Commons:Village pump/Archive/2013/11

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

MediaWiki error message when editing Commons:Project scope

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T58226

I just created COM:EDUSE as a shortcut to Commons:Project scope#Must_be_realistically_useful_for_an_educational_purpose, because that gets referred to frequently. However, I can't add it to the page with {{Shortcut}}, because I get an actual MediaWiki error ([4672fc92] 2013-10-27 14:18:21: Fatal exception of type MWException) when trying to open the section for editing. Something is broken. — Scott • talk 14:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I guess it's related to the translate extension. We had something similar before with bugzilla:50460, bugzilla:55803 -- Rillke(q?) 15:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
[14:11]	<bawolff>	Reedy: If you're not too busy, any chance you could look up "[4672fc92] 2013-10-27 14:18:21: Fatal exception of type MWException" in the exception log?
....
[14:21]	<Reedy>	Strip markers bawolff
[14:21]	<Reedy>	2013-10-27 14:18:21 mw1050 commonswiki: [4672fc92] /w/index.php?title=Commons:Project_scope&action=edit&section=13 Exception from line 77 of /usr/local/apache/common-local/php-1.22wmf22/includes/parser/StripState.php: Invalid marker:UNIQ7fcfb94d3c323dfe-h-0--QIN
[14:21]	<bawolff>	Thanks :)
[14:21]	<Reedy>	Want a full stack trace?
[14:21]	<Reedy>	Ah
[14:21]	<Reedy>	Translate related I think

Bawolff (talk) 17:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I filied bugzilla:56226 for this issue. Bawolff (talk) 19:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
For the curious, it appears the bug is in MediaWiki, however translate is causing MediaWiki to do something that doesn't often happen, and hence triggering the bug. See the bug report for details. Bawolff (talk) 21:35, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
I think I figured out how to fix the issue. I submitted a patch for the issue, which is now pending review. Bawolff (talk) 22:09, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into it. If you could ping me when it's gone through, that would be really great. — Scott • talk 14:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Things actually turned out to a bit more complicated than I originally thought, so might actually be a little while yet. Looks like it boils down to a really weird php bug. Bawolff (talk) 14:50, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

license review for bugwood.org and aliases (forestryimages, insectimages, ...)

Some time ago a Bugwood image had to be deleted, presumably the creator changed the license from CC-BY to CC-BY-NC - and more of her images are affected.

Could it be useful to (robo-)add {{LicenseReview}} to every image transferred from the Bugwood Network?

rbrausse (talk) 12:32, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Due to the huge backlog it would be better to robo-confirm the licence if they are more than 100 files in total. --McZusatz (talk) 08:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
do we have a bot herder able to parse the image description page at Bugwood? rbrausse (talk) 12:09, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
I asked the bot specialists. rbrausse (talk) 15:22, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

October 30

What happen to the arrows used by collapsible templates?

As I recall collapsible templates always had either sideways pointing or downward pointing triangle in the top bar depending on if the template was collapsed or uncollapsed at the moment. That have changed recently, so there is no longer a hint that clicking the triangle will collapse/uncollapse the template. See for example File:Marc-elephant.jpg and compare it to en:File:Marc-elephant.jpg where the same file is displayed with [show]/[hide] text in the top bar. Can we restore our language neutral triangles or [show]/[hide] in the users language? --Jarekt (talk) 18:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

The arrow images were part of the Vector extension, which was recently merged into the Vector skin. Concequently, the images have been moved and renamed. MediaWiki:Gadget-CollapsibleTemplates.css is still referring to the old images and should be updated to the new ones. — Edokter (talk) — 20:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. It seems to be fixed now. --Jarekt (talk) 17:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Michelangelo

There are two categories, Category:Michelangelo Buonarroti, and Category:Michelangelo.

The first should be deleted, and everything in it recategorised as "Michelangelo" or under the appropriate sub-section, using the name Michelangelo and not Michelangelo Buonarotti.

At the present minute, almost everything is categorised in the wrong category.

Reason:

Many of these names e.g. Masaccio, Fra Angelico, Botticelli, Tintoretto, are nicknames. The gross one, the angelic one, the little barrel.
  • Renaissance artists (and many later artists) are usually given full names only when it is necessary, in order to identify them. Piero della Francesca whose name is so ordinary that he is always given an ID, Andrea Pisano and all the other Pisani because there were quite a number of them, Domenico Ghirlandaio and his brother and son, etc.
  • Even with later painters, that used a surname, that single surname is the name they are known by. No-one should need to look up "Jan Vermeer" or "Johannes Vermeer". Vermeer is enough. Caravaggio is known to the artworld as "Caravaggio", not as "Michelangelo Caravaggio di Merisi".
  • In the case of Michelangelo, adding the surname "Buonarotti" is considered a positive wank employed by people who want to prove that they know something that most people don't.
  • Having used "Show preview" I see that Duccio is categorised as "Duccio di Buoninsegna", Ghiberti (famous for the "Ghiberti Doors") is categorised as "Lorenzo Ghiberti", and to find Brunelleschi, you have to remember that his Christian name is Filippo with one "l" and a double "pp". These all need fixing.
  • ....along with any other painter who is commonly known by a single name. Reynolds, Gainsborough, Turner, Constable, Toulouse-Lautrec, Manet, van Dyck, Matisse, Utrillo, Veronese, Daumier. Other artists who were contemporaries are identified under a single name: Rubens, Monet, Cezanne, Picasso, Delacroix etc.

Michelangelo is the first priority. Can somebody please fix this. I would be very happy to re-categorise the paintings and sculpture to "Michelangelo" rather than "Michelangelo Buonarotti".

Amandajm (talk) 09:28, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

List it for renaming at "User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands" using {{Move cat}}. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 16:54, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

November 03

Organisms and objects

About ten months ago, I categorized Category:Organisms under Category:Objects by type; now this and a score of subsequent recategorizations has been undone by User:Orrling, who thinks, „Taxonizing animals as objects is ... incorrect“ (see Category talk:Objects) and suggested further discussion take place here. --Abderitestatos (talk) 16:33, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes there are objections. As long as organisms include humans and animals, classifying them as "objects" has actually ended its course as an explicit practice among humans back there in the middle of the 1940s already. I can’t see how anyone can seriously understand animals as ‘objects’. Orrlingtalk 17:30, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

As far as I see, all material things are classified as objects; as animals, including humans, are indisputably material, there is no justification for such an exception. See [1] [2] [3] for examples identifying humans/animals/organisms as objects. --Abderitestatos (talk) 20:41, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree. The term "inanimate object" refers to non-living objects only. The alternative is to place Organisms under the next category up, which is Category:Subjects, which applies mostly to non-material concepts. Category:People also looks out of place there. ghouston (talk) 23:20, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
It should be deduced enough well, and enough long back, that for the Commons methodology and as far as this website is concerned the term objects describes "inanimate objects" solely and not just-any material subject. It obviously will be an absurdity no one wants, to start having animals in the regard of "objects" on Commons... Just to illustrate this, by that thinking from now on any "People by country"-category will be added as subcat to "Objects by country", images of mothers and babies will be indirectly reclassified as "Females with objects" and Category:objects will all-in-all be a black hole that will collect any tangible concept. So pretty clearly the interpretation of the definition practiced is the matter, not the lexical definition itself. Rivers are not "objects". Towns are not "objects". The differentiation is already made; what's left is to complete the understanding about the definitions employed for our navigational and classification purposes being not unconditionally flattened with their possible dictionary-of-biology meanings. This will turn everything invalid - as "everything is an object", right? Objects on Wiki are books, structures, furniture, garments, vehicles and so on - not sure about fungi and plants, but certainly this category can not include living creatures AKA animals, so if anyone is keen on/still believes in forcibly sticking to the notion of bojects as including animals it might be suggested to rename it to "Inanimate objects". Orrlingtalk 23:36, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
None of this really seems absurd to me. If you go high enough up a category tree you do expect to find very broad topics, that aren't very useful categories themselves but only group other broad categories. We are only talking about one more (very broad) category "organisms" in the enormously broad category of "objects". Living organisms obviously have interesting properties that aren't found in non-living objects, but that doesn't mean that they aren't objects. Category:Females with animals has been categorised under Category:Females with objects since 2010. ghouston (talk) 02:04, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Apparently you think it's fair that "objects" be such an enormously broad category, whereas I argue that it should be same-leveled with "organisms", and not parent it. You can't go that high up with big categories expecting that users neglect seeing still the direct affect of roots to small branches,, - when you make everything be subsumed as "objects" we can eliminate about half of the now-selfstanding "topics" and "subjects", and later on when acute questions will be raised about us as a humanity-oriented learned society classifying animals as objects I'm not sure you'll be there with prompt defences. Orrlingtalk 00:05, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure if your objection is about the name of the category, or about the concept of grouping animate and inanimate things. E.g., Category:People holding objects already includes people holding plants, and people holding animals would also fit with the theme of people holding things. If I suggested it be named "People holding things" you may still object than animals and babies aren't things. So what should the category be named? Or do you think that there shouldn't be a category that groups together people holding the inanimate and the animate? ghouston (talk) 02:39, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes of course there can (and should) be one, namely "Category:People holding things". "Things" is "subjects". it thereof trifucates to "objects", "people" and "animals". So given that you know the solution I don't see yet why we need to turn on that problematic channel of grouping animals within objects when this is avoidable. Animals and humans are things - they just aren't objects. because they're living beings. Is that quite fair? And is it really clever to rather have now all categories of "People by setting" subset to "Objects by setting"? If you ask me, it's simply about picking the more sound and logical option; not surprisingly these are also the more navigable ones. Safely argued our end users don't perceive themselves or their domestic cats as objects. Orrlingtalk 09:11, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
I hadn't realised that Category:Things redirected to Category:Subjects. So would you replace Category:People with objects with People with things, or would you retain both and make People with objects a subcategory? In either case, do you then need to have an objects subcategory for each things category? The only practical difference between the categories will be organisms (including people), since there isn't much else under Category:Subjects that would be used in this context. ghouston (talk) 03:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, as I see it "People holding things" can be a three-children parent, with subcats being "People holding other people", "People holding animals", and "holding objects" which can include plants. It isn't about what "Things" redirects to. It's more about will to agree that dumping "Animals of Slovenia" under "objects of Slovenia" is a bad idea Commons-wise and otherwise. We can put a short instructional header at the main "Objects" pages saying that objects means inanimate objects. Orrlingtalk 14:30, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Then why not establish a new Category:Inanimate objects as a counter part to Category:Organisms, both being categorized under Category:Objects? --Abderitestatos (talk) 15:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Maybe because you'll then need to re-categorize all of the existing Objects categories into this new cat :) It's evidently avoidable given that clarifying for our users that objects don't include living creatures is sufficient. Orrlingtalk 15:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Such a „clarification“ would bring up new problems: What about dead animals? Plant seeds? Fruit? --Abderitestatos (talk) 15:02, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
As shown above in this thread, animals (which include people) cannot be classified on Commons as "objects" because these are living subjects and it doesn't make sense to put everything into a single mega-tree that at the end of the day is only for non-living things. Also, the thread counts more than one possible solution to the possible cross-categorization of animate-things and inanimate-things, and plants are not even within this issue, because it concerns animals and people. If more opinions show that "people" merit the classification of "objects" this can sway, so let things happen. Orrlingtalk 15:38, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
You cannot argue that Category:Objects is for non-living things only, and in the next sentence say, that „plants are not even within this issue“, that is contradictory. This discussion has now been open for a week, and so far, there is just one person except the two of us who has taken part, generally speaking in favor for categorization of organisms as objects; the previous discussion nine months ago did not attract any participants either, and after my explanation even its initiator seemed not to sustain his opposition. Before undoing my categorizing organisms as objects, having remained unchallenged for three quarters of a year, you should have sought to establish consensus against it first. --Abderitestatos (talk) 16:35, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
But I'm sorry, you possibly had a mistake and all was done with good faith, so I don't blame you for anything; humans can't be classified as "objects", you cannot sustain this type of edit more than sustaining classifying the moon as a species of banana, this might be why editors have not even bothered to take serious part in the discussions that you initiated, you can be happy with always having the fair opportunity to draw back from a mistaken thought, and check back in with a more-elaborate one. I know that you want to tag everything as "Objects". But this can't work when confronted by opposing logic systems, try to extract a solution from this discussoin, not fortifications. Orrlingtalk 17:07, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
In this case, there is no opposing logic system, and it is simply absurd to say that humans cannot be classified as objects; they certainly can be classified as such, and in many an aspect, they are, and I do not know any classification system that contrasts humans with objects, so we may not impose a system of such kind here. --Abderitestatos (talk) 17:49, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I have nominated Category:Subjects for discussion, as I do not really see its point. --Abderitestatos (talk) 14:53, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't greatly care one way or another, but as a third-party, I'd lean towards treating "object" as a synonym for "things", and categorizing all material "things" under such categories (i.e. Abderitstatos' view). JesseW (talk) 02:08, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, if categorizing animals under "objects" seems ok to editors then be it. One should however not mix with "things" that aren't necessarily material (which include the material ones) that go rather in our Subjects parent container - if Animals (as a living thing) can fit as Objects this of course means that humans are "objects" beside their function as a subject, and having "People" under "Objects" is odd but will be lived with. Orrlingtalk 05:31, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't think it's really a problem if "Objects" is reserved for inanimate objects. ¨Inanimate objects" is still a well-defined concept. However I'm still trying to understand how the category structure then looks, which is difficult without understanding exactly what belongs in the Subjects/Things category (as per the discussion started by Abderitestatos). ghouston (talk) 06:50, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
What belongs in the Subjects/Things category has not much to do with this discussion which concerns a particular proposal to include animals in Objects; I can assume that if all animate subjects go in the category "Objects" naturally not many entries will go elsewhere :-/ this is part of what I'm sad about. Orrlingtalk 08:29, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Name for ...

I am looking for the name of the combination of boots and waterproof clothing up to the chest. (As in File:Landmeter Zandmotor II.jpg) Is mostly used by fishermen, but not exclusively. Than I can create a special category. More than boots and Fishermens clothing. Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:44, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Chest Waders? Rbrausse (talk) 11:39, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
(chest) File:Waders.jpg? --McZusatz (talk) 11:42, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
They appear to be marketed (globally) as "waders" rather than any other names, so perhaps this is the most common name to adopt? --Fæ (talk) 11:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
I have created: Category:Waders (footwear).Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:32, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

October 29

I think, that the uploaded files from User:Jomavi UV have not the true rights to upload here? - Perhaps it can be checked thx K@rl (talk) 19:02, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I checked Special:Contributions/Jomavi UV. He got nothin’. -- Tuválkin ✉ 17:53, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Uploads got nuked. --Denniss (talk) 00:55, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

November 02

License review questions

Hi, we have a huge backlog of files needing license review, and since I'm a reviewer and haven't done any in over a year, I thought I'd start in on it. However I'm finding that there's a reason a lot of these files have been left unreviewed. For example:

File:Approximate_Soviet_Theaters_of_Military_Operations_(TVDs).png is obviously a government production, and the source link is plausible, however the link is dead and none of the copies at the Internet Archive work. So I can't say it was available when I checked, but I can say that 1. it looks like a government work, and 2. the link is a real link, that seems to be the link described, but I can't actually check to be 100% sure. So what can I do with this file?

Or File:Basra_bahrefars.jpg. The source is as described (albeit in Persian), however the uploader released a pd-old file as CC 3.0. Am I allowed to change the license and mark it as reviewed?

Thanks, Quintucket (talk) 16:37, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

We do not need license review for PD-old images. Just remove the CC-3 template and the Review template. --McZusatz (talk) 21:19, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi, A request for license review is not a request for comments about the work. It is a request to confirm that the license stated is actually and legitimately present at the source at the time of the review. If the license can't be checked, the review can't confirm it. About the image from the CIA document, the updated link [4] can be added. The uploader seems to expect a source review more than a license review, something like "at the source, the image is included in a document of a government agency", although that's not what the license review template is worded for. About the map of Persia, you can, as any user can, clarify the status of a PD image, with the help of reliable sources. But as a reviewer, what licensing statement from the source website would you confirm? The role of a license reviewer is not to do an evaluation of the PD-old status of a work and mark his opinion with the license review tag. From the edit comment, the requester wanted to know, from someone who reads the language, if the image was licensed under the CC license at the source website. A license review tag can be useful if the image was licensed at the source, but if the image is not licensed at the source, it can't have a confirmed review tag. However, if, from your research, you find that the image is a faithful reproduction of a map that is in the public domain, and if, as a user, you wish to add a mention of that, you can. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:18, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
I have a couple of similar questions:
  • Is text at a website saying "No Rights Reserved" sufficient, and if so, is that still the case when the license holder is listed as "Unspecified" (this review and this source?
  • How is anyone meant to review this? It, like the above question, looks like a government publication, but how am I to know it is CIA? And what should I do if in doubt?
  • What do I do with files like this? The source website doesn't mention CC licensing, but the template makes mention and gives explanation; it could be the case that it is licensed properly. Is the correct thing to do reject the license and have it deleted per COM:PRP or not?
These are just a few of my questions, but should give me scope to start cleaning out Category:License review needed, the backlog there is rather long. Liamdavies (talk) 15:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded to photohito.com before some specific day are sometimes licensed under a Creative Commons licence. However, the licence statement has been removed, so I refuse to review those files if I can't find evidence of a free licence from the Internet Archive. You could maybe verify the licence statement by contacting the uploader and sending that verification to OTRS. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:55, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Doesn't that just mean that we have possibly unfree files on the servers in perpetuity because no one wants to do anything about it? I have no inclination to contact authors about photos uploaded at some stage before 2011, I will use the wayback machine, but never get anything useful, so I'm inclined to go through and deny all of them. Do people think that rejecting the license on all those files of which we cannot ascertain licensing status is the wrong approach? And what about the other files I highlighted? There are numerous examples of all so I would like guidance. Liamdavies (talk) 12:54, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
We will have lots of possibly unfree files, as we assume good faith. One should not confirm the licence unless there is evidence, but rejecting the licence without good reason to doubt it is not the way to go. File a RFD if you feel like, but the review template should have an option for "could not be confirmed, but no reason for doubt" as in some of the above cases. --LPfi (talk) 13:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Point taken, I shan't make any action on said files. However Category:License review needed is a maintenance cat, it should ideally be empty and files that are placed in it be processed quickly. This can't happen if it's a limbo for files that we aren't sure about. I would also note that no one has responded to either of my other two questions:
  • Is text at a website saying "No Rights Reserved" sufficient, and if so, is that still the case when the license holder is listed as "Unspecified" (this review and this source?
  • How is anyone meant to review this? It, like the above question, looks like a government publication, but how am I to know it is CIA? And what should I do if in doubt? Liamdavies (talk) 15:01, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Bump, anyone got any ideas about what to do in these situations? Liamdavies (talk) 15:05, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
    • If the copyright status or permission is unverifiable, then the file isn't free as you wouldn't survive in court if the copyright holder decides to sue you. Commons can only keep free files.
I'm not sure how to verify that the CIA image indeed was made by the CIA. Maybe you could contact them. That's the uploader's responsibility in my opinion. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:10, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

October 27

German wiki file

I'm not sure how to use file from German wiki in English wiki. Here's the file,

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Canopus_menouthis_herakleion.jpg

Can someone please help? Y-barton (talk) 01:20, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

It would need to be uploaded at Commons or the English wiki. But the licence status seems odd. According to Google translate, somebody uploaded it as "own work", but instead of providing a licence, they claimed that it doesn't meet the threshold of originality for copyright protection? ghouston (talk) 04:03, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Imo he is the author and also released the file to the PD because you can't protect such simple things in Germany anyway. --McZusatz (talk) 12:44, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
if you take a look at the file history you'll see that the uploader (and creator) of the map used pd-self, some time later a file reviewer of the German WP (overenthusiastically...) changed the license to not copyrightable. rbrausse (talk) 15:39, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
PS as maps are abstractions the threshold of originality is really low under German law - I think the current PD rationale is incorrect (IANAL). rbrausse (talk) 15:42, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
That's good, as pd-self it's eligible to be transfered to Commons, but as "not copyrightable" we could argue about it for days. ghouston (talk) 21:18, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I transferred it to Commons at File:Canopus menouthis herakleion.jpg. It should now be possible to use it in the English Wiki. ghouston (talk) 23:31, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, friends. This map will be quite useful in the context of Nile delta history. Y-barton (talk) 03:07, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Isn't that {{Copyrighted free use}} instead of {{PD-self}}? --Stefan4 (talk) 23:33, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
The original uploader's tag was Bild-frei. CommonsHelper converted it to PD-user-de. ghouston (talk) 00:50, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

copyright violate:

--Sanyika, a ló (talk) 18:32, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

And:

--Sanyika, a ló (talk) 18:35, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

  • I've taken the liberty of turning most of the above into a gallery rather than taking up so much vertical space.
  • What is the basis of saying these are copyright violations? Are you the photographer? Are you saying the pictures are inherently violations because they are photos of copyrighted work? Or what?
  • What (if anything) is the reason to bring this to the Village pump rather than handle it through the normal channels of nominating for deletion? - Jmabel ! talk 01:52, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
  • (Judging by titles, I assume these are images from Hungary, since all titles are in Hungarian.) - Jmabel ! talk 01:53, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
    Actually, they have all been nominated for speedy deletion, with the rationale that they appeared on Facebook, but the Facebook pages the links point out to do not exist.--Ymblanter (talk) 03:47, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:2007-07-13-brainstorming.gif

I don't understand the discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:2007-07-13-brainstorming.gif.

The file was known to have been released under a CC licence but some of the information about it was wrong so it was deleted. Wouldn't it have made more sense to correct the incorrect information?

Yaris678 (talk) 13:15, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

the file was released under a NonCommercial license - those are not valid for Commons. rbrausse (talk) 13:52, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. I didn't realise Commons didn't allow that form of licence. Yaris678 (talk) 13:58, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia, commons, images

Hi, I found two interesting websites, and i want to know if i can use images from them at wikipedia. First is http://www.stadia-md.com . How you can see, author says ”All photos can be used on other websites. Please name the source www.stadia-md.com”. So, i can use their images on wiki? If yes, which license? Second site is http://www.soccer.ru (in russian). It also haven't © symbol, and in footer is written: ”Футбол на Soccer.ru - Разработано в Nekki При использовании материалов гиперссылка на www.soccer.ru обязательна ”.
Translation mot-a-mot: ”Football at soccer.ru - Developed by Nekki. Using materials, hyperlink to www.soccer.ru is mandatory”.
Same question for this site too.

I must mention - some of images from Stadia-md are colected from the web. For example this page http://www.stadia-md.com/Chisinau%20Republican%20gallery.htm dates from 18 Octomber 2009. But first image from here appeared at Panoramio.com in 2007, where it is protected: http://www.panoramio.com/photo/1688728 . Is this a problem?
P.S. Do you know some big websites (sports) that publish their images under free licenses so i can upload them on wiki?
Thanks. // XXN (talk) 15:50, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think either of them is a proper licence that could be used on Commons. If the images were published earlier elsewhere, that also makes it uncertain if they are even the copyright holders and able to grant a licence. ghouston (talk) 04:16, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Whether a © is shown or not is legally irrelevant, and "can be used on other websites" is not sufficient when it comes to Wikimedia's requirements of "free" images. --Malyacko (talk) 15:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

For some historic background on Soccer.ru, please refer to Commons:Deletion requests/Files from Soccer.ru. Files in Category:Photos from soccer.ru were  kept on this basis due to OTRS evidence. Sometimes it can be worth checking with an OTRS volunteer. :-)

PS. for stadia-md.com, I get nothing on OTRS. --Fæ (talk) 15:39, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

So, i can upload freely images from soccer.ru? And i must request OTRS permission from stadia-md.com? XXN (talk) 22:19, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
See Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_from_Soccer.ru for the details of the licence and attribution from soccer.ru.
For stadia-md you have to consider the concern above that they may not have control of the rights for all the images they host. This means you would have to carefully confirm who the original photographers were. --Fæ (talk) 00:17, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

November 01

Your gadget, user script, ... suddenly stopped working?

