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Already reported the 23rd and the 25th, and apparently ignored. I find it disgraceful that back then a new upload “wizard” was deemed such an important addition and there was even resources to sprinkle it with some k12 cartoons — but now when it’s broken nobody even cares to acknowledge the error, let alone fix it.
Yes, apparently ignored — even if not actually ignored. The matter was raised here and was not follwed up in here. Too bad that the Village pump is found to be a good place to spam about all the latest “enhancements”, but not to answer real world matters. -- Tuválkin✉14:07, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Deployment is scheduled for Monday, July 29, 2013, if I understand everything correctly. However, I could try to overwriting the Upload Wizard config at Commons, if this is desired, to fix the issue here. -- Rillke(q?)14:36, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
My bot will run over all UploadWizard uploads (due to its edit summary it's easy) and does not require the category. Given a full job-queue, this was a way to achieve the desired result more quickly. -- Rillke(q?)09:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
The category is a good idea, notwithstanding what I said before because uploads through ill-configured campaigns still suffer from this issue (until the next deployment which is Monday, August 19, 2013). -- Rillke(q?)22:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Please pardon a potentially ignorant question from a fairly long time contributor. What is the best forum for asking for neutral/3rd party feedback in photo caption dispute between Wikimedians? Thank you for your attention. -- Infrogmation (talk) 03:20, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
I guess a good forum to notify users can be the Village Pump in the language or languages most likely associated with the file's topic. For example, if someone wanted to discuss the description of a photo of a statue of in the United States, a notification might be posted here, on the English-language VP, to invite users to take part in a discussion to take place on the file's discussion page. As it is a matter specific to the wording of the description page, the ideal forum to actually discuss the issue would be the discussion page specifically associated with the file. -- Asclepias (talk) 02:37, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
There seem to be MANY forums for dispute resolution [1], etc. Again, what is the recommended forum when Wikimedians working in good faith have a disagreement over editing and wish to bring in others to look at it in order to avoid edit warring? -- Infrogmation (talk) 00:58, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Administrators' noticeboard/User problems is for matters that require urgent intervention for either contentious issues, or issues that need tools. The village pump is also for contentious issues, though too many people think that blocking is the answer to everything when that is rarely, if ever, the case.
For what you want, the village dump is the place. It's here, it's happening dude :D No, but seriously I would say that starting a talkpage for the file or category and putting a big note there, with what ideas or opinions you'd like and then a small, simple, neutral note here is the best way and doesn't get in the way of anyones business, because it IS anyone's business, but doesn't get in the way. Don't need an admin to get a 3rd opinion. Other neutral places for 3rd opinions would be the help desk for sure as well. Here is an example for road trains that I think is just the ticket. Penyulap☏09:47, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
There are 1,000+ images in license review and no one has marked them for many months now. The backlog has grown from 500/600 images when I first saw it. Perhaps there are some experienced Admins or Reviewers who can mark some of the images here. I mark flickr, panoramio, picasa and some indafoto images and that is enough for me. If no one marks it, I suppose the backlog in license review will grow larger unfortunately. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:11, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
I have seen many caused by http://wikipedia.ramselehof.de/flinfo.php when the {flickrreview} bot fails. Some are 90 deg rotation and others are cropped before uploading. In both cases the bot rejects the image size. If you look at the edit and file history of File:Côte d'agneau de Sisteron.jpg you will see how to fix them. I did a few back in May after one of mine ended up in Category:License_review_needed License review. Others that aren't reviewers or admin could do it the same way and then reset the bot to clear them.--Canoe1967 (talk) 11:31, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Bot to convert EXIF geolocation data (lat, long, angle, alt) to use Location dec template?
Is there a bot to convert images' EXIF geolocation data (latitude, longitude, angle and altitude) to use the Location dec template? For example, the EXIF metadata for File:Crowd_on_First_Street_NW_entering_Orange_Gate;_2013_US_Presidential_Inauguration;_looking_south.JPG#Metadata gives values for each of those geolocation data types, but the "Direction of image" field isn't defined as with the applicable 'heading' parameter from the 'Location dec' template. (That image was uploaded with Commonist, which parses EXIF data for latitude and longtitude into the appropriate 'Location dec' parameters, but unfortunately doesn't the available direction EXIF data.) Thanks for any pointers, Emw (talk) 15:38, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
I doubt so unless there is a category, special page, or API query that lists all the available files. It would be almost impossible to go over all the files to check them. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 15:44, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
It is do-able and User:DschwenBot is the best bet. It may be worth dropping a note on their talk page if your uploads are not being picked up in appropriate ways. There have been similar discussions on which geo-fields should be used, it may be slightly contentious due to a lack of widely agreed camera/EXIF standards on which fields to include and their format. By the way, it is a relatively simple API call to extract any geolocation data that a camera has added to a photo. --Fæ (talk) 15:57, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, we could create such a list or category (it just might take a month to populate it), but as we can currently query all files using a coord template, this answers most questions (this means that a tool like catscan2 can query a category and intersect that with all files with a certain template). I think your issue is a bit different from this question anyway, I believe you are asking about parts of the geolocation data in an EXIF that are not currently extracted. I think that if you search the archives of Commons:Bots/Work_requests this might have been discussed a year or more ago. If not, you may want to breakdown your question there, both in terms of what you find insufficient in the current template (if you do) and what you believe a bot could help sort out. --Fæ (talk) 16:17, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
The geodata update went well, except the coordinates provided in the image file place my camera in a building, about 10 meters from the actual camera location (which was in the middle of a street). Would it be possible to augment DschwenBot and/or the location templates to include a parameter for the "Measurement precision" field in EXIF data? This way, it would be possible to flag images that have "Poor" precision, which should make it easier to detect this kind of problem and enable users to correct coordinate errors. "Measurement precision" is part of the EXIF standard: http://www.opanda.com/en/pe/help/gps.html, where it exists as the "GPSDOP" field: http://www.opanda.com/en/pe/help/gps.html#GPSDOP. Emw (talk) 17:08, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Sure, that is possible. May take a few days as I'm about to be on travel. Note that the current convention (although not observed by the bot) is to reflect precision by the number of decimal digits. --Dschwen (talk) 18:51, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Animated GIF problems
I've updated User:Dispenser/GIF check. It now flags animations over 2 minute long since video have a better UX. Many GIFs are incorrectly timed with frame rates of 100 FPS. I've used GIF Movie Gear to re-time these (Does anybody have a free alternative?). I've also noticed Firefox's is timing is wrong. Dispenser (talk) 17:31, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
I wanted to let you know about a change to the contact-us page for image problems. We've set up a special email address legal-reportswikimedia.org to report Inappropriate images of children to the WMF. That address is monitored by several members of the Legal and Community Advocacy staff and should ONLY be used to report inappropriate images of children. As always deletion (if you are able and feel comfortable doing so) is appreciated to get it off the site as soon as possible but we do not recommend downloading or archiving any potentially inappropriate content yourself. Doing so could place you in significant legal peril.
In order to ensure that everyone can find the email address if needed I've considered putting it in the edit notice for the Commons Village Pump (here) and Admin noticeboard. Does anyone have a concern with that? Jalexander (talk) 02:07, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
In general, yes, the full process we have to go through is a bit more complicated (artistic/historical etc have to be brought into the discussion at times) but I think erring on the side of caution is always better for reporting. Jalexander (talk) 21:44, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Now that I know what you mean, I find this notice quite annoying. How many cases did we ever have of someone reporting inappropriate images of children to Village Pump? I do not recall ever running into one. --Jarekt (talk) 15:17, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
It really is annoying. I think those posting to the village pump mostly are able to find that address through the proper guidelines. --LPfi (talk) 09:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
"Please make this title more meaningful"?
Earlier today, I uploaded a number of photos and encountered the following interesting incident. Using the Upload Wizard, in the same upload, the file name File:Opteka 58mm lens filter set.JPG was accepted, yet File:Fotodiox 52mm lens filter set.JPG returned an error "Please make this title more meaningful". I got round it using the old upload form, but I'm guessing this is a mis-firing file name filter of some form? -- KTC (talk) 20:56, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
I would agree. I think the software is set to reject files like Foto, Dsc, Img, type thing. Is there a way to edit the error message to explain the fault? "Please make this title more meaningful. Do not use common prefixes (Foto, Dsc, Img...) or blocked characters." We could even add a link in the message that has a list.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
It's probably caused by MediaWiki:Filename-prefix-blacklist. We have a similar, more detailed rule in MediaWiki:Titleblacklist, so I'm not sure it's really needed. There at least used to be a way to report blacklist problems from within the Upload Wizard, but since the last report is from December 2011, I'm guessing it's been disabled, probably because literally none of the feedback there was legitimate. —LX (talk, contribs)15:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
May be an additional clause could be added that numbers followed by "mm", "km", and a few others are accrptable? -- Tuválkin✉16:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Does it have to be triggered so easily? I can imagine many legitimate filenames starting with that phrase, while I suppose only a handful patterns are meant to trigger it. --LPfi (talk) 08:58, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
I just came across the two templates mentioned above, and wonder if there is any consensus to do such things? Matters on Commons should be decided on Commons, not on one particular local project. Such a template excludes people banned or blocked on that project, people not speaking that project's language and people who otherwise don't want to or cannot participate on that project. Consensus that may have been formed on some local project shouldn't apply to Commons. I wasn't sure if a deletion request is the best way to do this as it seems more like a policy issue, so I'm raising it here. darkweasel9420:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
But an enWP discussion for instance can impact a Commons image, and there is no point forcing a fork of the discussion. When the discussion started on WP, often about the suitability of the image or some modification, the template provides a convenient courtesy notice. Dankarl (talk) 22:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
The template basically says "if you want to discuss this image, please don't do so here but at some other project" - and that's not a good idea. darkweasel9423:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
I thought some time about it and I'd go as far as to say: remove local file discussion pages all together (and clearly eliminate those templates!).
If a file is uploaded to Commons all discussion related to that file should go there. Otherwise we could have split discussions for every language of every WMF project plus the (in principle) centralized discussion on Commons. A needless mess, hindering communication between projects. If a file has a problem on the English Wikipedia it's probable it has the exact same problems on German Wikipedia (not to talk of the problems which might have been mentioned on Bengali Wikipedia – which I'll never ever read since I'm not active in this project.
Actually I even have the gadget enabled to bypass local file description pages (as might others). That means I never see local file discussion pages at all. I therefore strongly suggest to collect discussions on Commons. It will allow people from all projects to contribute to the discussion and it will make people of all projects aware of the problems that might exist with a file that might have gone unnoticed otherwise. --Patrick87 (talk) 23:10, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
I created those templates. If Darkweasel or anyone else is so intent on the discussion not occurring at another wiki, then he is welcome to migrate the talk pages to Commons, so that the discussion isn't forked. Good luck with that; there is a lot of text, and the number of file talk pages on English Wikipedia is in the millions, making automatic redirecting a non-starter as a proposal. The rest of us appreciate having discussion centralized - those of us who are out to actually enable better content rather than trying to make a point about the horrors of having to register an account at a second wiki and to comment there.
As for people who are banned at Wikipedia - well, with all due respect, if they didn't commit ban-worthy acts, then they could have their say in the discussion. That goes with the territory - if you misbehave on a wiki, you can't participate in it. There are consequences to community-defying behavior, but that shouldn't inhibit discussion for the rest of us.
Finally, as for someone who speaks a language other than English, the person will have no problem commenting on file talk pages for Commons images in their own language. Only other pages (e.g., articles) require English. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Well I'm someone who doesn't like to be pre-judged. I also find it rather offensive that people who are welcome to contribute on commons should be made to feel unwelcome to do so. If you feel the need to punish someone who has done something wrong on en.wiki, then go and punish them there rather than think you can do it twice over here for the hell of it. Edward Snowden and Julian Assange don't get the death penalty everywhere they go. Penyulap☏05:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I really understand you comment Magog the Ogre. Basically you're saying that you want discussions centralized, too. So how is this a contradiction to encourage people to have the discussion here on Commons, where the file is hosted and where discussions are centralized per definition? I see that it's not feasible to move all the existing content from all projects to Commons at this point, but at least we can deprecate the use of these templates now to not make the situation even worse. I'd favor the other way round: Templates telling people to have the discussion on Commons put on local file discussion pages. --Patrick87 (talk) 09:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
"If you misbehave on a wiki, you can't participate in it" - yes, true, but you should still be able to participate in other wikis, especially Commons which has implications far beyond both the wiki where you're banned and itself. We have at least one bureaucrat here who is indef-blocked on enwiki. And I didn't even say we should move existing talk pages to Commons, just deprecate this template and from now on ignore everything that happened somewhere else. Remember that file talk pages on other wikis won't show up on any Commons watchlist, so people who are potentially interested won't be able to see anything that happens there. darkweasel9410:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
I do not see anything wrong with those templates. People at local wikis often do not speak English, or are not familiar with Commons. Such discussions about files we are holding will be happening all over the place, if we like it or not. And I do prefer to have link to such discussions here at Commons, so we can find them in the future. --Jarekt (talk) 15:26, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
We do not require other people to talk English on Commons, therefore they can also communicate in their native language if the wish to do so. But if they can speak English it would be preferable if they did, so other people who are not able to speak their native language (which is the much more probable case) can join the discussion (something totally prevented by local file discussion).
I'm not familiar with over 200 localized Wikipedias and not a single other WMF project. Do you think I feel any better when I'm redirected while I would feel familiar with Commons? The images are hosted on Commons, so maybe we should encourage people to make themselves familiar with Commons – the great project which hosts their files – in the end?
Nobody suggested to replace those templates without substitution. Surely we will make sure to keep this information! --Patrick87 (talk) 15:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
We can not prevent people from discussing images wherever they want and whatever language they want. They will be doing it with or without our blessing. The only choice we have is if we want to have friendly template to put around the link to such discussions, or not. I prefer a friendly template. Even that is not much of a choice since The templates are in use so we can not get rid of them without labor of replacing them with something else. --Jarekt (talk) 17:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but I have the feeling this template is rather used to encourage people to have the discussion elsewhere instead of directing the discussion to (with the current software) inevitable discussions on local talk pages. That's why I don't like it and would reccomend templates redirecting the other way round where necessary). Instead of improving upon the current situation it worsens it by relaying even more useful input to local file talk pages instead of keeping it centralized and easily visible for everybody on Commons. --Patrick87 (talk) 18:17, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
What I could live with is a neutral template "there have also been discussions about this file on enwiki, dewikinews, frwikispecies, ..." - but we shouldn't encourage people to do that, and in case of disputes, consensus on Commons should always override consensus somewhere else (other wikis can always upload their preferred versions under different file names, after all). darkweasel9418:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
So, what about rephrasing the template to sound neutral, saying that there is discussion on Wikipedia but not that the primary discussion should take place at Wikipedia? E.g. make the template informational instead of a quasi-redirect as it is now! --Patrick87 (talk) 14:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
I suggest something like "There is discussion for this file at English Wikipedia:", or "Some discussion for ...". -84user (talk) 06:40, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
I would support phrasing that says "there is previous discussion already on Wikipedia; further discussion on the subject should take place there" (so that the redirect isn't misused to start discussion on Wikipedia). I would also support if someone moved the discussion to Commons, keeping the links intact. In fact, I could easily create a script to allow for someone to move a talk page (and I would be glad to do so if asked). But allowing the discussion to split in order to prove a prove a point is a bad idea. It seems to me that is all ado about how users who can't behave on other wikis (and thus get blocked) are being slighted by not being able to comment on discussion that is already occurring on those wikis rather than splitting the discussion. We should not let users who can't behave ruin it for the rest of us. So yes, I oppose this "neutral" phrasing (I am not impressed by the attempts to poison the well with such a term either). Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Great to hear you basically giving your support on neutral phrasing (although I don't understand why you put it in the oppose section then ). Regarding your concerns with blocked users I can at least assure you that I don't want to support such behavior either, am not blocked anywhere personally, and am not affiliated with anyone who is (rather the opposite is the case). I honestly think the pros outweigh the cons here. --Patrick87 (talk) 01:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
I opposed because I was worried that the phrasing would not emphasize that it is best to keep discussion in one place. For example, if we say "users are encouraged to partake in existing discussion at Wikipedia," a user may then reason, "I'd prefer not to go through the effort of creating an account at the new wiki; instead, I will start a new thread on Commons." Then, before you know it, we are discussing similar issues, and eventually the same issues, and some people are watching one discussion, some the other, and now everyone is confused. If we could address that problem, I would change to a support. Also, pardon me if I'm typing in run-on sentences; my brain isn't allowing me to type coherent thoughts tonight. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Many people do not speak English and will never come here to discuss things, but they are discussing them on local wikipedias, article talk pages, etc. Some images might be of interest only to people that do not speak English. I have seen discussions about some detail about a city border in Poland at some year and all the people arguing lived in that city. There might not be a way to let them know about our disapproval. --Jarekt (talk) 02:13, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
should Common be restricted to people over X years of age
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Obviously not (or only if the value of X is negative). If you disagree with the above proposal about *one specific editor*, discuss the issue there. --99of9 (talk) 13:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
It appears new policy is being invented on the fly, changing the nature of commons, so that children are unwelcome to contribute. On the commons website, there are no warnings, so does this mean that all under-X years of age contributors shall have their contributions treated in the same manner as vandalism, or is it going to be a thing like gays in the US army a few years ago with 'don't ask, don't tell' policy.
