This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I can't upload video

It is very much difficult for me to load the video from my PC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bikalkharall (talk • contribs) 07:44, 02 April 2016 (UTC)

Please see Commons:Video#Uploading_a_video --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 07:47, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Speravir (Talk) 21:50, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism issue

Please remove Olishitty.jpg; vandalism on en-wiki. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 05:04, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies: Now

Done. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 05:28, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Speravir (Talk) 18:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Getty pictures

What copyright laws do Getty images come under and when does the copyright expire? I'm asking specifically about this picture taken in the British Mandate of Palestine on November 14, 1938. The credit is given to "Fox Photos" but it's apparently owned by Getty Images. Is this picture considered public domain 78 years later? --Al Ameer son (talk) 21:19, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

This is almost certainly not a simple case and would be better asked at Commons:Village pump/Copyright. But I can say pretty confidently the fact that Getty may be the owner is irrelevant to whether it is copyrighted or not: it's going to come down to things like where and when it was first published, and who was the photographer. - Jmabel ! talk 04:39, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

April 01

Unidentified location in 1980

File:Berwick-upon-Tweed seen from railway in 1980.jpgI took this picture during a interrail trip in the UK in 1980. I have noot been able to track down the place. In the same trip I passed Newcastle and got to Scotland.Smiley.toerist (talk) 08:50, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Definitely Berwick-upon-Tweed. Cheers, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 16:11, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I have two others on the same trip. I think it must be on the train to Inverness.Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:59, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

File:Scan UK 1980-05 (8).jpg

@Smiley.toerist: I may be wrong but I think the third one might be at the Findhorn Viaduct near Forres station. Compare this picture from the ground: [1]. Nizolan (talk) 14:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Update: It definitely is from the Findhorn Viaduct; here's another picture taken from the viaduct itself, which matches yours: [2]. The river is the River Findhorn. Nizolan (talk) 14:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I wil rename the picture. But I think it is not by the Forres station but the crossing by Tomatin. Only one remaining now.Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

As the river picture is taken with the sunligth to the south I can only conclude that snowy mountaintop is also to the south. I suspect Meallach Mhor and Carn Dearg Mor and not Meall na h-Aisre, Carn an Fhreiceadain and Geal-charn Mor situated to the west of the railway line. The two pictures where taken from the same train going northwards.Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:21, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

libAPI update

LibAPI, the a JavaScript library interacting with MediaWiki at Wikimedia Commons has been updated. If you encounter a sudden problem in tools like the Nominate for deletion process, please report them to the tool's talk page or right here. -- Rillke^(q?) 20:04, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

April 03

PD-textlogo for comedy film logo Climate Change Denial Disorder

I've uploaded image File:CCDD - Climate Change Denial Disorder.jpg.

It's from comedy film about a fictional disease: Climate Change Denial Disorder.

Image screenshot taken from Time: 1:34 at Funny or Die.

I used {{PD-textlogo}} -- is that alright for this image ?

Thank you,

-- Cirt (talk) 04:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

No: PD-textlogo is just for text, not for stuff with original design elements such as the swoopy lines here. Nyttend (talk) 06:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay, no worries, deleted. Thank you !! -- Cirt (talk) 14:20, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Bug on Commons:Upload

I've been experiencing this problem for several days. When using Commons:Upload, multiple areas for adding categories appear, and the first category you add will not show up when the upload is complete (that's why the completely nonsense category is shown on the right). MB298 (talk) 02:22, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

What browser are you using? For me there are no multiple areas. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 10:07, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I've seen this happen today too, but I can't reproduce again. Matma Rex (talk) 18:47, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

@Zhuyifei1999: I'm using Safari. MB298 (talk) 23:42, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Can't reproduce on Safari 7.0.6 (quite old though) with my test account :/ --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 14:20, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I just had this issue on Chrome 49.0.2623.87 m. Upgrading to 49.0.2623.108 m seems to have fixed the issue. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:53, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Correction: it's back. @Rillke: Sorry to bother you, but you seem to know who's who better that I. Can you recommend who to inform about this? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 16:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Lupo used to maintain HotCat and the upload form JavaScript. Otherwise, bringing it up here might be the best way to get it eventually fixed. -- Rillke^(q?) 16:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I have no time to run after that and the ever-changing MW/ResourceLoader API. No longer being an admin, I can't do anything about it anyway. Could it be that this has something to do with this edit in MediaWiki:Gadget-HotCat.js? That re-starts HotCat several times if a "soft-reload" (whatever that is) occurs, which to me looks like a likely cause of the symptoms shown in the OP's screenshot. Lupo 15:21, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Year in rail transport in Serbia

I created Category:2014 in rail transport in Serbia and most underlying templates, but these are incomplete. (location svgs, flags, Serbian language tekst, etc). Any help is appreciated. And selecting the Serbian rail transport images by year.Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:07, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Tour de France pictures not on subject

I have discovered a set of pictures with `Tour de France` in the name, but the only link is that these pictures where taken in Antwerp during these days. I have removed the Tour the France category and added more relevant categories. However the file name is misleading and the text is not relevant. Could these files be renamed and a more relevant description added?

Smiley.toerist (talk) 19:19, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Of course, you can request a file renaming, if you’re not a file remover. But you have to consider here, that Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick obviously made all these photos as part of a project financed by Wikimédia France, and that for reusing he insists on file name mentioning. — Speravir (Talk) – 22:12, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Difficult to explain that at some users : when I go to illustrate a cycling race, I take in photo the cyclists and the material plus the event, but not only, I also take in photo the context, for example big monuments, typical streets, transports, views, landscapes, the population riding bike... So the files must keep their name because they are an important part of the reportage, and their description, but Smiley.toerist can perfectly add a second description and categories in more. Photos alone have no value, it is the entire work done in one day that is interesting and depicts what I see during my travel. Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick (talk) 08:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Dear Mr Jähnick, you may find it difficult to explain, it is even more difficult to understand. I hope you understand that your explanation is entirely POV. These pictures show no relation what-so-ever with cycling or the Tour de France except for the title. I can not in any way imagine that in the future anyone will consider studying all these pictures in sequence and be excited about the cycling event in the surroundings that these pictures where taken without any bicycle in sight and without having be made aware of your story. In my opinion you are asking way too much of our imagination. --VanBuren (talk) 09:25, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

The confusion is caused by a fundamental problem: Two very distinc type of categories should not mixed up together: Wikipediaproject en subject categories. Most of these files should belong in the two categories: (Tour de France 2015, étape 3, Antwerpen) and (Wikimediaproject Tour de France 2015 xxx). That way you can exclude pictures wich dont belong to the subject category and vice-versa one can add pictures of the the Tour de France coming from other sources. What if there other uploaders wich also want to upload pictures of the tour but dont have anything to do with the project? An other solution is to drop the wikimediaproject category and maintain the specific filenames wich allow to filter out all project images. I think this is now more practical than to reorder and create nearly two similar categorie structures.Smiley.toerist (talk) 08:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Smiley.toerist : I keep my system of file naming, that exists since a long time without problem. And there is no "Wikipediaproject", only an illustration project around cycling that is like a chapter. You are free to add descriptions as I do and/or add categories. You should avoid to contradict me, next week I go to Antwerpen for a cycling race if the weather is good, and I could decide to go at the cinema when the race is launched instead of taking photos of transports. Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick (talk) 10:51, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

The file names are not ideal, but that is no big deal. It is fine to have these files in Category:Tour de France 2015 - Supported by Wikimedia France. However, they should not be in Category:Tour de France 2015, étape 3, Antwerpen in any circumstances.

I am also slightly concerned about the category name - we generally use English for category names. I can understand using French for categories for the Tour, but that doesn't justify using Dutch and French. This is the only subcategory of Category:Antwerp that has the word Antwerpen in the category name.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:15, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

These categories Wikimedia France will disappear from my work in few monthes. Not that I direct my project myself and I 'm not accountable to anyone. It is therefore useless to try to talk or interfere in my work. Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick (talk) 13:35, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

However, the images do not relate to the Tour de France in any way shape or form, beyond the fact you happened take them while you were in Antwerp to see the Tour. Therefore they do not belong in any category about the Tour de France.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:55, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate your work. Thats not the question. I look for the best way to integrate the images in the Commons and make them most easily accessible and findable. The use of the template for the descriptions complicates the addition of usefull comments, as the example File:Antwerpen - Tour de France, étape 3, 6 juillet 2015, départ (196).JPG shows. The best way is to use a script to set the initial description for all the images and not embed it in a template. The text can then later be adapted for special cases. The text embedded within a template cannot be used in search engines.Smiley.toerist (talk) 14:05, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

These sorts of file naming methods are far from unusual, there can be a fine line between what is part of an event and what isn't. My opinion is that you can't standardise the way everyone uploads to commons, you just have to change the categories and/or description to what you think is right. Oxyman (talk) 11:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense to me to rename a few pictures out of a series while retaining the name for the others. It's not a name likely to collide with anything - and if it did, we'd have pictures by two different photographers mashed together in the same series! So we're down to the question of whether someone who goes out to photo the Tour de France can name the photo series with something including "Tour de France". Obviously, this should be a yes. To me it looks like Jaehnick is 100% right there. (The category question is something else - I have no opinion about whether "Tour de France" is defined as the track per se or includes everyone going to it or visible from it) If he wants extra credit, he could explain in some of the figure captions how close the scenery was to the race -- did he simply turn around in place and shoot what was behind him, or was he driving all around the city taking background shots? Wnt (talk) 16:42, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

March 28

Open Engineering and Defensive Publications?

(IANAL.) I am looking for a place to publish defensive publications for open engineering inventions. I am thinking that the Commons may work as a place for this. There doesn't seem to be anything like this on the Commons currently. I believe that this falls within the mission scope of being an educational resource.