This is likely because you are using a deprecated function in your code which was just removed. I have no specific implementation in mind but I think we could make a bot-run over all JavaScript files that appear being in use creating a report and then see what needs to be done. Suggestions are welcome. If you need help, see you on COM:User scripts! -- Rillke(q?) 00:07, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Turtles

The sea turtle, the most ancient mariner in the world, is an emblematic species that has been part of marine ecosystems for 80 million years. But the sea turtle has also held a very special place in human civilization for thousands of years.

To celebrate the place sea turtles hold in our societies, cultures and hearts, MEDASSET (the Mediterranean Association to Save the Sea Turtles) wishes to create a public online photographic reference of permanent-standing, sea turtle-related outdoor monuments along the lines of "Wiki Loves Monuments".

Founded by Lily Venizelos in 1988, MEDASSET has for many years been interested in promoting the cultural dimension of sea turtles as a means to conservation.

We believe that to make the most of this project the initiative should be public, therefore we would like to discuss this project with the volunteer community in order to receive some feedbacks and advises.

MEDASSET

Start here, maybe? Category:Testudinidae in art -- Tuválkin ✉ 14:22, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
There is no reason why you cannot launch this as a project. If you intend to upload images from volunteers, such as those on your website at amateur photo exhibition 2012, then you would need to ensure the photographers have released these on a free reuse licence like CC-BY-SA. Original high quality photos would be of more use than "web quality" versions. You may wish to contact the local community via meta:Wikimedia Greece, a local chapter is still at its beginning stages. --Fæ (talk) 15:29, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Needs to be in plural?

Anyone really experienced with our language customs can tell if Category:Buildings in unidentified country is indeed correctly-named as it now is or, as we had it in the move request several months ago, patently odd as it should be titled Buildings in unidentified countries? It's puzzling. Thanx, Orrlingtalk 20:15, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I think either Buildings in an unidentified country or Buildings in unidentified countries would be fine, but the current name is bad grammar. ghouston (talk) 21:32, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
I think it's fine even as it is now, just "headline speak". - Jmabel ! talk 00:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Why would we be using headline speak? The Language Log has a running series on headlines that force you to go back and reread them to figure out what they say. Space is not so critical for us, I don't think.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
How blonde by me to not even know what that headline thing means. Orrlingtalk 23:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Delete If the country is unidentified, then we don't know whether the images comply with COM:FOP. Per COM:PCP, the images have to go. "Buildings in an unidentified country" suggest that all images in the category are in the same unidentified country, but the images might have been taken in different countries. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:24, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree with the grammatical comment, and can't contribute at all to the license-thing discourse unfortunately. Orrlingtalk 09:14, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps Template:FoP-unknown could be added while they are in the process of identification? I agree that Buildings in unidentified countries is the best name. ghouston (talk) 22:09, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
See COM:EI: we need a source for all files which aren't below the threshold of originality of every country worldwide. For example, if it is a building, then we need evidence that the copyright has expired (use 99 years p.m.a. if country of photography is unknown because of the copyright term in the Ivory Coast) or that the country of photography has freedom of panorama for buildings. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:33, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

October 31

A candy challenge for Halloween

Confectionery that was misidentified as fresh meat!

This image of what appears to be white and some pink nougat covered with chocolate and cherries has been uploaded as a plate of meat—this was how the source website identified it. I could rename to something generic, like File:Chocolate covered nougat.jpg, but does anyone know of a name for sweets of this type? :-) --Fæ (talk) 12:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Looks like what we Australians call rocky road. Have a look at google images results to compare for yourself and make a judgement call. (but we do not call it 'candy' or really participate in Halloween 'trick or treating') Liamdavies (talk) 14:54, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
    Excellent suggestion, the images I can see look close enough so I have now moved to File:Rocky Road dessert.jpg. I am pleased that some of the Commonwealth has resisted the Americanism of Halloween. I'm afraid that here in London the commercial opportunity it represents has won out over our general disapproval. I make myself feel better by imagining it as practice for the Zombie Apocalypse that we can expect any day now. :-) --Fæ (talk) 15:47, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
If the uploader, or in this case the source he got it from, does not even know what the image is, how can he/they/we be sure it is really public domain? Dankarl (talk) 22:55, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Dankarl, this was covered in a couple of DRs that failed previously and that you are familiar with. A poor description or a poor category is no doubt the website host's problem rather than the photographer (this same image is correctly described as a dessert on other sites). We have the photographer's release statement and a statement from the website operator, including their contact details if anyone ever wanted to take them to court to sue for damages. Please do go ahead and raise the 14,000 photographs in Category:Public-domain-image.com up for deletion, I'm tired of explaining this over and over and over again to the same people.
I regret mentioning this photo on the Village Pump, it just sets me up for pot-shots. Perhaps I should follow a policy of ignoring questions, an approach that seems to take the stress out of batch uploading for others that do similar work. --Fæ (talk) 23:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Fae, I would have raised that question here if the image were not one of that set, so I do not see why I should not just because a couple images got through DR. If the image-scraper who put together Public-domain-image.com could not be troubled to get or maintain an accurate description why would we think he was any more thorough in tracking permissions? And all he even claims is that the sites he got them from claimed they were PD; since he does not maintain backlinks we cannot check the thoroughness or reliability of those sites. You have said you have vetted the site. How? What did you check? How big a sample? How did you choose your sample? How many that you checked named the photographer? How many of those did not state author affiliation? What percentage could you confirm? How many of your test sample were anonymous? What percentage of those could you confirm?
When we find a Flickr site that clearly aggregates images from multiple sources, we give it extra scrutiny and generally do not accept images without a traceable chain of permission. I don't see how is this situation any different. Dankarl (talk) 03:57, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
You have just asked 10 questions most of which you have asked before in DRs, which makes this discussion just look like pointy grandstanding. Consider me worn out. Go ahead and raise it for a DR where if I get around to adding an opinion, it will be to point to the other DRs that you are already familiar with, and where these sorts of questions have already been reasonably addressed. If your intention is to hound me away from bothering helping with batch uploads in the future, you are doing a good job of it. --Fæ (talk) 05:37, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
I do not think you have answered most of the questions raised here in any of the DRs; I have not previously asked specific questions about the details of vetting the site. However, my raising the question here was impulsive and probably pointless as this in not the right forum. Maybe rather than a deletion discussion per se we need a clarification of policy on modern public domain images and what constitutes adequate evidence of release. Dankarl (talk) 14:08, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
I have recommended you raise a DR, please make it a final one with all your possible questions in one place and with some references to past DRs that establish a baseline of previous consensus. At least I will not have this raised for months on end, when I believe this was perfectly well and sufficiently addressed against our policies a long time ago, and this collection sits well within Scope and the Precautionary Principle. After a final DR I have no intention of answering any questions again about this collection, I would rather have the lot deleted than cause me further stress. --Fæ (talk) 14:31, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
If you want to dictate the terms and scope of a DR, you need to nominate. I would suggest there are at least four classes to be considered within the set: anonymous images, images with attribution but no history or contact information for the author, images from FWS and other identifiable entities with known PD policies (need cleanup rather than deletion), and images with attribution and contact information (the site owner and maybe others) (probably ok). Please post the DR link here. Dankarl (talk) 14:24, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
No thanks, I have more positive things to do with my time and you have already completely worn me out on this.
If I were to raise a DR it would be to delete the entire ruddy upload because I don't want to waste my time defending my good faith in batch uploading a source that was recommended to me on the English Wikipedia as a public domain source, or by accepting the legally meaningful release at source, and the basic fact that not a single image has yet been shown to be incorrectly declared as public domain or have a false attribution. A DR for 14,000 public domain photographs would probably be considered overly pointy and I would be correctly criticised for it. The DR you are suggesting I fundamentally disagree with, as we would have to delete half of the images on Commons if we have a complete failure of good faith, and no longer accept uploads without the equivalent of full OTRS verification in every case. Your proposal would set a precedence for GLAM partnerships where we currently foolishly accept their catalogue statements on good faith, without double checking the correspondence history or validity of contact information for photographers or donors to every image in their collections.
I consider this matter at an end, if you are not prepared to do any basic spade-work or raise a DR, then as stated before, I have no intention of answering any questions again about this collection. Do as you please, personally it is putting it mildly to say I no longer care what happens to these 14,000 photographs any more, you have made them a thorn in my side and I wish I had not invested my volunteer time preserving them as their value does not balance this stress. --Fæ (talk) 14:55, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

ImageAnnotator down

Due to recent changes in software, our image annotations have disappeared. It's not my script, but I have placed lots of annotations in images, so some of my own work is lost for now. We need to fix this very useful gadget. The author of MediaWiki:Gadget-ImageAnnotator.js doesn't seem to have enough time, see MediaWiki talk:Gadget-ImageAnnotator.js#Annotator down?. I wonder if anybody can lend a helping hand here? --Sitacuisses (talk) 17:14, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Rillke did. Thanks a lot! Lupo 22:34, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
It was actually User:Lupo who made it working again, not me. -- Rillke(q?) 10:32, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
You "lent the helping hand", I just did a minor tweak at the end. I was very glad to see you pick up the loose ends, also with the spinner, which I wouldn't have known how to do. Lupo 16:25, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I think we need to set guidelines for how galleries are linked, both from other projects, and within the commons. we have some very high quality galleries, such as London and New York City, which one can only find if you type the search term, or happen to be in the category tree for that specific category. I think large galleries can, and should, be placed in as many categories as people may be likely to want to see them, so that London might be in Category:Cities, Category:Europe, even Category:Tourism. I know this goes against overcategorization rules established here (which i fully support and have been active in eliminating), but those rules NEVER mention galleries, only files. we can modify those rules for galleries. I also like Category:Gallery pages, which never got off the ground. that category tree could work well if used more. I would also like to suggest that there be a review process for rating galleries, similar to Featured Article and Featured Image status. I commented at the talk page for galleries, but that talk page is probably not read much. I have created or expanded a few galleries, so i have a bit of a stake in this, but i also dont want to make this about "my" galleries (i havent worked on the examples given above).Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:48, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd assume that since files and categories should follow overcategorization rules, then galleries should too. The problem with adding them at the wrong level is that you'd potentially have hundreds of galleries in a category like Cities. Eligibility for a general category like Cities shouldn't depend on subjective quality of the galleries, that's reserved for separate categories "featured" or "quality" etc. Category:Gallery pages or featured galleries would be better solutions if there was any interest in them. ghouston (talk) 21:51, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Very slow

The last 30 minutes or so, I am finding editing on Commons almost unusably slow. Does anyone know what is going on? - Jmabel ! talk 06:21, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Being discussed at #wikimedia-tech, through nobody seemed to know what's going on there when I asked 10 minutes ago. Seems a bit better now. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 07:06, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Been extremely slow for me as well, was blaming my ADSL connection but other sites load fine. Bidgee (talk) 07:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Donation of >3000 prints, negatives and photos

Through otrs we got an email about an image donation of prints, photos and negatives. Read below: 

I have in my possession original art and photos culled from out of copyright books 
(prior to 1918 at the time). As well, I have an extensive collection 
of LOC and National Archive prints. Without knowing an exact number of 
images in my collection, the best I can estimate is that I have a 
four-drawer filing cabinet filled with photos, negatives, and art. There is no one 
I know who is interested in this material.
It covers world history, European history, and American history.
I would like to donate this collection to Wikipedia. There would be no 
copyright restrictions. However, I am not able to scan or photograph 
what probably exceeds three thousand images. If you are interested and 
there is an alternate way for me to get this material to Wikipedia, 
please let me know.

Would there be someone willing to scan all of this? This person lives near San Diego, so sombody from the US or better near San Diego would be great! Amada44  talk to me 14:41, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

What about https://code.google.com/p/linear-book-scanner/ ? --McZusatz (talk) 17:06, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Copyvio template "Appeal"

Hello! Strangely, after being here for so long, i happened to read the Template:Copyvio fully for the first time today. The "Appeal" in it says "If you think that the file does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, please explain why on its talk page and remove this tag." I found the "remove this tag" part quite odd. Removing the tag removes the file from the Category:Copyright violations, which is suppose is the place where admins periodically hangout and delete the images as and when they come. Once the template is removed, do admins through some other way, come to know of it? Even if they do, i think we should copy what English Wikipedia does. It reads: "If this file does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from files you have uploaded. If you uploaded this file, and you disagree with the given reason for deletion, you can click the button below and leave a message, explaining why you believe this file should not be deleted. You can also visit the talk page to check if you have received a response to your message." {Bold text from source} That's something better i guess, where the tag is removed by non-uploader only. Frankly, i don't like that either as i think only admins should decide that. Various non-admins are capable of doing it but still. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:36, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Firstly a slight clarification, speedy delete templates can be added and removed by anyone; mostly that is a good thing. There is a good faith assumption behind this, in that if you remove a speedy tag from an upload of yours, it is reasonable to presume you have good cause. There is no automatic feedback to whoever marked the image as copyvio, nosource etc., again it is fair to presume if they are really concerned then the person tagging the image will keep it on their watchlist. I would guess that most uploaders would reply to the notice on their talk page if they challenge such a notice, rather than the talk page of the image, and that's cool too.
If someone is being naughty and uploading copyrighted images and incorrectly removing warning tags, this will catch up with them soon enough, and it is normally easy to either track the history of notices left on their user talk page or walk through their edit history, in order to generate a list of potential copyvios that need revisiting. Automation is great, but common-sense is good if we are not overwhelmed by a large backlog. :-) --Fæ (talk) 15:06, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
The good-faith assumption is when the uploader uploaded the image. When another editor tagged it as copyvio, its good-faith assumption on that editor as well. Removing such tag by the uploader goes to him saying that the image is non-copyvio for the second time; first when they uploaded it and now second time when they removed the tag. This second chance is not to be assumed a good-faith edit by default. They have their way to express through talk page edit. Every admin before deleting the image will check for talk pages and if the response there is something worth giving a thought i have seen speedy dels being converted to DRs. The tagger editor will have the image in their watchlist mostly and will come back to the image if the tag is deleted and will also respond to the talk page edit. But this is the second chance we are giving this editor too.
If everything should be assumed in good-faith, admins wouldn't be necessary for their decision-making role but only for their tools-using roles. To stop the cycle going, its better to let the third editor or admin to decide and act accordingly. I don't think it would overburden admins. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 15:51, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
{{Copyvio}} used to prescribe conversion to regular deletion discussion as the appropriate method for appealing a speedy deletion nomination, rather than just sweeping it under the rug, just like {{Speedydelete}} still does. That was changed by subsequently banned long-term problem user Pieter Kuiper to suit his own preferred style of stealth problem-tag blanking without any sort of notification or discussion. (The Village Pump discussion referenced in the edit summary is misleading, as {{Copyvio}} was never mentioned during that discussion.) See the discussion on Template talk:Copyvio/en. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:55, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

SVG file

What should happen if a SVG file does not pass the W3C Markup Validation Service? Blurred Lines 23:25, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Fix those errors before uploading to Wikimedia. The W3C validator should have noticed where and what kind of the error occurs in your SVG file, but sometimes you may need to edit the source code in XML editor manually in order to debug your SVG file. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 06:17, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Blurred_Lines -- It's better if an SVG file doesn't have formal validation errors, but formal validation doesn't guarantee that an SVG file will display without problems on Wikimedia Commons. Conversely, some files with formal validation errors can display without problems here. You can check for some practical interoperability issues at Commons:SVG Check... -- AnonMoos (talk) 14:33, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

November 07

Is it possible to easily convert a Commons file URL into the URL for the image itself? eg/ changing 

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pigeon.jpg

into 

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/46/Pigeon.jpg

At the moment I can find out how to do this using the API, but it's quite complex - is there a simpler method I'm missing, like adding ?action=whatever to the URL? Andrew Gray (talk) 21:38, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

The 4/46-part are the first 2 letters of the MD5-hash of the file name. On-wiki, you can refer to the full-size using Media:Pigeon.jpg; invoking Special:Redirect/file/Pigeon.jpg will redirect you to the full-size image as well as Special:FilePath/Pigeon.jpg -- Rillke(q?) 21:58, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Those two links are exactly what I was looking for - thanks! Andrew Gray (talk) 22:17, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Rillke you should have a hard to find essay somewhere on Commons on the Wikimedia mysterious Dark Arts. I had no idea how to do that. :-) --Fæ (talk) 22:24, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Is it possible to do this with thumbnail versions? i.e., how would you get to https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/46/Pigeon.jpg/319px-Pigeon.jpg with just knowing the file name? Dominic (talk) 22:40, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
There is also the filepath: magic word that you can use in Wikitext.
E.g. {{filepath:Pigeon.jpg}} expands to https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/46/Pigeon.jpg --Patrick87 (talk) 22:47, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
You can expand it to work with thumbnails:
{{filepath:Pigeon.jpg|319}} expands to https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/46/Pigeon.jpg/319px-Pigeon.jpg --Patrick87 (talk) 22:49, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
thumb.php might work: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/thumb.php?f=Pigeon.jpg&w=319 but I am not entirely sure whether the thumbnail is re-created each time or some caching-layer is bypassed so I'd be careful and use it for own purposes only. Brian Wolff can, for sure, give you better advice. -- Rillke(q?) 10:49, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Hmm. Thumb.php appears to bypass squid/varnish cache. It does not bypass the swift thumbnail cache (Varnish is like the outer layer, Swift is like all the thumbnails already on disk since they were asked for previously). If you go to the page //commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:FilePath/Pigeon.jpg?width=319 it will give you an http redirect to the official url. That would probably be the method I would reccomend. Both this and the thumb.php method only support width and height (Actually thumb.php supports page as well, but no other parameters). Other file parameters (e.g. How far into a video to make the thumbnail screenshot of, language for svg files, if to use png or jpg as the thumb format for tiff, etc) cannot be specified using these interfaces. We don't really have a good interface for specifying that sort of thing - the only thing we have for that is the api (i.e. https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/api.php?action=query&titles=File:P-n_junction.svg&prop=imageinfo&&iiprop=url&iiurlwidth=380&iiurlparam=langde-380px ) but if you want to use that for any parameter other than width and height, you have to actually know the format of the url already. Bawolff (talk)

A new option has been added to the Wikidata RFC on Commons links: d:Wikidata:Requests_for_comment/Commons_links#VI. Make use of "topic's main category (P910)". Comments there are welcome. --Avenue (talk) 01:23, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

As it happens, I agree with the point raised in that RFC that the options for how this should work for Commons should be discussed on Commons. I have no desire to start watching Wikidata RFCs.
The shifting sand of Commons categories will remain problematic. As a starting point, I would have preferred to limit recognizing categories with geolocation, if a category has a geolocation in it, then it should be a priority for Wikidata (this instantly includes geotagged monuments categories plus heaps of other stuff for which the naming is relatively stable, certainly we can refer to external standards, such as open map data, to confirm preferred names). To a certain extent this is a selfish viewpoint, considering my Geograph work, however it seems a good beta test for whatever system is implemented. --Fæ (talk) 16:20, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Max upload size for chunked upload now 1 GB

I happened to notice that Erik increased the max upload size when using chunked upload to 1 GB (previously 500 MB) the other day. Non-chunked uploads remain at 100 MB. Thought people here would be interested to know about the increased limit. Bawolff (talk) 03:40, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Sounds useful, especially for video.
On a related note, I have got occasional "HTTP Error 503: Service Unavailable" errors from uploads via the API in the last 24 hours, not something I have had a problem with before, is there a known problem? --Fæ (talk) 06:53, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
It is really a good news to me, thanks. -- Biswarup Ganguly (talk) 16:31, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
re Fae: There was downtime around 18:30 utc yesterday that may have caused you (and many other users) to recieve 503s. Bawolff (talk) 17:06, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The revision #0 of the page named "Modul:FileUtil" does not exist. WTF?

Something funky going on here Modul:FileUtil and here Modulo:Linguaggi. Palosirkka (talk) 08:31, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean these?
-- Tuválkin ✉ 10:58, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Sounds like an import glitch. I just know that I tried importing Module:FileUtil which then ended up at Module:Modul:FileUtil. Obviously something else happened. I left Modulo:Linguaggi in place so the developers can debug if they want to. -- Rillke(q?) 11:46, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Is uploading userspace images only permitted?

Azhar sabri (talk · contribs) uploaded a bunch of images of himself, many of them improperly categorized (I noticed his edits because I had to remove a bunch of erroneous categories from his images), created userpages here, en wiki, en wikiquote, en wikivoyage, and that seems to be the extent of his edits. Does his uploads have any encyclopedic value? Also, it is likely many of his images are taken by someone else (since they are images of him), so they are probably copyios... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 08:06, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately Azhar's user talk page is a sea of unfriendly notices for what was probably a bit of experimentation. It would have been nice if a deleting admin, or someone else, had talked to him about how he would like to volunteer here, rather than only leaving boiler plate text.
He has been reduced to five portrait photos, which is not all that many, if this were more than ten, maybe we should have a chat. Commons is not Facebook, but Wikimedians are allowed to have a few photos of themselves to illustrate their user pages if they wish. As for whether these are self-portraits or "verbally transferred commissioned works", I would assume a pinch of good faith and leave these unless obvious copyright problems come up.
By the way, if you start a thread about a contributor, it is the convention to notify them that this is happening. --Fæ (talk) 08:18, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
It seems ICN already gave him a generic warning while deleting his files. It is better to give him a "customized advise" so that he can understand what is suitable and what is not suitable here. :)
I think a user can upload a few pictures of him to describe his user page. But I doubt whether this user is aware of the risks involved in editing under his real name and publishing his personal info. JKadavoor Jee 08:59, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I think it would be fine for a user to upload 2-3 personal images marked with the {{Userpage image}} template for use on his/her various user-pages on various projects, even without other user activity on Commons... AnonMoos (talk) 23:22, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Notification of DMCA takedown demand - File:Darwin_fish_ROF.svg

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.

To discuss this DMCA takedown, please go to COM:DMCA# File:Darwin_fish_ROF.svg. Thank you! Fæ (talk) 06:56, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Affected file: File:Darwin fish ROF.svg

Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 05:35, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Working link: Commons:DMCA#File:Darwin_fish_ROF.svg; link to text of DMCA request: foundation:DMCA Darwinfish; relevant context: w:en:Parodies_of_the_ichthys_symbol#Origin. JesseW (talk) 19:48, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
We still have File:Darwin Fish 01.svg in case anyone wants to use it. odder (talk) 20:01, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Babel box language code font size

I've just added Babel information to my user page and notice that the language code font size is different for some languages. -- Neven Lovrić (talk) 17:59, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

In fact, only en-us-3 (see Template:User en-us-3) had a smaller font at Special:Permalink/109263856. The GB just looks bigger than normal because it's upper case. For the reasoning, if it is not obvious, you'll have to ask the template authors. -- Rillke(q?) 23:23, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Bot flag for EdwardsBot (talk · contribs)

Can we give EdwardsBot a bot flag? (The benefits seem obvious.) —Mono 22:00, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Why this icon was deleted?