"Arctic Kangaroo is blocked from editing on/uploading to Commons until he has provided either to OTRS or to WMF-legal strong evidence to have reached legal understanding and legal competence according the terms of his local legislation (Singapor) and of U.S. legislation[...]" link
Seems the new policy should be 'pick a jurisdiction you think the editor is in, find the age of majority there, and then block and revert everything, but don't tell anyone on the front-page, edit notices or anywhere else about this new policy'.
While I usually don’t comment to trollish nonsense, I do now in order to prevent good-faith users from loosing time due to Pen’s intentional misrepresentation.
This is a special single case, in which a juvenile user requested deletion of his images, uploaded weeks earlier, on the base that he didn’t understand the license (and its consequences) to which he formally had agreed. As he showed the same not-understanding even after weeks of discussion on Commons and :en Wikipedia, he is evidently missing legal competence to validly release his works. We cannot expose re-users to such a legal risk. Besides, the user expressed his own retirement from Commons already July 12th. --Túrelio (talk) 10:39, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
I do not think it is an issue with age, but with maturity. I have met several users who where doing great jobs as admins of en wiki and other projects while in early teens, and there are many grown ups that behave like kids. The problem becomes when juveniles start behaving like juveniles, and because in most jurisdictions they can not legally release their work under license of their choosing, they can always revoke their contributions. That has always been a potential danger, and it is unfortunate when it happens. However I do not think we have any new policy. --Jarekt (talk) 12:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Should commons be restricted to adults
Generally, although not general enough to suggest that there aren't cases of it happening, which obviously there are, but generally how to deal with the LEGAL aspects of many countries, where children are not able to enter into legal contracts and therefor their text as well as image contributions can't have the SA-3 or any other license applied to it in any effective manner. How can the images and text be re-used and does it vary country to country. Have children written books before, how are child actors and actresses contracted around the world, does anyone have examples or links ? Penyulap☏14:34, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
No, because that would go against everything that we go for in terms of inclusiveness. Just because one editor messed up doesn't mean that we should ban all children off of the project. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
In response to Penyulap's question, presumably the child's legal guardian (often a parent) would have to contract on his or her behalf until the child himself or herself reaches the age of majority. — Cheers, JackLee–talk–17:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
This discussion is a little pointless since we do not know ages of any users, unless they have picture on their user page, and even that can be bogus. So we can be restricting all we want, but I do not thing and kids we be reading our policies before deciding if they want to edit. As for kid authors or actors, they are probably represented by their parents who sign all their legal paperwork. So kids can edit as long as their parents press the "save" button :) --Jarekt (talk) 17:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
If there are actual legal concerns, the WMF will do this on all Wikimedia projects. This applies equally to all of them, not just to Commons. darkweasel9418:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
This is a can of worms that I was aware of but deliberately avoided opening for a long time. I am torn, because it is plain to see that free licenses by minors under the law are revocable, which creates potential problems for content reusers, and is technically forbidden by Commons:Licensing policy. On the other hand, minors contributing to Commons greatly aids their development and sense of efficacy, and helps build the next generation of contributors, and the incredible value of this calls for an explicit exception to our licensing policy. Possible compromise measures include:
If the user is willing to publicly identify that they are a minor: tag their uploads with a warning tag, indicating that the work was released under a free license by a minor who has pledged not to revoke that license, but is capable of doing so under the law.
Seek blanket approval from the minor's parent or guardian via OTRS, agreeing that all their work will be released under the minor's license of choice. (I'd appreciate if a lawyer can double check me on the legality/enforcability of this.)
Some users do not reveal they are minors and are generally indistinguishable from adults. For them, our only reasonable option is to host their works like we would those of an adult - we must write off this risk for the same reasons we must trust claims of "own work," because they are needed for a pseudonymous online community to exist at all. Dcoetzee (talk) 13:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
In the past there were some discussions about safety of minors on wikimedia projects, and how to ensure that they are not being contacted for wrong reasons. As I recall, they were being asked not to identify themselves as minors. Few underage admins I have met at some wikipedia events (sometimes traveling with parents) very specifically requested no individual photographs and no identification in group photographs. So perhaps we should not encourage the warning template. OTRS from parents would be OK. --Jarekt (talk) 14:15, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
August 03
SVG Featured Picture candidate guidelines reform
I have noticed that non-photographic media nominations often fail due to the sheer fact that not enough people voted. I personally have had a very large fraction of my nominations fail from the crickets due to that rule that says "nominations must receive at least seven votes to be considered"'. While I advocate changing that rule completely, I think a big part of that problem can be attributed to the fact that nobody knows what to look for in a SVG illustration. This leads to a lot of ad hoc or subjective voting, if any. The guidelines for nominating at the top of Commons:Featured picture candidates almost exclusively deals with photographs, and when not, only deals with scans and historical paintings. Commons:Image guidelines would be better renamed Commons:Photograph guidelines as it is only for photographs. No wonder nobody votes on SVG nominations—unlike with photos, there are no criteria to vote based on!
This is why I propose drafting a new set of guidelines that deal exclusively with SVG nominations. This is important not only to ensure the FPC process is fair, but also to encourage more non-photographic contributions. When I first came to Commons, I didn't think SVG diagrams were that welcome, and I hesitated to nominate my pictures because I assumed that Featured Picture was "only for photographs".
I have set up a discussion page and drafted a proposal which can be found at Commons talk:SVG guidelines. Please read and add your opinion.
Category:Xeno-canto
Here's a call out to birdwatchers who might be interested in adding audio files to articles about birds in many languages (or using this as a reason to start a few articles about different species).
Since my batch uploads of bird songs starting six months ago from the Xeno-canto website, 12% of the 670 CC-BY-SA audio files are now in use globally, mostly on the English, French and Cebuano Wikipedias (thanks to those editors that have run with these). These are a great collection that can bring a new level of engagement for any article about different species of birds by embedding the file to play in the article, so let's get the usage up and share this knowledge in more languages. If you have never edited in other languages and your language skills are not great, here's a good opportunity to try, as birdsongs are universal and don't need a translation . Thanks to Pigsonthewing for originally pointing out this free collection of quality recordings by enthusiasts. --Fæ (talk) 22:50, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
August 08
unified login - any recent changes?
Hello, back from holidays I find the login window appearance has changed, more importantly my unified login does no longer work. Checking with tools they tell me all is ok with my global user account, but neither do I get the message that I am now also logged into ((icon list)) at login time nor am I logged in when I change to a different wiki than commons. I continue to use firefox on a debian squeeze box and the MonoBook skin. -- KlausFoehl (talk) 09:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Every time they fiddle with the login page it gets messed up:
When they forced Vector down our throatsgifted us that pinnacle of webdesign that is Vector, unified login started experiencing assymterical timeouts (you may get logged off in one project and yet stay logged on in others);
when they clowned upenhanced the login page to have a blue haze around the namebox and the login button blue instead of grey (two very important additions to the whole project, much more than, say, adding to the server farm to avoid "Wikimedia Error" screens), the username box gets filled with the last login unpromted, adding to security issues in shared machines;
now with the lazymuch-needed unprompted redirect, seems that the unified login was further borked.
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.16) Gecko/20121207 Iceweasel/3.5.16 (like Firefox/3.5.16) ; have not tried the cookies yet. P.S. my login is no longer persistent :( -- KlausFoehl (talk) 16:46, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
In regards to the "lazymuch-needed unprompted redirect" - blame the fact that some of our users still want to be able to log in globally on newer firefox. [2]. Bawolff (talk) 20:49, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello, earlier I moved File:20110607 London 07.JPG to the more descriptive filename File:AllSaints store, Westbourne Grove, London W11.jpg after identifying the location of the photograph. I've performed hundreds of similar file moves over the last few months without any problem, but on this particular file, I can no longer see the thumbnails, or even the full-sized image after the move. Although it was fine before the move. I've tried doing a "purge" and also deleted the browser cache and tried alternative browsers, but can't get the image to appear. Also, when I click on the link inside the missing thumbnail, which would usually produce the full-sized image ( This link:- [3] ) I'm getting a 404 not found error. So can anyone else reproduce this error? And if so, is there any way it can be fixed. Thanks again for any possible help, Rept0n1x (talk) 12:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
I confirm no thumbnail displayed (checkered rectangle) and 404 for the full size. requesting a smaller thumbnail gave
Error creating thumbnail: convert: no decode delegate for this image format `/a/magick-tmp/magick-mBRxayFV' @ error/constitute.c/ReadImage/532.
convert: missing an image filename `/tmp/transform_82864f67dce6-1.jpg' @ error/convert.c/ConvertImageCommand/3011.
Thanks very much both for the replies and for taking time to investigate. Yes I agree, indeed it seems like the file itself is missing, I've never experienced this problem before. So if anyone with shell access reads this, then please can you help? I will see if it can be fixed first, but if nothing can be done then I will contact the original author. Also, I will refrain from moving any more files until this is resolved, as I wouldn't like it to happen again. Thanks! Rept0n1x (talk) 14:43, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the further info. On reading your reply I have now contacted the original uploader here to inform him of what has happened and also to ask him if he still has the file available for re-upload. Also I quickly realised, given that it is policy to inform users of a deletion request on a file, it seems the right thing to inform a user also when their file is completely deleted! Although the file was not in use, I did perform the re-name which somehow resulted in the the inadvertent deletion of the file. So I do feel in some way responsible for the photograph disappearing, even if it was apparently caused by an unexpected bug. But I do sincerely hope that the file can be recovered one way or another, Thanks again all. Rept0n1x (talk) 16:09, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
It's OK, I've now managed to restore the file myself. I just had an idea that the filename on the server had not been renamed (for whatever reason), therefore the original high resolution file should still be available under the old URL, although I did not immediately know what it was. Fortunately, I had previously viewed the full resolution file in Firefox before moving it and so I was able to recover the original URL from the browser history, allowing me to re-download the original file so I could re-upload it again under the new name. (I should have thought of this sooner!). So you should all see the photograph is now visible under the new name as intended. I don't know what caused the problem, but I'm really glad that the file is now back. Also if it happens again then I know how to fix it (as long as I ensure that I view the full resolution file before renaming) so that procedure should effectively be safe. Thanks again all! Rept0n1x (talk) 17:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
I filed bugzilla:52660 about this. This sort of thing should not happen. (for reference, to determine the original file name, its http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/ substr( md5( filename), 0, 1 ) / substr( md5( filename, 0, 2)) /filename. ) Bawolff (talk) 20:35, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Also just to say that I've now managed to generate the filename using an online MD5 hash calculator as you specified above, and it worked fine, allowing the desired URL to be determined. I just had to replace the spaces in the filename with underscores for it to produce the correct result. I'm not sure of the exact terminology, but guessing the underlying filesystem uses underscores instead of spaces in filenames, whereas the Mediawiki software hides this and allows spaces to be used in the higher-level interface. In any case it's reassuring to know I can use this method in case this happens again. Cheers! Rept0n1x (talk) 06:41, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
MediaWiki uses underscores instead of spaces internally (In the database, in urls, etc). It shows underscores as normal spaces when viewing pages. Bawolff (talk) 19:16, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification, that makes sense. The other thing I should mention for future reference is that not all online MD5 hash calculators handle unicode correctly. I further tested this URL recovery method on some Commons files with Cyrillic filenames and some sites' MD5 hash generators gave wrong results. Just in case this problem does happen to anyone else and they stumble upon this discussion, I found that this particular site does appear to compute the correct MD5 hash even on files using non-latin scripts in the file name. Rept0n1x (talk) 19:32, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Free license dictionary
Has anyone got a free license dictionary? If so we should replace File:Dictionary through lens.JPG with a freer version. It is probably de min or PD text only but I think we should change it on principle in the projects. We probably similar images that should be changed in the projects for the same reason.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:57, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Wiktionary, to start with, but someone will have to print the relevant parts out to produce a comparable picture... AnonMoos (talk) 07:00, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
August 07
Unvisited app
So, there is a new app that is worth discussing, as it is quite useful to our mission. Would anyone be able to add this to Commons app page, or a link to it, so that it could get some more traffic, as well as a potential developer? Thanks! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:13, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
research for more details of pictures taken from airplane
This was a long flight from Paris to Antananarivo (Madagascar). Height 10 kilometers on 16 july (the timing of the camera is ofset by many hours, all pictures are taken on the 16th)
Great pictures, thanks for uploading them! I'm afraid I can't help you with your question though, just wanted to let you know that there's a more elegant way to link different versions of a file: The other versions= field at the file description page is just meant for that. The easiest way to get good-looking results is to put {{Otherversion|filename.jpg|description text}} right next to the other versions=. I've done that for File:Montecristo island original.JPG and some others, just as an example – it's of course up to you to decide whether you like it or not … Cheers, --El Grafo (talk) 12:46, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Title:
The online encyclopedia Wikipedia is vie
Caption: The online encyclopedia Wikipedia is viewed on January 17, 2012 in Washington, DC. Free online knowledge site Wikipedia will shut down for 24 hours beginning at midnight eastern standard time in protest at draft anti-online piracy legislation before the US Congress, founder Jimmy Wales said Monday on Twitter. AFP PHOTO/Karen BLEIER (Photo credit should read KAREN BLEIER/AFP/Getty Images)
Date created: 17 Jan 2012
Editorial image #: 137246977
Restrictions: Contact your local office for all commercial or promotional uses. Full editorial rights UK, US, Ireland, Italy, Spain, Canada (not Quebec). Restricted editorial rights elsewhere, please call local office.
License type: Rights-managed
Photographer:
KAREN BLEIER/Staff
Collection:
AFP
Credit: AFP/Getty Images
Max file size/dimensions/dpi: 34.5 MB - 4256 x 2832 px (14.19 x 9.44 in.) - 300 dpi
Download file size may vary.
Source: AFP
Release information: Not released. More information
Bar code: AFP
Object name: Was6144007
Copyright: 2012 AFP
Keywords: Finance, Technology, Horizontal, USA, Internet, Washington DC, Capital Cities, Encyclopaedia, Wikipedia. Find similar images
Is the new notifications box at the top of the watchlist broken for anyone else? I've been trying to show it to some people but can't seem to get it to display on a number of different machines/connections. Andrew Gray (talk) 02:41, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks; I'd wondered that, but I didn't know where to check! There's now a single message (WV logos) and that's showing up fine. Andrew Gray (talk) 13:41, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Is this particular category following guidelines that require that they be listed under User categories? Just a question, I am not too wiki proficient! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 21:47, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
I just came across some disruptive DRs by an IP of files I had on my watchlist. Has it ever been discussed that IPs shouldn't be allowed to file DRs? This would save our admin mucho headaches.--Canoe1967 (talk) 13:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
I can't see that changing anytime soon, for example, what if some lame-arse admin wanted to troll you canoe ? If they can't file a DR on one of your images, then how can they swoop in wearing underpants on the outside like a 7 year old to save the day and impress the heck out of you ? Hypothetically speaking of course. Penyulap☏13:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Support. I think the techs should just change it with three support votes in this section. Only IPs should be allowed to revert consensus and then we could see their reasons. Their is no reason we can't create a special tag for them that would put the files in a pre-DR review category.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Support Yes it has been discussed before, so this is a well trodden path. It would be bizarre for a new contributor to start helping on Commons with DRs in their first edit, so limiting DR creation to confirmed accounts could hardly be considered a huge burden on those interested in creating valid DRs. I would hope that everyone knows that setting up an alternative new account is a better way of preserving anonymity, rather than, say, revealing that you happen to use SkyMesh to access the internet. --Fæ (talk) 15:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Oppose Completely forbidding DRs for IPs, Support some kind of "preliminary" DRs that need to be reviewed first (however I doubt this would significantly reduce work for administrators in the end). The problem I see with forbidding DRs fo IPs is, that a copyright holder (or someone affiliated with the copyright holder) who does not have an account might find an image used on Wikipedia without permission. We should then allow to anonymously request deletion. --Patrick87 (talk) 16:35, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
If there is a good reason for the copyright holder to protect their anonymity, or to have concern for the Streisand Effect, then they would be better advised to email in via OTRS rather than raise a public DR. There is also no problem (on Commons) for an anon IP to request a DR if the (incredibly simple) step of creating a single purpose account to raise a DR is not acceptable for them. --Fæ (talk) 16:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Comment What is exactly the extent of the problem? Otherwise, I am really inclined to believe this is a solution in search of a problem. Jean-Fred (talk) 16:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
An IP can still use a copyvio speedy tag if they are the rights holder. If another editor wishes to question the copyvio tag then that editor can ask for OTRS or DCMA office action and then tag it DR pending the other outcomes. The problem I saw recently was an IP that was blocked for disruptive DRs. Admin had to block and revert the DRs. With regular copyvio tags then any editor can deal with them and disrupting IPs will clue in.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Oppose This cannot really be enforced on a technical level anyway, so any DR started by an IP in violation of this proposal will still need to be dealt with by an admin. Speedy-closing a legitimate DR just because of who started it strikes me as pretty silly. darkweasel9417:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Actually, on a technical level, this would be pretty easy for a bot to handle, even to the extent of sweeping up and leaving polite messages on IP talk pages encouraging them to create an account to do the same thing. Hypothetically speaking as, based on the last few times this was discussed, changes like this that can be argued to "suppress" access will never get voted through even if the majority of such DRs are a source of disruption or just a waste of time. --Fæ (talk) 17:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
I should have asked about the tech aspects. If a bot would work we could have it message the admin board as well. Then they could hand out disruptive IP blocks before too many lame DRs get created. --Canoe1967 (talk) 21:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
If you're going to have lots of voting like this, may I suggest cut'n'pasting the whole lot across to VPP. Penyulap☏05:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Comment I don't like the barriers described in the talk linked above. As I don't like the way you have recently blocked IP-addresses from creating templates. (I used to create template translation subpages and now I can't.) I've requested several reasonable deletions myself and I've seen plenty of such DRs by other IP-addresses. If admins really are about to crumble under the load of false DRs that are by IP-addresses and not by registered users (what's the actual state?) then you might want to make it harder for IP-address to create a DR (i.e hide the toolbar link for them), but not fully block them. 88.196.241.24906:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
actually hiding the toolbar may have the opposite effect on nonsense DR's, filtering out good faith ones and leaving the rest.