There's an article on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_publication

In summary, this is the opposite of patenting. Rather than trying to keep an unpatented work a secret, the methods of design and operation are publicly disclosed as "prior art" so as to prevent anyone else from trying to patent the concept and claim it for themselves.

The US Patent Office used to have an official document for documenting defensive publications, but the recent "America Invents Act" did away with that, and so there is no longer an officially recognized place for publishing such things.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leahy-Smith_America_Invents_Act

CC-by for making physical objects?

I don't know if the Creative Commons attribution license has any bearing on making physical devices from CC-by schematics posted on the Commons. The current license probably doesn't apply there, but just for the schematics drawings themselves.

Date of publication / disclosure

The main legal issue for this is to have a publishing date that can be used as a legal reference to establish when something was made public. This would basically be the upload history date for files on the Commons.

As a technical matter, who is able to edit the history dates in the system for when files are uploaded or changed? Can administrators change those, or does it go higher yet to the specially-privileged hardware druids?

I ask about this because if some criminal element wanted to challenge a current patent filing, they could set up a website / webserver of their own, claiming they invented the concept first, and post a bunch of backdated documents. If you set up a new web server with the clock set back five years, how is anyone to know that? The website could have been created last week but it looks as if it's been around for years.

You can't really trust the publication dates for "published" works on a website operated by the person issuing the challenge. Wikipedia itself faces this problem if some outside website is claiming copyright infringement against an article, but the external website itself was created after the article and backdated to appear like it existed before the copyright dispute started.

So it is better that the publication date and change-history date be far outside the ability of the Commons uploader posting the content to change... and even if they were elevated to a site administrator.

Is uploading the same as publishing?

It is unclear to me if the mere fact of uploading something to the Commons can be considered "publishing" it. Physical publishing involves printing presses and distributing a physical work to interested parties. But a mere upload may not be directly visible to anyone if it does not have a sufficiently descriptive title to be found by searches for the topic matter.

The same situation occurs if you try to "self-publish" on your own website, but it is not indexed by any major search engines, the site creator makes no attempt to publicize it or get it indexed, and there are no links to the website content from anywhere else. The data could be "publicly accessible but never actually seen" for years without anyone even knowing it is there.

Other possible places for defensive disclosure

Another possible location for this is at archive.org, though the same questions arise there for who can change the date of publication / posting on their site.

The USPTO tells me that Youtube is also an acceptable place to post prior art. It has a similar "upload date" that typical site users cannot change.

-- DMahalko (talk) 12:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I think this is a great idea, mostly because I've suggested it myself (but knowing much less about it). I think a specialized project for inventions would make sense, but the inertia around here is such that an existing project might have to be used. Question: I haven't looked at this closely, but doesn't Wikimedia provide daily database updates for download, and don't these have checksums to verify validity? Provided the daily update remains accessible and the checksum is posted somewhere that is considered verifiably dated, then every letter entered in every edit should be verifiably dated. WMF could make sure this happens to encourage defensive publication. Wnt (talk) 16:56, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Listing file

How can i list all images uploaded by me that also uses {{FoP-Sweden}}? /Hangsna (talk) 17:03, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

See quarry:query/8858. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Looking for help in formatting a guide

Hi

I created a simple guide for people to reuse content from Wikimedia Commons, unfortunately I can't get the images to scale correctly, this means it looks very broken in mobile view. Someone very kindly fixed the text boxes for me so they scaled correctly, can anyone help me with the images?

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 19:52, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I think is at least one serious problem with the content of that page, and have remarked at Commons talk:Simple media reuse guide. The way it's currently worded practically invites violations of personality rights or trademarks. (Discussion should probably continue on the linked talk page rather than here.) - Jmabel ! talk 23:54, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-14

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

You can filter Special:Log in more detail. [3]
Wikimedia wikis have a new way of counting visitors. [4]

Changes this week

The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from April 5. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from April 6. It will be on all wikis from April 7 (calendar).

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

22:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

April 05

Ongoing de-admin discussion

Please see Commons:Administrators/Requests/Jcb (de-adminship 3).

Thank you,

-- Cirt (talk) 10:42, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Templates for "source" and "author" when neither is known nor relevant?

Resolved

I am wondering if Commons currently has templates that can be used within the Information template to specify the authorship and source of files which do not require these things because they are either too simple or are obviously utilitarian. I am thinking specifically of the file File:Google-Wallet-Logo.png, which is, predictably, a depiction of the Google Wallet logo. The uploader has claimed him/ herself as the author, and "own work" as the source. Even if the uploader created the PNG file him/ herself, it is still a copy of someone else's work (which means the authorship claim is bogus). But that work is too simple to qualify for copyright protection (despite the current licensing of the image, which is marked as CC-BY-SA 3.0) which means the source doesn't matter much and the neither does the "original" author. I understand that an uploader can put entries like "Author unknown" in the author field, but this means the entry is not machine readable and is not standardized. Is there a way of marking such files using some kind of template/ tag? KDS4444 (talk) 07:18, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

template:unknown might fit. Basvb (talk) 11:35, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

That would be what I was looking for (duh!). Thank you! KDS4444 (talk) 18:43, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Speravir (Talk) 01:21, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Manipulated image

This image has been said to be a "digital art work" rather than a photograph by a critic on en:WP. Since said critic had an obvious POV, this criticism was, apparently, ignored.

However the bottom button is clearly drawn on, and at a closer look it seems the figure is cut-and-pasted over the background, and that the "vital statistics" may have been altered. There is also no EXIF information.

Do more experienced digital image connoisseurs agree or disagree? And are there any clear indications worth looking for?

Rich Farmbrough, 22:36 5 April 2016 (GMT).

I do not think a cutting and pasting is original enough to warrant copyright protection. Ruslik (talk) 07:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@Rich Farmbrough: the following is all subjective, and could ~~easily~~ be explained by lighting weirdness, etc. but it seems to me there's a curved shadow on her right arm that follows the contours too closely, and the ISO noise/skin tone variation/grain over her chest seems of a different (zoomed) character to the rest of it. Not sure about the waist being digitally narrowed... I disagree about the bottom button, looks like it just caught the light and washed out the sensor. Others may have more quantitative/objective answers. Storkk (talk) 08:23, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/ created. --Fæ (talk) 09:17, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

April 07

How to remove these images from Category:Temples?

The template {{RCE-subject|Temples}} categorises a bunch of files to the main Category:Temples even though these files are already correctly categorised in a subcategoryy of said main category. How can these uploads be removed correctly from this main category? - Takeaway (talk) 16:11, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I think by adding Category:Temples_in_the_Netherlands into the list in {{RCE-subject}} template. Ruslik (talk) 17:31, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Trying but not succeeding. - Takeaway (talk) 17:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

There's a similar issue with use of that template. I was looking at Special:WantedCategories, and it seemed that most of the entries on the first page were due to use of this template. A few examples: Category:Bouwfragment, Category:Bijgebouwen, Category:Riet, Category:Gereedschap. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:51, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Please see Template talk:RCE-subject. There was a recent edit which changed the categories on these files, they are now back in their work-in-progress categories. One problem is that the progress seems to have kind of ended, a final solution for these suggested categories (not using these last suggestions?) is welcome. Basvb (talk) 14:27, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

April 04

Would it be possible to import PD image from Commons under CC0 license from Flickr?

Hi all

I've been talking with User:Magnus Manske today about importing content from Flickr which is listed as public domain. Until now Flickr2Commons didn't allow content to be upload that was listed as PD because the PD template on its own isn't acceptable on Commons (as far as I understand) and will just get deleted. My question is would it be acceptable for Magnus to change Flickr2Commons to import images listed as PD on Flickr (e.g US federal images) but rather than add the PD license template use the CC0 license template instead when adding them to Commons? I know that it is possible to import them with the PD template and then change the templates to CC0 but its a lot of extra work and requires people to know they have to do this.

Thanks

--John Cummings (talk) 18:30, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I guess there are no legal restrictions on what we can do to PD images so uploading them as CC-Zero will not break any copyright laws, but the language of {{CC-Zero}} does not match language of Creative Commons Public Domain Mark 1.0, which is where Public Domain link points to. The reason we add {{Flickr-public domain mark}} template for files uploaded as "Public Domain" to Flickr is that Flickr uploaders can say file is in "Public Domain" but do not have to say why, like we do. We no longer have {{PD}} and have to distinguish {{PD-self}} from {{PD-old-100}} or from {{PD-USGov}}. However as with everything else we could revisit the discussion on how to treat Flicks PD files. May be a better way would be to make {{Flickr-public domain mark}} a valid license template, the way {{Flickr-no known copyright restrictions}} is where we would state that Flicker uploader tagged this file as Creative Commons Public Domain Mark 1.0 Public Domain file and we would encourage uploaders to change the template to PD template but not force them to do so. The issue is that this will likely lead to "flickr-washing" where people that do not know the file license for Commons will upload it to Flickr with PD tag and copy it to Commons. We do not have such issue with {{Flickr-no known copyright restrictions}} because we only accept it from large institutions. --Jarekt (talk) 20:04, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

It was discussed at Commons:Requests for comment/Flickr and PD images, and making "Flickr-public domain mark" a valid license template was clearly rejected. --ghouston (talk) 00:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

The difference between PDM and CC0 is that CC0 is like {{PD-author}} where a copyright holder release an image into public domain under the terms of CC0, while PDM is only a "Mark", and not a license, to show that a thid party (not the photographer or reuser) has identified the image to be public domain. Therefore, no, we cannot mix PDM and CC0, and if a Flickr user is indeed the photographer, they shall choose CC0 as the license of the image on Flickr instead, not PDM --Zhuyifei1999 (talk)