I trust in good faith, to the end, you decide not to recover that icon. I'll ask to delete all my icons, a sample list that below

A full list in User talk:Jameslwoodward --The Photographer (talk) 15:23, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Only admins can see the image now it has been deleted, so the general Village pump is not the best place to ask for more opinions after a DR is closed. The normal route to take this further is to ask the deleting admin (who gave a reasonable explanation in the DR) or go to COM:Undeletion requests if you wish to challenge the basis of the deletion. In this case if you provide a credible rationale that the image had educational value that was not explained properly in the DR, or was created by a recognized artist or is a derivative of their work, then there might be grounds for restoration. In regard to images that have been challenged as potentially defamatory, there normally is consideration for the nature of filenames (which can be changed to something not seen as defamatory, if that is the problem) or expectations for whether valid project use is reasonably planned (in the case of icons). --Fæ (talk) 15:43, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank Fae --The Photographer (talk) 16:36, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Fatal exception of type MWException

Trying to edit Commons:Freedom of panorama#Germany results in a Interner Fehler – {{SITENAME}}

[bb249e84] 2013-11-10 17:43:59: Fatal exception of type MWException

What's this? --Rosenzweig τ 17:45, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I suspect it is bugzilla:56226 (Although can't say for certain without getting someone to look up the exception in the exception log). There is a work around for that bug scheduled to go live on Tuesday November 12. Bawolff (talk) 18:28, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Blown pixels

While adding categories to this photo, I noticed that when viewed at 1:1 its details are ragged and indeed there are some recognizable ersatz pixels made of 2×2 real pixels — suggesting that this image was created by enlarging a much smaller original. I’m sure this practice is frowned upon in principle by Commons; what should be done to mark the affected images and warn the delinquent uploaders? -- Tuválkin ✉ 01:59, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Upscaling using naïve algorithms is rarely useful, but I don't think it occurs sufficiently frequently on Commons for message templates to have been created. Occasionally, it can be an indicator of copyright infringement, but aside from those cases, I hardly think it's something that warrants warning or labeling uploaders as delinquents. Informing them that it has no benefits should be sufficient. When done with more sophisticated algorithms, upscaling can be quite beneficial if no high-resolution version is available; see Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2009/11#Superresolution for low-res images and the link mentioned there. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:04, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for linking to that interesting discussion and for your comments. I’m glad that this is not a widespread problem. (My adjective use of "delinquent" was probably idiomatic.) -- Tuválkin ✉ 09:00, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

After a disastrous first experience with raising a gay life study photo on Featured picture candidates, resulting in it being the first photograph in the history of featured picture candidates to be censored from view, I am interested in finding out how easy it is to get LGBT culture or LGBT history photos listed as a featured picture.

A simple way of measuring this would be by finding the number of those are directly related to LGBT subjects that have been listed in the past. After browsing through those listed at Featured_pictures_on_Wikimedia_Commons, I have yet to spot any examples. I cannot believe that in the history of the Wikimedia Commons no LGBT related photos have ever passed the review process for Featured picture. Could others who are more familiar with this photo collection, or recall past examples, take a look and highlight any they find here? Given there are over 5,000 photos, one would expect a number greater than 20 or 50 to be LGBT related.

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 18:11, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

A contributor raised concern about opening the FPC page with a big full frontal nude image at his workplace and requested the image to be only shown after an extra click. These workplace policies are external circumstances. We can choose to accommodate these concerns (as participation on FOC may have tangible consequences up to job termination for these people), or we can choose to tell these contributors to go away. This really is the issue here, not, as Fæ, tries to coin it, the acceptance (or perceived lack thereof) of LGBT related photos. --Dschwen (talk) 18:52, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
No, this thread is about assessing how LGBT friendly Featured pictures is, not the fact that Featured pictures has had life studies of nudes in the past without requiring censorship. As a regular at Featured pictures candidates, could you provide some examples of LGBT photos that have been Featured pictures in the past rather than taking this thread off topic? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 19:14, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

There is some serious statistical nonsense going on here. Is there some evidence that 1% of photographs on Commons or elsewhere are LGBT related? Or 1% of nominations at FP are LGBT related? What is a "LGBT related" image anyway? What is this 1% of anyway. Do we include the birds and butterflies or just people? Commons:Featured pictures/People has about 250 people and most of them are unknown and only a few are in any way sexual images. Tell me, what's 1% of less than 100?

If we're going to play statistical-stupidity let's look at the following "sample size of two" photographed by the same person, uploaded by the same person and nominated at the same time on both Commons and Wikipedia FP:

  • Zoe Lyons
    Zoe Lyons
  • Chris Martin
    Chris Martin

The first is a fantastic photograph with an eye-catching subject of high technical standard and high resolution. The second, meh. Which one is FP on both sites and which isn't? Which subject is "LGBT related" and which (to my knowledge) isn't? Did it matter one jot? No it didn't. The sexuality of the subject or nominator is irrelevant. As it should be

Sure there's bias to the images on Commons and the images at FP. Our self-generated material reflects what amateur photographers are interested in capturing and what they can capture to a decent level of quality. Hence we have lots of mountains and buildings and birds and butterflies. Taking high quality photographs of people, particularly notable people, is rather harder. We rely more on third-party uploads for them so our collection isn't under our control. Such images represent a small portion of FP. I've already explained to Fæ why studio photographs get a hard time at FP: some reviewers have unrealistic expectations of what a 20MP professional image should look like at 100%. This wasn't the case with Fæ's nomination which was just plain out of focus and failed spectacularly for that reason alone.

We have more featured pictures of butterflies than people. We have no featured pictures of domestic appliances. Should I raise a red flag and complain at the Village pump? If you compare our collection of quality images with those of a stock photo site, you will notice the distinct lack of beautiful people doing things: no couples cooking dinner together, no grandparents reading to their children, no businessmen shaking hands. The variety of images we have on Commons is rather weird. The variety of images at FP is also unusual. Does it reflect any kind of sexual bias? No more than it reflects an anti-domestic-appliance bias. -- Colin (talk) 22:17, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I think that is one photo of reasonable LGBT interest, even if not specifically intended to represent an aspect of LGBT culture, that was nominated in 2012. I would be interested if there are any more than one. --Fæ (talk) 22:37, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
So would two be all right then? Because this is just statistical noise. If you want to show that e.g. a 1% figure is being upheld for people/sexual images that are LGBT you need a sample size of thousands. Yet we have a sample size of about 100 identifiable people and a sample size of a few sexual images. So how how earth are you going to show some kind of LGBT bias? -- Colin (talk) 23:13, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
LGBT culture can be represented by a wide range of image types. Yes portraits of people may be relevant, but also LGBT artworks, performances, political rallies, graffiti, executions, historic sites, etc. So long as FPC regulars are prepared to understand that LGBT culture actually exists (this appears to have been raised as a serious question at FPC talk), then this seems entirely measurable. I doubt that assessing the number of Jewish cultural images or African cultural images would be challenged in quite the same way or in such defamatory ways, certainly we would not be seeing questions about whether Jewish people have their own culture. --Fæ (talk) 23:28, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
It may be worth to point out that FPC regulars are not a hive mind (of course I would not qualify as a regular anymore in any case), and I'm sure most people do not doubt the fact that minority cultures do exists, and that they often are a strong medium of expression. --Dschwen (talk) 23:44, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. To emphasise your point, LGBT culture in particular is known historically for its critical influence on the arts and being the source of many artistic genres from depictions of homosexual lovers in the ancient world through to the most recent plays and art installations. It would seem logical that our Featured pictures should reflect this influence over the visual arts as well as in political development (such as LGBT rights protests) in reasonable proportion. --Fæ (talk) 00:00, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Fanny and Stella, 1869 (restored)
Try to upload high resolution scans of works like File:Jonathan Embraces David from Caspar Luiken.jpg (just an example from my quick search) and nominate to FPC. I think the community have no problem with them. JKadavoor Jee 02:47, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
With regard to historical LGBT images, I have been working on a digital restoration of one of my past uploads; File:Park and Boulton (Fanny and Stella).jpg was taken in 1869, the restoration includes moving the negative where misaligned due to breaks in the glass and repairing the most obvious damaged areas. This is a rare photograph of Park and Boulton/Fanny and Stella, celebrated female impersonators of the 19th century who became notorious after being subject to unsuccessful prosecution in 1871 for homosexual acts, illegal in the UK but the prosecution failed to show that any of the parties involved had penetrative sex. I have been hesitant to put it for FPC due to the resolution being high but not HD level. --Fæ (talk) 08:04, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

There's a frequent mistake made about what conclusions we can draw from the proportion of images at Commons or at FP or QI. One person complains there are two many penises. Another counters they have personally uploaded more trains than there are penises. Are there too many trains at QI? Does it matter? Here we an expectation that FP should contain 1% LGBT images. I still don't know where this 1% figure comes from. It's all nonsense. Fæ, let's say I nominated half a dozen of your excellent Norden photographs and got them to FP. We'd have a huge Scandinavian-politician "bias" at FP. Would that represent some kind of problem with the reviewers at FP? No. We'd be overjoyed that the Nordic council were generous enough to release professional photographs under a free licence and that someone spent their free time uploading thousands of them. I'm looking forward to Dschwen's add-in script because I really do believe this will actually counter a bias against nominating "problematic" images. I hope you can support it at talk-FP and I'd be happy to help you select images that stand a chance of successful nomination. -- Colin (talk) 09:08, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I have never been against users using whatever image filters they want, I have spoken openly about this in the past. However I would prefer there to be no appearance of "official" sanction of censorship tools or censorship lists, and I believe this should carefully avoid any WMF approval or an appearance of authorization by Wikimedia Commons. For this reason I am not going to take part in the !vote on Commons. It is easy to make all images in your browser to be only displayed when clicked, so I think that special filters just for FPC is over-egging it. Marking all photographs that feature people of any kind would be sufficient for an external tool to operate, and this would avoid disputes about whether filters are discriminatory against minority groups.
It now looks highly unlikely that anything like even ten LGBT related photos will be found amongst the 5,500+ photos in the Featured pictures archives. 10 photos would be 0.15% while 1 photo represents 0.018% of Featured pictures; however you look at those numbers they are disappointingly small and should be higher. I think the problem is that FPC is not welcoming for casual users, as there are many rules and the process is long and complex. Despite the guidelines encouraging better behaviour, to be told your photo or submission is crap and to be faced with bad faith accusations about your motivation when attempting a first nomination, is not impressive from any sub-community on Commons. It would help if the appearance of FPC being a club with artificially high barriers to entry were recognized as needing improvement, and for there to be some outreach to encourage more minority groups and interest groups to take part in nominating the best of their collections. --Fæ (talk) 10:42, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Actually, the opposition to your nomination was rather kind: "Maybe a nice idea for our FP gallery, but the quality at 100% view just doesn't fit the QI/FP standards"; "Reluctant oppose: Not the best quality on this one"; "per other opposes."; "The DoF of the picture is a bizarre choice for a portrait of two people. The second fellow is noticeably out of focus and no one could seriously argue this was a creative choice.". It was only once you started throwing toys out the pram that people became a bit blunter with you.
Fæ, please tell me where your 1% expectation comes from? Can you answer this question please. Are you really saying that the over-preponderance of birds, butterflies, mountains and historical buildings at FP indicates a LGBT bias? As for "bad faith accusation", you have openly stated you came to FP with an agenda. How about next time you come to FP with a great image. Colin (talk) 10:53, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
My expected minimum number is actually 0.3% (20/5,500). This was based not only on the portraits of living people but the numbers of historical images. Considering that most reliable surveys indicate that at least 4% of our contributors are LGBT and it would be reasonable to assume that far more than this are interested in seeing related cultural images as part of our educational scope, then hitting a minimum of 0.3% of images that get featured as Picture of the Day on the front of Wikimedia Commons is an incredibly mild and modest expectation - i.e. 1 photo per year as POTD that is considered to be LGBT culture related in some way. --Fæ (talk) 11:06, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
What makes you think the LGBT contributors don't also take/nominate photographs of butterflies and birds and mountains and buildings? People-images in general are under-represented to the point where any statistical comment on their proportions is meaningless. Colin (talk) 11:34, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
I did not say that. You appear to be making tangential points. Expecting a level of at least 1 picture of the day per year to relate to LGBT topics is not unreasonable, I am puzzled why you would want to be seen to continue to argue so very vigorously against it. --Fæ (talk) 11:54, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
As we appear to be going over old ground and I have reasons to avoid unnecessary stress, I have now added you to my mute list, so apologies in advance for not reading any more of these sorts of questions you may have. If you feel something seriously needs my attention, feel free to drop me an email or encourage someone else to raise a similar point. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:14, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Commons coverage of real world is uneven, just like it is in Wikipedias. Lack of LGBT images in FP is quite meaningless. To assess an unfair bias we should compare what happen to image nominations:

  • Have any LGBT related image been rejected on unfair grounds - different from nudity?
  • Have non-LGBT related nudity images been accepted without concerns on nudity? I mean images with similar quality and nudity problems than the rejected image.

If the answers to these questions are "yes", then we might be facing an unfair bias against LGBT images. If the answer is "not", then the only problem is that no good LGBT images have been nominated, and that's not reviewers'fault.--Pere prlpz (talk) 10:48, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes. FPC has passed images with nudity in the past without any issue or suppression of images. A non-sexual gay life study featuring two men creates fireworks and gets censored. The issue was not unfair grounds for rejection, it was rejected on technical photo quality grounds, however the image was treated in a way that no other photo on FPC has ever been handled in the years it has been running. Through pursuing my complaint it is unlikely that anything like this will happen the same way again, but for me at least, this situation raised doubts about how FPC currently works and how easy it is for under-represented groups to become better represented. --Fæ (talk) 11:06, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Fæ, you continue to frame the hiding of your image behind a link as suppression of gay images by a gay contributor. That there is a systemic bias against LBGT images and that my actions represent this. The community has rejected this viewpoint. The reasons behind using a link have nothing to do with LGBT and nothing to do with my personal prudishness (as you put it). A fellow LGBT contributor (Tom Morris) has explained to you why such an action is reasonable and not an indication of bias or censorship. The fireworks you got was due to your unacceptable behaviour, not because of what you nominated. If you continue to claim that I and others at FP are suppressing gay images on Commons without the slightest bit of evidence then I shall open an AN/U on you. I am deeply offended at your continued accusations at me of bias and censorship and shouldn't have to put up with it. Colin (talk) 11:34, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Systemic bias and FPC having issues with being welcoming to new contributors and needing to do more outreach to minority groups and interests is not a complaint about you. Users should be free to raise complaints if the systems on Commons appear unwelcoming or function as closed clubs. Threatening those that have experienced these problems with AN/U, because they have the temerity to complain, is not helpful.
BTW, before claiming a consensus for your actions could you actually create a consensus? I am unaware of a consensus process being followed to assess this. --Fæ (talk) 11:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I think we can close this. Those coming to FPC with an agenda rather than a half decent image can expect failure. Claims of systematic bias and suppression of minority groups better have some decent evidence behind them -- this has none at all. -- Colin (talk) 15:09, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

As Colin is keen to close this discussion, the conclusion seems to be that 1 photograph has been found relating to LGBT subjects in the entire history of Featured pictures. If this is the case, then the Featured pictures process must be improved to ensure that barriers to entry are reduced, we actively encourage groups of all kinds to take part and that diversity of approved photographs is monitored, potentially to be used to assess the Featured pictures candidates process for systemic bias of any kind. This improvement might start by improving the guidelines published at Commons:Featured picture candidates to include a positive aim for diversity that encourages review and measurement. --Fæ (talk) 15:32, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

What is more widely represented on COM:FP and what less, basically depends on: a) images on what topics are being more frequently uploaded to Commons, and b) what motives do FPC participants tend to see as "wow". That both aspects cause the current bias towards architecture, natural landscapes, and certain plants and animals. Because, on the one hand, most of us are amateur photographers and so prefer to photograph motives which are rather related to tourism, common hobbies etc. On the other hand, such motives are also more often considered as "wow": in general, it is difficult to collect seven support votes e.g. for a human portrait or a domestic appliance (even in case that the image is technically flawless and the encyclopedic notability obvious), rather than for an exotic butterfly or a nice landscape somewhere in California or so. Now, what I wanted to say is just that the bias is doubtlessly there, but it exists due to this specificity of the public that usually visits the FPC page. I've also the opinion that we should close this thread asap: imo, changing the FP guidelines wouldn't help anything. I'm quite happy with the current guidelines, but the only way to enlarge diversity on FP would be, to try to gain more active contributors for Commons, including professional photographers and designers. --A.Savin 16:00, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Agree but I wonder if there is scope to have a themed photo contest based round topic areas that are lacking high-quality (not necessarily FP quality) images. Contestants could either source or take images for upload. Such a contents could have a "prize" for best image but wouldn't necessary be part of the existing FP/VI/QI forums. Colin (talk) 16:15, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
A.Savin, I understand you are comfortable with FP guidelines, but others who have not got used to it may not be. By standard measures I am probably the most active volunteer on Commons this month and the WMF database tells me I have uploaded 178,299 images under my main account which feels like a lot (bots accounts have done more stuff), yet I have always deliberately avoided the Featured pictures process as the system for judging photograph quality seemed incomprehensible to me and it appeared that a small group of FP old hands ran the shop and I was uninterested in spending my time breaking into that group. This impression may be wrong and unfair, but this impression is what has kept me away for the last 3 years. It may be that by reviewing the guidelines and the group active on FP spending some of their time considering how to do more to encourage new blood, would help revitalize the forum and help shape what we do with the front page of Wikimedia Commons to make it more engaging and relevant than what might 'wow' a small group of regular contributors. If you are not familiar with groupthink you might want to consider if some of this is going on and has become impossible to see from the "inside". --Fæ (talk) 16:31, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't have any position on the current matter at hand, but I do agree that we need to work on the FPC process, and especially on the 'wow' factor. I often fail to see any 'wow' in FPC of buildings or landscape. The quality is often really good, but it's only buildings or landscape. On the other hand, I see that the FPC active users tend to have a very high level of expectation on sports or people pictures. This is something I don't understand. Pleclown (talk) 17:25, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
I remember your nominations. See what we expect in sports. JKadavoor Jee 04:19, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
It's not (only) about my nominations. I tend to think that the FPC page is working in a close circle, where usuals users vote for their friends, in a scratch-my-back-I'll-scratch-yours kind of way. There are many pictures of really good technical quality, by with no "wow" effect, that are promoted every month. Let's open a little bit, accept different kind of pictures (portraits, sport pictures, etc.). See the figures in Category:Featured_pictures_by_subject and tell me that there is no problem. Pleclown (talk) 06:40, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree with you on the "scratch for scratch" or "like for like" behavior; but it is a common problem in every community, I see it even at RfA. I agree with you on the low proportion of human depicted pictures; but it is due to privacy, notability and many similar factors related to COM:IDENT, I afraid. You can see my support in many such failed nominations. JKadavoor Jee 07:31, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
From an outsider viewpoint, it seems hard to understand the FPC norms for "wow" when conventional photographs of domestic products are readily supported for POTD, yet not a single gay pride photo has ever made it there, nor I think has any such photo ever been nominated; which says something about the limited interests of those encouraged to take part in the process. --Fæ (talk) 08:46, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
It seems you have no idea about the basic requirements. "Featured pictures candidates should meet all the following requirements, must have a wow factor and may or may not have been created by a Commoner. Given sufficient wow factor and mitigating circumstances, a featured picture is permitted to fall short on technical quality." Wow is a matter of taste, some people have great wow on NASA works, some people get bored. Little chance for a reviewer to compromise too much on quality even though it has overwhelming wow. BTW, we have a great collection of simple objects, including File:Gluehlampe 01 KMJ.jpg. JKadavoor Jee 09:09, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
No doubt there's a lot about FPC I don't understand, I have only uploaded 170,000 photos, so there's plenty more for me to discover about Commons. The point I was making was about who is encouraged to take part in FPC. You can find plenty of photos among the many thousands available in LGBT Pride that will meet the technical standards in the same way as a photograph of a steam iron can, with the added wow factor of being funny, outrageous, colourful, exciting, topical etc. in ways that a steam iron photo is never going to be. I suggest we seek to improve the quality of Featured pictures by tapping into this range of alternative talent. --Fæ (talk) 09:35, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
No problem; you and your colleagues are always welcome to the FP world. :) JKadavoor Jee 09:55, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Commons is here to be a repository of educational media, not to serve an agenda. So domestic products are just as valuable as cultural events or arts, yet both are under-represented compared to mountains, butterflies and buildings. The "wow" factor is variable and personal where as the technical standards requirements are a bit more consistent. It represents the collection of varied views of those reviewing -- and I note in particular you have not reviewed any pictures. How can you criticise what other people find engaging/interesting yet decline to participate yourself? I can't move myself to get excited by any bird photographs, yet I acknowledge the huge talent (+ technical ability/equipment) required to take good ones and so can go "wow" on that front. A studio-quality photograph of an everyday object is remarkably difficult for anyone who doesn't actually work in a photographic studio. If you haven't tried taking one then you wouldn't know. I hope people can go "wow" for the fact that imo that picture is technically flawless, as well as artfully arranged and lit -- but that nomination is by no means a sure thing. In fact I hesitated nominating it at Commons for years (it is a Wikipedia FP) because I feared it might not get a wow vote here. The best advice I can give to anyone wanting to take/nominate photographs for FP is to be a reviewer for a month or so. Get a feel for the expected standard. Challenge the status quo with your reviews of other people nominations rather than your own (where we are all naturally biased). Colin (talk) 09:59, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
For an unpaid volunteer, I am unusually active on Commons and understand our standards, any community process where the best advice to encourage newcomers and folks with my existing experience is to spend a month taking part before you can expect to understand the local guidelines, has barriers to entry set too high to be considered "open". --Fæ (talk) 10:45, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Well you have unrealistic expectations. Just because you upload lots of stuff doesn't say you have an eye for judging high quality photographs. For a nomination to be other than a waste time, the nominator needs to be capable of reviewing their own image. Reviewing images is a skill like anything. Nominating an out-of-focus image at FP suggests to me you didn't even read the guidelines let alone found them a barrier to participation. Colin (talk) 11:01, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
It already has such restrictions: "Only registered contributors whose Commons accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote. Exception: registered users can always vote in their own nominations no matter the account age and number of edits." (Hmm; I'm tired explain to such an experienced user. "Hurt retired" from here. " Clin JKadavoor Jee 11:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I have looked at the discussions linked above and am rather confused. Unless I am missing something, the issue here has nothing whatsoever to do with LGBT, and everything to do nudity in general. Or is the implication here that the only reason people brought up the issue of nudity is because they are secretly homophobic? --Conti|✉ 16:53, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Conti. This discussion hasn't show any anti LGBT bias, and discussion is now going away from LGBT. If anybody wants to improve FP process to make it more friendly, I suggest to start a new thread - here or somewhere else.--Pere prlpz (talk) 17:54, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Found another FP on Commons. Is it LGBT? I don't actually know anything about the subject. But it has two boys kissing. Colin (talk) 13:25, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

JackXArik
Yes, I think it counts, though not a photograph and these sort of "Yoai" cartoons though including drawings of gay love, are targeted at the young female heterosexual erotic fantasy market in Japan rather than being a truly gay cultural phenomenon. I am no expert in this stuff, but I would say this is marginally classed as LGBT culture as it is neither created by, nor created for the LGBT community, indeed many in the LGBT community find these offensive as they unfortunately focus on "boy-love" in a way that objectifies young gay men for heterosexual women and may confuse the public perception of gay love with under-age sex between boys, definitely not the same thing. Difficult. --Fæ (talk) 16:41, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Fae, what is the actual issue here? Is it the lack of LGBT featured pictures? Then the only thing you (and everyone else) can do is to find (or make) and nominate pictures of appropriate quality. Or is it a supposed bias against LGBT pictures in the featured picture process? Then I'd ask you to come up with better arguments than what I've seen so far, because personally, I do not see any. Some topics are vastly overrepresented in the FP process, while others are vastly underrepresented. That's not ideal, but not at all a result of bias, but more a result of the fact that some pictures are much easier to obtain and make in a high quality than others. --Conti|✉ 19:47, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Do I understand correctly that Fae has uploaded over 170,000 photos and this is the first LGBT image he has nominated at FPC? I think we all know where the systemic bias is coming from then. Saffron Blaze (talk) 00:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Yet another bad faith allegation about what is in my head from a self identified FPC member. I explained precisely why I was put off taking part in FPC for the last 3 years above, you may want to read it before attacking me for not feeling welcome. Considering the outright hostility along the lines of "you have not spent a month reviewing images here, how dare you propose a crap picture on our special forum or ask questions about our policies", I have no doubt that encouraging new contributors to take part must be very difficult, or perhaps members are happy with the way things are and think that every question must be a threat.
    • Perhaps I must apologise for having such face that you just want to keep punching all day long; after all, welcoming newcomers can't possibly be your problem. --Fæ (talk) 18:21, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Architect permission

Hi all,

I am dealing with a picture of a copyrighted (both original & recent) building in France (where there is no freedom of panorama etc). The architect has given permission through OTRS to have the picture released under CC-BY-SA − all good. Is there any template to use to mark this special status? Something that could be used as {{copyright information|photograph={{cc-by-sa-3.0}}|design=Permission from architect}}?