Also, just as many registered users and admins will make nonsense DR's, if not more, than unregistered users. Maybe the unregistered ones are just more noticeable because it's an IP. Some people don't have access to the tools to see who is doing it (no I don't mean CU) so it frustrates them which is I guess the intention. I suggest just turn all nonsense DR's into an Epic fail by not caring. Penyulap☏07:00, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Comment People who have never used a wiki and come here to complain about the misuse of their copyrighted image may well do a DR as their one and only edit. Expecting them to work out how to add copyvio templates or file OTRS request straight off the street (or the web) is a little unreasonable for their first edit. On the other side, people with malicious/disruptive intent, especially those with a wiki grudge, would hardly pause at the requirement of creating an account and even doing a few innocent edits to get autoconfirmed. --Tony Wills (talk) 07:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose Considering that I've filed a number of legitimate (and accepted) DRs of more than year-old uncategorized images from an IP quite recently (when editing from work, where I prefer not to create an alternate account for simplicities sake), I strongly oppose making it harder for drive-by users to help with cataloging and triaging our massive flow of un-sorted and un-checked images. We need more people examining (and categorizing, including DR'ing) images, not less. JesseW (talk) 08:12, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose anybody should be allowed to file deletion request. Often copyright holders of copyvios we are holding are not Commons users. I prefer for them to file DR, than emailing legal department. --Jarekt (talk) 15:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Canoe1967 (talk) 16:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
I am resolving this because it probably needs broader input in a different forum. I only started the thread because I thought it may be close to unanimous. Looking at the above points, I now see that may be a fix looking for a problem. Admins may wish to track disruptive IP DRs from this point on, and see how much of a problem it really is. If they don't think it is such a big deal then we can just drop it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Anonymous DRs for June 2013, some statistics
I thought it might be illuminating to look at the last complete month figures for Deletion requests raised by Anon IPs, this being June as it may take a few weeks for DRs to close. As DRs can be raised in non-standard layouts, take the figures with a slight pinch of salt (say, within 5% of being fully accurate) as creating a script to sniff through these is a bit of a headache, for example I had to assume that if the image file was deleted that the DR outcome was to delete, a reasonable but not always accurate assumption:
Keep Total
37
Delete Total
110
Redirect Total
0
Anon Total
147/4043 (3.6%)
Though I supported above, these latest figures show that for June, 3/4 of DRs raised by IPs resulted in deletion (so can be assumed to be not disruptive) and that the overall contribution to DRs by Anonymous IPs is pretty small at fewer than 4% of those raised. You can find the analysis at User:Faebot/SandboxD if you want to look at the Anon IPs in question and the sort of DRs they create. I'll ponder the value of running this analysis over a longer period and we might consider how DRs can be standardized a little more in layout (so we can summarise outcomes and reliably analyse who raised or closed a DR). --Fæ (talk) 11:02, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
What would be interesting is the same statistics for all DRs - is there a significant difference between the overall percentage and the percentage by IP editors? darkweasel9412:29, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I can ponder this question too (in fact my analysis can capture this when I filter for anon IPs). However DR formats are a bit too ad-hoc for stats to be 'spot on' and for the purposes of these simplistic statistics we may have to discard some DRs as too non-standard. For example, we have DRs that are re-opened several times (even in the same month), we have DRs that are about multiple files that may have varied outcomes and we have DRs about non-files such as categories and Commons namespaces. If we could set up a bit of metadata when DRs are created and closed with information such as {<creator>,<pages under discussion>,<outcome>,<closer>} , this would help enormously with making the analysis of trends in the future. This will be especially relevant if we have problems with managing backlogs of deletion requests and need to find ways of alerting the community when there are times or topics that need special attention.
I have set my analysis to run for April, May and June (again) and will capture running totals for all DRs as well as anon IPs. I'll update the results here when they are done, though this might wait until tomorrow (a rare ballet performance this evening takes priority ). --Fæ (talk) 13:18, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
it is always nice when someone adds some facts to a discussion, otherwise it is only anecdotal. Thanks Fæ. --Jarekt (talk) 13:36, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
The above summary for the last available 3 months, shows us that anonymously raised Deletion Requests account for fewer than 3% of all DRs and so can be considered to have only a small influence or potential for disruption. Though the 73% success rate (i.e. with a deletion outcome) is significantly less than the total average of 91%, this still appears a reasonable net benefit. The detailed breakdown of anonymously raised DRs at User:Faebot/SandboxD, shows that over the sample period there was no apparent pattern of anonymous IP addresses that caused widespread or sustained disruption, even if individual DRs were out of policy (typically nonsense, unverified claims or censorship).
Note, as mentioned in the last section, as DRs may be hard to assess by an automated process, a few may be miscounted, however this will be a low deviation, likely to make less than a 1% difference to main totals and should not be statistically significant for rounded up percentages. --Fæ (talk) 08:27, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Very interesting - thanks Fae. On the basis of these figures there would seem little merit is disallowing IP deletion requests. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 00:15, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the encouragement. Note that User:Faebot/SandboxD now includes the previous 3 months, i.e. January—June 2013, though as the numbers seem to back up my summary above I have not amended it. I think having 6 month data is sufficient but if this topic (or a similar proposal) arises again, I can re-run a DR analysis over a wider period such as 12 months. --Fæ (talk) 09:48, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Just chiming in with further thanks for the actual data (and I am pleased that it supported my view. ;-) ). JesseW (talk) 05:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Advice from third party wanted on the colour green
I am having a bit of an "issue" with Fry1989 (talk·contribs) regarding File:Denmark road sign E42.svg, File:Denmark road sign E44.svg & File:Denmark road sign E80.svg, where I'm not sure how to progress the discussion on the colour green.
Following a lengthy discussion with the original uploader of those files on User talk:Gigillo83#Your_use_of_.7B.7BSuperceded.7D.7D, which included references to the relevant legal texts, we reached an agreement on
which variant of the colours green should be used on road signs pertaining to Danish motorways. User:Fry1989 then reverted to the first version, which I believe uses a wrong green colour. The uploader then reverted again with Reverted to version as of 12:46, 25 June 2013 Rb: the correct green is the darker green...see in my discussion page. Following that Fry1989 again reverted with we should use the green in the guide and then I reverted with the more descriptive I think that is a bad idea, as the guide is just for indicative purposes (not legislation nor legally binding in any other way). Also note that it is not consistent in it's use of green (E44 uses 00ab67, G11 uses 3ab76d and K11 uses 00ae68). Fry1989 then choose to revert once more with please source that, which I tried to do on User talk:Fry1989#File:Denmark_road_sign_E42.svg.2C_File:Denmark_road_sign_E44.svg_.26_File:Denmark_road_sign_E80.svg, which only resulted in "[t]he green is sourced in the guide, and based on the google streetview shots I've been able to gather, it's the green that is actually in use. You need to discuss this, not edit war against what is actually sourced. Go do that, instead of pestering me and claiming I'm the problem". I feel I have made it quite clear, that the guide is only for indicative purposes in both discussions, that the guide itself in fact uses different shades of green, which I do believe supports that it should not be accept to that extent and I have even provided links to the actual legal texts. Edit warring serves no purposes, so I'm refraining from further reverts for now, but I would like to request a third party goes through both discussions and file history in order to provide advice on how to progress (or leave it here...). --heb [TCE] 07:55, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
rather than having discussions scattered about various user talkpages, start a discussion on either a file talkpage or a category talkpage and then link there from here. Raising the topic here is a great idea, but having the discussion here is not so great for the space it will take up and the fact that it will auto-close when it archives here and be hard to find later. Penyulap☏12:30, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
This isn't the proper place for a discussion, and continuing to blame me as the "issue" is completely "counterproductive" as you would put it. I have a serious concern about this and you are brushing it off like you already know the facts and I'm just being in the way. -- User:Fry198919:21, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
@Penyulap, my problem was however that I was looking for a someone to act in a similar fashion as in the EnWiki Wikipedia:Mediation-policy and as far as I know AN/UP, is the closest thing we have on that, though for when disputes have reached more serious levels. For the same reason I don't think file and user pages, necessarily is the optimum place, but on the other hand I don't seem to be able to find anything more suitable. That said, after having had this issue resting over the weekend, I have concluded that it is really not a "fight worth picking". I thank you for your suggestion and for taking your time on this subject :)
@Fry1989, I really appreciate that you 'have a serious concern about this', however so far I have yet to see you providing anything but 'we should use the green in the guide', 'please source that' and 'based on the google streetview shots I've been able to gather, it's the green that is actually in use', contrary to my links to actual legislative documents, historical explanation and explanation why the guide is not a valid source for colours. From where I sit right now, you are the "issue" (though "issue" may be a bit to strong a word), acting as if you are some sort of authority on the subject (wither it be green or signs or what-ever), that the rest of us should unquestionably submit to. Frankly I find you to be somewhat offensive and rude. --heb [TCE] 07:31, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
I quite frankly don't care how you find me to be. The image should use the green in the guide and as confirmed by streetview shots, unless there is evidence to the contrary. So far, there is not. Fry1989eh?19:46, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
@Heb you're welcome. That pretty much is the equivalent process on commons. Leave a note on the VP pointing to a talkpage somewhere. when you make an edit that is related you can add to the edit summary please see [[discussion name]]. That's pretty much what we have, I guess it needs to be outlined and advertised. Penyulap☏20:13, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
@Fry1989, for future reference, let me just in a final note, note that I do find it quite illogical that Google street view and a guide, that is hosted by a private sign-making corporation and which itself states to be non-authoritative to be accepted as ‘’evidence’’, whereas Danish legislation is not. --heb [TCE] 13:33, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
I am a regular uploader of photographs of food dishes on wikimedia commons, in public domain. Recently I noticed that some one have changed the category of Cuisine of Punjab to Cuisine of Punjab, India . I think it is wrong because Punjab is a big region divided between Pakistan and India. In India it is further divided into three provinces. When I mark my photograph for Cuisine of Punjab category, it is for the entire Punjab not Indian Punjab nor Pakistani Punjab. Therefore I request here to re adjust this category to Cuisine of Punjab instead of Cuisine of Punjab, India.
Why not just create a "Cuisine of Punjab region" category? Or just remove the redirect, I can't see any discussion about it's creation. I find the India disambiguation a bit odd, how are we to know if the uploader is located in Indian or Pakistani Punjab. I think it would be best to try to sort this out here rather than send it off to CFD, that place has a backlog that is thousands and no one seems to care. Liamdavies (talk) 16:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
You could also just use this cat, Category:Punjabi cuisine, it seems like the appropriate place. Although I still don't see why this couldn't just be located at Category:Cuisine of Punjab, and would support that move. It appears that the status quo was created by a user about 10 days ago, ([4][5]), I'll ask the user to pop in here and explain why. Liamdavies (talk) 16:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Best regards, Roland zh 22:04, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Punjabi Cuisine, Cuisine of Punjab, Cuisine of Punjab, India
Hi,
2-3 days back I discussed here, that some one had changed Cuisine of Punjab category to Cuisine of Punjab, India now I think same person have redirect the Cuisine of Punjab category to Punjabi Cuisine which is empty. Only today I loaded 1 file. I think that person wanted to highlight only Indian side of Punjab not Pakistani Punjab or whole Punjab region. I am not resident of any Punjab, but cooking Punjabi dishes as of other region of India and Pakistan and other countries. I request here this matter should be solved immediately so as no future dispute occurs. miansari66
I would suggest creating a category "Cuisine of the Punjab region" and replacing both "Cuisine of Punjab" and "Punjabi cuisine", that would sit well with the style of existing cats and be whole disambiguous. Would you both be happy with that solution? Liamdavies (talk) 06:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
I think some months/years back someone worked out how to mute/colour talk page posts by contributor signature using a CSS tweak. Could someone point me to it? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 15:01, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
One can target to the indention level (like French Wikipedia does) and one can target the signature itself (and the user-link only) but as CSS has no parent-selector, I doubt it is possible to colour talk page posts by contributor. -- Rillke(q?)16:43, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
I got a Greasemonkey version going, here's the result muting threads with your signature (Rillke) in. It is a bit rough but seems to work, though un-customized signatures seem to only need the parent (parentNode) rather than grandparent (parentNode.parentNode) and this will mute a thread rather than just the paragraph that a signature appears in: --Fæ (talk) 19:33, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Greasemonkey user mute script
// ==UserScript==
// @name Commons mute by user
// @namespace Commons
// @description Wikimedia Commons muter
// @include http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk*
// @include http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons*
// @version 1
// ==/UserScript==
var allElements, thisElement;
allElements = document.evaluate(
'//a[@href="/wiki/User:Rillke"]',
document,
null,
XPathResult.UNORDERED_NODE_SNAPSHOT_TYPE,
null);
for (var i = 0; i < allElements.snapshotLength; i++) {
thisElement = allElements.snapshotItem(i);
// Unformatted signatures may work with a single parentNode !
thisElement.parentNode.parentNode.style.fontSize="75%";
thisElement.parentNode.parentNode.style.color="grey";
}
Excellent work I tweaked this slightly as Commons notice pages seem to include title in sigs but user talk pages appear to leave this blank for some reason, so href is a better bet. Also included the li tag or these might be skipped in a bulleted list (probably lots of other tweaks needed for consistency, but it's working fairly well). On balance, I think there are good reasons to not include lists of muted (or highlighted) users in a public common.js file, if only to avoid giving offence... --Fæ (talk) 21:13, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Ha, this is funny to see here. I've had this in my user scripts for over three years now. It can do wonders for your blood pressure! --Dschwen (talk) 20:34, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
I've been using it for a couple of days, so have more of a feel for it and tweaked a little. The Greasemonkey solution above just de-emphasises posts (becoming almost invisible, so visually skip-able) and all immediate replies to a 'muted' user that continue to right indent (probably useful), though not unsigned paragraphs (most comment posts are one-paragraphs anyway). I have added a hover function to my version, which means if I really want to quickly check what is being said, I can hover over it to make the text a readable colour - the main benefit of not getting pointlessly distracted by one or two very rare ranty/abusive/disrupting long term recognized trolls is still there, I am not sure I am comfortable with a total blanking of text which may lead to confusion about what the non-muted users are saying: --Fæ (talk) 06:43, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
var Users=new Array('Name1','Name2');
for (User in Users)
{
$('a[href="/wiki/User_talk:'+Users[User]+'"]').closest('dd,dl,li,p').css({'font-size': '7pt','line-height':'100%','color': '#ccc'});
$('a[href="/wiki/User_talk:'+Users[User]+'"]').closest('dd,dl,li,p').hover(
function () {$(this).css({'color':'#111'});},
function () {$(this).css({'color':'#ccc'});});
};
UNSUPPORTED STATEMENTS
I note that statements can be made on indviduals art or backgrounds that are factually not true. Who decides? — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 184.32.35.5 (talk)
Without noticing (and this time no warning has been published before I over writed the old file) I uploaded a so-called new version of this file whereas it's not the same view (the old is from the entrance of the park ; the new from inside the park) and should have been differentially named i.e Jardin Brassaï 1.JPG (for the first picture of feb. 2012) and Jardin Brassaï 2.JPG (for the second of aug. 2013). My bad. And I don't know how to recover the old version, and rename both images as suggested. May someone have a look on my mistake ? thanks--LPLT (talk) 15:09, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Damn, I trashed it in the meantime... and can't recover it. Anyway it was not so important and the old one is the most descriptive by many aspects. Thanks again--LPLT (talk) 15:33, 14 August 2013 (UTC).