Are we having the PDM discussion again? Ok. Someone really needs to create a policy/guideline page specifically about this to just link to. Josve05a (talk) 06:56, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

April 08

Checking a photo

I uploaded a file that its rights are likely disputed (although showing okay at source). Please, someone to check it. Thank you. --Francois-Pier (talk) 00:45, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Pretty clear case of Flickrwashing from a known bad account, where the EXIF credited AP Photo/Rick Rycroft. I deleted it, but did not place a warning template on your user page because you're obviously aware of it. Storkk (talk) 08:24, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: ★ Poké⁹⁵ 06:23, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Using image with Governmental source?

http://images.detik.com/albums/detikfinance-1/Jalur_Kereta_Kalimantan_Infografis_Detikfinance.jpg http://images.detik.com/albums/detikfinance-1/Jalur_Kereta_Sulawesi_Infografis_Detikfinace.jpg http://images.detik.com/albums/detikfinance-1/Jalur_Kereta_Papua_Infografis_Detikfinance.jpg

So these images were made by Andhika Akbaryansyah for detik.com using information from Indonesian Ministry of Transportation, normaly things from governmental sources are free right? So what should we do? I think the worst case scenario is that we have to remake the maps

I want to use them in this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_transport_in_Indonesia

Sorry for my bad English — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthony.stevenson (talk • contribs)

Most governments in the world retain copyright on their works (the U.S. federal government being the most prominent exception). Do you have any particular reason to think Indonesia does not? - Jmabel ! talk 15:55, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

There are many licence templates concerning that issue. For Indocnesia, Template:PD-IDGov applies. And, as for as I understand it correctly, most works of the Indonesian goverment are PD.--Antemister (talk) 16:10, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

When created for detik.com the files are not a government work nor is detik.com a government source. --Martin H. (talk) 08:14, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Duplicate images?

I have encountered two image files that appear to be the identical. Not sure if I am missing something or this was deliberate. The image files are File:Goldwater1964SanFranciscoKKK.jpg and File:Ku Klux Klan with Barry Goldwater's campaign signs 03195u original.jpg. Note: there appears to be an IP that has made claims to being the individuals in the hoods. See File talk:Goldwater1964SanFranciscoKKK.jpg and "Notes" in the Summary section of the File:Ku Klux Klan with Barry Goldwater's campaign signs 03195u original.jpg. Mitchumch (talk) 23:39, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

They appear to be two versions of the same photograph & should be linked as such, but the files are not identical. - Jmabel ! talk 00:24, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
The only difference with them is the brightness, and one of them has a white line at the bottom. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 08:24, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Jmabel and Pokéfan95 Thanks for responding. Good eyes. I hadn't noticed either of those elements.

Should the statement "The original caption is wrong. My wife and I (the two on the left) and three friends, strongly opposed to Goldwater, made those hoods and signs, and marched in the parade up Market Street. We naively thought people would know we were being sarcastic. Many did, but the man on the right did not. --John" be allowed to remain on File:Ku Klux Klan with Barry Goldwater's campaign signs 03195u original.jpg? Mitchumch (talk) 12:03, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I have no problem with it; the alternative would simply be to describe neutrally to indicate that there is no citeable evidence as to whether it was satirical (unless, of course, someone can come forth with such evidence). Do we have the actual U.S. News and World Report story for which the photo was used? That could well clarify the matter. - Jmabel ! talk 15:39, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

April 10

Geocoord harvest

Hi,

what are the ways to harvest geocoords, when taking pictures? I have Cannon G10 so I cannot use a module, which writes GPS directly to EXIF and let say I am not ready to buy a new camera. I was trying to use Holux GPS tracker, but its software and even tracks where somehow corrupted, maybe not compatible to my Windows Vista. Are there any gps trackers, which can be fliped on camera, like flash? Or can I load GPS track to a cellphone even its in the jacket and case?--Juandev (talk) 07:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

@Juandev: There are geotaggers that you can mount on the en:hot shoe. Whenever you take a shot, the tagger will record the position (you may have to play around with the flash settings, I don't know much about Canon compact cameras …). When you get home, you connect the device with your PC and a piece of software can write the position into the EXIF. For example, here is a video that describes how this works with a Jobo PhotoGPS2 and a Lumix LX3. There are other manufacturers who do basically the same thing. --El Grafo (talk) 16:14, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I can see, there are also mounts to fix my cell phone to hot shoe, but they are using it to take a same picture via cell phone or use cell phone as a bigger screen. Do you have such device. Is it posible to move cell phone to horizontal level and use it for GPS capture?--Juandev (talk) 14:28, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Categories for Aviation and for Air transport

I'm seeing hierarchy of these two terms managed inconsistently in the category tree. For example, the following structures exist:

Category:Air transport --> Category:Aeronautics --> Category:Aviation (air transport higher at this highest level, with an intervening level)
Category:Aviation by country --> Category:Air transport by country (aviation higher)
In Category:Aviation by country, there are 219 "in country" categories, 6 of which are in "Air transport in" categories. (There could be some "Aviation in <country>" categories that aren't under the "by country" category. This would include redlinked categories.)
In Category:Air transport by country, there are 19 "in country" categories, 12 of which are in "Aviation in" categories. (There could be some "Air transport in <country>" categories that aren't under the "by country" category. This would include redlinked categories.)
Category:Aviation in the United States --> Category:Air transport in the United States by state (aviation higher, with non-matching terms)

So I have some questions:

Should categories exist for both aviation and air transport?
If we should have only one, which should we keep?
If we should have both, what is the difference between them? Which should be higher in the category tree, or should they be at the same level?

It might be of interest to know that there are 699 categories with names starting with "Aviation in", and 116 with names starting with "Air transport in".

Comments? --Auntof6 (talk) 06:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the first question: Definitely yes. There's more to aviation than transporting things: Think of science, aircraft development, air sports … Pretty sure air transport should come below aviation in the hierarchy – and in fact it does, it's just that aeronautics shouldn't be a subcat of air transport. --El Grafo (talk) 08:59, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Except that air transport is above aviation in some lower parts of the category tree. That inconsistency is part of what prompted my questions. I'm looking for input for all levels, not just the top. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:11, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

For the first question, yes. Aviation is not only about air transport, it is also about physics. For example, air resistance is a part of aviation. And for the hierarchy, air transport should be below of aviation. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 08:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Further thoughts: if aviation is the science (and education/training, and maybe other things), then do aviation categories belong under science and technology and air transport categories belong under transport? What exactly goes in each of these? --Auntof6 (talk) 17:11, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

How can I add marks based on coordinates on a .svg location map and then download the edited file?

To be more specific, I want to use that file to the right and add different cities there with coordinates. I know how to do that, but not how to download the file with these dots then. Can someone help me?

--Flying Desert Snow Leopard (talk) 11:56, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

There is no "dots" in this svg file and you do not need to download this file to add new "dots". Ruslik (talk) 18:08, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, what I want to do is adding the dots and then download that file including them. I need it for a private purpose on my hard drive. --Flying Desert Snow Leopard (talk) 19:44, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Maybe add the file the usual way to a sandbox page, including the dots, then do a screen capture and edit it down to the part you need? --Auntof6 (talk) 00:43, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

@Flying Desert Snow Leopard: I assume you use something like en:Template:Location map? In that case, there simply is no graphics file with dots. The template uses a png thumbnail generated from the SVG file as a background and a png version of File:Red pog.svg for the dot. But they are never merged into a single file: Html (CSS?) magic is used to display the dot on top of the map. The only quick way to get a single image file with both the map and the dot from those templates I'm aware of is the screenshot method mentioned by Auntof6 above. --El Grafo (talk) 11:17, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, that works indeed. Not good and very roughly, but it works. --Flying Desert Snow Leopard (talk) 16:54, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Category:Memorial of Rebirth

I fail to see how the images now in Category:Memorial of Rebirth are any less subject to deletion as copyright violations than the many images of that work we have deleted in the past. I've seen images deleted in the past for what I personally would have considered de minimis inclusion of the monument; most of these are straightforward images of the monument as such. Am I missing something? -- Jmabel ! talk 15:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

There is an explanation on the category's page. Ruslik (talk) 18:00, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

... which does not seem to me to provide relevant explanation for at least the bulk of these photos. For example, can you explain how these criteria would apply to File:Monument în cinstea eroilor Revoluției din Decembrie 1989.jpg? - Jmabel ! talk 00:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Wow. I can't see how we can even have such a category, given that Romania does not recognize any freedom of panorama for architectural or sculptural works, even those on permanent public display, until 70 years after the death of the author (who, in this case, isn't even dead). As near as I can read it, all of these images represent copyright violations and should be removed. I am going to nominate them and see if others agree with me. KDS4444 (talk) 07:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

April 11

Images not appearing in categories after UW upload

Is this a known issue? It's the second time I noticed it.. this time, I uploaded four images at 01:03 using the Upload Wizard, and put all of them in Category:Worben in the wizard at the same time. But only three of them are now displayed in the category. File:Alpen Worben 2016 04 10.jpg, although the category is correctly present in the file description page, as far as I can see, doesn't appear on the category page. The last time I encountered this issue, a "null edit" to the category page (and/or the image description page? I don't remember...) solved it, I think. But for now, I'm not doing it, so others can have a look at it if needed, maybe it's a technical issue that should be reported somewhere more fitting? Gestumblindi (talk) 01:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

The image shows up in the category now. I did notice yesterday that there was a lag before images started showing in a new category. MKFI (talk) 06:31, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

This is a long known and common issue. New images don't show up in categories because of caching. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 09:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Not really. Every since category updates went to job queue they're ever-slow --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 10:02, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Please can someone change the license templates on the files in Category:Images from Dry Tortugas NPS Flickr account to Template:PD-USGov-NPS?