Thanks, Jean-Fred (talk) 18:23, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I think the licence would be plain {{cc-by-sa-3.0}}. In the author/source information you'd have two authors / copyright holders. To show that the architect has agreed to the licence, perhaps an OTRS template would be best? ghouston (talk) 21:19, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Also in such cases it's probably a good idea if the creator of the three-dimensional work understands that the CC licence allows any type of derivative work, including the creation of new three-dimensional objects such as a models or new buildings based on the photo. ghouston (talk) 21:24, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
But only based on the photo. It gives no permission to make derivative works directly based on the building. I am no architect, but I think a competing business based on the image only sounds unrealistic. --LPfi (talk) 13:21, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Category:Exchangeable image file format

It seems that Category:Exchangeable image file format contains only binary data instead of a description text and no files at all. Is it of any use or it should be deleted? The Yeti 15:53, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

The JFIF near the beggining means its a jpeg file, so someone literally copy and pasted a jpeg file into the edit box. Unicode normalization would prevent one from actually retrieving the image, so I suggest delete. Bawolff (talk) 17:44, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Categories by: A proposal to conflate two root categories

I'm happy to tell that the concept of merging Category:Categories by topic and Category:Categories by subject recently has received some figure of support and I'd like to have your valid support to carrying this out (or at least to not-have objections), the idea is that the prevalent distinction between our introduced labels of "topic" and "subject" might be marginal enough to provoke confusion and a unified observation can reduce maintenance. Thanqz, Orrlingtalk 09:42, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

What? Orrlingtalk 05:04, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Guys – have we got any opposition to the above-mentioned merger or anyone who can share their knowledge about any possible problematic consequence of merging Category:Categories by topic into Category:Categories by subject or we can drive this forward? Orrlingtalk 16:34, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Category:Topics seems to more complex than Category:Subjects, because of the massive Topics by decade‎ and Topics by year‎ categories. If you don't plan to rename these categories, wouldn't it be tidier to merge Subjects into Topics than vice versa? From a naming point of view it doesn't make any difference, since the two are synonyms. ghouston (talk) 22:31, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Subjects is a must as it is an unambiously irreplaceable direct parent of "Objects", the suructural identity of the two words is not coincidental - and must be kept as dialectically vital for illustrating the elementary and universal logic hierarchy. I never knew that subjects and topics were lexically synonimous, but in any case, the fact that currently many of our meta-categories are named as "topic(s)" is of little meaning and/or bother once we decide to observe Topics and Subjects in one package. i.e, it's only a word – and as soon as "Categories by topic" no longer exists, its migrant contents to "Categories by subject" will have the "topic" in their titles easily understood as just a variant for "subject". From my point of view this shouldn't be a problem. Orrlingtalk 13:36, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

How does Commons handle editor disputes?

Since Commons does not have arbitration (Commons:Arbitration), how does the community here handle editor disputes? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 07:05, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I think they can be presented at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems. Not sure though. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 15:56, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that's correct, though it's not considered good practice to go there until all efforts have been made to solve the problem where it is actually occurring. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:06, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Introducing Beta Features and Media Viewer

The first version of Media Viewer shows images in larger size in a light box format.
The next version of Media Viewer will show even larger images by default.

We're pleased to announce the first release of Beta Features, a new program from the Wikimedia Foundation that lets you try out new features before they are released for everyone. Think of it as a digital laboratory where community members can preview upcoming software and give feedback to help improve them. This special preference page lets designers and engineers experiment with new features on a broad scale, but in a way that's not disruptive.

One of the first beta features we will be testing together is Media Viewer, which aims to improve the viewing experience by displaying images in larger size and with less clutter than the current file info page. This first version 0.1 is still in early stages of development, with many known bugs, but we invite community feedback right away on this discussion page, so we can improve it together in coming months. For a sneak peek at the next version 0.2 of the Media Viewer, check out these first mockups.

Beta Features and Media Viewer are now ready for early testing by logged-in users on Wikimedia Commons, on MediaWiki.org, and on Meta.Wikimedia.org. Based on test results, we aim to release these beta features on all wikis worldwide on 21 November, 2013.

Here are some of the other beta features in our pipeline:

Would you like to try out Beta Features and Media Viewer now? If you're logged in here on Commons, a small 'Beta' link will appear next to your 'Preferences'. Click on it to see features you can test, check the ones you want (only Media Viewer at this time), then click 'Save'. Learn more on the Beta Features page.

After you've tested these features, please let us know what you think on this Beta Features discussion page or on this Media Viewer discussion page. You can report any bugs here for Beta Features or here for Media Viewer .

You're also welcome to join this IRC office hours chat on Friday, 8 November at 18:30 UTC.

Beta Features and Media Viewer were developed by the Wikimedia Foundation's Multimedia team, in collaboration with the Design, Mobile and VisualEditor teams. Along with other developers, we will be adding new features to this experimental program every few weeks. We are very grateful to all the community members who advised these projects — and look forward to many more productive collaborations in the future. :)

Enjoy, and don't forget to let us know what you think! Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 22:51, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

First impression—I like it. Very clean and useful! (Though iOS 7 has trained me to expect blurred backgrounds—the clear transparency is distracting. If you can pull this off with CSS/HTML I'd be seriously impressed.). The Use This File popup could also be a bit prettier, and preferably in a dropdown rather than a popup. Icons also suffer from blurriness.—Love, Kelvinsong talk 23:13, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Its looking good! great that there is some work done for a better media viewer. Please integrate the current 'Use this file' Link. It is really important as its very difficult to attribute files correctly :) . Amada44  talk to me 16:52, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Good to hear, Amada44. I'm looking into your request, I'll keep you posted in the next day about this. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 06:06, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
  • That happens independedly from the browser. It's because MultiMedia-Viewer requests a thumbnail that has exactly the size of x while smarter tools like the Slideshow and Wikipic have a set of defaultSizes and let it up to the browser to scale the image down to fit their container. This way, it's more likely to get a thumbnail previously generated by VIPS/ImageMagic/rsvg or even getting a cache hit. This also prevents cache-fragmentation of SWIFT and squid/varnish with thousands of different versions. Also, MultiMedia-viewer should probably not ask the API two times for the same imageinfo upon window-resize, I believe. Window resize happens, when opening the search bar (Ctrl+F), for example. -- Rillke(q?) 19:24, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
We're on it - we plan to play guinea pig to an RFC dealing with the issue, hopefully speeding up loading times. However, this is a grander issue, given that thumbnail generation is slow anyway, and it's not generally very likely that we'll find an existing thumbnail, or at least I assume it isn't, given that any number of people might have visited any given image, but a large portion of the existing thumbnails will be 300px, 200px, 220px, and so on - the usual suspects for thumbnail sizes - not the sizes you'd expect for full-screen images. --MarkTraceur (talk) 16:39, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your thoughtful comments, Kelvinsong, Amada44, Mono and Rillke. We're glad you generally like the Media Viewer concept, and your detailed feedback is much appreciated :) We are passing on to our development team recommendations to revisit the clear transparency, improve the image loading speed and design a better 'Use this File' panel, including correct attribution. Some of these issues were already on our to-do list, but your comments are helping us give these tasks a higher priority -- especially the faster loading of images, which is not trivial and needs to be solved before we can move Media Viewer out of Beta in coming months, and it will require an engineering research spike to determine how to solve it incrementally, alongside the thumbnail pipeline already under way. (See Mingle ticket #62 and bug 56695). We are now fixing the most urgent bugs, and will be rolling out more tweaks and new features in coming weeks, with our next release due on 21 November, and more updates in December. If you have any more suggestions or questions, you are welcome to post them here, and/or on this Media Viewer discussion page. I am out of office until 19 November, but you can contact our community liaison Keegan (WMF) or Mark Homquist with any urgent requests. Thanks again for helping us improve this tool! Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 02:59, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

November 08

File:Red Wings retired Banners.jpg

Any help on how to fix the tagged "disclaimer" issues on this image page?

Thank you for your time,

-- Cirt (talk) 17:30, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Can someone help with this? -- Cirt (talk) 04:05, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

November 09

Image was cropped and replaced, both versions should exist

This image was cropped to appear on the English Wikipedia DYK. However, a cropped version should exist in addition to the original, not instead of it. I don't dare to handle it myself because of the license and history. I would prefer the original name "File:Gwyneth Chéreau.jpg" for the cropped version, because it appears in several archives. The other might be "File:Centenary Ring.jpg" or "File:Götterdämmerung.jpg". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:16, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done: File:Gwyneth_Chéreau_(großer).jpg -- Tuválkin ✉ 08:48, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Dumb, dumb: I meant "größer". :-( -- Tuválkin ✉ 08:55, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you! "großer" is halfway international ;) - Are there redirects for images? Anyway, I used it as it is, delighted! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:56, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

November 11

To be corrected

Hello, something went wrong with Commons:Deletion requests/File:054 Wizernes ( 62570 ).JPG , things being mixed up. Can someone make the correct deletion request pages/paragraphs, see File:054 Wizernes ( 62570 ).JPG? --Havang(nl) (talk) 14:04, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Reverted but you could have undone it yourself, content was replaced by another user. --Denniss (talk) 14:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Sorry, I didn't look at the history. --Havang(nl) (talk) 16:35, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Author lost in transfer from English Wikipedia

The image Long-beakedEchidna.jpg was transferred from English Wikipedia, but because it was done so manually back in 2006, the original author and source has been lost. The English Wikipedia page is now just a copy of the Commons one (not sure what the correct term for this state is), so I can't access the history to retrieve it. Is there any way this information could be retrieved (e.g. someone who can view deleted pages on Wikipedia)? --SnorlaxMonster 14:17, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Ask an admin on en.wikipedia, such as Maxim, who deleted it. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 14:29, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Done. TheDJ (talk) 14:59, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Getting scans from Hathi Trust

Hello,

I would like to get scans from Hathi Trust, however downloading whole books is restricted to "Partner institution members". I am specially intersted by all books relalted to Mahatma Gandhi. AFAIK these 13 scans of "Young India" are not available elsewhere. If you have access, please help. If not, please spread the word to find some one who has access. Thanks a lot in advance! Yann (talk) 13:49, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Taking the example on the list of Young India v.5, the book is all rights reserved by the Navajivan Trust 1981. Having a copy for personal research would be useful and seems within the terms of use of the site, and I assume this is your intention, but the copyright would limit any republication without getting permission first. The Hathitrust site is a bit complex as it makes available publications with a range of different licences and leaves it to the user to judge what they can do. --Fæ (talk) 14:07, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Navajivan Trust may claim a copyright on it, but right below that notice it says "Offset reproduction of the original files", meaning that there's no new copyright in 1981. Generally if it's full view, it will be in the public domain in the US. On the other hand, given that v5 was first published in 1923, I'm not sure why Hathi thinks it's PD in the US. (Looking at volume 2, it seems there will be modern material to drop, but it seems to be easy to distinguish.)
https://opendesktop.org/content/show.php/Hathi+Download+Helper?content=158702 is a program to download from Hathi Trust, but it won't necessarily help you if you aren't in the US--maybe if you can see them anyway? (I haven't tried that version; I used version 0.1 several years ago, but it doesn't seem to work with more recent libraries.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:15, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Works by Mahatma Gandhi were copyrighted in India upto 01-01-2009, so the claim was right, but the works are in the public domain now. Yann (talk) 10:01, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Audio files by recording device

I just created Category:Audio files by recording device (analogous with Category:Photographs by camera) and subcategories. Please help to expand and populate the category tree. Andy Mabbett (talk) 23:45, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

November 13

Erroneous attribution

This not Boisrobert.

This portait is erroneously presented as that of François le Métel de Boisrobert. It is not Boisrobert, but Pierre Corneille. Jaucourt (talk) 05:44, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. It is also a duplicate of File:Pierre Corneille 2.jpg. --Túrelio (talk) 07:16, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Delete request not listed

I created all the requisite files manualy and in the list (Deletion requests/2013/11/11) but I dont see the delete request for (View Outside 16.JPG) in Deletion requests/2013/11/11.Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:07, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Jmabel ! talk 16:15, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Agency templates??

I carefully searched the archives but had no luck.........I know there are templates to attach to (US) state and federal agency images (which, of course, are public)......but I can hardly find any of those templates. Can I get some help? --Buddpaul (talk) 15:42, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Duplicate file

Can "File:Williamsburg printing.jpg" be deleted as it is a duplicated file I accidently uploaded. It is a duplicate of "File:Setting up paper to be printed.jpg"

Thanks!--Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:56, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

We have {{Duplicate}} for this purpose. --Dschwen (talk) 20:29, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
O.K., now I get it. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:34, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I did perform the deletion and replacement anyhow! In this particular case it was rather easy, as the files were byte-exact duplicates (so the duplicates tool is active on the page even without the {{Duplicate}} template). --Dschwen (talk) 22:48, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

November 14

Can anyone check these pictures? Are they ok for Commons?

Hello everybody,

Can anyone check uploads made by User:Sarrasin68? Could there be any copyvio? Especially on File:3d1.jpg because a part of the picture is a Google Maps/Earth layer with the 3D buildings by Google (excepted the main building depicted, which has been added afterwards) and I don't know if this can be "De Minimis" compared to the whole picture. Anyway, these several 3D pictures seem to be drawn by architects, whereas the source is a "Myspace" page and not the architect official web site. If anybody can help about this thanks a lot! Jeriby (talk) 03:09, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I have marked the example as a copyvio. Google have some specific requirements at <http://www.google.com/permissions/geoguidelines/attr-guide.html> that it is unclear (to me) that Commons can meet. It is not a full CC-BY-SA licence release. This has probably been discussed before on the Copyright noticeboard but it did not jump out at me during an archive search. Fæ (talk) 18:58, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Can someone fix this image?

File:White House staff meeting in the Oval Office.JPG needs to be replaced with the source image due to a bad edit/upload, but I can't overwrite it. Could someone please do this? Source image is here. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 06:24, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Both versions in the file history didn't mach with the source mentioned. First version has black borders, second seems an edit of it with up-sampling; so probably from a different source. JKadavoor Jee 08:35, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
✓ Done. --McZusatz (talk) 14:02, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

BBC open licences voice samples from radio programmes: London 'Speakerthon' event invitation

I'm working with the BBC to help them to open licence a selection of audio "snippets" of notable people talking, from certain of their radio programmes. See the BBC blog post launching the project. The first three files are already in Category:BBC voice samples. We're holding an event in London on 18 January 2014, to select and upload more (booking essential). Details are at Commons:BBC voice project. It would be good to meet some of you there. Andy Mabbett (talk) 15:59, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

November 15

Commons picture used by news website

This is certainly a question that has been asked and answered before, but I cannot find anything pointing to the answer. I have noticed that one of the main French economic news website has used a picture from Commons without attribution. How do we usually handle such a case? Here is the link to the newspage [5]. The picture used is this one. Thank you. Olivier (talk) 19:50, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

You can notify the user about it. You can't say for sure that it's a copyright violation, since it's always possible that the user gave permission to the news website to use it that way. It's up to the user (copyright holder) themselves to take any further action. ghouston (talk) 21:07, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
The copyright holder has the possibility to re-license the work under commercial conditions (maybe even without attribution) and is also the sole person who can proceed legally if they find that the re-user does not abide by the terms of the license. -- Rillke(q?) 21:14, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
You can add {{Published}} which may avoid later confusion. Dankarl (talk) 22:44, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Are you sure? Any recent French court cases to support that opinion? -- Asclepias (talk) 02:28, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Not sure about French law specifically, but note that many jurisdictions (e.g., Singapore and UK) allow fair use of copyright content for the purpose of news reporting. However, it is often the case that the content has to be properly attributed. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 13:03, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

BSD license translations

I have noticed that templates such as {{BSD}}, {{MIT}} etc. are automatically translated when one changes the interface text. Am I the only one who thinks this is highly problematic copyright-wise? These licenses require redistribution of exactly the English-language text that's in the template. A user who has selected a different language will be misled into violating copyright by redistributing only the translated version. Is there a reason why translations of these templates shouldn't be either (a) deleted or (b) changed to make clear that they are unofficial and to include the English-language version verbatim? darkweasel94 07:23, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

The reason against (a) is that many people won't be able to understand what the license sais and would have to search the web for another unofficial translation. I am for (b). -- Rillke(q?) 07:57, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Misnamed photos by Allie Caulfield: "Andalusien, Lissabon"

Unable to batch rename these 120 files, I created this provisional subcat Category:Photographs by Allie Caulfield/Misnamed "Andalusien, Lissabon" photos to rename. The phrase "Andalusien, Lissabon" is particularly misleading as it presents a city name and a region name separated by a comma — a format typically used to refer to a city within its sourrounding territory (as in "Paris, Texas"). While I understand that Allie’s intention was simply to label her periple in south spanish region Andalucia and in the Portuguese capital city Lisbon, this phrasing is needlessly misleading (Lisbon was part of Andalusia only from 711 to 1148) and problematic (fuelling my countrymen’s bitter hispanophobia). I suggest replacing the comma with an ampersand, better renaming of individual files pending. How can 120 files be swiftly renamed? (If impossible, it will be done slowly and painfully by manual labour.) -- Tuválkin ✉ 13:50, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

November 16

HTTP Error 503: Service Unavailable

Still getting this error causing my Geograph work to come to a halt, persisting for the last 2 days. What bug does this relate to? Unfortunately I'm beginning to build in generic traps to work around this, which I would prefer not to do, as eventually we end up with a Skynet problem. :-) --Fæ (talk) 22:39, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

  • What URL are you hitting that is giving you this error? - Jmabel ! talk 00:53, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm having the exact same issue editing large pages with pywikipediabot. The edits secretly go through but due to a timeout the bout never notices it and retries perpetually. There is a fairly new open bug about this issue here bugzilla:56884(in short pywiki should do better testing if the edit went through). The root cause I don't know and I can only speculate that the servers are not preforming well enough. --Dschwen (talk) 02:53, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
    Thanks for the link. I'm actually using an old version of pywikipediabot (like six months), and Faebot has never fallen over in the past over this error, so this must be unrelated to any recent changes to pywikipediabot. As it has only been a couple of days I have just waited for this to pass rather than exploring it much. {Jmabel; this is an apparent API problem for Commons, so this 503 failure appears to be limited to this project.}
    (Reads bug) I'm not convinced that this is a "large page" problem, as described in bugzilla:55219 as Faebot is doing fairly simple category changes. For example the latest failure was:
    Updating page File:Kepwick Incline - geograph.org.uk - 734524.jpg via API; Result: 503 Service Unavailable [@ 2013-11-11 22:43:33 +0000]
    Note, this edit did not go through, it appeared to fail altogether.
    I'm busy today, but if this persists through to tomorrow I might add my example to bugzilla. --Fæ (talk) 05:51, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
    @Dschwen: Even doing manually never work for large pages, such as Category_talk:Icons_for_motorway_descriptions/generic/crossing_rail. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 10:27, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
    • There is a issue with one of the links between eqiad and esams centers, that was causing 503s due to heavy packet loss over the past days. That might be related... There is an RT ticket for that for the operations team, but i don't know the number. TheDJ (talk) 13:46, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Fourth day (bugzilla:55219)

The problem is on-going. Today Faebot tells me that 1.8% (114/6260) of put/get transactions through the Commons API have been failing due to this 503 failure. I would imagine that there will be quite a few housekeeping bots that have been falling over and giving up in the last week. Despite the bug describing itself as being for complex pages, I have seen small changes to very simple image pages affected. Could we have a non-technical feedback as to who gets affected (everyone, API users, only Commons users?) and when this will be fixed? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Fifth day (bugzilla:55219)

Still ongoing. Faebot's cumulative figure now says an average of 0.9% (146/16508) transactions are failing. My most recent example was in the last ten minutes before posting this comment. --Fæ (talk) 11:48, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

That's unfortunate to hear - I was hoping that http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2013-November/073112.html implied this would be resolved. As an aside, I do not think this is really bugzilla:55219. (That bug is about pywikipediabot handling 503's gracefully, not about current intermittent server problems causing timeouts on not complex-to-parse pages). Remember that 503 is a rather generic error meaning something took too long - it can have multiple causes. Bawolff (talk) 16:10, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Just to expand on that - for those who don't know what a 503 error means (Since there seems to be some confusion above), a 503 error is a timeout error. (Technically, if you include the maxlag parameter when accessing the web interface [not the API interface], you will also get a 503 if the max lag exceeds what you specified, which is a different type of error. e.g. [6]. Generally this doesn't happen as people who use the maxlag parameter use the API which uses an error response instead of an HTTP status code ). A 503 will be returned if it takes longer for the backend (apache) servers to complete a request then the frontend (Varnish/Squid) server is willing to wait (I believe this timeout is 60 seconds). A common cause of this is a really complex page, with lots of templates. In particular, prior to lua being introduced, people used to do a lot of whacky things with templates in inefficient ways. Often this took the servers longer then 60 seconds to turn the templates into html, so a 503 would be returned. Thus you often see 503 errors being associated with complex pages. However that's not the only thing that can cause a 503 - anything that would cause the page to take too long to render can cause the issue. So that can include the servers being overloaded, problems with the databases, problems with the network, etc. The thread on wikitech-l suggests that they may have been some db issues that were at fault. (I have no direct knowledge of what's going on, just repeating what I've heard.). Bawolff (talk) 16:50, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Checking Faebot's logs this morning, I cannot see any 503 failures in the last 2 hours (sorry, Faebot is not set up to audit connection quality, I can only scroll back that far), which means this time-out problem is not an issue right now. WMF Operations might want to think about how to regularly test for these problems, an periodic soak test of different types of get/put actions might make for a great report to publish trends from, and support future investigations. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:16, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Uploading art images from Hildebrand Gurlitt's collection