Wouldn't it be a good idea that when you upload a new version, commons tells you how to refresh your cache if it's not going to do it for you ? I don't think that would be difficult to implement. Penyulap☏19:48, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Most caching issues people experience related to uploads are not client side cache issues, but Wikimedia-side caching afaik (Yes that's really bad, yes people are trying to work to make that better). Bawolff (talk) 00:22, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
This is a common but intermittent problem and could just as well arise in the servers or the toolserver as in the bot itself. Best approach is to manually re-upload the file. If it throws an error then (complaining of a duplicate), use the error message to find where the file is and copy information and/or rename as may be needed. Dankarl (talk) 04:14, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
PD-AR-Photo / Argentina
Hi Village pump!
I have some difficulties to understand the year "1987", cited (regarding copyright rules for Argentina) in Commons:International copyright quick reference guide = this line: Argentina Photo 1945 1987 {{PD-AR-Photo}}{{PD-1996}} Argentina has 25 pd for photos, had 50 pma on 1996 URAA date
1987 + 25 = 2012, okay... but what about images like File:276950gente2.jpg (magazine cover from 1982)? At URAA date 01.01.1996 the file was still copyrighted in its source country (Argentina) = {{Not-PD-US-URAA|Argentina|{{ISOdate|1996-01-01}}}}? Or not? I confess, I am quite confused, considering 1996 - 25 {{PD-AR-Photo}} = 1971 vs 1987 = IMHO any file licensed with {{PD-AR-Photo}} taken/published prior to 1971 is still copyrighted in US. Summarizing: Could somebody give me a competent rule of thumb, how to deal with uploads of historic Argentine images? Gunnex (talk) 21:01, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
From what I read at Section 514 Restored works, (h)(6)(B), "The term restored work means an original work of authorship that is not in the public domain in its source country through expiration of term of protection", but all photos published before 1971 were in the public domain at Argentina at the date indicated by the URAA, so these photos are not copyrighted in the US. Best regards, Alpertron (talk) 17:06, 16 August 2013 (UTC). PS: Regarding that Gente magazine photo, it is not free in the US because it was not public domain in Argentina on January 1st, 1996.
August 15
Help for another artwork crop
File:Drawing_for_'Whaam!'_cropped.JPG is a cropped version of the copyrighted sketch present at en.wiki here: [6]; the crop appears to try to limit the included work to just the letters of "WHAAM" and the color code marks within them, however, I do have concern that the lines from the flame/explosion behind the text, which got included in the crop, are not ineligible for copyright unlike just the text parts. As this is part of an effort to get the article on en.wiki featured and available to use on the Main Page there (where non-free may not be used), I ask for opinions whether the crop is ineligible for copyright (and thus free) or should be considered non-free. --Masem (talk) 00:41, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
I've moved it to the userspace. They have no contributions under that username on any project, so I wouldn't be opposed to having the userpages deleted as "promo". russavia (talk) 15:03, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Madagascar railway station
I have uploaded 20 pictures to "Fianarantsoa railway station". There is an old Micheline railcar.
And I guess the uploader scaled this down to the default resolution of 1.024 × 768 using their own server running gd-jpeg v1.0. -- Rillke(q?)17:57, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Looking through page history, reason was imho authorship not clear [see metadata] and not in use. I've had to convert quite a few of User:Roland zh's copyvio tags to DRs because of the dubious copyvio reasoning. --O (谈 • висчвын) 18:21, 16 August 2013 (GMT)
Comment I spoke with the uploader about this yesterday on my talk, and I restored a similar image. He had cropped or otherwise altered them removing EXIF and my guess is that Roland saw these web-res images in comparison to the high-res ones the author has uploaded with FinePix HS30EXR EXIF and found the smaller ones suspicious. In the end though, this is my mistake for not looking more closely at these cases. My apologies to Prakash.saivasan for the confusion. INeverCry19:49, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Thaks for being very helpful and prompt in discussing my issue. I really appreciate it. Sorry for the confusion, I will make sure not to upload low-res [non-exif] pictures and cause any such confusion in future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prakash.saivasan (talk • contribs) 22:21, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
I would be inclined to undelete all of the deleted images, and if anyone has concerns with them take them to DR. I was going to discuss this with INC today, but he has commented above already. INC would you have any objections to the images being undeleted? russavia (talk) 03:32, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
I've undeleted all of them. Some seem questionable, and so I coverted them to DR. The few Taj Mahal pics that look like a series with the 2 I mention above look ok, so I restored them without converting to DR. INeverCry04:04, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Being flooded with copyvios and LQ-images all day, this is not a surprise. But if you are only active at QI, FPC and busy with coding bots, scripts etc., you'll hardly notice that; I agree that they shouldn't have been speedy-deleted. But just calculate how much time one of our admin/reviewer has, if you assume they want to check each new file. Impossible with current upload rates. I think this process must be re-organized so the work is easier to spread (once Krinkle offered a service for upload-patrolling but this was slow and finally removed). -- Rillke(q?)09:19, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Agravisit4.jpg has 29 hits on Tineye. Some crawled 2010. Just one example, it is not the only image with hits. That's how files get deleted. Not judging either way, just explaining from my POV. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)11:57, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Definitly keep (at least the few I browsed), regardless of the uploader’s apparent intention of using Commons as his ad image hosting facility. Wont it be a great lesson to the uploader if his competitors start using his images to create their own ads? That’s the beauty of PDfree licensing… Next time he’ll go for CC-NC instead, but these pics, ineresting as they are, belong to the whole wide world now. (Need categories, though.) -- Tuválkin✉19:00, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
They are not PD, they are cc-by-sa. I also disagree strongly that we should teach people "lessons" not to license their works freely. But still these seem mostly in scope, and this is the wrong place for DRs anyway. darkweasel9419:29, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Disagree away, but we teach “lessons” to uploaders all the time, and this is one of the most benign. Check Commons:Deletion requests to see how we (i.e. a few of us) throw away valuable and useful contributions under the excuse that «Commons aint fb» (I mean actual valuable and useful contributions, a couple every day, not the slush flood of blurry selfies and assorted bizarre items…) -- Tuválkin✉10:07, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
I see, that in relation of licences the photos are correct, but I don't the sense of such series on commons - but this is my oppinion, so I asked the other people too.--K@rl (talk) 20:37, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree that this series is very redundant — it could be culled to less than half the number of images and still offer the same value. -- Tuválkin✉10:07, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
(obvious) keep also; with all due respect to the original questioner, the motives of the uploader are IRRELEVANT. what matters for the project is "are these files USEFUL?" i couldn't care any less, if the uploader had put "i am uploading these images to promote my business, contact me here: XXXX" right into the file description. at worst, that might call for some editing of the page...
people chose to upload @ commons for a wide variety of reasons. as long as the files are useful to the project, legal, & properly licensed IT DOESN'T MATTER (what their reasons are). Lx 121 (talk) 03:17, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Lack of description was not the reason for the DR. Anyway, just take a look at these images: Dude installs heating pipes on the floor. We have date and place, too, and all the tech info necessary in the spammers’/uploaders’ website. What description is necessary? Unlike most touch-and-gone uploaders, this one is easily reachable — local wikipdians could probably even call him up and get a discount on plumbing odd jobs! ;-) -- Tuválkin✉10:07, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
In trying to give a good category for File:Fort Dauphin rocks 08.jpg wave, I see that there is no good category. There is the general category Waves, but nothing for breaking waves, etc. Am I looking in the wrong place? Is there a general category for rocky coasts? (pictures Fort Dauphin rocks 01-13) There are tidal pools, but this doesnt really apply here as there there is little tidal action but a big ocean waves. Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:41, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
I think https should be enabled by default at Wikimedia Commons. Therefore all http requests should be answered with https.
With https enabled it will be more difficult for ISPs and other men in the middle to alter, censor or log the content sent from the foundation's servers to the end user. Doing so would break the SSL certificate which provides the authentication of the Wikimedia Commons web site and web server.
Furthermore the users of Wikimedia Commons will not be tracked anymore by intelligence organizations. (Assuming they do not have direct access to the servers of the Wikimedia Foundation.) As seen in Fig. 1, the NSA uses the http traffic generated by Wiki(p/m)edia to identify possible targets based on their Wiki(p/m)edia search history and page visits.
The required SSL certificates are already present and therefore no further expenses would be generated by this change. Considering, that Gmail uses https-only since 2010, it is the right way for Wikimedia Commons to follow.
Discussion
Support in general. There is only one contra I can think of: Some bots may fail to handle https and consequently break. A possible solution would be to decide on the Agent-header whether to deliver https or not. --McZusatz (talk) 17:43, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Comment: I'm not sure. When I tried using HTTPS with Mozilla Firefox in the past, I encountered two issues. First, I kept getting warning messages when new webpages were loaded, which was very annoying. Secondly, I kept getting logged out and had to log in repeatedly. Perhaps these issues have now been sorted out by Wikimedia or Mozilla, but if they are still around this would put me off from using HTTPS. — SMUconlaw (talk) 05:22, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
If you log in while using https you are not logged in when using http later. And for the warning messages: Did you encounter them on other websites or on wikimedia websites as well? The warning messages could be about "mixed content" or wrong certificates, but I can not remember running into those warning messages on wikimedia websites. --McZusatz (talk) 07:50, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Tried using HTTPS again and am happy to report that I didn't encounter any of the problems I described above. It's possible that I received warning messages in the past because I was accidentally switching between HTTP and HTTPS when I typed URLs into the bar at the top of the browser. In fact, the UploadWizard works much faster for me on HTTPS. — SMUconlaw (talk) 19:12, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose Too many things would break in unexpected ways (e.g. Greasemonkey, Imacro scripts ... would introduce massive rework or abandonment of this sort of long term non-standard tool goodness), for me at least this would be a huge hassle. --Fæ (talk) 09:28, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Comment I suggest closing this. This is not in the hands of the community, and the WMF has disclosed a clear roadmap about it. Jean-Fred (talk) 16:00, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
The purpose of https on WMF sites
The point and purpose of https on WMF sites is to hide traffic from some "third parties". Obviously, there are third parties from which https and more sophisticated forms of encryption won't hide a single thing. NSA, CIA, any hacker actually, and anyone who has a habit of making good friends with competent people for example ;) . The reason such an simple measure is being taken is because of the SIZE of the hole that http is making for specific people, namely, sockpuppets and sockfarms using W:The Onion Router (TOR). Currently there are zillions of socks on en.wikipedia used to control that site by using a secret ballot to elect an arbcom which then dictates everything to the users of the site in decisions that nobody is ever happy with. Seriously, show me a popular decision, and another person will show you 10 that make no sense, like banning Richard, the man who made 5 million contributions to the site, for using cut-n-paste once. He copied text he prepared in his text editor into the edit window and they banned him for it. Meh, whatever, the number of new editors to that site has fallen so much that there aren't enough new socks to fill the gaps.
The introduction of secret ballots on commons would be a reason why sockfarms need https here, and visa-versa. Http is never any security threat because your ISP is not spying on you in particular and the NSA just doesn't give a shit about anything you're doing because https or not it can still track and see everything you're doing. Https is for socks using TOR. TOR sends a sockpuppets data through a peer to peer network to hide it's source, when it exits that network, using http, it can be seen by the last hop in the peer to peer network as it goes from their machine to the wikipedia servers. Any kid with two pieces of software (or three if you count a text editor) can harvest usernames and passwords of sockpuppets using TOR. So anyone on wikipedia can see anyone using TOR and analyse their behavior from the comfort of their own home computer. TOR brings every sockpuppets' traffic to your own computer for analysis.
For sockfarms using the same password on every account along with the sockmaster account, it's pretty freaking obvious who is who, and who has a sockfarm to vote themselves into arbcom. For anyone not using TOR, their data is not sent to anyone else who is using the TOR software on their computer. It is sent directly through the ISP which you trust with everything else you do, so you just don't care because you just don't need to. The ISP doesn't care about what you're doing and so you don't care about them seeing what you do. That's why the WMF is spending up big to provide https for nobody who wants it. That's why there isn't a great push of users shouting 'we want https and we want it now' that's why nobody cares. Unless you're a sockmaster who wants to use a sockfarm. You're then worried because any kid with packet inspection software like wireshark and a text editor can see everything you're doing, log the lot, and prove what you've done.
Of course it's all pointless because even when you prove beyond all doubt that someone has abusively used sockpuppets to double-vote in elections, there are STILL people who SUPPORT that kind of behavior. example bottom of collapsed section at bottom of page. Present clear evidence that a cat could understand and you get people saying it's trolling and harassment to present that evidence. Yeah. Amazing.
So https causes more problems than it is worth for accessibility and a dozen other things, but for sockfarms and sockmasters and the WMF it's a pointless attempt to hide what they're up to. The tools other people have see straight through it all, but they worry about absolutely anyone at all seeing what they are doing. Kind of pointless because there are no secrets on the Internet. Tens of gazillions of people have jobs in intel and can see whatever takes their fancy. Plenty of people with half a brain can see whatever they want just the same.
For people not socking abusively, there is no problem with http, your info goes through your ISP to WMF and nobody has a chance to see it unless they are a person who can see it no matter what you do, TOR and HTTPS or not, like the NSA, their friends, and hackers.
For people using TOR and not being abusive there is no problem with http, because nobody can say you ARE doing anything wrong if you're not. They can't say 'hey, look, they triple vote in this election' and so on, because A) you're not and b) some people won't listen anyway and c) such evidence can't be presented on wiki/commons anyhow, because of privacy concerns.
New editors on en.wiki over time. Secret ballots and an Arbcom, not a good example to follow.
For the general public on commons, secret ballots and an arbcom is the only thing that can destroy the project fast and sure. So voting blocks that elect a dictatorship is the only hassle to worry about, not http. Anyhow, I just thought people may like to know what the big deal is with making the project so hard to access for so many people was all about. Robot spammers sign up lots of new accounts everyday, but the front door isn't locked for accessibility reasons. Oh, and if anyone has a legitimate human rights reason for needing better security when using the sites, you can contact me via email, so long as you pass my screening then I can help you to legitimately use commons/wikis with anonymity. Penyulap☏19:02, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
If I were using TOR and you Darkweasel were also using TOR, I could read your password if it was sent by HTTP. If you had 1200 sockpuppets with the same password "FVI2346BN" then I'd know all your sockpuppets and could prove it. I just couldn't present the private data in a public place on wiki though, and even if I did some people would still argue it was all in order that you're voting for yourself for everything.
Meaningless because there are plenty of tools that make HTTPS meaningless and let people see what you're doing just the same, it's just that TOR, used by countless socially retarded idiots to double, triple and 500-vote for themselves, is such a big hole in their plan. Any idiot can log their actions. A cat could do it. Hence the quiet push to close a hole that nobody except sockpuppets use. It provides no benefits to anyone else, in fact it causes a lot of difficulties as outlined above. Penyulap☏20:27, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
It shouldn't be up to any users except checkusers, stewards, developers and WMF staff to investigate sockpuppets, so if HTTPS prevents that, that's good. darkweasel9420:33, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
HTTPS doesn't stop anyone investigating sockpuppets. All it does is prevent every user in China from accessing the project. Penyulap☏21:06, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
No you could not. The password is encrypted, even when logging in to http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:UserLogin. --McZusatz (talk) 12:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
it's stored as a hash in the database. Even without access to the available tools for decryption, people without friends can still work both ends of the 'tunnel' looking at the database at one end, or the operating system at the other. Even if you assumed the password hash was difficult for the average hacker, you can't possibly tell me that simple packet analysis of your own TOR node won't spew out a list of IP's using TOR to access wiki. No decryption required. It's the protocol, just read the wikipage on TOR.
Just with zero decryption, none at all, you can match up IP's with activity, what pages are looked at including watchlists and so on. That at least is information which is not available on-wiki. Do you want to deny that ? I'm not so comfortable talking about this publicly because it can be counter-productive to our pro-social efforts. I simply wanted people who I have seen asking in a number of places, 'why is there a big push towards https when it's clearly going to have so many adverse effects'. Even without the password, even without the loginpage, every page that travels back and forth from that particular IP will have the username written across the top of it, unencrypted. Where you log 300+ users at the same IP are you telling me they all have a single domestic service at a single domestic address that they all share ? I mean at ANU, sure some people believed the 'spouse after the fact' story, but please, "I rent out my basement to 300 total strangers" ? I don't think so. https is an attempt to close the largest of many many holes. Holes that only apply to sockpuppets on TOR. Holes that nobody else needs to worry about. Penyulap☏09:44, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, every exit node of the TOR network is blocked for editing wiki pages. Therefore using TOR to hide your sockpuppets will definitely not work. --McZusatz (talk) 20:35, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
These should be on Commons. Or perhaps just indexed here?