Hi all

Please can someone change the license templates on the files in Category:Images from Dry Tortugas NPS Flickr account to Template:PD-USGov-NPS? I've imported the files using Flickr2Commons however the license on the account isn't correct.

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 10:17, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

@John Cummings: is there any evidence that that Flickr account uploads only photographs that were created by NPS employees? The first file I clicked was https://www.flickr.com/photos/drytortugasnps/6022101789/ , where the EXIF credits a "John L. Dengler" and mentions "All rights reserved". His bio mentions NPS as a client, but I don't believe that necessarily makes his photos PD. Storkk (talk) 10:46, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

@Storkk: , thanks for the message. The account profile says "This is the official Flickr page for Dry Tortugas National Park managed by the public affairs office. All images posted on this site are in the public domain and consequently are free; they may be used without a copyright release from the National Park Service". John Cummings (talk) 11:47, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

How big is Wikimedia Commons?

I've been klicking around trying to find out how big Wikimedia Commons is. I mean filesize. How many GB or TB or PB? -abbedabb^talk 17:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Per Special:MediaStatistics, 80,763,333,993,112 bytes (73.45 TB). This is just for the files, I believe, but the total won't be much bigger (per the dumps, all the non-media files compress to ~7GB). Storkk (talk) 17:39, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh! Thank you very much for the link and the quick reply! -abbedabb^talk 17:41, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

That's only current versions of files, we've also got deleted versions, and "old" versions. Also each file is stored multiple times on separate computers as backup. If you want to get a sense of the disk space involved in storing files (Which is a very different question from how much space all the files take up, since there's multiple copies of each file, etc), here are stats on disk total and disk free for the swift servers (Where media is stored for all Wikimedia wikis) in eqiad (eqiad = Virginia. There's also servers in codfw = Texas). Bawolff (talk) 23:02, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

@Bawolff: Do they still have some in Florida as well? Reguyla (talk) 15:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

No, those got decommissioned. Currently, there are servers in Virginia, Texas, San Francisco and Amsterdam. Bawolff (talk) 20:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Looking for assistance mass changing the categories and license templates on a set of images imported from Flickr using Flickr2Commons

Hi all

I'm looking for assistance from someone who knows how to mass add a category to files in the results of Special:LinkSearch and also to change the license template of files imported from PD to PD-USGov from Flickr. I'm doing some work with a number of Biosphere Reserves to make their images available on Commons and want to create some examples of how measuring views would work for them, I can provide guidance for them on using GLAMorgan (thanks Magnus) using some National Parks (which are also Biosphere Reserves) as examples to the guide I'm preparing for Biosphere Reserves. These National Parks and Biosphere Reserves also have Flickr accounts:

Yellowstone https://www.flickr.com/photos/yellowstonenps/
Denali https://www.flickr.com/photos/denalinps/
Rocky Mountain https://www.flickr.com/photos/rockynps/
Olympic https://www.flickr.com/photos/olympicnps/
Noatak https://www.flickr.com/photos/alaskanps/
Glacier https://www.flickr.com/photos/glaciernps/
Everglades & Dry Tortugas https://www.flickr.com/photos/drytortugasnps/

I need help with two problems I'm stuck on:

1. A number of files have been uploaded from the Flickr accounts already but the files are not in any specific category, I can find the files by searching for the different urls (found using Special:LinkSearch and a user lookup tool on Flickr. Here are the urls that will like to the Flickr account for Yellowstone National Park.

However I cannot work out how to add the files that appear in the search results of the search tool to a specific category e.g Images from YellowstoneNPS Flickr account

2. Magnus has changed Flickr2Commons to allow us to upload files marked as PD however the PD license on Flickr is insufficient and it needs to be changed for all the files imported to PD-USGov, I don't know how to do this.

Any help would be greatly appreciated

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 08:46, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I created Category:Files from YellowstoneNPS Flickr stream. I can't find much to put in it though. --ghouston (talk) 04:03, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
There's a more specific Template:PD-USGov-NPS. --ghouston (talk) 04:07, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

@Ghouston: Thanks very much, I've been through all the Flickr accounts and found maybe 5000 files that need adding to the Category:Files from ????NPS Flickr stream categories I made a list here User:John Cummings/BR Flickr accounts, would it be possible to use a tool to add all these files to those categories? If the list needs to be in a different format please let me know. Thanks again John Cummings (talk) 09:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

That's quite a few. I've done the next one: Category:Files from DenaliNPS Flickr stream. I searched using the standard search for insource:57557144@N06 and insource:flickr.com/photos/denalinps and used cat-a-lot to add them to the new category. I'm not sure that it would be a good idea to try and change licenses automatically, since it's possible that not all the files on those Flickr streams were made by government employees. --ghouston (talk) 04:20, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

@Ghouston: Thanks so much for this, sorry I didn't explain myself well with the license template. Basically there is a problem in that Flickr licenses and Wikimedia licenses don't match up exactly so files copied from Flickr to Commons that are listed on Flickr as PD need to have their licenses changed to PD-USGov. For example, I just transffered a few 100 files from Flickr to Category:Files from RockyNPS Flickr stream, which all currently have PD licenses but should have PD-USGov and since the PD license isn't enough for Commons then they may get deleted if the license isn't corrected. Thanks again John Cummings (talk) 08:53, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, that can be done with VisualFileChange. For that category, I replaced {{Remove this line and insert a public domain copyright tag instead}}{{No license since|month=April|day=12|year=2016}} with {{PD-USGov-NPS}}. --ghouston (talk) 11:09, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

@Ghouston: Thanks very much, I will have to learn how to use that tool, I have a few 1000 more new photos to import from the other Flickr accounts. John Cummings (talk) 12:26, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

April 09

Tech News: 2016-15

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

The visual editor can generate wikicode with image options in your language. Examples of image options are "thumb" or "left". You can ask to change to options in your language in Phabricator. [5][6]
Wiktionaries and Wikisources can now use the visual editor. It is an opt-in beta feature. It still needs development to work better with these projects. [7][8]
ORES is using new models. Tools that use ORES' predictions can behave strangely. ORES also has a new API. [9]
The visual editor now supports classical Greek characters. [10]

Problems

There was a bug when you used keyboard arrows in templates in the visual editor. This has now been fixed. [11]

Changes this week

The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 12 April. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 13 April. It will be on all wikis from 14 April (calendar).
The wikipedia.org portal will get many small bug fixes and improvements. Most will be for the search box and suggested results that were added in March. [12]

Meetings

You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on 12 April at 19:00 (UTC). See how to join.
You can join the next meeting with the Architecture committee. The topics this week are improving transclusion of templates for Parsoid and balanced templates. The meeting will be on 13 April at 21:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

Wikimedia has a new backup data center in Dallas. Because of planned work on this, you will be able to read but not edit the wikis for a short period of time on both 19 April and 21 April. This will start at 14:00 UTC and last for 15 to 30 minutes. [13]

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

20:44, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Heh, the VisualEditor takes up half this report, how nice. It’s like the ship’s captain reporting gleefully about the work of termites and bore weevils. And it now infects the Wiktionnary, too! I am sure this was achieved after insistent calls from that project’s most proeminent developers (not!). We can we predict a surge of new, really valuable content being added to yet another project! VisualEditor — not the only one, but surely the best tool to bring stupid to a wiki near you! -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 10:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

April 12

IEG grant submission for Wikimedia-powered e-books - feedback welcome

Hi everyone! I have just submitted an Individual Engagement Grant request to research how it would work if one would like to create e-books with mixed content from various Wikimedia projects together. The reason for requesting this grant is that I'm working on a hybrid print and digital (Wiki)book on Dutch digital arts, for which I'd like to do such a thing, and I want to work on a more 'universal' solution from the start. You can find the grant submission here. I explicitly want to make sure that media from Wikimedia Commons can be included there too. Feedback, questions, use cases, and of course endorsements are more than welcome there. Thanks! Spinster (talk) 09:47, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Just in case someone is totally bored right now …

The images used in the collages above are (at least in part) not the uploader's own work and may not be compatible with each other license-wise. Originals must be found and description pages updated per COM:Collages or we'll have to delete them. Unfortunately, I don't have time for that right now, but maybe someone else is bored? I'll start a list below. Pinging Berkaysnklf as the maker of the collages. --El Grafo (talk) 10:13, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Collage 1: Puerto de la Cruz (complete)
- top left: File:View Puerto de la Cruz.jpg, various licenses
- top right: File:Pto-cruz.jpg, CC-BY-SA 2.5 generic
- center left: File:Puerto Martianez 01.jpg, CC-BY 3.0 unported
- bottom left: File:Puerto Marquesa 01.jpg, CC-BY 3.0 unported
- bottom right: File:Tree Tenerife.JPG, various licenses

Collage 2: Barcelona
- 2nd from above: File:BCN01.JPG

Collage 3: Vélez-Málaga
- top left: File:San Juan Bautista-Vélez.jpg, CC-BY 2.0 generic

Question OK, so I've managed to find all source files for File:Puerto de la Cruz Collage.jpg. If I read COM:Collages correctly, the resulting license should be CC-BY-SA 3.0 unported rather than PD-self. But what to do with {{User:Berkaysnklf/HispaniaTemplate}}? It's not totally wrong as it refers to the license template, but misleading as it only mentions the author of the collage and not the photographers … --El Grafo (talk) 15:36, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Project Hispania is apparently a one man or one woman project, their babel-box has "en", active on trwiki, you could ask them. I think the new cross-wiki pings are not yet available on most Wikipedias. –Be..anyone 💩 00:44, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Good point about the ping, didn't think about that. Left them a personal message. --El Grafo (talk) 08:02, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Mesh Network Community