Hello,

After reading in the news about the story of the recently discovered stolen collection of Hildebrand Gurlitt, I wonder if it possible to upload images. I think that a big part would be {{PD-Art}}, but I am not sure about paintings never shown to the public (unpublished?). I read that photos may be available at http://www.lostart.de/ but the site is mostly in German, and I was not able to find anything. Comments? Yann (talk) 14:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

First off, template "PD-Art" without any further parameters returns a warning message these days. It might depend on the death-dates of each individual artist, whether they were painted before 1923, etc. AnonMoos (talk) 18:42, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, of cource the painter needs to be dead for more than 70 years. Yann (talk) 01:58, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Uploading KML files

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T28059

I would like to be able to replace google map links like Sterrebeek Duisburg Hamme-Mille in articles with the underlying KML file. This KML file can then be updated/corrected and is independant of google. In articles the KML files could be used the same way as pictures. Similar to the use of GPS coordinates of a single point. Would the wikicode be made to work with KML files? Ideally the Commons would be the place to put the files as they can then be used for articles in any language. Think for example of railway lines, roads or the designiation od areas as national parks. It is faster and more flexible than the use of specialy made maps. Last but not least it is a scalable vector.Smiley.toerist (talk) 20:45, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I have made a lot of personal google maps wich I can then upload in the Commons. The advantage is that they can be put in the public domain and are not dependant of me (If I die, personal GM disapear) or google (withdrawing support or deleting GM's)Smiley.toerist (talk) 20:45, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

See bugzilla:26059 --Dschwen (talk) 20:51, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Interesting. They are working on it, but have problems. I never realized that the downloads have to be safe (no viruses etc) so the types of permissible formats are to be limited. No active parts wich can have hidden malign parts. No virus scanner can detect all mallware.Smiley.toerist (talk) 08:58, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
A sharemap has been made of the KML out of the example SNCV_Sterrebeek_Hamme-Mille. While waiting for a technical solution, KML could be converted tot sharemaps.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
See also Commons:Geocoding/Overlay. --Jarekt (talk) 12:47, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
You can also consider using Template:Attached_KML. It can be easily used with conjuntion with ShareMap. Take a look to this article and this KML under the hood --Jkan997 (talk) 14:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

November 06

Move vs. Move & Replace

Is it only me, or have some global settings WRT "Move" tab changed lately? I've always been using the simple "Move" interface via a tab at the top, but now I find "Move & Replace" instead, which feeds some unneeded commands to CommonsDelinker, and due to its "wizard" interface makes it impossible to re-use edit summaries that I've entered before. If I recollect right, I once intentionally disabled this wizard, but now I'm unable to find anything like that in the preferences. Am I blind, or is this another unasked-for revision? YLSS (talk) 12:17, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

"Move & Replace" is extremely helpful because it automatically replaces occurrences of the old filename with the new one across all Wikipedia projects. If it doesn't find any, then no changes are made. Thus, it certainly does not feed "unneeded" commands to CommonsDelinker, nor is it an "unasked-for revision". However, one issue I've noticed is that when a file description page is accessed, sometimes "Move" instead of "Move & Replace" appears, and the page has to be refreshed a couple of times before "Move & Replace" can be seen in the menu. Can anything be done about this? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 13:01, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
It also updates file redirects that point to the old location immediately and removes {{Rename}}-templates. -- Rillke(q?) 13:25, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Not for me! I only move BSicons, and CommonsDelinker is unable to cope with them - when they are used via templates. On the contrary, it only replaces them in project discussions at Commons, where they should remain as they were, even if redlinked. More: it makes an unnecessary edit to CommonsDelinker/commands, which is then transferred to another page, and then removed: just excessive server load (tiny, but still). And redirects are a separate issue WRT BSicons: there should be none (OK, a few but standardised). So no, it's not helpful at all! YLSS (talk) 18:40, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Move & Replace is part of the AjaxQuickDelete gadget, which is activated by default. Have you tried to deactivate it ? Pleclown (talk) 13:04, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
I tried both deactivating and reactivating it, and now once again, but it doesn't seem to affect this. I've had the "Move" tab since spring at least; it suddenly changed to "Move & Replace" at the start of this month, I think... YLSS (talk) 18:40, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
With the new gadget "curator", which I am currently writing, it will be possible to re-use edit summaries, at least in the latest version Firefox. I can't say for sure when this task will be completed, however, as I am busy with a private project. Curator will replace AjaxQuickDelete and will add separate options in the user preferences for the features it should offer. -- Rillke(q?) 13:25, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Gadgets are great, thank you very much for writing them! Will it be possible to re-use summaries in UploadWizard? But still, they should not totally replace simple, straightforward commands. YLSS (talk) 18:40, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Plainly amazing. It appears that the tab still links to the old Special:MovePage, but to access it one has to e.g. right click & open it in new tab, simple left clicking starts that annoying Wizard. Does anybody know whether I can add something to my common.js to disable it? YLSS (talk) 16:03, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

It worked! Thanks a lot! YLSS (talk) 07:05, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Batch rename request

All the files in category:Grange Court, Leominster, which I uploaded yesterday, are misnamed. Please can someone with necessary tools rename them all from "Lodge Court *" to "Grange Court *"? Apologies for my error. Andy Mabbett (talk) 15:39, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Everyone has access to User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands, which is a perfectly good way to solve this. Another way to do it is to use visualfilechange.js, which you should certainly have sufficient rights to use. - Jmabel ! talk 19:14, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. CommonsDelinker/commands says it is for "categories to be renamed and for files to be replaced by other files across all Wikimedia projects". I have visualfilechange.js, and tried it before posting here, but don't see a batch rename option. Andy Mabbett (talk) 19:52, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Still, you can use VFC to place proper {{Rename}} templates onto the file pages. --McZusatz (talk) 20:10, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
You can use visualfilechange.js to substitute arbitrary text. So you select all items in [[Category:Badly named thing]] and replace [[Category:Badly named thing with [[Category:Well named thing. You do it that way (rather than replace [[Category:Badly named thing]]) so that cat sorting won't mess you up. - Jmabel ! talk 23:20, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
As for delinker, how is this not a "categor[y] to be renamed"? - Jmabel ! talk 23:20, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
This is about renaming files, not categories. Neither VFC nor CommonsDelinker can do that AFAIK. (Also, Cat-a-lot would be a simpler way to batch-recategorize.) darkweasel94 00:21, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done All the files have been renamed. Liamdavies (talk) 07:59, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpfulness. Andy Mabbett (talk) 16:53, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
No problem, glad I could help. Liamdavies (talk) 14:49, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

November 17

This gadget only applies to the small number of people that take part in discussions at Featured picture candidates, it cannot be used anywhere else on Commons. There is no community accepted definition of what images this might be applied to. It is redundant and bereft of life, with no value for the vast majority of commons users, see table of usage below. User Preferences should be focused on gadgets that are likely to be of use to the majority, not become a shop front to promote gadgets that do little more than lobby for a politically/socially conservative viewpoint.

There are 8 cases of images marked with {{Nsfw}} on COM:FPC.
Detailed list, red indicates use outside of COM:FPC
Page Image(s) marked
Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/November 2013
Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Fine-art-nudesunpine.jpg

File:Nude recumbent woman by Jean-Christophe Destailleur.jpg

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Jamides bochus 2 by kadavoor.jpg

File:Jamides bochus 2 by kadavoor.jpg

Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/December 2013
Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:12-03-17-aktstudien-nuernberg-by-RalfR-31.jpg

File:12-03-17-aktstudien-nuernberg-by-RalfR-31.jpg

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Artistic-nude-brunette.jpg

File:Artistic-nude-brunette.jpg

Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/January 2014
Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Stage Door Johnnies.jpg

File:Stage Door Johnnies.jpg

--Fæ (talk) 10:09, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

  • We have lots of gadgets that are of interest only to a relatively small number of people. A strong consensus at Commons talk:Featured picture candidates#Opt-in deferred display of tagged images approved the addition of this facility to the Feature Picture Candidate list. For those that wish to use the facility, we need an easy way for people to turn it on -- hence the gadget. We don't expect people to hack JavaScript to use the QI helper or other tools that are of interest to dozens of users. I think the gadget should be reworded to make it clear it is used for FPC, and moved to the "Interface: other" section. As for usage, the above list is plain stupid and Fæ knows it. The gadget and template have only just been created and the template only just survived a deletion review. For the last two years at FPC, and 4500 nominations, only two images would make use of this facility and it is only the second of these two (nominated by Fæ) that sparked the strong desire for it. My hope is that this tool will allow nominators the freedom to nominate any high-quality image on Commons without concern that they may give anyone difficulties should they view the FPC list in a public place. This proposal is a huge assumption of bad faith wrt the FPC forum, an assumption those at FPC are too stupid to use it wisely, and yet another example of Fæ refusing to accept consensus when against his wishes. Let's end the drama now and move on. -- Colin (talk) 10:26, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
    • It is hardly bad faith to believe that FPC contributors are smart enough to install a JavaScript user gadget without needing to litter up User Preferences with gadgets that have never been used and may never be used. If any were to struggle with this (highly unlikely to number more than one or two users per year), then our friendly bureaucrat User:Dschwen who created this script, and decided to add it to User Preferences, has already offered to do this for them. The other points you make are off-topic for this thread. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:32, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
      • Your closing remarks in the opening post are a huge assumption of bad faith and continue to show either (a) your misunderstanding of why such a tool is useful even to non-prudes or (b) your wish to categorise those who want it and want is easily available as prudes and some evil conservatives wishing to destroy Commons step by step. Either way you don't come out looking good. Please stop and accept the wishes of others. -- Colin (talk) 10:54, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
        • Remark struck, just to mollify you as a self-confessed non-prude. Now, can you stick to the topic please rather than making ad-hominim comments about what you believe might be in my head? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:04, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
          • Fæ, would you stop please. Again Colin is right here. Yann (talk) 11:36, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
            • Hi Yann, Colin made a mix of points, which one are you referring to? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:08, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
              • See the closing note. You are welcome to participate in any further discussion at Commons talk:Featured picture candidates as this matter only relevant to COM:FPC. Trying to discuss this matter here, COM:DR or any other venue is counter productive. We already using gadgets like QI Helper intended only for COM:QIC. JKadavoor Jee 12:20, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
                • Hi Jkadavoor, the DR quite specifically was closed with the statement "Any other issues relating to the use of the template, for example, whether it belongs in the gadgets list, again is not something that a DR will solve; discussion needs to take place at the relevant talk pages", hence this discussion. As for limiting this to FPC pages and hence FPC contributors, that would be inappropriate as User Preferences applies to all Commons users and is not directed by FPC contributors alone. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:28, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
                  • So what about the QI voting tool? Should QI voters be inconvenienced to have to ask Dschwen to help them install the JavaScript for that tool? What about when Dschwen isn't available? There are loads of obscure gadgets, some perhaps no longer even used. Perhaps one day it will be better organised but at present we have one list that anyone can choose from. Anyone can participate with the voting at FPC at any time -- and they do. Just as any contributor can nominate and vote at QI. So really, this gadget is for "all Commons users" to decide if they want to use it or not and decided whether they want to review/vote or not. I've already suggested this gadget should be better described and categorised. We can all see that this gadget offends you. Show a little tolerance will you? -- Colin (talk) 12:46, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
                  • I see a lot of ugly gadgets there; "PermissionOTRS", for example, no way related to me. Why not remove it from there and display only to relevant users? :) JKadavoor Jee 12:54, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
                    • I agree that we need a better policy for what goes in or out of FPC. How do we retire unused gadgets and who gets to choose new gadgets? Users who are not bureaucrats or admins should get to have their opinion counted. I agree there are a lot of ugly gadgets there which are a bit pointless for most users, in the case of OTRS gadgets it would be easy to make this only visible for those with the OTRS flag on their account, in the case of narrow tools like the QI thingy, there would be no hardship in this being in a collapsed list or sub-page, so that new users would have a better chance of seeing the top 10 or top 20 gadgets that they would find useful and practical. --Fæ (talk) 12:58, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Sigh. I created a Tools for subprojects subsection on the Gadgets preference page. We should discuss what else belongs there. I imagine that stuff like Glamorous and Europeana search don't mean too much to average user either. --Dschwen (talk) 15:23, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

As someone who has a roughly 50:50 chance of activating any new gadget, I strongly support a long list of optional gadgets rather than decentralized js configs. I don't like js, I often can't even remember which skin I use, I have no idea if the stuff I put in my configs will be maintained, and with js configs I can't hand over oversight and monitoring to third parties as I can by selecting from a tick-box. Categorize them all you like, but please don't remove tick box gadgets from the preferences. --99of9 (talk) 01:22, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Excuse my ignorance of protocol, but is striking through a comment, as in the OP, an indication the person no longer believes what they said or that they regret having said it because it shows their true motive? 131.137.245.206 14:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/109.150.210.242

Are these edits corrections or subtle vandalism? --Leyo 14:47, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Please move this to Administrators' noticeboard/User problems. The Village pump is not a good place to make allegations of vandalism against individual users. --Fæ (talk) 16:44, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
I chose VP on purpose. It's a question of content and I am looking for people who are knowledgeable on the topic (English train stations). --Leyo 20:28, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
✓ Done - that user appears to have been blocked for abusing multiple accounts.[7]   — Jeff G. ツ 04:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Opt-in gadget proposed to defer the immediate display of certain candidate images on COM:FPC

New section title: Opt-in gadget proposed to defer the immediate display of certain candidate images on COM:FPC. It may surprise the readers at the Village pump to read about this (currently) internal matter of COM:FPC here on the VP. A large number of contributors has supported the trial of an opt-in tool that would defer the display of certain candidate images that the users of the gadget agree upon should be only displayed after a click on a placeholder image. Some users have asked for a technical means to avoid being surprised by images that are deemed unacceptable by for example their employers, and which could get them into trouble if browsing COM:FPC at a work break on a company computer. Such images appear very seldom at FPC (which is precisely why they pose a surprise). The gadget has been written and after a broad consensus has been made available for testing. It is currently set to be only active on the COM:FPC page. This development changes absolutely nothing for users that decide not to use the gadget. While philosophical discussions about what images or concepts can be considered "problematic" in the world's various cultures are certainly appreciated, it should be kept in mind that they are likely to be unconstructive. Such a discussion is best left to the actual users of the gadget and is expected to develop on its own. --Dschwen (talk) 20:27, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Please, absolutely anyone feel free to change the title of this section so that the offensive word "suppression" that I intended to indicate the suppression of images from a user's view does not appear to mean something like censorship, but is whatever those complaining about the word might accept as a section title without making more allegations that I am deliberately manipulating discussion. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 18:39, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

It may surprise some members of the Commons community that based on a quick vote at Featured pictures candidates, a Commons wide gadget has been implemented under user preferences for the suppression of images that anyone tags using the template {{Nsfw}} (Not Safe For Work). There is no community agreed definition of NSFW on Commons.

I think this needs a community wide consensus before being rolled out, rather than just the support of those that hang out at COM:FPC. Obviously if FPC wish to have a tool for FPC, that would be a different issue compared to assuming this is okay now for everywhere on Commons. Thoughts? --Fæ (talk) 22:38, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I think the consensus at FPC is sufficient grounds for enabling its use there. No consensus has been developed for using it elsewhere, and I hope that people wouldn't use it elsewhere without gaining consensus for that. The template's documentation currently only addresses the technical aspects of its use. I think this needs to be expanded to note where it should be used (i.e. where we have consensus for its use, currently only at FPC).
We could also adopt technical measures to enforce the existing consensus (e.g. change the {{Nsfw}} template to make it only produce the NSFW tag on FPC nomination pages). Personally I would prefer to rely on community feedback to enforce that, unless it is frequently being misused. --Avenue (talk) 22:59, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
I never thought that standard User Preferences were to list gadgets that folks invent for odd selected sub-pages on Commons. There is nothing to stop FPC community members installing this in their own user .js pages, without listing it in User Preferences as if it were a NSFW gadget for everyone to check and then use anywhere they fancy against whatever their personal definition of NSFW happens to be. At the moment the page just states "Deferred display of images tagged with {{Nsfw}} (experimental)", which is plainly tempting fate as there is nothing there that warns users against using it anywhere but FPC.
It is not even clear to me that images will not be suppressed from user view if they are marked with {{Nsfw}} in places that are not FPC. I doubt the tool has been made in such a way as to limit its effects. --Fæ (talk) 23:10, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't think we consensus for providing MediaWiki:Gadget-DeferredDisplay.js as long as it is a) not enabled by default and b) will be used by a notable number of individuals. When there are intentions, however, to enable this by default at any page or for any user group, a very broad and multilingual RfC is required. -- Rillke(q?) 23:15, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree. As long as it is opt-in, there is no need to worry. In a previous job, I used to do some admin work during my breaks. If I would have had that option, I would have enabled it, because I don't like my colleagues to see me with a low quality picture of someones dick on my screen. Jcb (talk) 23:25, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
This gadget does not stop you seeing someone's dick on your screen. It is only for FPC discussions.
Rillke, the only !vote that has occurred is for a NSFW guideline at FPC. There has been no consensus to add this to User Preferences to be visible near the top of that page for every Commons user, nor are there any agreed guidelines or policy for what to do when people start using this elsewhere. As for a "notable number", no chance of that, this will hardly ever be used by anyone if it only applies to FPC discussions (NOT FP itself or anywhere else) and in the history of FPC only a handful of images contain any nudity that anyone would want to censor. Implementing it as a standard User Preference gadget looks rather pointy, compared to making the .js available if people want to try it out. --Fæ (talk) 23:31, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
I nominated the file for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Nsfw#Template:Nsfw_2; to all people involved, please do take a minute to take part in the discussion there (in addition to discussing the matter here). Thanks in advance for your time :-) odder (talk) 23:37, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

If the template doesn't affect the display of images on their individual description pages, or in categories, then it seems to me that it's barely worth bothering about... AnonMoos (talk) 23:34, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

To assess Rillke's proposal that retaining this on User Preferences will depend on being "used by a notable number of individuals", I am maintaining the following table of images and where they are used. Not quite the same measurement, but a practical indicator of value. Usage marked in red is outside of the intended discussions at COM:FPC. At the time of making this note, there were zero valid uses, indicating zero value. --Fæ (talk) 13:24, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

There are 8 cases of images marked with {{Nsfw}} on COM:FPC.
Detailed list, red indicates use outside of COM:FPC
Page Image(s) marked
Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/November 2013
Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Fine-art-nudesunpine.jpg

File:Nude recumbent woman by Jean-Christophe Destailleur.jpg

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Jamides bochus 2 by kadavoor.jpg

File:Jamides bochus 2 by kadavoor.jpg

Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/December 2013
Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:12-03-17-aktstudien-nuernberg-by-RalfR-31.jpg

File:12-03-17-aktstudien-nuernberg-by-RalfR-31.jpg

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Artistic-nude-brunette.jpg

File:Artistic-nude-brunette.jpg

Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/January 2014
Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Stage Door Johnnies.jpg

File:Stage Door Johnnies.jpg

Wrt "zero valid uses", some history is necessary: of the last 4500 images nominated at FPC over the last 2 years, none of them would qualify for NSFW until Fæ's nomination last week. Quite how he expects a flood of "valid" uses to suddenly appears is beyond me. This is filibustering by Fæ and a refusal to accept consensus. He talks about lowering the barrier to entry at FPC yet expects people wanting to make use of this facility to have to hand-edit some javascript. It's a Gadget because that makes it easy to use. This template is for FPC. Usage elsewhere would require further discussion. It is not a "image suppression tool" and using such language is verging on disingenuous. -- Colin (talk) 13:48, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Of course the section title is more than verging on disingenuous it is plain manipulative. I have modified the gadget to be only running on COM:FPC (and the template demopage). --Dschwen (talk) 14:24, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

What? Dschwen, the tool you created and have now issued as part of User Preferences for all Commons users, described in plain English does precisely this, it suppresses images. I have no intention of "manipulation" please do not make these sorts of assumption about what might be in my head. If you feel this could be expressed in more detail (such as by adding "opt-in") or worded with even plainer English, please do re-word the section title; I'm not in love with it, it looks too long to me anyway. --Fæ (talk) 15:07, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Which part of "deferred display" are you struggling with Fæ? The only suppression going on here is an embarrasing attempt to suppress the wishes and consensus of those who review images at FPC, something that Fæ doesn't actually do. Colin (talk) 15:49, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
I think it is totally acceptable to create the template and the gadget for use at FPC. I find it totally unacceptable to add gadgets for such niche use in the normal user preferences. It is already all too time consuming to check the options available there. If intended for wider use, the mechanism has a lot of problems, many of which I believe are unsolvable. --LPfi (talk) 13:13, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Great idea. I take it I need an account to take advantage of this gadget? 131.137.245.208 17:50, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, all gadgets require use of user preferences, only available to registered user accounts. I think it's possible to acheive a similar function by scripting up a browser add-on but that's beyond my expertise. --Pitke (talk) 06:56, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I have an account now but don't use it at work. Curious, how many accounts have activated the gadget? 131.137.245.206 14:56, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Me, at least. :) JKadavoor Jee 16:17, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, that is the lie to fae's little table now isn't it? He puts forth the gadget is useless because the template is not in use, while ignoring the fact dozens if not hundreds of people may have selected it as a precaution. 131.137.245.206 19:16, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Not really; his table only shows how many candidates in COM:FPC is used that tag so far. In fact, we have not much high quality NSFW pictuers in Commons; most of them are just craps. I hope this new template will encourage people to contribute more high quality NSFW pictures and videos to Commons. :) JKadavoor Jee 03:22, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
A rare disagreement with you there Jee. Indeed fae is attacking the gadget and looking for its removal by highlighting the lack of template use. I do agree the gadget/template may just allow more people to add NSFW type images at COM:FPC. Saffron Blaze (talk) 03:36, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

November 10

Uploads from Facebook needing attention

Category:Images using filenames with Facebook photo identities

Faebot is in the process of detecting filenames with long Facebook photo identity numbers and is populating the new maintenance category above. Filemovers and those interested in checking the copyright of these images, are invited to help review, rename or mark for deletion as appropriate.

If you think the filename is okay as it is, then removing the category will ensure it does not get added by Faebot again as he checks the history first.