Any files which are absolutely freely licensed, or in the public domain as we take the term to mean, could definitely, and should be, be uploaded here to Commons. russavia (talk) 05:59, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
But: Every single such file should not be uploaded to Commons. There needs to be a minimum of usefullness and quality to them. To upload files to Commons only because we can, doesn't make any sense. Don't get me wrong, we shouldn't be snobbish and turn down anything we don't think is absolutely top class and will fit perfectly into a Wikipedia article. Far from it. Files obviously don't need to be unique or of great quality to possibly be useful for someone somewhere. But if we upload every single available file here, it will only turn Commons into a huge rubbish dump. Blue Elf (talk) 18:29, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Cannot find a category
I added a few categories to this image but it’s still missing what is probably the most important categorization. Which categories are suitable to cover car( part)s used as advertisement?, or shop window signs using actual objects? (This is a clothings store, though, not an auto dealer; ISTR it was once a book store, under the same Opel…) This maybe strange but it is hardely unique. Any help? -- Tuválkin✉14:22, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
I sure like that foto. Poor P1, tho. As far as I can tell you added all the categories we have for this kind of image. AnonMoos, would you consider this art? Then the category Autos in art could be added. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)00:29, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
(Yes, this image was originally lumped in Category:Lisbon — I “dissiminated” it.) Best I got was Category:Road vehicles in art — a clearly underpopulated category. Most of the categories of this photo will be moved soon to a new Category:Rua do Loreto, 41 (Lisbon): This location is close to popular tourist traps and the storefront with a popping jalopy is a great photo op; I suspect a fair amount of snaps of this subject are lurking among those 18 million items — mostly (?) undercategorized. -- Tuválkin✉03:28, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello commons. There are a number of votes and discussions you may be unaware of with possible profound implications. My better judgement suggests these should be on the site notice.
An uploader uploaded this black and white 1981 image and 1-2 other images from this flickr account with 95 images. My question is are these images own work or flickrwashes? I ordered a new review on this image but I'm not sure if its own work. Can anyone tell? The metadata has the flickr account owner's name. That's all I know. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:42, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Sure seems legitimate. Searched for a few of them on the net and came up empty (other than ones copied from the Flickr source). All pretty hi-res scans. Does feel like a photographer scanning some of their old photographs. There's even an example of one of them scanned twice.[7][8] There seem to be lots of photos of those people on the net in general but the Flickr ones seem unique -- can't find alternate sources anywhere. To be a flickrwash, we'd have to identify a source where they were copied from. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
The simple answer is that there are two definitions of "anonymous" in the European w:Copyright Duration Directive. If the initial copyright holder is a legal person (only possible in some countries such as the UK), then the work is anonymous if the author (the employee who created the work) isn't named in the copies which are made available to the public. On the other hand, if the initial copyright holder is a natural person, then the author is able to repair any mistakes caused by omitted claims of authorship by revealing that he is the author before the anonymous copyright term has expired, thereby changing the copyright term to life+70 years. I have always thought that {{Anonymous-EU}} and {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} were meant to account for this difference, although the templates may be a bit messy. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:09, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Cosplay images
I started this proposal at en:wp that seems to need more input. Since we may be better at image use and scope than en:wp then others may wish to pop over and shoot at it. Other languages may wish to try similar on their projects.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:53, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Collages of Commons files without proper attribution
Hi all,
what is the appropriate procedure for files like File:LVmontage.jpg, where files from Commons were assembled into a collage without referencing the source files and their authors? In this case I found one of the originals, but didn't have the time to find them all. I left a message on the user's talk page months ago without getting any reaction (left another message at their talk page at en: today). I'm not asking you to do their work and fix the description (though that would be nice), but for general advice on how to handle cases like that (which unfortunately are rather common). Nominating them for deletion right away seems to be a bit harsh, but we can't leave those files as they are forever if we are serious about free licenses. And if I leave them a friendly message before nominating the files to give them some time to react, I will usually forget about the issue rather quickly … Any suggestions? --El Grafo (talk) 10:00, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
I think what you've suggested – leaving the uploader a message and giving them some time within which to respond – is the best solution. Guess you'll have to think of a strategy for not forgetting these files. (Someone should design a tool ...) — SMUconlaw (talk) 10:16, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
I've made a few of those on request, and yes, that is hard to track through 'what links to this page' and usage (on your example image). The image can still be broken up and then image search engines can be queried for the components. The contributions of the user at around the time of upload can be checked for a worksite. I expect you've already checked categories for the originals, but with OVERCAT (that is, the use of overly-obscure categories) using an external search engine to search commons may also be the go, do you know how ?
I think it is not as much worry as a full-sized work with poor attribution because it does move towards each part of the image being a deminimus of the overall work. It's not great, but on a scale of problems it's small to almost arguably ok-ish.
I would say what you've done is enough, to leave a note asking and then pretty much don't worry too much. The searches I've outlined are good, but time consuming. So I'd say you've done what needs to be done and can do no more. Breaking up the image to component level for search engines seems the fastest way to solve the problem completely though. I had found some using component images, Liam was fastest I would say, so can you tell us how you did it Liam ? Penyulap☏10:56, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
I knew what I was looking for so just used the category tree to find them, nothing more sophisticated than that. I enjoy a challenge from time to time! Liamdavies (talk) 12:56, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
I completely agree that files like that are a rather small problem compared to e.g. serious copyright violationsEDIT: Well, strictly speaking these are also copyright violations, just as serious as all the other ones.. However, I tend to disagree with your opinion that in a collage of 6 images the single images could be called de minimis. The thing is, that the composer of the collage essentially claims to be the copyright holder of all the images incorporated in the collage – something we wouldn't tolerate at all in most other cases. Imo, we can't go out and promote the concept of free licensing (and sometimes even go to court to sue reusers who don't respect the license), and then on the other hand say it's OK if our own folks completely ignore the rules we fight for. Practice what you preach. I'm willing to invest a lot of good faith, "detective work" and patience into cases like this, but when everything else fails (not yet the case here of course) I won't hesitate to file a DR.
On a technical note, I've started my own little ToDo list in order to keep track of my actions. But since I guess that there might be some people who atually enjoy this kind of detective work (meaning finding the originals and fixing the description), I wonder if it might be a good idea to create a WikiProject to join the forces or at least create something like Category:Collages of Commons files lacking proper attribution? --El Grafo (talk) 11:21, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
I would just put them in DR until they learn. This will give them a talk page notice as well as 7 days for them or others to fix. We shouldn't waste too much time trying to explain attribution to them. Just use 'no sources or authors' as the DR rationale.--Canoe1967 (talk) 11:12, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
(Edit conflict)The problem with that approach is imho, that files like that very often come from Wikipedia authors who don't really care about Commons and don't monitor their watchlists and talk pages here – and I can't really blame them for that since all they want to do is write their articles and enhance them with a picture or two. Then "suddenly" the files are gone "without any warning" and they start ranting about it at their local village pump. I guess that scenarios like this are one of the main reasons many of the people at en:wp (and possibly elsewhere) are so utterly pissed about Commons. Cases where there's nothing wrong with the file itself, but it is being deleted anyways because of things the common wp-user might call bureaucracy. That's why I've decided for myself to give it a try and walk the extra mile in cases like this – at least for a while, just to see whether it pays or not. Cheers, --El Grafo (talk) 11:37, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
I see your point. Many here won't agree with it though. If you want an image for en:wp then the rules here aren't that difficult to follow. You need to source other material for articles and the same goes for images. When the images disappear from their articles then they can come over here and have it explained. If they don't want to follow a few simple rules that are far easier than the en:wp ones then there is no reason they should whine that commons is cruel and unusual punishment to them. I have helped many editors from the other projects with their images here. Montages as well. This should not be an expected action though. If they are deleted then no one loses an eye if they are fixed and undeleted. We have so many copyvio images here that taking the time with every montage created is not normally worth the effort. Look at File:Steven Zhang barnstar tattoo.jpg where the subject claims to be the author. He would probably whine a lot if we asked him how a remote or timer was used on his cell phone. It should actually require OTRS but I don't care enough to DR it. It was probably taken by someone else at en:wp that doesn't even realize they are the copyright holder.--Canoe1967 (talk) 12:04, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, usually I don't feel bad just hitting the "nominate for deletion" button, but as I wrote below, collages have some pitfalls which makes uploading them a bit more tricky. And of course you've always gotta ask yourself whether it's worth it to invest your time and energy into a case like that …
All in all I think we could drastically reduce the whining and ranting (and also save many files from deletion) if there was an easy way to automatically leave a note on the talk pages of the articles a file is being used in, once a DR is filed. There was once a bot doing this, but it has stopped working for reasons I don't remember … --El Grafo (talk) 12:32, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) If there are any collages where there is significant doubt as to whether components may require attribution, then they should go to Deletion requests for a documented review so that re-users and the Commons community can point to evidence that reasonable efforts were made to determine copyright status. Even if the original works are available on a free re-use licence, if they have an attribution component then the moral rights, if seen to have not been honoured, can result in claims against the re-user or the Commons uploader for damages. Making derived works available without making the attribution clear is a failure against the licensing policy and may be a reason to delete under the precautionary principle. --Fæ (talk) 11:22, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
ACK. However, the problems and pitfalls of creating collages from freely licensed files (e.g. compatibility of licenses or finding out that there's a tool called derivativeFX) are more complicated than the usual "don't steal images from the web" (which should be common sense anyway). That's why I usually try to explain the issues to the uploaders before filing a DR – provided that I know a language they understand. --El Grafo (talk) 11:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't think the misrepresentation here is deliberate - the problem is just that derivativeFX can be flaky, and the easiest thing to get a file uploaded that you know can be uploaded is to use the "own work" category to upload it. Just prod the uploader to fix his attributions (or do it yourself) and be done with it. It makes no sense to delete a usable file which we know Commons can legally host. Wnt (talk) 15:57, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, then maybe someone capable of it should write an extention to the mighty upload wizard that allows things like this. And usually we don't know whether Commons can legally host a file like that, because we don't know where the source files come from. We can only assume that they come from Commons, but we never can be sure unless the uploader does his/her job or someone else finds them all. --El Grafo (talk) 19:21, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
I couldn't source any of the images to commons. The user seems like a 12 edit hit and run just to get a montage into the en:wp article. Does his look like copyvio to anyone or did he take all the pictures?--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:34, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
The first few seem to be at least partial copyvios, but Gliwic.jpg is probably OK, so there might be some more files that could be saved. —El Grafo (talk) 12:51, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
a standard solution
An easy way to satisfy those who don't want to do the right thing and make a category for the easy and enjoyable foxhunt we had here to find the images, would be to simply reduce the resolution of the collage before launching a DR. The collage is basically for the article, every one I can recall seeing was made from free images on commons, so reducing the image, then making a DR would see it kept as de minimus and the article not have a hole in it. If people can't be bothered doing so little to help the project then they shouldn't be burdening the rest of us with DR's, they should just put it in the new category Category:Collages of Commons files lacking proper attribution suggested by El Grafo as a starting point to deal with the image. A bot can look at all images in that category from time to time and reduce them if they are too big. Sure there are people who will complain about 'oh the derivative, won't someone think of the children' but just put the next one you find and can't attribute through DR at 150 pixels per component and see what happens. That'll fix that problem.
So as a standard, Cat to El Grafo's fox-hunting category first, write a request at botwork noticeboard, and it's done.
Also, I'd like to take this opportunity to once again badmouth derivative FX which is impossible to use because of it's absurdly ambiguous labels. I hate that peice of $%*(&^#. Thank you very much. Penyulap☏19:20, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Having technical problems uploading largish files
The past day or two, I've been having problems uploading files whose sizes are larger than a few hundred kb. First I tried to upload a version of File:Voderberg-1.png with increased PNG compression (433kb), and just now I tried to upload a version of File:C elegans male.svg with adjusted margins (772kb), but in each case I got a generic "server down" error screen -- but of course, the servers are not down for anything other than uploading these largish files... AnonMoos (talk) 02:00, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Our servers are currently experiencing a technical problem. This is probably temporary and should be fixed soon. Please try again in a few minutes. If you report this error to the Wikimedia System Administrators, please include the details below.
Request: POST http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Upload, from XX.XX.XX.XX via cp1053 frontend ([XX.XX.XX.XX]:80), Varnish XID 957272416
Forwarded for: XX.XX.XX.XX
Error: 503, Service Unavailable at Sat, 17 Aug 2013 01:51:09 GMT
Is there any workaround or further info available? I've uploaded plenty of larger files in the past, and it's annoying not to be able to do so now... AnonMoos (talk) 00:11, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Lately I was working on unification of text of various PD-old, PD-1996 and PD-1923 templates. As many of you know, {{PD-old}} is being slowly depreciated and replaced by templates which are more specific to why the image is PD in country of the origin and USA. So we have {{PD-old-auto|deathyear=yyyy}}, {{PD-old-100}}, {{PD-old-70}}, {{PD-old-auto-1923|deathyear=yyyy}}, {{PD-old-100-1923}}, {{PD-old-70-1923}}, {{PD-old-90-1923}}, etc. See here for more complete list. One problem with this explosion of number of templates was that originally each template used its own {{Autotranslate}} subtemplate structure for internationalization (i18n) of the message. That created a maintenance nightmare where dozen of almost identical texts were being translated to various languages at the same time as english version was changing. User:Rd232 began consolidation various translations; however he retired (?) before completion.
I created two templates: {{PD-1923-text}} and {{PD-old-text}} used to translate the basic messages used by most PD-old and PD-1923 templates. I hope to eventually replace that part of the templates text in all PD-old and PD-1923 templates. I am also planning on moving the content of those templates to translatewiki. I need help adding translations and verifying current translations of the templates. --Jarekt (talk) 15:03, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your work Jarekt.
What about keeping them here under the Translate extension framework, instead of moving to TranslateWiki?
I do not know how Translate extension framework works with templates, but translatewiki seems to be the golden standard at the moment, used by most licenses, and infobox fields. If translate extension framework will replace it or take over some of it's tasks it is fine with me. All I was trying to say is that I do not see {{PD-old-text}} and {{PD-1923-text}} as a final destination but rather a step in a process. --Jarekt (talk) 16:28, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
I tried to find out how one can create these wm-messages at translatewiki or elsewhere but was unable to find a documentation. All I know is that the messages from translatewiki are compiled into a php using an unknown script that makes use of an unknown pattern to decide which messages to include and builds mw:Extension:WikimediaMessages, finally available at git. -- Rillke(q?)14:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
For Sailko, the diligent photographer of Italian heritage and nature
Would it be possible to have a list like this for Commoneers too? It would be useful to have one for the number of edits and one for the number of uploads... I've always wondered... Thanks!! --Sailko (talk) 10:08, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Wow, indeed! Remarkable work. That really deserves a barnstar.
If the uploads would have English (or even German) descriptions in addition, I am sure, they would be easier to find. -- Rillke(q?)12:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
The guidelines for Bureaucrats with regard to inactivity has yet to adopt a process in line with that in place more generally for Administrators. I have made a proposal at Commons talk:Bureaucrats#Proposal to manage inactive Bureaucrats for recognizing that any 'crat inactive for 3 months may be subject to having the flag removed if they do not respond for 30 days to a notice (for Admins the period is 6 months).
I think about anything like it before I found the template {{On Wikidata}}. It can become a very usefull tool as long as the main creators of Wikidata don't notice that there exists also the project Wikimedia Commons. I think, this template can help to
attribute the corresponding Wikidata items to Commons categories. A typical Commons category should link not only one but two Wikidata "items" to its item: article item and corresponding category "item" which should be mutually tied by d:Property:P301 (this systematic solution remains lost), "plural categories" possibly also a third "item" linked by d:Property:P360 (a list)
check the consistency of interwikis (find potential interwiki conflicts here)
update local interwiki links from Wikidata
replace interwiki links as soon as there will exist some parser function implementing something like Copypaste.py (proposal) (until Commons will be fully-fledged integrated to Wikidata)
export existing connections between Commons categories and items from Commons to Wikidata d:Property:P373 and compare the links with the inverse ones
I believe, all these steps would by very simple for bots and scripts if there would be any concern.
I wonder and disagree that the phase I of Wikidata was started before any fundamental idea about connection between Wikidata and Commons was achieved and that the Wikidata Team seems to be a bit uninterested or even obtuse in this point. Also the relation between articles, categories and items seems to be hardly misunderstand by Wikidata Team. That's why Commons needs to look for such patchs instead of well-considered definitive solutions. --ŠJů (talk) 20:40, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I had a conversation with Denny (who has spearheaded WikiData) about Commons and the interwiki data when he was in Seattle a couple of months ago. I think the problem is largely that no one at WikiData has any significant experience with Commons, but also that, unlike the Wikipedias, there might be more than one Commons page associated with a certain term. My suggestion to him was that Commons category space (e.g. Category:Michelangelo Buonarroti), Commons "galleries" (e.g. Michelangelo Buonarroti), and possibly also Commons creator space (e.g. Creator:Michelangelo Buonarroti) each be treated on the same level as articles in a particular language Wikipedia. He seemed open to the idea. I think if someone wanted to flesh out that proposal and get consensus from Commons participants that that is what we want, it could move forward. I've been too busy to push that sort of initiative, but I'd encourage someone else to feel free to run with it. - 00:40, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
"...no one at WikiData has any significant experience with Commons..."