Hello All,

I have written a proposal for Wiki Mesh Network Community, please share your suggestions in the talk page.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Wiki_Mesh_Network_Community

Alagunambi (talk) 16:26, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Wrapping up an old discussion

I'm wondering about the process. I'd like to act on this. Input? Thoughts? Guidance on how things go around here? Thank you and best wishes to all, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:02, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I just dropped my 2 cents in. Not sure how the closure process actually works, though, which seems odd because I feel like I should by now. KDS4444 (talk) 00:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

The rest of the "manual" is in Commons:Categories_for_discussion#Closing_a_discussion. –Be..anyone 💩 23:30, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata support: arbitrary access is coming on the 26th f April

Hey everyone :)

A while ago I asked for testing of the arbitrary access feature here. This will enable Commons to make use of all the data that is on Wikidata. Given that no major issues were found during testing we are going to enable arbitrary access for you on the 26th of April. I hope this will make many great things possible for you. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 17:39, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Great news. --Jarekt (talk) 19:43, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Excellent news! We'll have the real fireworks on 26th, but I hope you don't mind me prematurely lighting a little sparkler right now ;-) --El Grafo (talk) 08:13, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Haha no I don't mind at all ;-) --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 08:15, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

April 14

Files do not appear

Hello.Some of the files do not appear in Category:Book of Hours 1984 (example), what is the reason?Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 15:57, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's wrong, but I fixed your example by making a null edit to the file page in question. I suggest you try doing the same to any others that exhibit the problem. - Jmabel ! talk 20:03, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
It is because category updating is in the job queue, so there is probably a delay in updating the categories (credits to Zhuyifei1999). ★ Poké⁹⁵ 06:27, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Input requested for building a database for public domain (AutoresAr)

Hello everyone! We're presenting a proposal for building a database of argentinean authors in the public domain. Our proposal is based on a project already been carried out in Uruguay, called AutoresUy, already accepted as an unique identifier in Wikidata. We think it's necessary and desirable to have more projects of this kind. In order to achieve this, we have set up a plan that includes workshops, edit-a-thons and lots of hard work to build, improve, and expand this database and help Wikimedia projects. Please leave your input in the talk page, or directly an endorsement if you think it's worthed.

IEG proposal for AutoresAr. --Scanno (talk) 14:43, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Isn't Wikidata query by date of death should be enough? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:18, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

New categories not showing up

I've lately been subdividing some broad categories and moving the contents to the new subcategories with Cat-A-Lot. I've often noticed that the new ones don't immediately show up in Cat-A-Lot or the parent category; for example, Category:Wooden houses in DeKalb County, Indiana didn't immediately show up in Category:Wooden houses in Indiana, even though the DeKalb category lists the Indiana category as one of its parents. No problem; doing it manually isn't hard, and I assume that this is a database-going-slowly problem, as explained in the fourth bullet of en:MediaWiki:Notitletext.

However, I created the DeKalb County wooden houses category thirteen hours ago, and it's still not showing up, so Category:Wooden buildings in DeKalb County, Indiana claims that it's empty. What's going on? The wooden buildings category is listed as a parent of the wooden houses category; it's not a typo in the category's code. Nyttend (talk) 00:25, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

There was a bug that caused this to happen sometimes. It was supposedly fixed, but maybe not: [14]. Null-editing the child category will probably fix this instance. --ghouston (talk) 01:09, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I've seen something similar. I just reload the page once or twice and then everything looks as it should. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Same problem with File:Old Tempelhof airport 2016 (4).JPG. Doesnt show in the new category: 2016 at Berlin Tempelhof Airport.Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:37, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Bug on this wiki: int:lang returns "fr" when uselang=pcd

When the default user language is set to Picard (pcd), or a page is viewed with "?uselang=pcd", the special template "int:lang" returns "fr" instead of "pcd".

Also when the language is set to Alemanic (gsw), the special template "int:lang" still returns "als" (non-standard legacy code) instead of "gsw" (standard code).

Proofs: {{int:lang}} currently returns "en" (unless you've not used the links below, this should be the language code of your own language in user preferences).

View this page in Picard (pcd: standard code) : should return "pcd", not "fr"
View this page in Alemanic (gsw: standard code) : should return "gsw", not "als"
View this page in Alemanic (als: legacy non-standard code) : should preferably return "gsw", unless the real language code "als" is reassigned to the correct language
View this page in Norman (nrm: legacy non-standard code) : which standard code should it return, given that standard code "nrm" is reserved for another unrelated language ?

In summary, the MediaWiki translation resource pages stored for "int:lang" do not always return their own language code (even if the language code is supported in MediaWiki translations): these are

MediaWiki:Lang/pcd : does not exist, so "int:lang" attempts to find a translation of the "Lang" message in another fallback language and returns "fr"
MediaWiki:Lang/gsw : incorrectly contains "als"

This generates bugs in "autotranslated" pages or templates, where existing translations are not displayed as expected (for example with Template:LangSwitch), and messages in another language are displayed.

verdy_p (talk) 11:18, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the admin for the new corrections ! verdy_p (talk) 11:56, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

You welcome, If you find some more issues with MediaWiki namespace pages please leave message at their talk page with {{Editrequest}} and I or some other admin will be happy to help. --Jarekt (talk) 11:59, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Please use the preview feature, 18 revisions for a single post is a bit excessive (watchlists, page history, …). FDMS 4 12:02, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

All previews were correct, these were some added precisions (there was still no reply before that).

We should probably check all MediaWiki:Lang/"code" subpages:

To see if they all contain the same "code", given that int:Lang depends on this (there may be some exceptions for strange codes used for special internal purposes, but not intended for use in translations)
There may also remain some old items for languages whose support has been dropped (such as "zh-CN", "zh-TW", "iw" ?) or for other non-standard codes that have been reassigned to another language ("nrm" is still an exception), or replaced by new shorter codes ("zh-min-nan" is still supported as an alias for "nan", but there remains translations made with "zh-min-nan").
There are also probably other missing items for newly supported languages that were added to MediaWiki translations (we should check the list of languages imported from translatewiki and enabled in MediaWiki and installed on Commons).

verdy_p (talk) 12:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

NRM guess: NRF, cf. Norman language. –Be..anyone 💩 16:22, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I checked the list of all "supported languages" and within them, there are missing resources for int:Lang:

MediaWiki:Lang/ady

MediaWiki:Lang/ady-cyrl

MediaWiki:Lang/aeb

MediaWiki:Lang/aeb-arab

MediaWiki:Lang/aeb-latn

MediaWiki:Lang/bbc-latn

MediaWiki:Lang/gan-hans

MediaWiki:Lang/gan-hant

MediaWiki:Lang/gom

MediaWiki:Lang/gom-deva

MediaWiki:Lang/gom-latn

MediaWiki:Lang/hrx

MediaWiki:Lang/jam

MediaWiki:Lang/kbd

MediaWiki:Lang/kbd-cyrl

MediaWiki:Lang/ks-arab

MediaWiki:Lang/ks-deva

MediaWiki:Lang/shi-latn

MediaWiki:Lang/shi-tfng

MediaWiki:Lang/sli

MediaWiki:Lang/tcy

MediaWiki:Lang/tly

MediaWiki:Lang/tokipona

MediaWiki:Lang/tru

MediaWiki:Lang/ug-arab

MediaWiki:Lang/ug-latn

MediaWiki:Lang/uz-cyrl

MediaWiki:Lang/uz-latn

All other "MediaWiki:Lang/*" for supported languages are correctly setup with their own language code. verdy_p (talk) 13:33, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Fixed --Jarekt (talk) 14:04, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. You can see the effect in my User:Verdy_p/sandbox page (which lists all supported codes and their names); I could have written a module for that, but I just used the Module:Languages to extract the list of language codes. May be we could add a testcase for Module:Languages making sure everything is fine in this list. verdy_p (talk) 16:56, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Hide button for editing change tags on history pages

Please see Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Hide button for editing change tags on history pages. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 06:19, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

April 17

Category system

I think we should change how we use categories. For example, the Category:Unidentified plants in Germany is unnecessary. All media in this category should be in the Category:Unidentified plants and in a Category like "Photo taken in Germany".

Why is this desirable?

No step back: Such a system allows to store the same kind of information
Separation of information
- This is good, because Category:Daffodils by country does not have a subcategory "Daffodils in Germany". Lazy editors might simply move the file to Category:Narcissus. Information is lost with the current system.
- It makes sub-categories to be on the same "level" of information. Sub-categories should be only more specific, that means of the same type of the main category. For example, Category:Narcissus should only contain sub-categories of more specific types such as Category:Narcissus gaditanus‎. It should not contain
  - Category:Narcissus in art‎ (rather Category:Narcissus‎ and Category:Art‎ from which one can automatically deduct it is "Narcissus in Art")
  - Category:Daffodils by country‎ (rather Category:Narcissus‎ and something like "Category:Taken in Germany")
  - Category:Narcissus by color‎ (rather Category:Narcissus‎ and something like "Category:Blue")
Better tools could be written: I was just about to write a machine learning tool which should help to find categories (or more specific subcategories, if a category is already given), but this is currently harder than necessary.

What do you think?