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:17, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

See #Facebook_note_1 for a recommendation for finding original source files. --Fæ (talk) 16:37, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

They should be deleted right away or tagged for no permission. Facebook claims copyright for all content posted there and we'll require permission from the original uploader to use these files. --Denniss (talk) 12:28, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
I suggest a case by case approach rather than a deletion spree, Tineye and Google Image searches are particularly helpful. Some have other elements that help confirm the source and for example, just yesterday I confirmed that File:Kevin Bott.jpg (in use at Kevin Bott) was a valid image through OTRS and moved the file from its Facebook number to a better name. It is particularly easy for new contributors to upload their Facebook albums without thinking about how this looks or how to better confirm the source or their identity as the photographer. --Fæ (talk) 12:38, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Is completely irrelevant, as anything uploaded to Facebook becomes copyrighted by Facebook, iirc. Either way most are out of scope or copyright violations for other reasons anyway. If someone did want to upload photos, it would be a lot easier for them to upload their own photos from their PC, rather than transferring from Facebook. That, to me, means people who upload Facebook photos are uploading others' photos, which means they are at best NPD and more than likely copyvios. Add that to the premise that anyone who uploaded photos like this is 95% chance that they have never been back, I see no point in going through a lot of fuss. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:46, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
I have halted Faebot's work on this. The above example shows that just because someone uploaded their own photo to Facebook, before uploading to Commons and then forgot to change the filename to something more meaningful (this was precisely the OTRS ticket that applied), should not make it a thoughtlessly automatic candidate for deletion. I created this category for appropriate human copyright checks and for us to delete those that were obviously inappropriate (which may well be 90%+), but this is not an excuse to mass delete images from WLM (which you just did Mattbuck) or other good faith uploads which are not copyright violations were anyone to check the facts or help the uploader to rename their images. Faebot is *not* an automatic generic deletion bot and I have no intention of him being used that way for anything other than blatant vandalism or spamming, thoughtless mass deletion only discourages new contributors who are attempting to follow policies in good faith. --Fæ (talk) 12:52, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Mattbuck, it's not that simple: see m:Legal and Community Advocacy/CC-BY-SA on Facebook. --Nemo 13:09, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
What about teaching UpWiz to detect those file names and give the user some feedback? --McZusatz (talk) 13:13, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
No, a warning is the worst we could do. The majority of these files are copyvios grabbed from someone else's facebook account, out of scope or both. A warning and follow-on rename makes them very hard to detect. So you'll easily detect them upon monitoring uploaded files. And Fae, please continue your run as the files have to be examined and treated properly to avoid legal issues for WMF and possible re-users. --Denniss (talk) 13:21, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Mass deletion would be inconsistent, Denniss I am unsure if you are advocating this or a change to using notices rather than an immediate shoot-on-sight policy. The Admin community did not insist on deleting all mobile upload images, even though the same argument that 95%+ of them were copyright violations could have been used. I disagree with the idea that they should all be deleted on "sus" without an attempt to check their cross-project usage, whether they are obvious copyright violations (some were and should have been correctly tagged with {{Copyvio}} rather than deleting out of process) and whether others just need the users to be notified so that they can choose a new name and confirm the source. We should be encouraging users to upload valid in-scope photographs from their personal Facebook collections, not just driving them back to sharing photographs only on Facebook. This is a very poor behavioural policy for Commons, we want a mellow welcoming environment not one that slams a door in your face because we think you are a dirty Facebook user. Until there is a positive guideline here that "humans" make choices about these images, not arbitrary rules based on the temporary happen-stance of filenames, Faebot is not going to finish this task, nor run anything similar; I am not going to enable a knee-jerk deletion spree like Mattbuck's action in emptying this new category regardless of what the image, description, uploader, usage or sources actually were. --Fæ (talk) 13:36, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Er ... where does the idea come from that everything on Facebook is copyrighted by Facebook? The Statement of Rights and Responsibilities states only that: For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos (IP content), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it. Obviously a copyright holder can do that and at the same time grant some other license (possibly Commons-compatible) to the public at large. Facebook then only has some additional rights. darkweasel94 16:14, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
That is a non-exclusive contract for Facebook's reuse, not a contract that transferred all copyrights to Facebook. Mattbuck, in the light of this clarification are you happy to now undelete the 80 or more files that you mass deleted today, so that they can be reviewed by non-admins and uploaders can be correctly notified of problems where they exist? I would like to avoid wasting my time and other people's by being forced to list them at Undeletion requests. If this happens then I will let Faebot finish this job. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 16:51, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Precisely as darkweasel said. Occasionally I post a image both to Commons and FB (though more often, on FB I just link to Commons). The fact that I've posted to FB does give them the rights to reproduce my work, but it doesn't remove any of my own copyrights or interfere with the license I've granted here. If someone posts first to FB & then transfers the image here, legally that is no different. - Jmabel ! talk 18:07, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Oh well, I have now raised the 83 deleted files at Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#Files_in_Category:Images_using_filenames_with_Facebook_photo_identities. --Fæ (talk) 18:34, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
My apologies, I swear I read somewhere here that uploading to FB made FB the copyright holder. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:21, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Could you then put this right by undeleting the list at UNDEL and closing that request? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 02:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
✓ Done The files were undeleted, refer to Commons:UNDEL#Files_in_Category:Images_using_filenames_with_Facebook_photo_identities. --Fæ (talk) 09:05, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Darkweasel94 on the Facebook terms (You own all of the content and information you post on Facebook...); but the problem here is how we can ensure the uploader here (the Commons user) is same as the Facebook user. If both are same, there is no need to upload from a Facebook download. A few people in Facebook use "high quality" option in Facebook upload, and any filename here contains a "Facebook photo identity" can be a copyvio unless otherwise proved. Facebook prohibits users from posting content that violates another party's intellectual property rights. But unfortunately, it contains more copyvios than any other similar sites. Recently I saw File:Lime Butterfly Papilio demoleus.jpg there claiming copyright by another Facebook user and reported to Muhammad Mahdi Karim and the Facebook group hosted it. JKadavoor Jee 03:11, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, we can note that many criminals have bicycles, this does not make all cyclists criminal. We do not mass delete all uploaded from mobile platform users where we can prove the copyright violation rate is over 90%, there is no different policy to be followed for uploads which appear to be from Facebook and there are plenty of counter-examples of perfectly good and valued content which is also posted by the photographers on Facebook. As for the assertion that Facebook publicly hosts more copyright violations than other sites such as Flickr, newsgroups, 4Chan etc. I would like to see the proof for that, can you supply a link? --Fæ (talk) 06:28, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
I’m not against encouraging more people to contribute; allowing mobile uploads and uploads from point-and-shoot cameras may good. Although most uploads from mobile phones are self portraits and similar out of scope contents; there is not much chance for copyright violations.
But all I see in BF is (unlike in Flickr which is used only by photographers) sharing of pictures taken by others. In case of “self portraits”; most of them are taken by their friends or family members, and they think the copyright is OK.
I'’ve no problem if we insist those new Commons users to link their Wikimedia account in FB profile page to verify; but it can be considered as outing as their FB account contains many identifiable personal info and pictures.
See; we occasionally black list a lot of Flickr accounts. If we allow FB, we need to do a lot more work. I don't know the situation in other countries; but in India, people are either less aware of or bold enough to violate copyrights. JKadavoor Jee 07:04, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
http://petapixel.com/2012/10/08/facebook-shuttering-massive-pages-for-violating-photo-copyrights/ Now I understand why that group to whom I reported the complaint immediately changed the group from "public" to a "private" group. They are also in the risk of shutting down if more complaint arises. JKadavoor Jee 07:23, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
It is also possible for a Facebook image to have come with a license notice releasing it under a free license. There is no inherent reason to trust that less than a license notice anywhere else. darkweasel94 07:15, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
I didn't see anywhere in FB a proper mechanism to apply license notice. Could you explain a bit more? JKadavoor Jee 07:23, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
A license notice does not need to be its own database field. If I add to the description "image hereby released under http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/", then that's just as sufficient as anything else. darkweasel94 07:36, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Understood; but all FB page says "© Facebook" and FB already has clear terms about it's hosted contents. Earlier some pages including "Coca Cola" tried CC licens there and later abandoned; probably due to the conflict in terms, I afraid. I think the "sub-licensable" term is most conflicting. The term "When you publish content or information using the Public setting, it means that you are allowing everyone, including people off of Facebook, to access and use that information, and to associate it with you (i.e., your name and profile picture)." is interesting though. JKadavoor Jee 08:08, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
The terms Facebook asks aren't relevant if the image is also offered under a CC license (which you can do just in the text description if necessary, as mentioned above). They are two completely separate sets of terms.
Facebook does not get exclusive rights over content you submit there; though they ask for a lot of rights, they don't ask for exclusive rights—when you upload your images to Facebook you can still offer them to other people under other terms, including a CC license. (Also, the CC licenses are not revocable—once you've decided to license a work under a CC license you can't take it back. You can always stop distributing under a CC license if you want, but someone who got content under those terms can keep using it under those terms. That said, if someone applies a CC license without meaning to or intending to, that is more tricky, but if someone went so far as to write it out in the text description, that is probably not what is happening.)Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 08:45, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Kat for the detailed explanation. JKadavoor Jee 08:53, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Using the Facebook identity, a list of files with their predicted Facebook original source link is given at Log_of_files_added_with_predicted_Facebook_links_to_original. This link appears to work correctly if the photograph is still available on Facebook. Please check the link on that list if you are reviewing any of these file for potential copyright or source problems and before taking any action. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 16:37, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Is Fæ accidentally outing uploaders?

This may be a slightly convoluted concern, but in creating a list of several hundred suspected Facebook-sourced images at Category talk:Images using filenames with Facebook photo identities and by a relatively simple bit of analysis on the filename to link to a potentially public source at Facebook, it might be claimed that some users with an expectation of pseudonymity may have their Commons accounts associated with Facebook accounts. If there are any suggestions on how to handle this differently, I would be open to considering changing the way this works or confirming a consensus if folks think this sort of analysis is a reasonable step to take.

In some instances in may be that the Facebook user did not give permission and is not the uploader, so by tracking back to a Facebook original image we are ensuring that the original photographer's copyright is respected. --Fæ (talk) 17:32, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

It is somewhat I said above: "I've no problem if we insist those new Commons users to link their Wikimedia account in FB profile page to verify; but it can be considered as outing as their FB account contains many identifiable personal info and pictures." But I don't think any original FB user need to download low quality file from FB to uploaod here, with those ID info. JKadavoor Jee 17:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

User-grouping categories in main category tree

There are quite a few categories that group users, under Category:Commons users. Some of these, like Category:Users by technology and its subcategories, or Category:Users interested in law, have been categorised under their main topics, such as Category:Technology and Category:Law (although I haven't noticed it yet in the users by location or language categories). Commons users seem to me to be off-topic within the topical categories. In en:Wikipedia, all maintanence and user categories are marked with a template that says they shouldn't be added to topical categories [8]. Is there any good reason for using a different policy in Commons? ghouston (talk) 01:45, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

No, there not any good reason for using a different policy in Commons. The Category:Commons users tree is for the community of Commons users who are editors, whereas Category:Topics is the content topic tree for the much larger group of Commons readers. These categories should not be conflated.   — Jeff G. ツ 04:21, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, the relevant policy here is COM:USER. darkweasel94 07:11, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
No, that's for users' own categories, not categories about users. However, I think the categories about users are Commons-maintanence categories and should be tagged with Template:Global maintenance category, which could use a wikipedia-style notice about not adding them to content categories. ghouston (talk) 08:24, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Ok, yes you are right. However, when we are talking about photos that show Commons users, that may be different - Category:Commons users using computers could be a reasonable subcategory of Category:People using computers, for example, if the former was full of such photos. darkweasel94 18:45, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Possibily, although in that case at least the Category:Commons users using computers would be full of photos, and not user pages. COM:USER implies (but doesn't say it exactly) that none of a users' own pages/categories should be added to the main category tree (i.e., under Category:Topics). However if the user-grouping categories are added to the main category tree, then they become part of the category tree, and users' pages should no longer be added to them. E.g., Category:Windows users could contain Category:Bill Gates, but not random Commons users. ghouston (talk) 21:27, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

requirement failed: unexpected response: HTTP/1.1 503 Service Unavailable

Hello.

When I want upload my images with Commonist, there is an error message :

could not upload (requirement failed: unexpected response: HTTP/1.1 503 Service Unavailable)

Why ???

--ComputerHotline (talk) 16:14, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Server issues; might be related to this. Does it work again now? --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 15:22, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
No. See #HTTP Error 503: Service Unavailable, this now has a history at least 8 days old. Faebot tells me that he sees something around 0.5% to 1% of get/put transactions failing. The most recent failure being today (2013-11-19) @16:33:15 when updating a category on the image page File:Florence Terrace - geograph.org.uk - 847401.jpg; succeeded on a second attempt. --Fæ (talk) 16:38, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Bulk upload of assets from a game?

http://www.glitchthegame.com/public-domain-game-art/ This whole project was released as CC0 when the game was abandoned. All the SWF/FLA assets would have to be decomposed into formats the commons accepts, but the sprite sheets and flat images in the first listed zip file make up thousands of images. I'd love to see all of those on the commons in some way. How should I go about this, both for the existing flat images and once I've extracted the images (and possibly other media) from the flash files? Sparr (talk) 20:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

If you want to know how to do batch uploads, there are tools such as Commons:Commonist, Commons:Up! and Commons:VicuñaUploader to do that. darkweasel94 20:33, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Call for comments on draft trademark policy

Hi all,

The Wikimedia legal team invites you to participate in the development of the new Wikimedia trademark policy.

The current trademark policy was introduced in 2009 to protect the Wikimedia marks. We are now updating this policy to better balance permissive use of the marks with the legal requirements for preserving them for the community. The new draft trademark policy is ready for your review here, and we encourage you to discuss it here.

We would appreciate if someone would translate this message into your language so more members of your community can contribute to the conversation.

Thanks,
Yana & Geoff

Please sign and date your posts? -- Tuválkin ✉ 12:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

November 19

Unit conversion template

Based on the limited discussion at Template talk:Convert, it may not be surprising that basic features of {{Convert}} do not work. For example:

  • {{convert|3|mi|km|adj=on}}

results in

  • 3-mile (4.8 km)

Clearly "adj=on" is not supported, since the following:

  • {{convert|3|mi|km}}

results in

  • 3 miles (4.8 km)

I'm no template guru or I'd fix it myself. Anyone interested in working on this? 72.244.206.246 23:47, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

  • The relevant templates seem to be convert, convert/mi, convert/LoffAoffDbSon, convert/numdisp, convert/km, convert/LoffAonSon, convert/round (lots of nested templates: nasty). ghouston (talk) 05:10, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
We do not use those templates much but wikipedias do, so we should just copy them. --Jarekt (talk) 12:46, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, the Convert template itself plus the contents of w:en:Category:Subtemplates of Template Convert. But wait, there are 2,873 file in that category! Is that thing really needed in Commons? ghouston (talk) 21:16, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
However, other language wikis also have translated versions, and Commons is a multi-lingual project. I'd say, do the conversions manually. ghouston (talk) 21:21, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

November 12

Looking for technical mentors and tasks for Google Code-in

Hi, I'm one of the Wikimedia org admins at mw:Google Code-in. We are looking for technical tasks that can be completed by students e.g. rewrite a wikitext template in Lua, update a gadget, document the functionality of a bot... We also need mentors for these tasks. You can start simple with one mentor proposing one task, or you can use this program to organize a taskforce of mentors with the objective of getting dozens of small technical tasks completed. You can check the current Wikimedia tasks here. The program started today, but there is still time to jump in. Give Google Code-in students a chance!--Qgil (talk) 01:22, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

It just happen that yesterday I created Category:Templates which should be rewritten in Lua. It has only 2 templates now but I am sure much more can be added. --Jarekt (talk) 04:11, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

November 20

File:Gunnar Heydenreich.jpg

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.

Affected file:

Respectfully,
Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 01:06, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

This takedown appears to be justified. To me this looks as if the uploader has taken this photograph by Bernd Schaller, cropped it and blown up to a slightly higher resolution which resulted in a comparatively blurred image. It is the very only upload of this contributor. There was a small edit war around the insertion of this photograph in the corresponding article at de-wp where it was removed by an admin with the rationale foto entfernt, fragwürde quelle und mindere qualität (translation: photo removed, questionable source and inferior quality). Too bad that we were not notified right away, this could have been speedily deleted and this would have saved us the DMCA action. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:55, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Images from LG

Hello,

Could someone speaking Korean try to upload useful images from LG Flickr stream? I uploaded a few, but my main problem is that I don't speak Korean. I think there are potentially many interesting images here: sports, electronics, people, etc. Thanks, Yann (talk) 11:06, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Help with biology pictures

Hi, I´m uploading some micrographs of biological tissues because I got a chance to take photos of several tissues and I've seen there is few of them. I know wich tissues are, but I thanks help recongnizing cells or other components in the picture. Does someone can help me or tell me who can? Thanks. --Ganímedes (talk) 12:14, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Problem with picture or temlate

Hi,

we are having difficulties with a picture/template and cant find, what is the problem. If you have a look on this page, you would find there a big image of lama, which should be small as it comes frome here Template:User VicunaUploader. But it isnt. Could you help?--Juandev (talk) 22:18, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

08:35, 20 March 2013, you subst:ed this version of the template. Later, Yarl uploaded a new, bigger version of the Vicuna-logo and Varnent adjusted the thumbnail size in the template but your user page didn't get this update because you substituted the template code onto your user page instead of just transcluding it. If this wasn't comprehensive enough, please let us know, we are glad if we can help. -- Rillke(q?) 00:28, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

November 23

The DR Backlog -- Part II

See Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#The DR Backlog -- Part II -FASTILY 05:52, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Airplanes project in action, today's crash of a Boeing 737

Commons:Batch uploading/Airliners

The aim of batch upload project for Aircraft is to ensure Commons becomes a free global standard for well categorized aircraft images. Our goal is to upload 100,000 photographs and we are well on our way.

The crash earlier today of a Tatarstan Boeing 737-500, killing all 50 passengers, shows the importance of these specific photographs on Commons which have been categorized all the way down to the individual aircraft registration number. At the time of writing, Commons has 5 photographs of the plane, 2 being uploaded as part of the batch upload project and 2 others uploaded by Russavia before we started this cooperative project.

Please visit the project page if you want to find out more, or would be interested in helping to make this project a success. --Fæ (talk) 21:15, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Isn't it a bit tasteless to advertise a (perfectly legitimate) project with a very recent airplane crash? --Conti|✉ 21:23, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Part of this project is to provide accurately identified photographs precisely for events such as this. Commons photographs are often used by journalists around the world because they are easy to find and have a very clear free licence. Pointing out how important this is when it happens is not quite the same thing as "advertizing", certainly that is not my intention. If you think the above needs to be rephrased then I'll happily do so. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 21:51, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Ignore the trolls Fae. russavia (talk) 16:06, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

November 18

Subcategories of Category:Books of Hours

Hello,

There are several wording for subcategories of Category:Books of Hours. Which is the right one?

  • Book of hours by ...
  • Heures de ...
  • Hours of ...
  • Livre d'heures de ...

Yann (talk) 21:24, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

(Apologies to Yann for slight edit of his post.) That would depend on each book’s language and/or title. The form "Book of hours" is always “right” because it is either originally in English or translated into English (working language of Commons — Hey, WMF, when will we have automated i18n of category names, by the way?), but "Livre d’heures de" is only good for those originally titled in French, or those usually refered to in French (even if titled in Latin or Occitan) as part of the History of France or Belgium. -- Tuválkin ✉ 13:09, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

November 24

Photo competition

Moved from Commons talk:Featured picture candidates -- Colin (talk) 09:13, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I’d like to propose that we consider a new forum for images in addition to QI, VI, and FP. These existing forums are great but are for images people are taking or finding anyway. There’s no specific focus to them so they don’t actively encourage our photographers to take pictures they might not otherwise consider. To be creative, it helps to have a push to move outside the comfort zone and try new things. The Wiki Loves Monuments competition is an example where people take pictures round a theme. It is on a huge scale, of course. It meets a need for providing images of great buildings for educational purposes, though the vast majority are not even close to FP standards. (BTW, of the 12,000 images taken for WLM UK 2013, there are over 2,000 image usages across Wikipedia, which is great).

So I’m thinking we could start a smaller-scale frequent and periodic competition round a changing theme or a handful of themes. The theme or themes each month (say) could be chosen to fill some gap in our collection, or to challenge us creatively, or as an excuse to buy a macro lens for Christmas... whatever motivates us. There are some potential issues with the international nature of Commons – a “Frost and Snow” theme isn’t going to work for everyone this December for example. And not every theme may appeal. So perhaps we have two or three themes running concurrently. Then at the end of the month we collect the entries together and find some way of choosing a winner, or winners. Entry criteria could be similar to WLM: the image isn’t already on Commons and is your own work.