There are several highly active Wikidata editors with significant experience on Commons I can think of off the top of my head: Multichill (WD, C), Legoktm (WD, C), Zolo (WD, C), Avenue (WD, C), myself (WD, C). There are almost certainly a significant number more. Emw (talk) 04:14, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Then I'm even more surprised this hasn't moved forward. Denny conveyed to me that they didn't understand enough about how Commons worked to be sure how to work it into their approach. - Jmabel ! talk07:04, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Uhm, just to explain: I meant that among the Wikidata development team there are no really active Common contributors. We just had a discussion on Wikimania on that topic again, and also we have a few thoughts already, see here: [10] and especially here: [11]. Feedback is really needed so that we can go forward! --Denny (talk) 07:18, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
I think, Wikidata need not somebody who like to take photographs and upload images (and ignores the system) but somebody who is experienced in organization of Commons, its categorization etc. (or somebody who is not so exprerienced but a bit perceptive and intelligent). From the named people, Multichill seems to be such someone IMO. --ŠJů (talk) 00:51, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
The linked proposal is only about media meta data. This is sci-fi for us, not a problem of today. We need urgently to solve a simple interconnection of Commons items and corresponding Wikipedia items which was disrupted by phase I of Wikidata instead facilitated and improved. --ŠJů (talk) 22:43, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
I am both active on Commons and Wikidata, I can help in that too. I would really like it if interwikilinks would be inserted by the software on Commons categories directly instead of manually. Romaine (talk) 02:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
The email contains some basic ideas which were supposed to be considered before phase I of WD.
However, I have one essential objection. Categories are related to their item as much closely as articles. It was not a good idea to have a separate WD Q-code for the article of certain item and a different one for categories of identic item. As Wikidata is organized by items, not by Wikipedia pages, one item should link both articles just as categories of the item. A frequent mistake is that Commons galleries are equivalents of Wikipedia articles. They are not. It is wellknown that Commons categories are connected to Wikipedia articles just as to Wikipedia categories. Articles and categories are unique for any item within any project. Commons galleries are rather analogy of images or other media files: we can have whichever number of images, sounds, videos or galleries of certain item, but only unique category (and only unique article within one Wikipedia project).
The fact that complementary properties on Wikidata (symmetric just as inverse) don't really and automatically work as complementary is a basic and fatal defect of Wikidata. --ŠJů (talk) 20:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
August 09
18 millionth file
18000000
I just noticed that Special:Statistics had passed 18 million files recently. I know it's a bit late to be perfectly accurate, but when I checked, there were 18,000,751 both before and after I did this query, which at the time gave File:Open Make Up For Ever 2013 - Camille Guerre - 02.jpg as my best estimate of the 18 millionth file (assuming no deletions were done before I got there - which is a bit naiive). Did anyone else do anything more accurate? --99of9 (talk) 07:14, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
I am totally not neutral about this photo (taken by a friend with support from my chapter ;-), but that’s often been the idea of the milestone: finding a picture in the timeframe which is nice enough to make some PR about it − and I think this picture makes a really good job at that. Thanks for your effort in finding the milestone 99of9! Jean-Fred (talk) 15:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
General reminder: Spanish descriptions needed for files and categories related to the United States
As a general reminder, for Commons users who add or edit files or categories related to the United States: Spanish is the second most commonly spoken language there, so it may help to add Spanish translations for US-related material. This is especially the case with major cities, the federal government, state governments, Puerto Rico, bordering states (TX, AZ, NM, and CA), and Florida. If you do not know Spanish or are not sure how to translate a particular description you may list the file or category at Template:Requested_translations#English_to_SpanishWhisperToMe (talk) 17:01, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Out of the 18 million images on Commons, I'd bet at least a million of them are related to the United States. There's a certain group of people who can and are interested in translating stuff to Spanish; I'm not sure how this helps them on their nigh-Sisyphean task.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:55, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
August 19
Logon requires cookies from third party domains
Since today the logon to commons requires that third party cookies (wikivoyage, wikiversity, ...) are allowed. Because I do not want to allow this generally it's neccessary for me, to reactivate the allowence each time I want to logon to wikimedia. Even if this might be acceptable for the majority, I think that this behaviour is no good idea.
Hm? I have told my browser to block all third-party cookies, and I don't have any problems. I have also blocked https://login.wikimedia.org/ from setting any cookies at all, but I'm not sure if this affects anything here. What browser are you using and what happens when you try to log in? --Stefan4 (talk) 18:17, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
I am using Iceweasel (Debian Firefox 17). I simply again get the message you need to logon to upload ... (or something similiar) and sometimes the hint that cookies must be allowed. --DenkmalKöln (talk) 18:42, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
To avoid confusion, hopefully... this has no relevance to how we use the terminology 'block evasion' on Commons, as the WMF has no plans to prosecute block evaders. --Fæ (talk) 10:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Very stupid court ruling. If my computer's IP address is blocked, then I could just go to my mobile phone which has another IP. I could also try rebooting my phone which would probably give me a new IP address. People change IP addresses all of the time, both intentionally and unintentionally. Is it suddenly a crime to borrow a friend's computer? --Stefan4 (talk) 20:06, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Need your help figuring out the source of an image in a collage
File:Polesok.pngsource for Joseph Rotblat (4th row, 4th column) is still missing
Dear all,
here's yet another collage with missing source information: File:Polesok.png.
I've managed to find all the images used in the collage but the one for Joseph Rotblat (4th row, 4th column). Is anyone able to find out where it came from? Was it maybe deleted? Also, several files are lacking source/author information themselves – for example: what do you think about File:Wladyslaw Tatarkiewicz.jpg? --El Grafo (talk) 15:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the research El Grafo. I assume Joseph Rotblat file was deleted. File:Wladyslaw Tatarkiewicz.jpg file does not meet basic requirements of the license (proof of publication on Poland) and I tagged it for DR. We might have to replace the no-source images in the collage or delete the file. --Jarekt (talk) 16:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I guess you abandoned hope to obtain information from the uploader? On Commons, en.wp and pl.wp, I didn't find this file either. Yes, it could have been deleted in a speedy deletion. On external sites, it could of course have come originally from any of the many sites where this photo is found. One likely place where people would probably think of is the Nobel Prize web page. As it's a pre-2006 photo, they don't specify, and they may not know, who is the owner of the copyright, but they warn that those photos may be copyrighted by someone. Also, it's a crop from a larger photo. A more inclusive version is kept at the American Institute of Physics in their W.F. Meggers Gallery of Nobel Laureates collection, but, as their notice says, they don't know the copyright information ("we do not claim copyright as the person donating the photographs does not necessarily hold copyright to the photos they are donating"), although that doesn't stop them from offering copies for sale. There's a somewhat better copy offered on this British site, who claims copyright on its reproductions but doesn't seem to have information about the original. A Google image search returns about a hundred webpages with the cropped version used in the collage. Ididn't look at them. I'm guessing many of them may have simply copied it from the Nobel website and would not have more information. But you could look at them if you are really motivated. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the research! I don't know if I'll find the time to really dive into this, but now I'll at least have a good point to start from. And yes, I've abandoned all hope to get any reaction from the uploader. I've contacted them before here as well as at their talk page at en:. If anyone is interested in cleaning up after them: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Oliszydlowski might be able to provide you many happy hours ;-) Cheers, --El Grafo (talk) 17:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
So, I am in possession of probably over one hundred images that were given to me by Cape Cod National Seashore, and I plan on uploading some of the more useful images. Most of them were donated over the years by veterans, so would Template:PD-USGov-NPS be applicable here, or is there a better template for this? Thanks! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:10, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
PD government would only apply if they were taken as part of their employment by the Federal government, images taken in a personal capacity would not qualify. Physically owning a print would not make you the copyright owner, unless that was explicit on their donation, and if this wasn't documented, and essentially undocumentable if the original authors cannot be contacted, we would only have your word that the correct permissions have been given.--KTo288 (talk) 19:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
What I suspect is that many of them were taken in personal capacity as service members, then donated. Some of them don't actually have any author permissions, which could mean they are a part of the National Park Service (the two entities co-existed for at least twenty years), although I could also find out what the status is on these things. Still, others I could probably message on Facebook, while others are definitely NPS images. So, I guess in that sense, you guys will have to take me at my word, but should I use a generic public domain tag if I do confirm that someone donated the material and allowed it to be in the public domain? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:36, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
If they are taken as part of official duties the PD-USGov-NPS tag seems correct. However, if donated the copyright would still sit with the photographer and OTRS is probably required. Liamdavies (talk) 13:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
If you are in contact with any of the authors, an email or message to Commons:OTRS is the correct way to go. A general PD license is fine if (and only if the authors are willing) but they could choose an appropriate CC license and that would be fine too.--KTo288 (talk) 14:33, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Is it permissible to load images ("One Piece" manga/anime) from it.wikipedia.org to commons.wikipedia.org?
No, this is copyrighted material and certainly not suitable for Commons. The English language Wikipedia accepts unfree files under certain conditions, so it might be an option to upload it there locally. But please make sure that you have read and understood en:Wikipedia:Non-free content before. Do not, however, upload it to the German language Wikipedia: It will undoubtedly get deleted soon, since there's no such thing as Fair Use in German Law. Even a link to the file might be considered illegal there. Cheers, --El Grafo (talk) 17:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Two objections:
(1) German Wikipedia is not a Wikipedia of Germany, it is a Wikipedia written in German language. Not only German citizens speak German as first language. Millions of people from Austria and Switzerland and about 350 000 from South Tirol (*) do so too. (* 69% of the population in this autonomous province in northern Italy speak German as first language and it's an official language there)
Why should German law apply to the German-speaking people of Austria and Switzerland and South Tyrol (and elsewhere in the world, e.g. the U.S.)?
And why should Italian law apply to the Italian-speaking people of Switzerland (and elsewhere in the world)?
(2) Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. is an American 501(c)(3) charitable organization headquartered in San Francisco, California. It is organized under the laws of the state of Florida, where it was founded and initially based. And the vast majority of it's servers stand on U.S. soil (and no server on German soil) and the domain .org is operated by Public Interest Registry (U.S.) -> Why shouldn't U.S. law apply to *.wikipedia.org? --Bgm2011 (talk) 07:51, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Sure does U.S. law apply to all WMF projects. However, on top of that the individual projects have their own policies. Commons policy is that material has to be free/legal in the U.S. and in the country of origin. :de Wikipedia has the policy that all material needs to be free/legal in Germany, Austria and Switzerland, because it is targeted mainly to people in these countries. --Túrelio (talk) 08:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I guess my answer was a bit misleading. In the end it boils down to: en.wp has a special policy which allows fair use. de.wp does not have anything like this, just like Commons and many other projects. --El Grafo (talk) 15:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
So if it is o.k. according to U.S. copyright law, then the content is notillegal but - at most - against Wikimedia's policy.
But how does Wikimedia's policy apply to the Chinese Wikipedia? Does all the material has to free/legal in the People's Republic of China (mainland China) and/or in the Republic of China (Taiwan)?
And what's the case when an article is written in German and is about South Tyrol? Does German or Italian law apply? --Bgm2011 (talk) 15:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
US law always applies, but communities can decide to voluntarily also obey the laws of Germany, Austria, Italy, Nigeria, Papua New Guinea, or anything else. It's not that hard really. darkweasel9415:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
The idea is that it should be possible for anyone to use Wikipedia content. If German Wikipedia doesn't follow German law, then it is illegal to use German Wikipedia in Germany. That destroys a large portion of the purpose of German Wikipedia. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:29, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
You can't upload it to Commons (see COM:FU) no matter what the copyright policies in either of those Wikipedias are. You may be able to upload it to those Wikipedias individually - meta:Non-free content is a place to start finding out about their copyright policies. darkweasel9416:15, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
You can't upload it to Japanese Wikipedia. The only non-free files Japanese Wikipedia accepts are photos of artworks (such as statues) permanently installed in public places outdoors. See ja:Template:屋外美術 (non-free licence template) and ja:WP:FOP (exemption doctrine policy).
Chinese Wikipedia accepts some other kinds of non-free files. You would have to read zh:維基百科:非自由內容使用準則 very carefully in order to determine whether the file is acceptable there or not. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:29, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
As I understand it, each language version of Wikipedia, and each of the other projects, decides internally about what kind of non-free content it wants to host, regardless of “local” laws (and b.t.w. note that some wikipedias dont have a specific home country — Latin and Esperanto are obvious examples). A few years ago, the Portuguese Wikipedia decided to start accepting (again) non-free content, with some restrictions, but that was a decision of the community, not a result of any change in the laws of Portugal or Brazil. So, this non-free image from One Piece is acceptable according to the Italian Wikipedia fair use rules, and might suit some other wikipedias, but yet others not, As for Commons, which is a repository of media items, not an illustrated analysis, it cannot host any non-free file for “fair use”. -- Tuválkin✉12:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
HTTPS for users with an account
Greetings. Starting on August 21 (tomorrow), all users with an account will be using HTTPS to access Wikimedia sites. HTTPS brings better security and improves your privacy. More information is available at m:HTTPS.
If HTTPS causes problems for you, tell us on bugzilla, on IRC (in the #wikimedia-operations channel) or on meta. If you can't use the other methods, you can also send an e-mail to https@wikimedia.org.
Please help: I've no idea about the essense of that changeover, but why do I get the same English text now by clicking at the page of COM:SCOPE on the Russian link, although there is apparently a Russian version? Same applies for other project pages! New and/or unskilled users hardly will find the right version themselves by browsing the revision history, so wtf please?? --A.Savin18:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Actually, it is not me who should give the effort, but the one who marked for translation. As long as it is not the case, Commons:Project scope/ru should be reverted to the version readable for most Russian users. --A.Savin19:41, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
The second page requires JavaScript enabled. It shows a list of translation units. When clicking a unit, one can paste the translation into the textarea that appears and click "save translation" to save and go to the next unit. Full help. -- Rillke(q?)19:43, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
HTTPS for logged-in users on Wednesday August 28th
Hi Sumana, could the opt-out of https be added to user preferences in advance of rolling it out? This would seem like an easy fix for bot operators. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 20:08, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Flickr license vs US Military license
There is a photo on flickr I would like to upload (http://www.flickr.com/photos/68069549@N05/8641884955/) but the license is all rights reserved even though it was taken by a US Military employee. Can I upload it manually and then change the license to PD-USGov-Military-Navy or not?
Somewhat strange, but eventually due to the fact that this Flickr-account seems to be a personal one. However, as official material from U.S. federal institutions is PD by U.S. law, we ignore such restrictions, provided there is enough evidence or no reasonable doubt that it is an official work. For the image in question, IMO there is no doubt about that, due to the statement "U.S. Navy photo by Chief Mass Communication Specialist Julianne Metzger/Released." --Túrelio (talk) 10:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I want to upload a file to Wikimedia but I am very unsure of its copyright. It is in the collection of the state library of Victoria. The photo is over 100 years old however. It is being used on a Parliamentary Education Office website at the moment. What would be the copyright license issues for this picture? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir Langan (talk • contribs) 01:47, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Per the m:Global bans global policy, you are informed of the discussion above. Please comment there and feel free to appropriately distribute more widely in prominent community venues in order to «Inform the community on all wikis where the user has edited». Nemo10:08, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Marking deformed images
While trying to reduce the number of images here I come across [[:|this image]]. Categozing (minimally) was easy, but I wanted to flag this image for being squeezed/deformed (anamorphic rescaling with vertical hypertrophy), which is fixable with a relatively easy image editing operation — but couldn’t find any suitable template in Category:Image cleanup templates. Any suggestions? -- Tuválkin✉12:15, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
270 × 350 pixels and no exif? I would just DR it as possible copyvio. Don't waste time trying to fix it unless it passes. A true creator should have uploaded larger with exif.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:38, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
A Google-Images search did not yield any hit. It might have been captured from a video or shot with a low-cost digicam. --Túrelio (talk) 14:50, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
I think it may be actual {{Own work}} and shot with a very basic and old camera, maybe a 2G phone. (I run it through TinEye and GoogleImages first, too!) However the question is not about this one image, it is about how to mark and how to treat photos with wrong aspect ratio which are otherwise worth the trouble. -- Tuválkin✉15:55, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
I think it is ok to use {{ifc|anamorphic rescaling needs to be applied}}, as long as the number of affected images is low. --McZusatz (talk) 17:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I did that, but I’ll try to fix it myself. I’ll think of a dedicated template and IFC-subcategory, since there is none. -- Tuválkin✉18:30, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Found these two, the same original shot, aparently, but two images: Normal and stretched proportions. These maybe out of scope or unusable by their contents (unidentified location, unnotable people, trivial subject and composition) but as a pair they are a geniune example case of anamorphic rescaling, found “in the wild”. -- Tuválkin✉15:55, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
I overwrote two files without receiving any warning! Please check settings and check by bot all uploads since beginning of this failure! --ŠJů (talk) 01:44, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
you mean from special:upload? There was a typo in a javascript file that broke it. It should be fixed on monday. I apologize for the inconvience. Bawolff (talk) 18:33, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, Special:Upload. Thank You for the answer and solution. I hope the problem is (will be) away. --ŠJů (talk) 19:40, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi guys! Since Magnus has ported to WMFLabs his Sum-it-up and WhatIsThat? tools, I wonder if they could be hooked up to a bot for automation. I find them both tremendously useful in populating descriptions and interwiki links for categories and images. Since a majority of pics don't have descriptions and just some cryptic file names, they are never found by the search engines. With these tools the chance to locate an image or category increases tremendously. The only drawback I can see is that fact that sometimes the tools return incorrect descriptions. But I've been using the tools extensively for the last few years and I can say that 95% of the time, the descriptions are perfect. An incorrect description would most likely prompt a contributor to correct it, thus entering the missing description anyway. Using the tools manually can be tedious but I see much more benefits from the automation.--Codrin.B (talk) 08:49, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
When should returning Administrators be asked to have a second RFA?