Best regards, --MartinThoma (talk) 09:39, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree, our category system is completely bonkers. There is no way that unrelated attributes should be combined as one category. The "Location" attribute is quite separate from the "Main subject" attribute, etc. It is a wonder anyone can find any images in our deeply nested labyrinthine mess. Looking for a picture of "David Cameron" outside "10 Downing St"? Well someone has put most of his pictures inside "in year" categories as if the date the photo was taken is the most important sub-attribute of "David Cameron". I don't know anything about the Wikidata project, but one has to hope they have discovered a better way of classifying things that perhaps could be used here. It is sad that so much volunteer effort is being wasted on this system that is of very little help to end-users. -- Colin (talk) 10:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the problem you see, but are you saying that Category:Narcissus in art‎, Category:Daffodils by country‎, Category:Narcissus by color‎, and similar categories shouldn't exist? I'd disagree with that. One reason is that having the files in question directly under the art, taken in country, and color categories would overcrowd those categories. The art category alone currently has almost 2000 files in it. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:41, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

What does it mean for a category to be "overcrowd"? Surely you're not talking about technical problems, are you? --MartinThoma (talk) 11:56, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

A system like this would also require a better browsing method designed for it - one where looking for images in the intersection of two categories would be very easy (among other things). If there are tools for browsing a category smartly the size wouldn't be an issue. BMacZero (talk) 15:45, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

For what it's worth a script/gadget to do category intersect searches probably wouldn't be that hard for someone with Labs access and would be a great benefit. Reguyla (talk) 15:53, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

FastCCI, a default-activated gadget since 2014, can perform category intersections. FDMS 4 15:59, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) There is a tool for that: FastCCI. Go to a Category, click on the little arrow next to "Good pictures" at the top right, click on "In this category and in …". It works quite well and it would work much better if we had a flatter category tree.

Our current system of categorizing stuff by multiple attributes is a relic of the early times where category intersection was not an easy thing to do. Which results in Categories like Category:Videos of Purple Boeing 737-300 of British Airways landing at London-Heathrow Airport in 1987 at sunset. Yes, I'm exaggerating, but unfortunately not that much. --El Grafo (talk) 16:03, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Just started watching Dschwen's excellent talk again. Turns out I did not exaggerate: Category:Demographic maps of 15-17 year old dependent children whose fathers did not state proficiency in English and whose mothers speak English only in Victoria. This is adness. Coplete and utter adness. --El Grafo (talk) 16:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Totally seconding the recommendation for Dschwen's FastCCI presentation! Here you go:

FastCCI - Taming the Commons Category Tree. Dschwen, Wikimania 2014
Talk: Now available under CC-By 3.0
Fastcci intersect
Fastcci intersect

Info See also de:Hilfe:Suche/Deepcat (Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2015/11#Deepcat_Gadget:_intersection_and_subcategory_search_on_Wikipedia_and_Commons and phabricator), allowing category intersection search in cirrus. --Atlasowa (talk) 21:56, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I also think that the category intersections should be generated on demand, not hard-coded into category names. Users may want to break down a category by date, license or author, for example, instead of location. The main thing that prevents it is that the current user interface isn't designed for such intersections, even if they can be produced using work-arounds such as FastCCI. Without a better interface, it would be hard to establish a consensus to forbid category intersections, and without that, anyone can create them and there's nothing you can do about it. I once asked about categories like Category:September 2012 in Bute Street, Hong Kong and in the discussion one person even said that deleting such categories was vandalism. --ghouston (talk) 00:30, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Like most people here I agree that we would be better off without intersection categories, IF we had the right tools, which are easy to use and enabled by default. And going a step further, some things like date and (possibly) place should not even be recorded using categories, but using a useful metadata system. (Which should integrate with Wikidata.) --Sebari (talk) 00:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I think I see a consensus here: We should do what I proposed, but only after we have good integrated tools to make the intersections. I have two ideas for this: First, I would create another search page similar to write-math.com. You can see the search terms is [arrow][mnsymbol] right, where [arrow] and [mnsymbol] are categories which get intersected. I think this is a very natural way to search for the files. The second idea is to propose possible divisions (e.g. by color, year, ...). This can be done automatically by looking at which categories the files also have and applying an information-theoretic criterion like the Gini coefficient.

But I should probably talk with somebody who is involved in MediaWiki development. I don't want to develop something and then it doesn't get integrated. (And I would prefer it if somebody else wrote the code.) --MartinThoma (talk) 06:43, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I really don't think we should make rash decisions and end up throwing the baby out with the bathwater here. There is no way that after a couple of paragraphs are posted on the Village pump that we can "see a consensus" on this. If you wish to see better search tools developed then very well, but I don't think that should change how we store images here. I think these are 2 different things that are often confused. I would hate to see the simplicity of the current system sacrificed for a complex, supposedly All singing, all dancing search system that you would need to be educated on or experienced on how to best to use it and that may well have hit and miss results. It's very easy to see faults in the current system but it may be impossible to develop a better system that handles such a variety of content and still stays simple, consistent and easy to use. Oxyman (talk) 14:46, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

My thought was to improve the current search / implement a way to do easy category intersections and then talk again about how we manage categories as a community. Currently, it seems that nobody wants to change the way we use categories because the lack of tools. So this is a killer argument against changing the category system. However, I don't see any argument against new features in search / new search tools / a new design. --MartinThoma (talk) 15:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I can see benefits to improving search tools, I just don't think that they should replace the category system Oxyman (talk) 21:57, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I think we'd run into different problems by broadening the categories too much. For instance, should a search for intersection of "People" and "Germany" show German people in Germany, or non-German people visiting in Germany, non-German people living in Germany, or German people living outside Germany? Should a search for "Flowers" and "Germany" yield images of common German flowers (like daffodils), or images of exotic orchids in flower shops in Germany? FastCCI looks great, but I don't see it solving that issue. I'd say that narrow commons categories can provide a service if you are looking for something narrow. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, those category intersections would be ambiguous. You could have separate categories, such as Located in Germany, Born in Germany, Holding German citizenship. The latter would only apply to people, the first to all kinds of objects including living ones, the second to all kinds of animals. It would look different if done via Wikidata-like topics. Nobody said it would be easy. --ghouston (talk) 00:58, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Basically that's why we need COM:Structured data. Does anybody know the current status of that? --El Grafo (talk) 11:27, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

User:MartinThoma says he sees «consensus here». Maybe here. In Commons at large, not really. Users who actually work for Commons (i.e. not merely use it as a vanity display case for selected photographs, or as a tool for WMF politics) are too busy adding categories to media files and are too bored already to even react every time a newbie pops up in VP suggesting the whole category data be dismantled just because it doesn’t fit their lack of knowledge about successful crowdsourced ahierarchic notional cladistics. Of course distroying is (or would be) easy, but it doesn’t make it right. FWIW, 90% of Commons files is uncategorized or undercategorized: focus on that and leave other people’s useful and meaningful work alone. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 10:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I sympathize with Tuvalkin's response. Nemo 10:44, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Category:Crêpes in Takeshita street. What more can I say? - Jmabel ! talk 00:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I see that someone implicitly replied to that be removing the category without discussion. Not the worst way to deal with it. - Jmabel ! talk 15:45, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Moved to Category:Marion Crêpes, Takeshita street Delphi234 (talk) 07:09, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps someone could summarize all tools used for category intersection at Commons:Tools/Category intersection? -- Rillke^(q?) 08:15, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

April 12

Biggest donation of photos from Italy

Hi to all,
As the Wikimedian in residence at the digital library of BEIC (GLAM/BEIC), I'm happy to announce that we uploaded almost the entire digital photo archive of an important Italian contemporary photographer, Paolo Monti (1908-1982), with nearly 17.000 images (the whole archive was acquired by Fondazione BEIC). This is the biggest donation of images in "one shot" ever made in Italy by a cultural institution. It’s also the first time that a digital archive from a famous photographer is almost completely uploaded into Wikimedia Commons.
The photos represent various subjects (art, events, architecture, people, portraits, nature, artistic nudes, experimental) and were shot since 1950s to 1980s. Many of them are B/W, but there are also many amazing colorful artistic/experimental pictures as well as the first strips collection (with test prints etc.) of Commons. There are also many precious contemporary architecture photos, because Paolo Monti was commissioned to do reportages for magazines and catalogues - and of course he made it with the full permission of the architects. So we do not have to worry the typical lack of "freedom of panorama" in Italy.
The photos uploaded few days ago were all selected and "tagged" manually by BEIC-commissioned cataloguers working according to the standards. To give Commons the best quality end result possible, the upload was done with the highest resolution available and with all available metadata. See them in Category:Photographs by Paolo Monti.
I'd like to thank the many commoners that helped us till the first minutes - I was amazed by their enthusiasm - and kindly ask for you patience and help, because I know that some commoners don't like "red" (uncreated) categories derived from the original catalogue. We worked hard to fix the most part of them and I think we will be able to complete this work in the next weeks - with your help. Yes, there is a lot of work to do, not only in improving categories, but also in using images into Wikipedia articles, and - if you like - selecting the best photos to candidate them as "featured pictures" or "valued pictures". Thank you, --Marco Chemello (BEIC) (talk) 13:56, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

A wonderful donation, indeex! As for the redlinked categories, I see that some of the ones with Italian names were actually defined. One is Category:Bambini. I believe it is our practice not to define categories with non-English names if the purpose is to redirect to the English-named category -- at least, I've seen many such categories deleted. Also, if these categories are created, they should not redirect to Italy-specific categories. For example, Category:Bambini redirects to Category:Children of Italy, but it should redirect simply to Category:Children. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:50, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Fully agreed, on all accounts. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:37, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

While I agree in principle and I initially did so too, this is a common practice since multiple years, presumably for reasons of practicality. Better discuss changes in a specific discussion. Federico Leva (BEIC) (talk) 22:04, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

These are the category pages that were not created this month and do not redirect to a disambiguated category page. I don't think such redirects are common practice (and also agree with Auntof6). FDMS 4 22:30, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)There are only 252 of them. In a project this size, I don't think that constitutes a common practice. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:39, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

and of course he made it with the full permission of the architects. So we do not have to worry the typical lack of "freedom of panorama" in Italy.