What are your thoughts? Could we brainstorm some ideas? -- Colin (talk) 14:23, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps there could be subject-specific groups for Commons, for people with special interest or expertise. That wasn't really my intention. The opposite really. Something like the Challenges on Digital Photography Review. It isn't something I've tried myself. Just hoping for something fun and different to the usual FP same-old-same-old that we all get comfortable submitting. Standards probably more variable -- you can win if you are the best in the competition rather than being judged against the whole of Commons or the Internet. -- Colin (talk) 16:05, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes; it can be work out that way too; single community, different themes for each month/bi-week/week. I think EN POTD sometimes configured that way; pinging Crisco 1492 for some inputs. JKadavoor Jee 16:15, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Sometimes, yes, though that's normally not meant to showcase photos of a similar type. Indeed, the EN POTD's readers really enjoy complaining if the pictures are too similar. A competition sounds like an interesting idea... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
If you were to timetable an international LGBT related photo competition around springtime, the LGBT group should be able to apply for a fairly attractive prize as sponsorship. --Fæ (talk) 16:23, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Why not? It will be very encouraging. JKadavoor Jee 16:42, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment -- That is an excellent idea. The possibility of having thematic contests was raised (a long time ago by the time the first POTY took place. I agree with Colin that more than one thematic contest could be running at the same time. I will fight for a "minimalism" theme! ;) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  •  Comment Sounds like a good idea. Though I don't think accomodating every location every time is necessary, as long as it doesn't consistently favor some place over another. For example, I think something snow-related is a perfectly reasonable theme, whereas some wildlife-related theme would tend to favor tropical areas with high biodiversity. And not just subjects: as suggested by Alvesgaspar, we can also be going for particular styles, like minimalism, B/W, etc. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:20, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support Suggest you start simple then expand. WLM has grown exponentially and there is no reason a more populist theme like Wiki Loves Landscapes or Wiki Loves Nature won't also catch on. I sure would like to see an emphasis on quality/beauty/wow rather than what was prevalent in WLM. Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:15, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, imo no need for one more "vanity fair" on Commons besides those we already have (FPC, QIC, VIC, POTY, WLM). Every additional project needs development and maintenance which requires human resources that Commons doesn't have, as we really don't have enough active volunteers. Here I don't see the need to tie up valuable resources for something that barely will increase the public perception of Commons nor attract new users (same problem btw with WLM, every year I see many contributions by newbies but just fery few of that newbies remain active...) instead of just let some very few users to continue decorating their user pages with more and more different stars, seals etc. For that reasons, sorry to spoil the party, but: no. --A.Savin 22:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support let's not look at it as a vanity fair but as a fun project for commons photographers (at least to start). If the photo contest is sufficiently different from the existing projects I think there won't be cannibalization of resources. I like the idea to pose this as a challenge. If the topics were sufficiently abstract it would allow people to get creative interpreting them and might leave enough room for everybody to participate (i.e. desserts won't be suitable, deserted places maybe more so). --Dschwen (talk) 00:30, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Agree wrt challenge: this isn't about digging out some old image from your Lightroom catalogue. Some themes could be really abstract/conceptual to encourage free thinking and a huge range of responses, but others could be more concrete (e.g., candles) as it can sometimes be helpful to have one's choices restricted in some way. Lots of variety possible. Colin (talk) 08:58, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
      • I think I agree to that. I like the term "challenge" way more than "competition". In fact, I would very much prefer this to be a light-hearted quick and fun thing, focused primarily on the people having a good time. No prolonged discussions about what theme should be next, always wondering which gaps in our repository are in the most urgent need for more material. Maybe not even a jury or voting process. Why not keep it simple: Last week's/month's winner chooses a theme, anyone may upload and enter his/her favourite shot and at the and of the week/month the previous winner simply subjectively chooses the picture s/he thinks captures the theme best (that's basically how they do it at the "Weekly Photo Challenges" at pentaxforums.com, I'm sure there are other good approaches out there too of course). The less time we spend with formalities and maintenance, the more time we have to get up and take pictures. --El Grafo (talk) 13:49, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
        • "Previous winner" is problematic - that could lead to a small group of friends constantly giving the "ball" to each other, which will be discouraging for others. darkweasel94 18:40, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
          • I know it is hard for some people on Commons, but could we "Assume Good Faith". If people start imagining all sorts of ways someone can spoil the fun, before we've even started, then we might as well go home. It was just a suggestion to keep things lightweight. Other positive suggestions welcome. See en:Brainstorming -- try to avoid criticising ideas at this stage. -- Colin (talk) 09:05, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support This is a great idea. Even the discussion of what kinds of images we want more of could be productive, and the possibilities are endless. Jonathunder (talk) 02:55, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support per Jonathunder; we can expand the idea, later. JKadavoor Jee 03:25, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

We do love to !vote :-) Feel free to comment and discuss and suggest. Bullet-points not required! -- Colin (talk) 09:13, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

  •  Support In principle it's a good idea. However, I think if the themes are too abstract, it is likely that this will produce images that are more artistic than educational. So I would prefer more concrete themes. Also I think we should not do this (or have fewer themes) in months where we have a competition like WLM, WLPA, etc. anyway, because that competition is basically exactly this on a larger scale and with prizes. As for the counterargument that it "binds resources" - it binds the resources of exactly those who want to participate in it. darkweasel94 18:40, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Actually, I wouldn't mind having a place where people can slack off and get away from our fixation on educationally useful content. Of course everything needs to be within the project's scope, but why not appreciate an idea or motif instead of the actual content once in a while? For instance, if you enter a great photograph of a beautiful sunset at FPC, you are likely to get reactions like "yep, that's beautiful, but so are most sunsets, so what's so special about this one?". I don't say "art" should be the main focus of the challenges, but I wouldn't exclude it per se. Maybe one could decfine several types of challenges like "subject" (best shot of a screwdriver, Eiffel Tower, St. Bob church, …), "theme" (rusty things, dusty mornings, the color purple, …) or "technique" (best macro shot this week, best HDR this month, best studio lightning of an apple …). To be honest, when I get out shooting, I'm usually fixated on the content and it's "usefulness" so much, that I miss many great shots because they would have been "just beautiful but nothing new content-wise". These challenges could help to broaden our minds and discover things we otherwise just wouldn't notice … --El Grafo (talk) 09:48, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
      • I agree that the traditional forums for quality review tend to be quite conservative in their approach to "educationally useful". An encyclopaedia wants lead images that clearly display the subject and its key features so we naturally value such images highly. But other educational material may want images that are less obvious and stiff and more conceptual or artistic. We're probably quite good at illustrating attractive objects, but less good with concepts and ideas. If one wrote an article on freedom or parenthood or getting up early in the morning, Commons wouldn't be so great. And FP isn't the best place to try out one's experiments since the standard (best in Commons) is so high. Concurrent themes may be the way to keep everyone happy and ensure each month has a challenge for somebody. -- Colin (talk) 10:38, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
        • Aye, there's nothing wrong with having several challenges running at the same time – might be a good idea to limit the number somehow, though. For example, if we were to establish some challenge types of categories (as proposed above), we could say "only one challenge per type at the same time" or something like that. Concerning the "other educational material" you mention: Wikivoyage seems like a good example for this. They need things Wikipedia usually doesn't (like pictures of your favourite pub) and focus more on the general experience people have visiting a place compared to the more "dry" documentary style Wikipedia prefers. --El Grafo (talk) 12:20, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support I like the idea of a thematic challenge, which would include alternatively, an idea, a technique (HDR, black & white, etc.), or a subject. Yann (talk) 11:29, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support that does sound great! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:59, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
  •  Support An excellent idea. I particularly like the opportunity to enthuse some of the keen photographers here by giving them a specific challenge based on what the Wikimedia communities actually want or need. That may include images that relate to more abstract concepts, where we are currently weak, and also more artistic images that may be especially useful for those who are interested in sites other than the main Wikipedia sites. Each individual community should be encouraged to discuss ideas that could be used for the individual challenges, with some central Commons mechanism for deciding which get picked up. Starting small and growing naturally would be the way to go, but there should at the start be a good level of inter-Wiki publicity to ensure a wide range of ideas from outside Commons itself. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:36, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
  •  Question Should this be a photo-only competition or should we also allow videos, audio files and drawings? I think Commons already has more photos than other media, so perhaps production of non-photographic media should be especially encouraged at least from time to time. darkweasel94 20:18, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
    • We are limited only by our collective imagination. I think mixing file types could make great challenges. For example, one contest could be to photograph an animal and upload a short audio file of the sound it makes. We could even have a special award that month for anyone who answers the question, "what does the fox say?" ;-) Jonathunder (talk) 02:33, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I think there is enough support here to give it a go. I've created Commons:Photo challenge as a start. Please come over to Commons talk:Photo challenge to discuss how we can set this up. It would be great to have a challenge running for December. Colin (talk) 13:18, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Template:especifiqueu un motiu

Is this template needed (with this name)? --Leyo 00:40, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

 Delete: Unused template. Likely accidental creation. --McZusatz (talk) 20:29, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, then. odder (talk) 12:53, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Does the NCAA own my game pictures?

I'd like to upload college sports pictures to Wikimedia Commons but this university website dubiously claims that "Secondary use of any pictures, audio description, film, tape or drawing of the game are the exclusive rights of the [National Collegiate Athletic Association]." How can this be true if I didn't consent to this? Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 05:28, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

It may be a condition of your entry into the stadium for games. You may find these on the back of your ticket, or the ticket may refer you to a website where the terms appear. I think it would be unusual if the terms state that by purchasing a ticket and entering the stadium you have transferred the copyright in any photographs taken to the NCAA, and in any case there may not be a valid transfer of copyright if you have not agreed to it in writing (but I'm not sure what US law is on this issue). If the terms don't (or can't) have the effect of transferring copyright, then you remain the copyright owner and are free to deal with the copyrights as you please. The condition imposed by the NCAA is a mere non-copyright restriction which can be disregarded for the purpose of uploading the photographs to the Commons. However, you will have to decide whether it is advisable for you to do so, as you may still be breaching the terms of your entry into the stadium, and technically the NCAA can sue you for breach of contract, or decide to bar you from future entry. — SMUconlaw (talk) 07:13, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
I just checked my ticket (didn't think of that) and it does say that "the holder agrees not to transmit, distribute, or sell (or aid in transmitting, distributing, or selling), any description, account, picture, video, audio or other form of reproduction of the event or any surrounding activities (in whole or in part) for which this ticket is issued." I'm thinking that as long as this is only going to affect me and not the Commons, I can just create an alternate account for those uploads (this account is very much not anonymous). Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 07:42, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
"La, la, la ..." * Fingers in ears, didn't hear anything. * — SMUconlaw (talk) 11:01, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Judging by the wording, just by saying you went to a game you breached the terms of that agreement. What utter bullshit. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:14, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
+1. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 22:44, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

new to this system. would like to research a specific topic.

I am new to this system, and wanting to research a specific topic, namely starting with the image below--a sculpture in Columbia. It was contributed by a certain photographer who is listed on the page. It looks like it can be freely disseminated, and shared. I would like to add information to Wikipedia after some research.

Any advice from the help desk would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Jjaacc61 (talk • contribs)

Hi Jjaacc61, and welcome to Wikimedia Commons. You are correct, the image in question can be freely shared, as can any other file on Commons (there are a small number of exceptions, mainly Wikimedia logos). That particular image is licensed under the GNU Free Document Licence (GFDL) and the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported, 2.5 Generic, 2.0 Generic and 1.0 Generic licences (CC-BY-SA). You may choose any of those licences when distributing the image. CC-BY-SA is simplest - what it means is that you must attribute the author, you must share any derivative works under the same licence, and you must include a link to the licence (in practice, this is done most easily by linking back to the filepage here on Commons).
You can easily add the image to Wikipedia, just add [[File:Cartagena de Indias monumento a La María Mulata.jpg|thumb|Your caption here.]] to the wikipage and it will be inserted. Any Commons image can be used on Wikipedia by that method.
If you're looking for more images like this, the best way to start is by the category system - at the bottom of the image page, you should see Categories: Sculptures in Cartagena Birds in art - if you click these, it will take you to the appropriate category, which will contain images on that topic.
I hope this helps. Oh, and one final thing, please remember to sign your posts using four tildes (~~~~). -mattbuck (Talk) 20:13, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't think linking to the Commons description page satisfies the CC-BY-SA conditions unless it is hotlinked. What if the image is deleted? You should link to the appropriate CC license, e.g. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en or any other that's in that license template. But if you want to use it only on Wikipedia or another Wikimedia project using the method described by mattbuck above, you do not need to worry about licenses. darkweasel94 22:15, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Requests for Checkuser rights

This is to inform the community that there are two nominations for Checkuser rights here. It was agreed a couple of years ago that such requests and for Oversight (which are quite rare) should be publicised due to the high level of trust required in users with these rights. Trijnsteltalk 21:48, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

November 25

Category:Wikipedia screenshots

There seem to be copyright problems in this category. Although uploaders often share alike, they do not attribute, and it is often difficult to find out whom to attribute.

Any idea of what to do here? --Stefan4 (talk) 22:42, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Ich sehe da keine Schöpfungshöhe. --Ralf Roleček 22:46, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
See [9]: quoting sequences of eleven words from random newspaper articles is a copyright violation of some of the newspaper articles, says the European Court of Justice (and also the Supreme Court of Denmark). There is also this where the England and Wales High Court tells that quoting newspaper headlines sometimes is a copyright violation of the newspaper articles. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:49, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Would a link to the relevant page history fix it? Wikipedia text attribution always requires searching through the history. ghouston (talk) 01:01, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Or probably a link back to the article itself. I think that's what people are supposed to do when they reuse Wikipedia content? ghouston (talk) 01:02, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Details are in w:en:Wikipedia:Copyrights. They say a link back to the page is one way of handling text attribution, but images will need to be done on a case-by-case basis depending on their licences. ghouston (talk) 01:10, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
When you submit contents to Commons, you agree to wmf:Terms of Use#7. Licensing of Content. There it says that it is sufficient if you link to a page which contains attribution, either on the page using the material or in the history of the page. However, it could be interpreted to mean that the linking only should be in one step, and not recursively in several steps. There are some problems here:
  • Only Wikimedia users agree to the Terms of Use. The Terms of Use do not apply to content imported from e.g. Flickr; for such content, only the attribution rules in the CC-BY-SA text apply.
  • If you can't link recursively in multiple steps, then adding a list of links to the file information page only solves the licensing issue with regard to the use of the image on the file information page, but not with regard to the use of the image on other pages, as the other pages only link to the file information page but do not necessarily repeat the links on the file information page. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:11, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

November 22

Problem with User:FlickreviewR?

User:FlickreviewR doesn't seem to check the author field which is essential for complying with the terms of the licence. Here's a random example I came across. The author listed is neither the "real name" nor even the username as they appear on Flickr. Kw0 (talk) 13:20, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Mmmh, "Carlos Müller" is what it says in the EXIF data, so maybe the flickr user isn't the original author? --El Grafo (talk) 14:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, this specific file might be a case of flickrwashing, but I was referring to the bot's behaviour in general. Kw0 (talk) 15:26, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Is the bot supposed to check author information? As I understand it the bot only checks if the Flickr file is licensed with a free license. The license check is done because Flickr allows users to change the license later. The bot's purpose is to create a record of the Flickr license; it can't detect copyvios or other more complicated problems. MKFI (talk) 09:14, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
I think that it would be a good idea of it also provides the account holder's name somehow, for example in the edit summary. That way, incorrect attributions can be corrected even if the account has been deleted when the error is spotted. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:13, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Unable to see a file in full resolution

When I went to the commons file File:Powerplant icon.svg, then clicked it to view it in full resolution, I got a blank page with no image on it. When I when to the file File:Oil drop.svg and clicked to view it in full resolution, I could only view it in full resolution despite the fact that it was larger than the browser window and I coulcn't click it to swap between window fitting and full resolution. If I go to the file File:Pierpont exponent distribution.png then view the full resolution while the browser window is maximized then restoring it down makes the window smaller then the image, the image shrinks to fit the window and I can't click it to view it at full resolution, but if the window is already restored down to a size larger then the image then I click to view the full resolution of that image, then shrink the window smaller than the image, I can click the image to swap between window fitting and full resolution. If after I do that, I maximize the window then click that image to see it by itself on a page then restoring it down makes the window smaller than the image, then I still can click the image to swap between window fitting and full resolution even though doing the exact same thing earlier on didn't have that effect just because something I did earlier on in the same window. Blackbombchu (talk) 19:56, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I have edited your comment to remove the inline embedding of images. As for your question, the first two are SVG files, while the third one is a PNG file. Many browsers handle these file types differently. That's really an issue with your browser and not with Commons or these files. You can probably zoom in and out using ctrl++ and ctrl+- (use cmd instead of ctrl if you are on OS X). darkweasel94 20:28, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

November 26

Combination of own work and old map

I have coloured the vinicinal railway in the map and the result is File:Waterloo and monument 1905 - SNCV.png. Am I correct in uploading this as own work with reference to the source? (there is an error in the old map in the route between Monument and Braine d'Alleud station) Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:27, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Note: I created the category (Old maps of Brabant). These is linked to the historic Brabant province. The split between Waloon and Flemish provinces occurred fairly recently. Younger than 70 years. The modern maps over the battle of Waterloo are not included.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:36, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

help about Reddit

Appreciated community: I have a question:

How can I upload images from Reddit without incur in a Copyright violation?

I'm asking this because there are several images from Reddit uploaded without incidents, like this one, this one, this one, this one and this one.

I'd appreciate a soon answer. Thanks in advance.

--Continentalis (talk) 16:37, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Topics merged to Subjects or Subjects merged to Topics?

Following this theme, could we now decide on the suitable direction in which best apply the already-agreed merger of Categories by topic with Categories by subject (and accordingly Topics with Subjects)? I'm known to hold that the content of "by topic" should migrate and merge down with "by subject". also noteworthy that we have an elaborate by-subject flat list, while a by-topic equivalent doesn't exist. So is it agreed that we move "Categories by topic" to "Categories by subject"? or any other idea? Orrlingtalk 21:23, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I think it would be fine either way around. The subjects flat list isn't an issue since it can be renamed by tweaking a template. There are probably more subcategories under Topics than Subjects, due to the large Topics by decade‎ and Topics by year‎ categories. However you also gave some reasons for preferring "Subjects" over "Topics", which I don't think I have the linguistics background to understand, but I'll take your word for it. ghouston (talk) 22:12, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Should we have a vote, or is this sufficient for initiating a move command for the bot to move the content of "Categories by topic" to "Categories by subject"? No explanation was given to why the move of "subjects" into "topics" has any gain over the other, rationalized, direction (if things are easily resolved by tweaking a template we just tweak a template for either of the two ways around, right?...). Orrlingtalk 20:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

You may as well just do it, since nobody else has stated any objection. ghouston (talk) 03:42, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
That's right, but still I'd experience it as a possible rushing since (being only two participants in a big-scale critical move) I could have normally expected to accumulate some more talk from a few others before taking the action Orrlingtalk 18:04, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

November 21

OAuth is there — End for bot accounts that do something in the name of arbitrary users?

OAuth permits applications to perform edits under someone's user account if the user controlling the account gave permission for that application. In fact, such a dialog will appear if an application asks for permission. Once granted, the application, for example an upload bot, can upload under the account that gave permission to it. Permission can be revoked at any time by the user at Special:OAuthManageMyGrants.

We have upload bots like Cropbot, Flickr upload bot and File Upload Bot (Magnus Manske) that currently cite the user using it in the upload comment. The downside is, that uploads that were performed using these bots do not appear under the actual user's uploads. I think it would be great if we could change this. In case someone doesn't want such uploads under their primary account, they can still create a second one. From the administrative perspective, we would be able blocking abusive uploads selectively.

Thoughts? -- Rillke(q?) 13:06, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

That's a very good idea, if only because it makes bot uploads appear in the Glamorous tool when searching by username. From an abuse fighting point of view, it allows people to keep an eye on all activities of a specific user.  Support darkweasel94 17:46, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
I would be strongly in favor of it. I've always found it absurd that when I upload my own photos from Flickr, a bot gets credited with the upload. - Jmabel ! talk 18:26, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 Support, for what they said. -- Tuválkin ✉ 13:11, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 Support Offering the choice is rarely a bad thing. Saffron Blaze (talk) 15:33, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 Support Well, d'uh :-). This is exactly what OAuth is great for. So of course we should make use of this new capability. --Dschwen (talk) 17:38, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 Support JKadavoor Jee 07:30, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 Support Great idea. Trijnsteltalk 13:59, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 Support Sounds good. If people copy questionable files from other projects (such as Flickr or Wikipedia), it will make it easier to find other questionable files copied to Commons by the same user. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:19, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 Support --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:27, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 Support Better attribution in such cases has long been on my personal wishlist. Andy Mabbett (talk) 21:08, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 Support should be the preferred methodology especially worthwhile for uploads from Internet Archive, and for interwiki transfers to and from Commons as required., TUSC has done well, this seems to be its successor.  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:28, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Comments

Hey everyone!

I'm the product manager for OAuth. I'm really pleased to see it's gaining some traction already. Cropbot has already been approved to use OAuth, so all that remains is for the developer to write the code to use the OAuth protocol. I'll also happily approve any other requests from Commons bots that apply to be consumers.

Please do let me know if there's anything I can do for you.

Best regards,

--Dan Garry, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 14:16, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Foundation stones by year

I have started to categorise the foundation stones of buildings, by year; see Category:Foundation stones by decade and its subcategories. Assistance welcome! Andy Mabbett (talk) 19:50, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Template help needed

I just created {{Transcribe here}}, by copying {{Redeye}} and its subtemplates, but its not working. Could someone assist, please? Andy Mabbett (talk) 21:05, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Anyone who knows what this version was supposed to do? -- Rillke(q?) 00:13, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Facebook Funfair! (A Commons maintenance game)

Follow this (wmflabs.org) link to spin the roulette wheel :-)

I have released the above Faebot game to help clear the backlog of over 700 photos which need renaming or checking at Category:Images using filenames with Facebook photo identities. As well as using a "roulette wheel" to select an image to check, it looks to see for possible matches on Facebook for real-time comparison.

It's just a bit of fun, but if the "gamification" of this maintenance category is successful, I will be encouraged to try similar techniques on other backlogs. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 14:23, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey, what fun! — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 16:33, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
This is nice. But the comparison of the two images could even be automated (yeah, I'm a buzzkill). Also I was disappointed that the wheel does not actually spin. --Dschwen (talk) 17:39, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
I knocked this up this morning, adding in file comparisons could be done (some are crops, have the EXIF data changed or even have odd changes in proportions), including a button to "add this template to the Commons image automatically", such as suggesting a rename, but for just a few hundred images I'm keeping it simple without investing too much volunteer time, unless the same methods can be re-used elsewhere on some of our very large backlogs. If someone can find a gif with a spinning roulette wheel I'll happily add it in. :-)
One day I'll do something smart with geolocation as part of the Geograph project, I think there is a lot of potential of using the API to help create a super game out of things like "match the building to the town or village" as it's not that hard for me to have a bot suggest a full address with potential Commons categories, they just need human verification to avoid the myriad of silly ways that goes wrong (like putting a Church in the village of Brea when it is in one of the others with the same name). --Fæ (talk) 18:04, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
✓ Done The wheel now "spins". :-) --Fæ (talk) 23:15, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Are you sure it is random? It served me a photo from my country fist time… :-) -- Tuválkin ✉ 18:16, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Faebot is carefully watching everything you do. ;-) --Fæ (talk) 18:57, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I have noticed that a lot of the images from Facebook have been tagged with {{subst:npd}}. Shouldn't all of these tags be reverted? The uploaders have not been told why OTRS permission is needed, so they are unable to fix the problem, and OTRS people who might handle a request for some of the files might not know why the files were tagged with {{subst:npd}} either. These "no permission" tags sound like a request for problems. It is better to use a normal deletion request instead where a proper reason can be stated. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:17, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Actually, having tried the roulette wheel a few times now, I'm a little bit unsure what to do about some of the files. I have renamed and categorized "File:Association Multidisciplinary Cultural and Humanitarian International (AMCHI) team of 2012 with a portable photometer.jpg", but should I nominate it for deletion solely on the basis that the image also appears on Facebook? It's possible that the owner of the Facebook page was the uploader (though there is no evidence of this – the names are different). — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 18:46, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't think that we can keep the files without evidence that the users are the same. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:51, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
I have improved the Facebook Funfair a little, so it nicely tells you if there is a source and if the image is already templated with "no source", "no permission" or has a deletion request on it. The best way of dealing with one of these you are unsure about (because the uploader seems to not be the Facebook account holder) is to use the {{No permission since}} template using the standard tools, this notifies the uploader and gives them up to a month to sort it out. --Fæ (talk) 18:57, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
OK, gotcha. (Maybe you'd like to mention the {{No permission since}} tag in the tool.) — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 19:01, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
I am converting all {{subst:npd}} that I see into standard deletion requests as the templates don't mention Facebook and don't tell anyone about what the problem is. If there is no indication that the users are related, I'm using {{Copyvio}} instead. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:07, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
✓ Done 'No permission' mentioned as an option at the bottom of the page. I might sweep up more suggestions over the weekend. :-) --Fæ (talk) 19:09, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
One suggestion: The welcome page should encourage players to add relevant categories. -- Tuválkin ✉ 01:36, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
✓ Done --Fæ (talk) 07:38, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oops, File:28253 10150211608015637 731915636 12995254 8048138 n 07.jpg shows a different image (and better) in fb. What now? -- Tuválkin ✉ 01:59, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
    That's weird. (For reference, the Facebook image appears to be [10].) If it's not possible for Facebook users to replace one image with another image and retain the URL, could this be a mistake made by the tool? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 07:13, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
    • There are a total of 20 images in this collection (search link) which the Facebook Funfair will resolve as the same image on Facebook. For some reason the uploader appears to have used the same Facebook photo ID on all these, which is misleading but probably unintentional. Further investigation shows that the uploader does definitely appear to be the same person as the Facebook account owner and that these photos are all taken by them at the Templo Mayor museum and uploaded as part of this year's Wiki Loves Monuments project. I think that the best thing is to talk to the uploader to see if they want to help sort these out, then rename the images to sensible names, add descriptions and categories and then remove from the backlog category. Luckily there is no copyright or other problem to worry us. --Fæ (talk) 07:15, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
It's possible for Facebook users to choose the "photo ID" under which to upload their photographs to Facebook? I thought this was automatically assigned by the website. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 07:33, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
No, other way around, the wrong Facebook ID has been used as the Commons filename. If these are on Facebook they will have different numbers. --Fæ (talk) 07:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I see. It still seems a bit odd to me that an editor who did not bother to give the file a more descriptive name would have manually changed the filename when uploading it, though. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 08:43, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
They may have some standard tool for managing uploads from their camera and renamed everything in a folder with the top level name + sequence number. This might even have been an unintended consequence of using the Commons upload wizard which can do exactly this sort of renaming and then is a real drag to undo, in fact the only way I know once you are in the wizard is to go back to the beginning and re-upload everything. Anyway, I think we can assume cock-up over conspiracy on this one. :-) --Fæ (talk) 08:49, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Game winners

Thanks to everyone that has been playing at the Facebook Funfair. Many photographs that could be sourced to Facebook have now had better names added, more information on sourcing, or raised for deletion or tagged as "no source" or "no permission".