On Commons:List_of_former_administrators you can find a number of requests from past administrators who have their sysop flag restored on request without a community discussion, but at the discretion of a bureaucrat. This seems a pragmatic approach for those who retired without controversy and wish to come back within a reasonable time frame, but I'm wondering if there ought to be an upper time limit after which a RFA becomes a standard requirement.
Though Admins should be positively encouraged to return the flag if they have a planned time away or become too busy to contribute in this way, I also feel that a past admin that has retired either voluntarily or through having the flag removed through inactivity, should come back to the community as whole if they have been away for more than, say, six months rather than through a quiet request to a bureaucrat. At least this way the community has the chance to understand why they left and are returning and resolve any outstanding issues that might have been left unresolved before they resigned. Any counter-views or potential support for a change in the Administrators guideline? --Fæ (talk) 10:56, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Dear community, we are probably better prepared for VisualEditor than any Wikipedia: We were using TemplateBox for years for documenting our templates.
Extension:TemplateData expects a very similar structure - or did Krinkle, the developer of TemplateData, actually look at the Commons-implementation, whose foundation was formed, back in 2009, by Slomox? Something an investigative reporter may uncover ;-) - compared to our TemplateBox. Therefore, it was obvious continuing using TemplateBox for template documentation and extending the box so that nearly all features of TemplateData are supported.
A Lua module is now converting the parameter and template-description to JSON which in turn is passed to TemplateData and I tried to summarize the most important points at Commons:TemplateData. Proofreading, improving and copyediting is welcome.
Another advantage using Lua is that passing all the parameters to the layout-template can be avoided. Therefore, you can document as many parameters as the database and the Lua quotas allow.
Keep in mind that documentation is essential for newcomers and terms like "copyvio" may be confusing. Enjoy documenting! -- Rillke(q?)22:28, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
At Wikivoyage we have started using GPX files to show itineraries on maps. For instance, imagine the Transsiberian article showing the actual itinerary of the Transsiberian in a zoomable map.
While we have the tech working, we are looking for a place to upload GPX files. Right now we uploading them in article space, for instance http://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Winnipeg/Gpx which is very bad practice, confusing bots and humans alike ("Random page" can land you there).
Also, we would like to share these GPX files between different languages.
It has become clear that uploading GPX files to Commons would be the best things to do.
What do you think about it? Is Commons ready to accept such content?
Sorry for not explaining that. GPX files are mostly a list of latitude/longitude points (example). GPX files do not contain any programming code. They are just static data, like images. Nicolas1981 (talk) 07:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. In case they are accepted for upload, which looks fine for me, it might be wise to semi-protect them per default, as the code looks to be sensitive even to minor changes, which also would not be easy to detect on Commons. --Túrelio (talk) 07:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
I don’t think GPX support has been discussed before − there was no mention of it at COM:UNSUPPORTED (I just added it). I created bugzilla:53023 to get input from the devs of what might be the technical hurdles here − bugzilla:26059 which tracks support for the similar KML/KMZ hints at lots of possible issues.
In the Dutch wikipedia I use a lot of google map routes to show ex-vinicinal lines. For example:
Sterrebeek Vossem
This is none other than a GPX file overlay on a standard google map. The problem is that this is personal data and I cannot make it public domain and let the wiki community own and update the files. Is there a way to extract the underlying GPX file and place it in the commons? The copyrigth of the GPX file is not Google. Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:36, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Usually files hosted at Commons can be viewed on Commons and many free and open formats are not supported because there are no online viewers for them. How can GPX files be viewed? Probably OpenStreetMap has some way, since they allow upload of GPX files. KML files are similar and are also unsupported except for overlays like File:Erfurt-1650-Merian.jpg/overlay.kml overlay of File:Erfurt-1650-Merian.jpg file. --Jarekt (talk) 13:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Just to add that in my opinion these files should be hosted in Commons and their use outside wikivoyage encouraged — this seems to be a great addition. Just a couple of issues:
Are these datasets copyrighteable? Is there a mechanism to detect wheather a given dataset was originally plotted by a user or is being copied from some other source, possibly copyrighted?
There should be a separate category tree for this kind of data. I’m not sure if we have, or will ever have, this kind of data in formats other than GPX, but all formats for this type of data should be bundled — just like we separate media by type (video, audio, photos) and not by filetype. Of course each file should be also categorized to show up with other media pertaining to the area they pertain to.
Viewing/previewing/visualizing/thumbnailing is important. Given these are XML files, maybe a bit of XSL magic could make them visible through libsvg?
Given that OpenStreetMap considers their data copyrightable as well (which also consists of nothing but lists of coordinates and associated tags), I think that they are probably copyrightable. darkweasel9412:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm trying to import some images from the Afrikaans Wikipedia (such as this one), but CommonsHelper 1 or 2 don't seem to support this wiki. Commonshelper2 has a method to configure the tool to work with every wiki, so I tried to create a configuration page here but it still doesn't work. Can someone help me with this?--Underlying lk (talk) 22:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
How old is the church? Commons doesn't accept images of South African buildings unless the architect has been dead for at least 50 years. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't know, but that's not the issue here. Even if this particular image cannot be uploaded, there are many other images from af.wiki that could be, if only commonshelper was set up correctly.--Underlying lk (talk) 01:52, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I created Category:Cheryl Marie Cordeiro, containing a photo of newspaper clippings and two photos of photos (one each — they look really bad), which are almost surely not own work and therefore almost surely under copyright (originals from 1999). Yet, these are in use, in wp:en. Delete? -- Tuválkin✉10:17, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
"In use" protects only from "no educational value" deletions, not from deletions based on copyright. So yes, file a DR. darkweasel9410:28, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
You need to do some research of what the buildings are actually called and what the names mean in context. Town hall could be the headquarters for an Incorporated Town (if NJ has such), or of a township, or be effectively a municipal auditorium. Or images could be miscategorized. Dankarl (talk) 04:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
The categories are being used for headquarters of municipal corporations (city, borough, town, and/or township) and not for auditoriums. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:22, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
If you want to combine, I'd suggest Municipal administration buildings. Alternatively you could add a category for borough halls and go by what they are called. Dankarl (talk) 20:33, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
This issue comes up all the time. People want to consolidate, and then others object because a town ≠ city, and the discussion inevitably devolves into a detailed discussion of the particularities of municipal governance in that one jurisidiction. What makes the issue more complicated is that a city/town hall in New Jersey can mean something something completely different than a city/town hall in the U.K. or a city/town hall in New South Wales, and while in some jurisdictions the terms town hall and city hall are largely interchangeable, in other jurisdictions they are very different. In Ontario where I live, there is no real legal distinction between a town and a city (it's really up to the municipality what it wants to call itself), but there are strict thresholds in other places. To make it more complicated, some towns and cities don't actually call their main municipal administration building a city or town hall. Ultimately, the article at en.wp was moved to en:Seat of local government for this very reason ("Municipal administration building" was rejected because many cities have more than one municipal administration building - for example, the water department could have its own administrative building). We may have to move in that direction on the Commons, at least for the parent category for each jurisdiction (while permitting subcats that reflect the nomenclature used in each jurisdiction). --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:23, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
The imprecision of "Municipal administration building" could be useful for a category tho - we would not have to anticipate all the possible varieties until they showed up in sufficient number to warrant a subcategory. In cases like this I favor having the lowest-level category reflect local usage. Dankarl (talk) 20:22, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
But a municipal administration building is generally not the same as a town hall. Many cities have loads of them - I live in Toronto, and it has dozens of administrative buildings. We already have Municipal buildings and Municipal offices categories for such buildings, although both could use a bit of thought. We will need a category for the more specific subgroup of town/city halls, and I do think there needs to a consistent name across the board for such "headquarters". But I agree that once one gets to the lowest-level category for the jurisdiction, the subcats could reflect local usage (town halls, village halls, guildhalls, county halls, halls of learned citizens, etc. - okay that last one is made up). --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:14, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
In the New Jersey case, it jumps from government buildings to city halls without intervening layers. Also, on further reflection those town halls that are associated with townships aren't exactly municipal; townships don't have the same structure, powers or function as a town or city, at least in a lot to the US. Dankarl (talk) 02:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Townships are very different creatures, but they are still considered municipalities. And there's the rub - depending on the jurisdiction and the township itself, some townships have town halls, others have township halls, and others have no seat of local government. Thus my comments above. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:50, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
A related question -- do we include the city halls and town halls of former municipalities? Here in Toronto again some of those former municipalities had beautiful town halls; some, like the beautiful little Swansea Town Hall, are still referred to by their old name. Geo Swan (talk) 03:37, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
If you are interested in the Wikimedia Foundation's new multimedia initiative, we would like to invite you to join our IRC discussion tomorrow, Thursday, August 22 at 18:00 UTC (11:00am PDT), on this 'office hours' channel: #wikimedia-office.
During this one-hour chat, we will talk about our plans for multimedia in the coming year, as discussed in our last IRC chat and in this Wikimania 2013 roundtable, held in Hong Kong earlier this month.
We would also like to discuss this proposed Media Viewer, which we are starting to develop -- as well as get your feedback on the new image gallery tags we just released this week.
Last but not least, if you would like to keep up with our development work, you are welcome to subscribe to this Multimedia mailing list, which we started earlier this month.
For more information about our new multimedia initiative, visit this project hub.
If you really wanted to get feedback you'd put up a wiki discussion page here or on enwp, not hide it off on the IRC channels or the Mediawiki wiki which noone visits.—Love, Kelvinsongtalk20:56, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
In regards to gallery, you can give feedback in the VP thread above. For the media viewer, I'll let fabrice answer that one, but I imagine we would create a wiki page discussion when we are closer to having a final product to show off. If you can't (or don't want) to visit the irc chat, feel free to send us feedback where ever is most convenient to you. We all have talk pages, etc. As long as we know where the feedback is, we will read it. Bawolff (talk) 21:29, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Update: Many thanks to all the folks who joined today's IRC chat about multimedia -- especially Ainali, JeanFred, multichill, quiddity, rillke, Steinsplitter and zhuyifei1999_!
We will add more notes from this discussion later today, and will also start an onwiki discussion this week on Commons, as suggested by Kelvinsong. In the meantime, we invite you to add your comments in the discussion pages for these documents, so we can hear from you. Thanks again for taking the time to help plan our next steps for multimedia! More to come ... Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 20:58, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I couldn't access the IRC, but I read the log, and I just have to say one thing was pretty concerning to me:
But we are hoping that a simple feedback tool could help more people surface content on Wikipedia as well, through the new Media Viewer (e.g a 'thanks' tool could help).
…that data could also be used to surface content that was found useful by others.
I really dislike the idea of adding cheap like buttons to our pictures. I'm especially bothered by the fact that pictures are going to be ranked based on how many likes they get. I foresee that a lot of contributors (including myself probably) will be shifting our efforts to fish for likes instead of actually contributing useful/valuable content. Commons/Wikipedia is not and should not be Instagram. (What's next? Followers?) The average person looks for glowing stuff and bright colors—To be more specific: flowers, shiny nails, food, sunsets, humorous meta-posts (almost always copyvios, BTW), and attractive selfies. Not accuracy, technical quality, good design, or educational value. At least restrict the like buttons to registered users who know what to look for in a file.—Love, Kelvinsongtalk23:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Any sort of rating system is still a bit away, and a "stage 2" project so to speak. You're right that its an area we would have to tread carefully in to get good results and not just be a useless popularity content. I put some of my initial thoughts on the matter at the page mw:Multimedia/File_feedback a while back, but its all very initial. There will be more discussion along with more hard thinking about what to do (and what not to do) later on, after the first round of stuff gets done. Bawolff (talk) 00:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Kelvinsong. I really appreciate your comments about file feedback -- and share some of your concerns about explicit rating systems. As Bawolff points out, we plan to proceed *very* carefully on that front, and will have plenty of opportunities to discuss our options with you and other community members. Most people we've spoken to about this idea share an interest in surfacing useful content based on user feedback, and yet we are all aware of the potential pitfalls of using a populist system that could be easily gamed. So rest assured that we will not do anything until we've all had a chance to evaluate the pros and cons of each option together, most likely in the October time frame. For now, your recommendation to restrict this feedback feature to logged-in users makes good sense to me and is duly noted. In the meantime, you might like to view our recent conversation on this topic, captured in this video from our Multimedia Roundtable at Wikimania 2013 (Part I of that Roundtable can be viewed here; subsets from both videos will be uploaded to Commons in coming days -- and we're looking for volunteers to transcribe them, if anyone's interested). To be continued ... Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 00:55, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Local Madagascar placenames
I usualy look up google maps or other websources to find the local names. For Madagascar the names are scarce and confusing. Maybe someone has local maps to research?
Fort Dauphin is frequently used name but very imprecise. It should be historicaly some headland (File:Fort-Dauphin Flacourt 1650.jpg) but I cant match it precisely. (File:Fort Dauphin rocks 01.jpg) To classify everything under the category Tôlanaro is not satisfactory.
I frequently encounter photos of fossil (as well as extant) animals that do not yet have English Wikipedia articles. There are currently dozens, if not hundreds, of such images. Would it be a bad move to create a category for them, perhaps hidden, to keep track of them? Otherwise they will just "disappear", and perhaps never be used, even when articles are created for the species in question. I have previously created a somewhat similar category for species that are not yet named, and therefore do not have articles yet.[12] But it was not as directly related to the situation on on Wikipedia. Any thoughts? Is there a better way to handle this? FunkMonk (talk) 00:11, 26 August 2013 (UTC) FunkMonk (talk) 00:11, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't see why they would disappear. They should be linked into the Commons category hierarchy, and should be found when searching for the species name, so it should be easy enough for somebody to find them when creating a Wikipedia article. The extra category wouldn't make them any easier to find, and would just add one more thing to be maintained. Perhaps making wikidata entries linking to the Commons category would also help? ghouston (talk) 01:08, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't think making them hidden would be a good idea; sometimes there might just be one large Wikipedia article describing variants of something, yet here we have separate subcategories for the variants. Even though it will be one more category to maintain, it's better organised as there will certainly be several images per variant, and putting all variants in a single category will get messy very very quickly. --O (谈 • висчвын) 02:29, 26 August 2013 (GMT)
Well, I can say from experience that first and foremost, people that start articles about these obscure taxa don't seem to search for images on Commons, and when the article is started after all, the images are rarely added afterwards. It is usually the other way around, an article is created, later an image is uploaded, and added to the article. When the opposite occurs, images usually just hang around orphaned on Commons. Until I find them at random, that is. I'm probably the only person who maintain the palaeontology related images and categories on Commons at this point. So it would be helpful to me, at least, to keep track, and I'd happily maintain it myself. Wikipedia is so lacking in its coverage of fossils other than dinosaurs (huge backlog, hundreds of missing taxa) that I've now resorted to creating articles when I found orphaned images, not the other way around (searching Commons for images when an article misses them). FunkMonk (talk) 02:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Sounds odd. When I create an article I usually search for images on Commons. Often also when I find an unillustrated article. If there is a scientific name mentioned both in the article and in the image description, finding the image should be easy. Having a correctly named category makes it easy also for bots (such as User:Lsjbot, creating articles about all living species) to find the images. A slight misspelling or using a parallel name (especially if not mentioned in the article) may of course hide the image. In addition to checking en-wp, for extant species checking sv-wp is probably worthwhile. What about Wikispecies? --LPfi (talk) 14:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I’m not sure I understand the question. If you hesitate to create Category:Weidus animalus for some files just because there is no WP article this species (yet), then by all means please do create it. We have no requirement for categories to have an existing WP article to be associated with. Create as many categories as possibly make sense. Jean-Fred (talk) 15:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
There has been a tendency to merge categories for fossil genera up to higher level taxa, see for example[13], and that is probably a cause for the problem. FunkMonk (talk) 18:16, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
You can also add images to a personal gallery to keep track of them. However, it may be less work to just create stubs in Wikipedia, especially if you can make a template where you just need to change a few fields. Then you don't need to keep rechecking whether somebody else has created the article without the image. ghouston (talk) 23:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Notification of DMCA takedown demand - Equine_reproduction_services_fetus
In compliance with the provisions of the US Digital Millennium 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.