This is worrying when it comes to Wikimedia Commons' policies. We need evidence of such permission per the precautionary principle. Otherwise such images which includes images of buildings which may be covered under FoP will (unfortunatly) be deleted. Josve05a (talk) 22:12, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Another issue I'm seeing here is that people seem to be assuming that all these photos are of things in Italy, but that isn't the case. As an example, look at this one (link is to a specific version of the photo): it appears to be in Florida, because there are categories for Key West and because the words "Florida Keys" appear on the boat. However, someone apparently assumed it was in Italy and moved it from Category:Imbarcazioni to Category:Boats in Italy. Since Cat-a-lot was used to do that, the same move may have been done to other files. Earlier today, I changed a lot of the new category redirects to remove "in Italy" from the name of the target categories, but many files may have been moved to the "in Italy" categories already. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:54, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Replacing DEFAULTSORT with {{MenByName}} as appropriate

I noticed recently that NeverDoING was replacing {{DEFAULTSORT}} and other categories with {{MenByName}} such as here. I don't really care personally which way we do this, and frankly the {{MenByName}} NeverDoING created might be more efficient, but I think we should be consistent and if this is desired we should just get a bot to do it and go from there. Reguyla (talk) 20:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Assuming last name = surname? Cute. But you need to rename it {{Men(exceptKoreansChineseJapaneseHungariansAndMostPortugueseBraziliansEtcAndAlsoIffyForIcelanders)ByName}} — very “effective” indeed. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 22:18, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I do completely agree that there are names it won't work on so we certainly couldn't do it on all of them. But it would be fairly easy to do it if it had something like \{\{DEFAULTSORT\:last_name\,[ ]+first_name\}\}

Sorry that comment was mine. I guess I forgot to sign. Reguyla (talk) 14:16, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

NeverDoING, I do not like when templates hide {{DEFAULTSORT}}, as I occasionally look trough Category:People by name and look for categories missing {{DEFAULTSORT}} so it can be added. When templates add {{DEFAULTSORT}} and than someone adds conflicting {{DEFAULTSORT}} than you and up with hard to debug page errors. That is why {{Creator}} templates do no add it, although they could. --Jarekt (talk) 16:44, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Maybe use subst, so the {{DEFAULTSORT}} shows up explicitly? --GRuban (talk) 17:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Default namespaces in search feature

Quick question: If I'm not mistaken, the "File" namespace isn't included per default if you start a search. In my opinion, it's actually the most important namespace for searching on Commons; all the time, I find content only if including "File". So, would it be possible to include it per default, or are there good reasons not to do so? Maybe strain on the servers? Gestumblindi (talk) 20:58, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Odd, I get ns0=1 ns4=1 ns6=1 ns8=1 etc., where ns6 is File. To reproduce, try a weird default search (I used testtesttest), try the same with the advanced search, and click "Search" on the advanced form to get an URL showing the used Namespaces. I have "Remember selection for future searches" unchecked at the moment. Are you talking about the "search suggestions"? That would be a different story, and I can't tell it. –Be..anyone 💩 22:10, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

@Be..anyone: I get Gallery, Help, Category, MediaWiki talk, Template talk, Creator, and Institution - "Remember selection for future searches" is unchecked, and it's the same even if I'm logged out. But if try it with a different browser I don't normally use, the "File" namespace is included per default indeed... Gestumblindi (talk) 00:04, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

You can override the defaults. If you've ever checked "Remember selection...", you'll no longer use the site default, and instead use whatever you had checked. [However, if you are logged out, you should definitely get the site default]. Bawolff (talk) 18:59, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

April 15

Non-empty subcats

Is there an easy way to list only subcategories that are not empty? Or alternatively to list the sub-cats of a category in descending order of number of items?

I'm considering using quite a lot of dispersion categories with an upload I'm trying to think out the strategy for, and I want to know whether it's possible to easily see only the ones that still have work to do. Jheald (talk) 00:21, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

CategoryTree has lots of interesting features, but I've forgotten everything about it. Maybe it can do or at least help with what you want. –Be..anyone 💩 15:18, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Meta categories by denomination

Template {{Metacat}} is putting categories by denomination into Category:Categories by name (flat list). I don't think this is right. For examples, look at Category:Christian missionaries by denomination. This category is for missionaries grouped by their religious denomination (Mormon missionaries, Roman Catholic missionaries, etc.). This is not grouping by name, but by religion.

In Category:Categories by name (flat list), there are 127 "by denomination" categories. All but two are for religious denominations. The other two are for money. I don't think either the religion-related ones or the money-related ones belong under the "by name" flat category. I can't find the template that assigns the name, however, so could folks here 1) say whether they agree with this and/or 2) point me to the right template to change? Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:25, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

They should be using {{metacat|denomination}} instead of {{metacat|name}}. However Template:ByCat converts "denomination" to "name". The only category I can see [15] using "denomination" in a non-religious sense is Category:Coins by denomination and that's just a redirect, so I'd suggest removing the mapping in Template:ByCat. --ghouston (talk) 07:49, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

They do use {{metacat|denomination}}, but denomination maps to name. The two categories I saw were Category:Ancient Greek coins by denomination and Category:Money of the United States by denomination. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:32, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I edited Category:Christian missionaries by denomination, but others like Category:Christians by denomination use "name". --ghouston (talk) 09:36, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, then it sounds like some need to be changed. I can check them the next time I'm back on my main PC. However, the mapping issue still exists. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:46, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I think to make them go in a separate flat category, a new line would need to be added too. However "religion" maps to "institution" so maybe denomination should too. --ghouston (talk) 07:55, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

As long as we have both the religious and monetary meanings for denomination, it shouldn't map to institution, either. I'm thinking it might be better for it not to map to anything, or to map to itself. It could be problematic, though, to have the different meanings combined.. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:32, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Different coin categories use "by face value", "by nominal value‎" and "by denomination", maybe they should be normalized. --ghouston (talk) 09:39, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Good idea. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:46, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Denomination Blues (couldn't resist). Jmabel ! talk 14:40, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand the problem. A denomination is a name ! --DenghiùComm (talk) 05:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

But it isn't the name in question here. As an example, look at two categories:

Category:Chicken breeds by name contains categories for specific breeds of chickens. One is Category:Rhode Island Red. "Rhode Island Red" is the actual name of a breed.
Category:Churches by denomination contains categories for churches, grouped by religious denomination. One is Category:Anglican churches. "Anglican" is a name, but it is not the name of the churches in the category, it is the name of the organization that they belong to. The category that groups churches by their names is Category:Churches by name.

So if we don't want to have "denomination" map to "denomination" (even though the flat category for denomination already exists), maybe it could map to "institution" (I think that one already exists in the ByCat template). That would still leave the question of how to handle the two "by denomination" categories that are for money.

I hope that makes sense. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:10, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I definitely remember struggling with using metacat on these "by denomination" categories a while ago. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I see that English Wikipedia's article for denomination in the religious sense is called Religious denomination. Maybe we should name our related categories accordingly, to distinguish from other meanings of "denomination". For example, we could have Category:Churches by religious denomination instead of Category:Churches by denomination. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:05, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Places of the Spanish Civil War

There is a contest running about Places of the Spanish Civil War.

It is a contest, we have prizes (frankly, I have them here in a box), and going to take those pictures is fun (I do know, I've gone picture hunting this morning - and I cannot get any prizes).

But that's not the reason I want you to join. We went to take pictures of one of the places: Posición T-4 in Viver. It has almost dissapeared, buldozed. Almost gone. Forever. There are no more remnants above ground.

So if any of you happen to be in Spain near any of the places we are looking for, it's time to go and upload some pics before more places suffer T-4's fate.

You can join here.

B25es (talk) 17:09, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to globally ban WayneRay from Wikimedia

Per Wikimedia's Global bans policy, I'm alerting all communities in which WayneRay participated in that there's a proposal to globally ban his account from all of Wikimedia. Members of the Commons community are welcome in participate in the discussion. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:37, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Michaeldsuarez, for taking the initiative to notify our local Wikimedia Commons community about this ongoing discussion. Much appreciated, -- Cirt (talk) 18:58, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: -- Cirt (talk) 03:35, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Does anyone know of any good guides or tools for understanding rules around content reuse outside of copyright restrictions?

Hi all

I'm looking for some information on other restrictions to reuse outside copyright for people interested in reusing content from Wikimedia Commons. The current Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia guide says: Other restrictions may apply. These may include trademarks, patents, personality rights, moral rights, privacy rights, or any of the many other legal causes which are independent of copyright and vary greatly by jurisdiction.

Whilst this is useful information it doesn't provide people with an answer to if they can use the image or not and the time commitment needed to understand the laws and apply them seems unrealistic. I wanted to know if there were any useful tool people could use that would help them know wether they could reuse images without needing to understand the laws using a series of questions e.g is the image a trademark, does the image have a person in, what country are you using it in etc.

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 12:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Usually people use the Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter examples. Nemo 13:08, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry I didn't explain myself well, I'm talking about this for people wanting to reuse content from Commons, not upload it to Commons and the rules they need to follow which are not copyright laws. Thanks John Cummings (talk) 13:24, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

John, you already have my remarks on this, right? - Jmabel ! talk 15:58, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jmabel, yes, thanks very much :) I'm just looking for an existing comprehensive tool so I can just point to it rather than having to write it. John Cummings (talk) 18:35, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

John, My understanding of that section of Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia is that files with likely additional restrictions should have been tagged by {{Trademark}} {{Personality rights}} and similar templates; however in case they were not it is reuser's responsibility to understand his legal obligations under the laws of each jurisdiction. I guess we are trying to mitigate chances of lawsuit like the one here. I do not think it is possible to foresee all legal responsibilities of image reusers in all jurisdictions, as they my vary greatly. We could create a page with "series of questions" to guide them but in the end the only way they can be sure they do not break some law would be to check with a layer. --Jarekt (talk) 17:15, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

What is the difference? Commons is about uploading files that people can reuse. Nemo 15:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Is there a mass import tool for importing content from Internet Archive?