In the 6 days since announcing the game was available, the total number in the maintenance category Images using filenames with Facebook photo identities has dropped by more than 200 files (nearly 30%). Considering that many photos that have been on Commons for several years have now been tagged as no source (which may take 30 days before being deleted, and so remain in the category) this drop is an impressive success and encouraging for volunteer tool creators like me to carry on with more "gamification" experiments.

Maybe we could entertain the idea of a Wikimedia Commons "virtual casino" (smart phone friendly) with small prizes? :-) --Fæ (talk) 11:47, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Update at 7 days, the total removed from the backlog has hit over 300 files (over 40% done). Significant progress for what in the past was an unattractive volunteer task. --Fæ (talk) 08:55, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Textile terminology question

What’s more correct? Category:Jean skirts or Category:Denim skirts? -- Tuválkin ✉ 00:10, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Not sure about elsewhere, but in the UK "denim" would be the usual adjective. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:08, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Creative Commons v4 licenses announced

(Apologies if this has been covered before, I've not been too active recently.) Hi all. If you missed it, version 4 of Creative Commons' licenses have been released. You can read about the legal choices at [11]. I'm guessing that, at a minimum, we'll want to allow users to upload images under CC4 licenses. (The extent to which we should recommend such licenses when Wikimedia wikis are still licensed under CC3 licenses is one for the lawyers, I think.) Best, Jarry1250 (talk) 12:33, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

It seems CC 4.0 is designed and optimized for web environment. I like it. – Kwj2772 (talk) 13:51, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the notification. I see no reason not to make these the preferred licenses in the upload form. It seems that this time there are no ported versions, which means that {{Cc-by-4.0}} and {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} are the only templates that need to be created. darkweasel94 14:01, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
My concern was that they may not be usable on Wikimedia projects because of a combination of the share-alike clause and license incompatibility, but I'm really not sure on that point. Jarry1250 (talk) 15:49, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
If that were true, we couldn't put any images under any other license than CC-BY-SA 3.0 into Wikimedia pages. As long as the text and the image can be separated, the share-alike clause does not matter as far as I understand it. Also, licensing derivatives under later versions is allowed by the CC licenses. darkweasel94 17:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, Creative Commons have been pretty clear that they only provide weak share-alike protection, which doesn't extend to collective works containing the CC-licensed work, including encyclopedia articles containing illustrations. (Licensing derivatives/adaptations under later versions has been allowed since CC-BY-SA 2.0, but not for earlier versions AFAIK.) I agree we should allow uploads under CC 4.0 licenses in due course, and that these should replace version 3.0 in our various recommended/default upload licenses. --Avenue (talk) 21:06, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Looks like we already have {{Cc-by-4.0}} & {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} − courtesy of Multichill :-) Jean-Fred (talk) 23:29, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
I have some concerns about those templates. Their wording doesn't match CC's current license deeds in some significant respects. They omit CC's statements about commercial use being allowed, the license being irrevocable, and prohibiting further legal/technical restrictions on use. They also omit the two notices at the bottom about not applying to PD/fair use material, the absence of any warranty, and possible non-copyright restrictions. Perhaps most importantly, they omit the disclaimer at the top of the deed noting that this is just a summary of the license having no legal force, and linking to the actual license. I think all of this should be covered by our template.
To be fair, the same problems afflict our templates for version 3.0 too. I hope this will prompt us to improve these as well. --Avenue (talk) 02:18, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
The license tag and deed look redundant in every respects; so I think we can incorporate all features in the deed in our tag and give direct link to the original license. IMHO, it will more informative and useful to educate the reuser. JKadavoor Jee 06:56, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
I do not agree with Avenue, we can not possibly fit all of this in the limited space if the license template. The purpose of any license template is not to spell out all the details, but to state the license and link to license text.--Jarekt (talk) 14:00, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
But CC is the only case where we point to an intermediate deed instead of to the license text. So it acts like an unwanted wrapping to hide the real license terms from the end user, I afraid. That is why I prefer to use a custom template nowadays. :) JKadavoor Jee 14:14, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Jkadavoor that linking only to the deed is a significant problem. It could even be argued that Commons is violating the license, which requires a link to the license text, not the deed. So this should be fixed.
Even if space is such a concern (and I don't think it should be), we could rewrite the first sentence to make clear that what follows is merely a summary of the license (and to link to the actual license) without taking up any more space. IMO this is the absolute minimum we should do. The current templates are potentially quite misleading, and if we're not going to fix them properly, we should at least warn people that there is more to it.
Another way to fix the template would be to remove the misleading summary of the license, and just state which license applies, with links to both the license and the deed. This would take up even less space. --Avenue (talk) 03:01, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
And we should aware that the “File:” page is the only space we provide copyright, license, author name and all other attribution requirements. We merely hot link to this page on every reuse in our WMF projects. Even third party re-users can keep the attribution requirements as minimum as possible by hot-linking to this page or creating a similar page in their website. This was a hot topic in CC community discussion forums, and I got the reply that it is bare enough considering the term “reasonable to the medium” in the CC3 version. Now it is well defined in CC4. So we should make efforts to satisfy all the license requirements well described in the “File:” page so the re-user need not wander around (by visiting the author profile page, CC deed, license, etc, etc) to find them.
I didn'’t understand the argument to keep the “File:” page small and brief. See, it is not a reuse; it acts like a shared back bone for all our WMF projects, holding all the relevant information in a single space. It has so many benefits. Any update is easier. We can save a lot of space as there is no need to credit on every reuse. Considering all these advantages and importance, there is nothing wrong if these pages are a bit bigger; than keeping it small without enough information to push the re-user in to a danger of making a copyright violation. Further, it can make a reverse effect too. Chances that a genuine reuser may refrain from using a work if he failed to gather enough info. :) JKadavoor Jee 03:37, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Are we really having this discussion again? >_>
« linking only to the deed is a significant problem » → Well, it *does* seems that (to name a few) Flickr, The Noun Project and, well, Creative Commons themselves, link to the deed. (But ah well, I know how folks love to argue about that.)
Jee: custom templates are not a good thing (understatement). They:
  • heavily hinder internationalisation efforts (no, it is not likely your custom template will get translated into 200 languages ; and even less if every single user comes up with their own templates)
  • ruin the style layout of Commons (seriously, we all know Commons is ugly, let’s not add more to that shall we?)
  • are dangerous when not subst-ed (which is mandatory per COM:USER, by the way) because they allow for mass-license replacing, by vandalism or on a whim of the user (yes, it happened before).
It always baffled me how folks here come up with custom license/attribution templates all the time (unfortunately, I got to understand that disapproving such behaviour does not make you many friends around here). But seriously folks, if you have something to say against license templates / common mechanisms such as {{Credit line}}, for heaven’s sake do the right fight and discuss/improve them ; please do not come up with a solution which if good would only serve your own files, and not the all of Commons.
Jean-Fred (talk) 09:29, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Everybody else link to the deed: But note that all of them are end-reusers; but Commons is not. See Euphaeidae. I need to visit three pages to read the license. I will need to visit four pages after the launch of Media Viewer. The text to the link to the file page says “View license”; but can we find the license there? I agree the deed is a simplified form of the license with several useful links. But it is useful only if we plan to add a link at the reuse page. Adding links to both the deed and license in the file page is acceptable to me (as suggested by Avenue above).
Creditline: I hate that template on its first look. What is the use of the link to Wikimedia main page there? Where is the link to URI (media file)? See the credit requirements. One major disadvantage of our {{Information}} is the lack of a title field. I see Media Viewer use the filename as title removing the file extensions. Good compromise. Enough for me. But how good it for 1000+ character filenames in many bot uploads?
Scattered license components: This is a big problem in our file page. Try to bring them in single or adjacent fields. Author in one place, license abandoned at the end of the page, and a not so flexible credit line is not so good.
Translation and the need for subst-ed: I agree it is tedious to add all languages in custom templates. I saw the “must be subst-ed” clause; but didn’t see much people followed it. I checked a lot of senior people here, including crats, stewards, admins … My templates are just recently made and still under construction; substituting is not good now. Moreover I’ve no problem to add as many junk generic license tags at the tail end of my file pages. :)
@Jean-Fred: You will not loss a friend like me by disagreeing with me. I’m matured enough to keep people and their opinions separately. Nothing wrong in discussing it again and again, with the fresh bloods. :) JKadavoor Jee 10:26, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Jee: Re:{{Credit line}} The link to Commons (as an attribution party) is not mandatory and by default is not displayed at all… As documented, Title can be added in the other parameter but it can be given its ownfield. the Link back to source is a good point (though not required) and can easily be implemented. Your feedback is defintely helpful ; what I dislike is the attitude of dismissing at first sight as something not worth improving, even though we are on a wiki and that it happens that this template is used more than 150,000 times (yes, really) so it can hardly be qualified as some fringe practice. Jean-Fred (talk) 13:55, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Jean-Fred. In fact I tried the creditline; but it looks redundant with my attribution template. Moreover, I can't change the order of components (I need resource URI before license URI); nor the "/". So I dropped it. I appreciate any efforts in the developments of common templates as it worths more than a single user template. But we should take care to study the standard norms and try to implement it here in Commons. I see many reuses with simple credits like "Photo: Wikimedia Commons" or "Photo: Wikipedia" which is thoroughly wrong. Moreover I see many adaptations here neglecting the term "you must keep intact all copyright notices for the Work". You can see my custom template is far more liberal than any other one find in Commons. ;) JKadavoor Jee 15:10, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
If you upload an image to other websites such as Flickr, then you give a licence to that website to use the image under certain conditions (as explained in the site's terms of use). Flickr therefore doesn't have to follow the terms in the CC licences for Flickr's own use of the file. Therefore, it doesn't matter for Flickr whether Flickr's own file information pages are compliant with the licence linking requirement. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:38, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

More liberal license clause

 Comment I've noticed something strange in the new CC-BY-SA license. I don't think it makes it nonfree, but it makes it more liberal than CC-BY as I read it. I'm talking about section 2/a/5/B:
Additional offer from the Licensor – Adapted Material. Every recipient of Adapted Material from You automatically receives an offer from the Licensor to exercise the Licensed Rights in the Adapted Material under the conditions of the Adapter’s License You apply.
This means that if I've released something under cc-by-sa-3.0, it is now possible for anybody who makes a change to it to remove, for downstream recipients, the requirement to link to the cc-by-sa-3.0 license (for the adaptation), simply by releasing the changes under cc-by-sa-4.0. I really wonder if that is legal. After all, I never agreed to ever waive the right to have cc-by-sa-3.0 (and not 4.0) linked even when somebody makes a change to it. I didn't agree to do that with cc-by-3.0 either, and cc-by-4.0 didn't add any such thing.
Or perhaps I'm totally misunderstanding something, and anything based on one of my cc-by-sa-3.0 works will still continue to need to have a link to cc-by-sa-3.0, no matter how many people changed it and released their changes under cc-by-sa-4.0? I hope that is the case, otherwise CC has lost my trust. darkweasel94 22:32, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
My reading is the same as yours, that downstream recipients of an adaptation do not need to link to the cc-by-sa-3.0 license if the adapter has chosen to license their adaptation as cc-by-sa 4.0. They would need to link to the cc-by-sa 4.0 license instead (at least when they "produce, reproduce, and Share" this or further adaptations, and "to the extent reasonably practicable").
Any license with an "or later version" clause is essentially a blank cheque, and relies on licensors trusting the organisation updating the license. If you feel they've violated this trust, you should let them know.
Personally I don't see this change as a big deal. I also don't see it as illegal. By licensing works under cc-by-sa 3.0, one effectively agrees to waive any license requirements that CC chooses to remove from later versions of the license, at least for adaptations. --Avenue (talk) 23:11, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
The thing is, cc-by-sa-3.0 didn't really have an "any later version" clause (unlike when I license something as "GFDL 1.2 or any later version"). It only had a clause that those who make derivative works can also choose a later version for their adaptation, which means that both licenses then apply to downstream recipients, i.e. they have to link to both licenses. This change is at least of dubious legality I think, and it would certainly be an interesting court case if the original author sued a downstream recipient who only linked to 4.0 and not 3.0 when the original was under 3.0. darkweasel94 23:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
cc-by-sa-3.0 clause 4b does not seem to require providing a link to the original license (cc-by-sa-3.0) when distributing or performing the adaptation, but only to the Applicable License chosen (which can be a later version of cc-by-sa). Clause 4a would require such a link to the original license, if it applied, but it seems at least arguable whether clause 4a would apply to adaptations (apart from its final sentence about removal of credit). My reading is that (the rest of) clause 4a applies only to the original work, and 4b to adaptations - not that 4a and 4b both apply to adaptations. In other words, I think cc-by-sa-3.0 really does have an effective "any later version" clause for adaptations. Of course IANAL, and I could easily be wrong. --Avenue (talk) 01:56, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Mh, you may be right. I never interpreted 3.0 that way - if that's how it is to be interpreted, that's interesting though, because then CC-BY 3.0 allows people to remove the license information entirely when making an adaptation (which CC-BY 4.0 clearly does not). Re-reading CC-BY-SA 4.0, I now interpret it differently as well - it does not seem to apply retroactively (i.e. to works under earlier licenses), because if I only released it under CC-BY-SA 3.0, I'm not a "Licensor" in 4.0's sense. darkweasel94 06:32, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
I read it like this: If you wish to use a CC-BY-SA 4.0 file in a derivative work under a later licence (say, CC-BY-SA 5.0, which might exist in a few years or so), then you can ignore anything stated in CC-BY-SA 4.0. However, if you wish to combine CC-BY-SA 2.0 or 3.0 works into a CC-BY-SA 4.0 work, then I interpret it to mean that you still have to apply certain parts of CC-BY-SA 2.0 and 3.0, including linking to both of those licences (or include the full text of them, whichever you prefer). However, I could have misunderstood something. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:35, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
I didn't understand the entire concerns raised here; but in my understanding, CC didn't make much changes, only made clarity on the understanding. "The version 4.0 ShareAlike licenses are unambiguous on this point – all upstream ShareAlike licenses apply to an adaptation. In our opinion, this is the best reading of the 3.0 licenses, though we could have been more clear on this point in the past. That said, we took seriously the concerns some users of the SA licenses expressed about the challenges of requiring users to look at more than one license text to understand their obligations. Thus, with 4.0 we have made a policy decision to ease downstream compliance, and facilitate reuse of adaptations of works originally created under a 4.0 SA license. When using adaptations of 4.0 SA-licensed works, users are granted express permission to exercise the rights of upstream licensors under the conditions of the adapter’s license."
See related pages in CC: http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0/Treatment_of_adaptations, http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Version_4#Operation of ShareAlike JKadavoor Jee 07:09, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
I just opened a discussion on the English Wikipedia's village pump. There is also mention on the Wikimedia Forum and on the Wikimedia Foundation blog. GreenReaper (talk) 11:01, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Photography rules

I laughed when I read this article. I thought you all might enjoy reading it too :] Cheers, FASTILY 03:38, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

You mean because they refer to copying as stealing? darkweasel94 07:18, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Probably by reading the answer of #7. :) JKadavoor Jee 07:52, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Great read, and all too familiar to all of us here. Only caveat is, #7 is slightly dependent on the nation of creation (see: Commons:Threshold of originality#Switzerland). I think I may use that link from time to time at the help desk and DRs, it should probably be linked as an EL at COM:PRP as well. Liamdavies (talk) 08:18, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Even a better read when the original author's version is used: http://www.francisvachon.com/blog/10-bogus-excuses-to-use-a-photo-you-found-on-the-internet/ 131.137.245.207 16:28, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Help to crop a photo

Hi! Could someone help me to crop http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Zweifranken.jpg to have only the right part - the side with the standing Helvetia - in a new file? I have no idea how to do it myself. Thanks a lot in advance to do it and post here the link to the new file! 128.178.197.59 07:07, 29 November 2013 (UTC).

I already did it, there is no need to request this multiple times. File:Zweifranken (cropped).jpg --McZusatz (talk) 10:38, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

File:YasserArafat.jpg

This picture comes from http://web.archive.org/web/20030313191005/http://usinfo.state.gov/arabic/meppar/metrip0402/pwlphoto.htm. Arabic page.

Apparently made in 2002. What was the subject of the meeting? exact date? --Wickey-nl (talk) 13:03, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Already found via Google images. 14 April 2002, Ramallah. --Wickey-nl (talk) 14:23, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Sedum coverings

I created the category "Sedum coverings" with two subcategories; "Sedum-covered roofs" and "Sedum-covered tram tracks". I have checked by green roofs for examples, but there maybe a lot more Sedum covered roofs. For tram tracks a lot where classified under "grass-covered". Any help in identifying and classifying images with Sedum coverings is much appreciated.Smiley.toerist (talk) 15:12, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Tel or tell? English philologists called up for determination

Hi all native anglo(phone)s. I recently moved Category:Tell es-Sultan to Tel es-Sultan (single L) basing on Commons majority prevalence of "Tel" occurrences rather than "Tell", though indeed the English Wiki supports the latter one (and now also my dictionary, apparently). You may however see that even the pedia article itself yields to the inherent Wikipedia inconsistency across the various "Tel(l)" articles by listing a dozen exemplar archaeological sites half of which spelled this way and half the other. So in any event, I'd like to not only be sure that the specific move was correct or incorrect language-wise, but also and not less important to care that the tel(l)s on the Commons align to either uniform variant. On the English pedia I'm not involved in archaeological themes (while here and on the Hebrew I am), therefore it seems to me fair to bring this matter to be solved on Commons priorly. Appreciating your participation in this consultation, Orrlingtalk 20:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

At en:wp, we have a strong "bias" in favor of using three-letter phrases as disambiguation pages for acronyms. Note that en:Tel redirects to en:TEL, which has as its main focus the disambiguation of concepts such as The European Library, Transporter erector launcher, and the Test of Economic Literacy. This is a significant exception to the en:WP:COMMONNAME standard. As far as archaeology, all of my work is with North American stuff (and note that in real life I'm a librarian, not an archaeologist; I only dig into the books), so I'm really not familiar with what we're doing here or at en:wp about Middle Eastern sides. That all being said, I'd support a consistent use of "tel" for these categories. When I'm looking at histories of the Middle East, I find "tell" in some scholarly stuff and pretty much all popular/nonscholarly stuff, while all uses of "tel" seem to be in harder, more reputable, and more scholarly writings. For this reason, it seems more appropriate, more scholarly, and generally better to use "tel" here, especially since we don't have the technical issue (the fact of the name already being occupied) like at en:wp. Nyttend (talk) 07:16, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't think I could ever expect a brighter or more intelligent comment. And saying that, I'm still equally and totally open to hear from anyone that (and why) we rather DO need to adopt the tell variant (with all honesty - my very reliable dictionary only knows about tell) and I obviously have never dug any real mound myself either. I've long been acquainted with en:wiki's tendency with accronyms whenever concerning a non-English trilettric word and it's *annoying*. Orrlingtalk 18:04, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

In Israeli placenames we should use "Tel", while the archaeological term is probably "tell" in English... AnonMoos (talk) 04:45, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Seems OK to me. but by this rule "Israeli placenames" will be "Tel" and "Syrian placenames" "Tell"? ... What about sites in ancient Palestine that aren't in Israel?... –Can it be that it is all simply about the identity of the site's modern namegiver himself?. In other words, should uniformity surrender to locality in this particular case. Orrlingtalk 18:25, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
There's a difference between the Hebrew and Arabic languages. In neither ancient nor modern Hebrew are there doubled consonants at the ends of words, while in Arabic they do exist (if you ignore i'rab vowels, that is...). The most theoretically correct Classic Arabic type transcription would be tall, but the common English transcription of the Arabic is tell... AnonMoos (talk) 08:48, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
This comment shows ignorance of the fact that PLENTY, if not most of the archaeological sites in Israel called a tel(l) have that word followed by an Arabic name, not Hebrew (sitenames usually given by both Israeli and Mandate English researchers). Simply because not every trace of human inhabitancy can be hebrified. While some very well-known are in Hebrew e.g Tel Megido, Tel Beersheba and Tel Arad most others across that country maintain the names of either their Arabic or Latin (crusader) near-east origins and are not in Hebrew AT ALL, regardless their location in Israel. So what should they be called? Tells or tels? - Basing on the principle that Arabic names receive the "tell" transcription it seems this should be the case for most "Israeli placements". Orrlingtalk 10:12, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, uniformity should always give way to the actual name for something that people use for it. We should no more be imposing uniformity on the names for the various Tells then we should impose uniformity on mountains and call Mont Blanc Mount Blanc.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:32, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

By this, sites with Arabic names in Israel should be tells, while Hebrew ones can remain tels. I'll request at the bot to undo my move for Tel es-Sultan, and later will also move other Arabic names from Tel to Tell accordingly. Orrlingtalk 02:58, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Concorde and the tramline 7 in Paris

I have had some fun taking pictures combining trams and the Concorde airplane.

I cant find the museum where it belongs to. There is a building nearby but it looks closed.Smiley.toerist (talk) 00:01, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

The aircraft is F-WTSA at Musée Delta. Bidgee (talk) 07:44, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, By the way: It is Sedum-covered not grass-covered. I made a lot of new Sedum-covered categories.Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:09, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
There is marked British Airways on the plane, not Air France.Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:27, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
British Airways colours on one side and Air France colours on the other: Concorde aircraft histories#Pre-production aircraft. MKFI (talk) 09:55, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Next time you copy an image from Twitter to Commons, think again

Usually it's Getty Images agency who sues infringers, this time they were sued and finally ordered to pay "a total of $1.2 million for the eight images in question".[12],[13],[14] --Túrelio (talk) 21:10, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Wow! The second article is specially astounding... Yann (talk) 10:19, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Minor clarification, it appears that rather than Getty, the press agency Agence France Presse will eventually have to pay the bill, which will be in the region of $9 million, once the many lawyers and everyone else has put in their lunch invoices. Further, the unlawful act that got the jury excited was "willful copyright infringement", through the action of deliberately changing the copyright information, rather than accidentally hosting something with the wrong licence statement. As a strategy, Getty's approach of deny, deny, deny, has worked out badly compared to honestly discussing their mistake with the journalist and taking reasonable action to put it right.
Certainly this case nicely backs up the point often made at Wikimedia Commons, that the mere act of finding a photograph on TwitPic, Flickr, Panoramio etc., does not make it fair game to re-use unless you can prove a valid licence went along with it. --Fæ (talk) 11:11, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Also reported by The Guardian. --Túrelio (talk) 21:03, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
I work with Getty as a contributor and even I was astounded by their gall and arrogance. Saffron Blaze (talk) 02:32, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

November 27

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2013/11&oldid=148475731"