This is one of the Geocoding tools available under user Preferences, however I believe this has been broken for rather a long time. Are there plans to fix it, or would it be better to remove it from available gadgets? --Fæ (talk) 17:35, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
August 28
Minors on Wikimedia projects
This just a heads up that I have asked questions of Geoff Brigham at Meta:Talk:Legal_and_Community_Advocacy#Minors_on_Wikimedia_projects in relation to minors on our projects. Firstly, I am wanting clarification from WMF on whether they will be required to be en:COPPA compliant. After this issue is sorted, I will then be seeking clarification on the ability of minors to licence their works, and indeed on being able to participate in our projects. russavia (talk) 15:48, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm also wondering about the copyright status in the source country. Commons demands that images are free in the source country, and different countries may have different rules. I found this case from Sweden where a person who was 14 had purchased a Playstation by paying 1000 crowns when he got the item and then an additional 800 crowns five days later. This purchase was invalid as the child's parents hadn't approved the purchase. If purchase of an item in a normal shop isn't allowed, then I'm questioning whether a licence granted by someone under 18 can be considered valid in Sweden without permission from the child's parents. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:19, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I'll be addressing the ability of minors to grant licences after the COPPA issue is acknowledged as being looked at. Or perhaps I will raise it shortly -- I've already started preparing info on it, and yes, it comes down to the competence of a minor to entire into a contract for life necessities (such as food, clothing, etc). I'll post another link here once I've done that. russavia (talk) 18:24, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Russavia, in 2006 Brad Patrick, the WMF's lawyer at the time, was asked about whether or not COPPA applied to WMF projects since they are non-profits. I can't locate his response, but I'm sure if you left a message on Jimbo's talk page on en.wp someone would help you find it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Instead of criticizing Russavia for allegedly being late, you should have read his likely not so unimportant line "As of 1 July 2013, the US federal COPPA has been amended, which looks like it will affect the WMF." --Túrelio (talk) 16:10, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't pretend to be a lawyer on the internet, but the exemption for nonprofits has not changed. This subject has been discussed many, many times on WP over the last several years, including getting legal opinions from the WMF's lawyers at least once. I do not know what has prompted Russavia to take such a strong interest in this subject now, but there are editors who have been concerned with this issue for some time and he would do well to look into the history before starting a crusade of his own. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
No idea why you feel entitled to slander Russavia by labeling his rfc as crusade. Though I can't view into his head, for me the recent case of AK would be a good reason to get some definitive guidance about minor's ability to release their copyright. IMO, this question is more relevant for Commons than for Wikipedia, as the works uploaded to Commons are usually better defined than contributions to Wikipedia. As the AK-related discussion on :en has shown, opinions about the legal competence of minors (in regard to copyright) in general were quite divided. --Túrelio (talk) 18:59, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
There is nothing slanderous about calling Russavia's efforts a "crusade" (crusades are not necessarily bad things). I have said nothing about copyright issues and minors, only COPPA. You need to read more carefully, Turelio, or think for longer before replying to comments. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Now that we're using HTTPS connections, why isn't my custom monobook.js Javascript file loading? I didn't see a <script> tag linking to it in the source. —howcheng {chat}16:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Go right ahead. Is there something in there that's preventing them from loading? Doesn't make sense to me, but worth a shot. Thanks. —howcheng {chat}16:12, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Please purge your browser’s cache or enable JavaScript in your Browser's settings. (You only need to do it once.)
I'm seeking permission to upload a number of files to Commons, but the instructions at COM:OTRS say that permission requests should specify the url of each file, which can be impractical if there are dozens or even hundreds of them. Is it sufficient to use a more generic formula (say, granting permission for 'all my pictures of XYZ Stadium' or 'all my Flickr uploads until 31 December 2012') and if not, is there some other way to avoid having to list dozens of links?--Underlying lk (talk) 03:23, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that is permissible, although the clearer the scope of the permission the better (e.g. 'all my pictures of XYZ Stadium that are on site PDQ as of [date]' is better than 'all my pictures of XYZ Stadium'). - Jmabel ! talk03:34, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
If you are uploading your own photos, then you don't even need to do this unless there is some doubt that you own the Flickr account or other online photostream (which would be easy to prove, as you only need to add a note on your website profile, or email into OTRS from your associated email address to okay your Commons account as being yours, or acting as your agent with permission if the Commons user is not the photographer). Sticking OTRS tickets on every upload is often excessive in these situations. --Fæ (talk) 11:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Wiki Loves Monuments UK - call for volunteers to pre-screen entries in September
I'm unsure how many uploads we can expect to get as part of WLM in the UK over the next month, but the signs are that it could be in the tens of thousands - far too many for us to give straight to our three-person jury to review.
That means that we will need one or more levels of pre-screening, to knock out the images that are clearly not good enough to pass on to the next stage. We need to plan to do this pre-screening on a daily basis, as the competition proceeds, as there may well not be enough time to do the whole lot in October.
I'm looking for volunteers who could help online with this, either throughout September or at least for a day or two. No experience is needed, other than a reliable ability to distinguish a good photo from a poor one. Although the entries will be from the UK, anyone from anywhere can make a difference.
If you can help, please let me know on my talk page, or add your name to the pre-screening team.
As I understand it there is no difference between the English Cano and the french Pirogue. The Canoes categories are fully developed, while "Piroques" is only a subcategory of "Canoes". I propose to move all "Pirogues" images to "Canoes" categories and create a link from Piroques.Smiley.toerist (talk) 08:39, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
The term "piroque" as you write it returns only one hit on Commons. Assuming you mean "pirogue", not all w:pirogues are canoes. The term has various local meanings, referring to a variety of small craft mostly in historically French-speaking areas and probably should be applied only when the vessel is so designated locally. If the category gets too big it could logically be divided by location. Dankarl (talk) 13:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
There is only a small difference between canoes and pirogues. Piroques are mostly traditional canoes made of local materials (wood), while canoes can also be made of modern fiberglas. In most third world countries there is in practice no difference. People in these countries who able to afford fiberglass dont buy canoes, but bigger boats. I'm not in favour of localism, whereby the category name depends on the local language/history. See Cosmonauts and Astronauts.Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:44, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I would maintain it is only a pirogue for Commons if it is actually called a pirogue in English. Those pirogues which are dugout canoes could be in Category:Monoxylon. But there is a type of US boat which is called a pirogue which is not what people usually think of as a canoe (wider, flat bottom, may have a transom), it needs a category. Thus you will have a category, perhaps called Cajun Pirogues. The widespread use of the term pirogue for other indigenous watercraft will then lead to confusion that highrt level categpories could resolve. Dankarl (talk) 22:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Europeans traditionally conflate canoes and kayaks. Here in Canada, where kayaks were invented, if you sit with your legs fully extended, and use a paddle with a blade on each end, you are in a kayak. If you kneel, or sit on a thwart or seat, and use a paddle with just a single blade, you are in a canoe. Perhaps it would best to use descriptive names like:
As an aside, both Inupiaq and Yupik of the Bering sea coast built fine seagoing kayaks, both peoples employed both 1- and 2-bladed paddles in the same boats. (They also might take some exception to an assertion that kayaks were invented in Canada.) Dankarl (talk) 03:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Searching for featured images within individual categories
Hi All
Is there any way I can search for featured images in a certain category e.g NASA or Images from the German Federal Archive?
Yes. Catscan2 by Magnus will show images both in Category:Featured pictures (and child directories) and your chosen main category. However, the tool is not working for me right now ('internal server error'), which seems a pity as I had thought that migration to WMF servers meant more reliability for this sort of thing. --Fæ (talk) 12:20, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
File:Zhengzhou_Ferris_Wheel.jpg is not an image of Zhengzhou Ferris Wheel
Can this image be deleted? http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Zhengzhou_Ferris_Wheel.jpg Apparently it is not an image of the Zhengzhou Ferris Wheel (it has the wrong number of spokes) - see English article and talk page. Thanks. 21:28, 23 August 2013 27.55.192.90
Thanks. As it apparently is not an image of the Zhengzhou Ferris Wheel, I would like to request that the redirect be removed, or nominated for removal. 01:50, 24 August 2013 27.55.192.90
I’ve been involved in monitoring DRs for shortly over a month and already come across a dozen or so of images that people ask to be deleted (some times with aggressive insistence) just because they are misnamed, or miscategorized, or even simply misdiscribed! «Doctor, doctor, I have this terrible ingrown nail! Please amputate at the knee, there’s no other solution!» Geez! -- Tuválkin✉01:31, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Surely, if it has been established that it is not an image of what it is claimed to be of, and we have no way of knowing what it actually is an image of, what useful purpose could it possibly serve? 01:50, 24 August 2013 27.55.192.90
I am editing (in a very limited manner) from a mobile while on holiday abroad and have been unable to persuade either the device or the mobile interface to provide a means of generating a signature. 10:39, 24 August 2013 27.55.198.202
? We are a very broad church and deletion for no purpose is practicaly unheard of. One nevers knows beforehand wich images wil be used. Even unidentified it is a good picture. There are not that many wheels.Smiley.toerist (talk) 07:49, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, even if unidentified now, it can always be identified later. That is the idea behind a massively collaborative project like this; someone else can come along and improve the description. That has happened many times (unidentified locations being identified later). It would only be an issue if there was really no hope of ever identifying it, which would not be the case in something like this. And in any event, the identification was correct in the first place. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:17, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
The right course of action for unknown and misidentified files is to add it to Category:Unidentified objects or one of its subcategories and tag it with {{fact disputed}}. 12:14, 24 August 2013 KTo288
Who says this is the wrong wheel anyway? Has anyone checked via its location (the Century amusement park?) eg Judging from the satellite imagery on Bing, the support structure of this wheel is a better match to the Zhengzhou one. [14] also says its Zhengzhou, but also says its AP photo...--86.156.126.711:02, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Absolutely agree -- the image in question was correct and should be reverted to its original name and description. The other image in that conversation (the one with a different number of spokes) has the description Ferris wheel with 7 spokes at en:Renmin Park (Zhengzhou), Henan, China. Not to be confused with the 120m en:Zhengzhou Ferris Wheel at Century Amusement Park, Zhengzhou. They would appear to be photos of two different Ferris wheels in the city, a smaller seven-spoke one, and this photo is of the 120m large one and was correctly named. The other image should perhaps be renamed to use the park name in the title instead of Zhengzhou but you can't say it's incorrect either (just maybe prone to misidentification). The "AP photo" designation for the copy on the internet is very odd; per the EXIF it was taken on July 22, 2006 and posted to Flickr on July 27, 2006. It was taken with a Canon Powershot, like many other photos in that Flickr stream. Can't fathom that being an AP picture unless they lifted it from Flickr as well. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:08, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
However, we would need a better permission from the copyright owner. The name of the flickr account is an organization and it is not the name of the person identified as the copyright owner. The photos have a copyright notice stating clearly that the copyright owner is an individual. Besides, many description pages of the photos are self-contradictory. They are tagged with both a cc-by tag and a "non commercial use only" tag. It denotes, on the part of the person who tagged them on flickr, a misunderstanding or an absence of actual acceptance of the license terms (even assuming that that person had the rights in the first place). Thus in the present situation the cc license can't be considered valid. That said, it may be quite possible to convince the copyright owner to actually offer a proper free license on the photos, or on some of them, and to modify accordingly the informations on the flickr account, as apparently this individual is the manager of the organization. His contact information can be found at this website. I believe you are good at that sort of thing, so perhaps you may volunteer to contact him (or jump over the Rockies and visit the Nanaimo station)? If he agrees to the free license, I suppose he could add, on the flickr profile page, an explanation stating clearly his personal agreement as the individual who is the owner of the copyright, and remove the non commercial tags on the description pages of the photos he actually agrees to freely license. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Taking one randomly : IMG_3857-1. Look in the tags section. At the present time, it has a simple "cc-by 2.0" tag and it also has a "noncommercial use only" tag. I guess that could be taken as implying the same intention as if the photo had a "cc-by-nc" tag. The noncommercial restriction is also specified in the EXIF data. But yes, different photos are tagged differently. Still, as Mr. B.K. is clearly identified as the copyright owner of the photos but the flickr account is not identified to him, it would be necessary at least to have a clear statement from him somewhere that he personally grants the license. Then, we can upload the photos that have a cc-by tag without a restriction tag. But we must be cautious not to upload the photos that have the restriction tag even if they have the cc-by tag. An upload bot might not notice that situation. -- Asclepias (talk) 11:48, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Can you take a look at Special:Contributions/Wiki-text, please? A few cases of missing cats and badjpg caught my eye at 1st, and then it looked like a lot of out of scope spam material. But some of these files have OTRS tickets?! (Also: What kind of misleading username is that?) -- Tuválkin✉06:18, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Merging of logins
Hi,
Probably this question has been asked before, but I wasn't able to find an answer: I've forgotten my password for User:Sietske and therefore created a new account. However, I would love to keep my commons account being aligned with my account nl:User:Sietske. Is it possible to merge User:Sietske with SietskeWiki (talk) in some way, and regenerate the password? Please let me know.
_LACMA_M.70.76.7.jpg)
_a_Departure_Scene_and_(Shoulder)_a_Battle_Scene_LACMA_51.25.1_(1_of_2).jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
,_Folio_from_a_Bhaktamara_Stotra_(Hymn_of_the_Immortal_Devotee)_LACMA_AC1992.170.2_(3_of_6).jpg)
,_Folio_from_a_Bhaktamara_Stotra_(Hymn_of_the_Immortal_Devotee)_LACMA_AC1992.170.2_(6_of_6).jpg)
.jpg)
Done by using something I knocked up before my porridge - reportRedlinksLACMA.py. --Fæ (talk) 09:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
wikimedia.org to report Inappropriate images of children to the WMF. That address is monitored by several members of the Legal and Community Advocacy staff and should ONLY be used to report inappropriate images of children. As always deletion (if you are able and feel comfortable doing so) is appreciated to get it off the site as soon as possible but we do not recommend downloading or archiving any potentially inappropriate content yourself. Doing so could place you in significant legal peril.
Support How about "This file is also discussed at .... Wikipedia" --Jarekt (talk) 02:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
). Regarding your concerns with blocked users I can at least assure you that I don't want to support such behavior either, am not blocked anywhere personally, and am not affiliated with anyone who is (rather the opposite is the case). I honestly think the pros outweigh the cons here. --Patrick87 (talk) 01:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Though I expect it needs debugging. Penyulap ☏ 20:04, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose Completely forbidding DRs for IPs, 
Comment What is exactly the extent of the problem? Otherwise, I am really inclined to believe this is a solution in search of a problem. Jean-Fred (talk) 16:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Canoe1967 (talk) 16:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC) 
). --Fæ (talk) 13:18, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
keep (at least the few I browsed), regardless of the uploader’s apparent intention of using Commons as his ad image hosting facility. Wont it be a great lesson to the uploader if his competitors start using his images to create their own ads? That’s the beauty of 
.jpg)
.jpg)
this montage to replace
File:Baldwin Spencer Building.JPG – Special:FileDuplicateSearch/Baldwin Spencer Building.JPG
File:New Wing Extension.jpg – Special:FileDuplicateSearch/New Wing Extension.jpg
Sterrebeek Vossem
This is none other than a GPX file overlay on a standard google map. The problem is that this is personal data and I cannot make it public domain and let the wiki community own and update the files. Is there a way to extract the underlying GPX file and place it in the commons? The copyrigth of the GPX file is not Google. Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:36, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
,_Folio_from_a_Bhaktamara_Stotra_(Hymn_of_the_Immortal_Devotee)_LACMA_AC1992.170.2_(1_of_6).jpg){kind=link}
_LACMA_M.2011.20.1_(1_of_6).jpg){kind=link}
_LACMA_M.2011.20.3_(1_of_6).jpg){kind=link}
_LACMA_M.2011.20.2_(1_of_5).jpg){kind=link}
_LACMA_M.2011.20.1_(1_of_6).jpg){kind=link}
_LACMA_M.2011.20.3_(1_of_6).jpg){kind=link}
_LACMA_M.2011.20.2_(1_of_5).jpg){kind=link}
![[3]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e8/AllSaints_store%2C_Westbourne_Grove%2C_London_W11.jpg){kind=link}
![[6]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Drawing_for_Whaam!.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