Hi all

Does anyone know of a tool to mass import content from Internet Archive to Commons? Possibly something similar to Flickr2Commons or perhaps something that can import larger collections more quickly?

There are several openly licensed collections of content that could be very useful.

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 13:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Fæ would probably be the best person to ask about this. INeverCry 19:55, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Did you check Commons:Upload tools#Internet Archive? Nemo 15:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Download multiple photos at once

Hello everyone! I wanted to ask you information! Of Commons there is a system to make a download of many photos at once? Let me explain: long ago, I uploaded several pictures of graffiti (several hundred), now I want to recover them to save them on my computer, but to do the download to a photo at a time it would take me too long! How can I do? --Nicholas Gemini (talk) 13:11, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

You can use Commons:Imker (batch download). --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:58, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! It was very helpful! --Nicholas Gemini (talk) 00:38, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

In case that you will have to do another batch download in the future, a tool like the JDownloader is really convenient. This software takes Youtube videos, media from Commons and Flickr, cloud hosted stuff (with AFAIK the exception of encrypted files from Mega) and more as long as you can feed it an URL (semi-automatic via a watched clipboard). Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 00:59, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you all for the help! --Nicholas Gemini (talk) 09:03, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

How much cleanup is permissible in a documentary photograph?

File before cleanup
File after cleanup

How much cleanup is permissible in a documentary photograph? Perhaps I should ask this question on Wikipedia, but it seems to me to be more appropriate here, where the conversation might cross the boundaries of the many Wikipedias.

My question is prompted by these two versions of a photo of singer k.d. lang. Our article on the English-language Wikipedia uses the latter version. There has been a lot of cleanup, more than I personally would consider appropriate for a documentary photo. In particular, the smoothing in the face seems to me to completely change her skin texture, with the effect of making her look some 20 years younger. This seems to me to go beyond simple cleanup of an imperfect photo into the range of doctoring an image.

This sort of derivative image is clearly allowed by the license. My question is whether it is still legitimate to call the edited result a documentary photograph and to use it in Wikipedia without discussion of its nature. I'd be extremely interested to hear what others think. - Jmabel ! talk 06:09, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: The rework in question was yours, I believe (since you uploaded it). - Jmabel ! talk 06:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

The original photo (incl. crop) might be not perfect (white balance (?)), but I like it better than the reworked crop. –Be..anyone 💩 07:59, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

In keeping with our philosophy of not second-guessing sister projects, I have a strong view that this question belongs at en:Talk:K.d._lang. That said, I agree with you that it seems over-processed, possibly leaning towards mendacious. Storkk (talk) 09:24, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I also think it's up to the editors at the sister project to make the decision. But I've swung the mop and added {{Retouched picture}}. --El Grafo (talk) 12:08, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Johnny Depp and Amber Heard: Australian biosecurity

Johnny Depp and Amber Heard: Australian biosecurity

Video made by author:

Australian Government Department of Agriculture and Water Resources

Are files made by the Australian Government as this one, in the public domain ?

Thank you,

-- Cirt (talk) 18:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Per Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#Australia, the copyright for Australian government works expires 50 years from creation. --rimshot^talk 19:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Server switch 2016

The Wikimedia Foundation will be testing its newest data center in Dallas. This will make sure Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia wikis can stay online even after a disaster. To make sure everything is working, the Wikimedia Technology department needs to conduct a planned test. This test will show whether they can reliably switch from one data center to the other. It requires many teams to prepare for the test and to be available to fix any unexpected problems.

They will switch all traffic to the new data center on Tuesday, 19 April.
On Thursday, 21 April, they will switch back to the primary data center.

Unfortunately, because of some limitations in MediaWiki, all editing must stop during those two switches. We apologize for this disruption, and we are working to minimize it in the future.

You will be able to read, but not edit, all wikis for a short period of time.

You will not be able to edit for approximately 15 to 30 minutes on Tuesday, 19 April and Thursday, 21 April, starting at 14:00 UTC (15:00 BST, 16:00 CEST, 10:00 EDT, 07:00 PDT).

If you try to edit or save during these times, you will see an error message. We hope that no edits will be lost during these minutes, but we can't guarantee it. If you see the error message, then please wait until everything is back to normal. Then you should be able to save your edit. But, we recommend that you make a copy of your changes first, just in case.

Other effects:

Background jobs will be slower and some may be dropped.

Red links might not be updated as quickly as normal. If you create an article that is already linked somewhere else, the link will stay red longer than usual. Some long-running scripts will have to be stopped.

There will be a code freeze for the week of 18 April.

No non-essential code deployments will take place.

This test was originally planned to take place on March 22. April 19th and 21st are the new dates. You can read the schedule at wikitech.wikimedia.org. They will post any changes on that schedule. There will be more notifications about this. Please share this information with your community. /User:Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:07, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

This is over. There was a 46-minute editing outage, and then about 20 minutes when Special:RecentChanges wasn't behaving normally. If you found any other problems, please {{Ping}} me before Thursday's switch back. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:16, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Server switch ended now. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 09:50, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Is there an easy breakdown of scenarios when a file is considered a duplicate?

When files are the same except one is higher quality, we tag the others as duplicates, but there are variables that make me wish for a nice table to break down when something should be tagged as such vs. another avenue.

A couple specific questions, anticipating that such a table does not exist :)

Does the order in which files are uploaded matter? If a higher resolution image was uploaded prior to the low resolution version, that's straightforward, but what if a higher resolution version is uploaded most recently? Is the original tagged as a duplicate? Should the newer one be deleted and instead uploaded as a newer version of the same filename?
Is is always acceptable to have separate .jpg, .png, and .svg files for the same image, if they are the same resolution? When are .jpgs/.pngs considered redundant to one another, if ever? What if one is higher quality?
How can you tell if a jpg/png says it's higher quality, but is actually just a scaled up version of the same image?

Thanks! — Rhododendrites ^talk | 17:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

To answer part of this: if they are in different formats, then they are not duplicates. And while order of uploading may be in some cases a tiebreaker, it is otherwise irrelevant. - Jmabel ! talk 19:59, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Answers:

It may be so. It is often done in this way: a low resolution file is re-uploaded with a higher resolution version.
svg files do not have resolution. They are vector graphic files. Usually if a svg file is present png/jpg raster files are not needed although they are strictly speaking not duplicates. Preference for png or jpg depends on the image type: if it is a photo then jpg (or tif) is preferable; if it is some kind of drawn graphics then png.
It is a tricky question. It should be decided on case by case basis.

Ruslik (talk) 20:09, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

@Jmabel, Ruslik0, and Speravir: Thanks for these responses. For context, the other day I uploaded some images from the NASA Flickr stream, but didn't promptly manually check to see if any were duplicates (for those that Flickr2Commons didn't catch). Ras67, who I should've pinged here to begin with, tagged a few as duplicates. This is all well and good, and when I did get around to checking the rest, I tagged a couple more myself. I had questions about a couple, though, so I might as well specify.

The first one, File:STS-6 (15014637209).jpg, was nominated for deletion here as being a duplicate of File:Sts-6-patch.svg. As the latter is a vector graphic and the former is a photo of the graphic on paper, they didn't strike me as duplicates but wondered if there was precedent to consider it "duplicate enough". Then I noticed there's also File:Sts-6-patch.png, which is more accurately a duplicate of the one I transferred from Flickr. It's also a graphic rather than a photo, but there doesn't seem to be a reason we'd need the photo version. (In other words, the rules are confusing, but I don't have any issue with one I uploaded being deleted).

The second is File:Expedition 13 (15146747749).jpg, a 4212x4000 jpg. It was tagged as a duplicate of File:ISS Expedition 13 Patch.svg. Again, it seems odd to tag a jpg as duplicate of svg, but for a graphic like this I don't know if there's precedent to only keep the vector version. If anything it seems like more of a duplicate of File:ISS Expedition 13 patch.png. In that case, the latter is lower resolution at 1967x1847, so it seems like it would make sense to tag that one as a duplicate of the jpg, no?

Third, and finally, File:Expidition 28 (15147193627).jpg was tagged as a duplicate of File:ISS Expedition 28 Patch.png. Here the existing png appears to be a somewhat lower resolution. If png is typically preferred for graphics, though, what takes precedence?

I don't mean to use the village pump to sort out specific content questions -- I'm trying to draw conclusions based on these examples for best practices. Thanks again. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 15:49, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Commons and (image) search engines

First the/my problem: As I take quite a lot of pictures of people, every now and then I get requests via e-mail or personally from the depicted artists etc., asking me to please remove a photo because the quality is not sufficient, they don't like it or similar. I have no problem with that and if I could, I would just delete the pictures concerned - simply because of respect for them. I can't. And the deletion policies here don't seem to consider (this kind of) respect as a valid reason for deletion respectively the people active at deletion requests won't support such requests on behalf of personal wishes of the people whose pictures we display.
So I thought of a milder solution than deletion: Is it possible to add <META NAME="ROBOTS" CONTENT="NOINDEX, NOFOLLOW"> or something similar to image pages? This way the images would still be available here, but external image search engines would not show them. Would help me a lot when contacting artists, agencies etc. asking them for future accreditations or their consent for being photographed for Wikipedia/Commons. --Tsui (talk) 00:34, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

MediaWiki allows that by using the __NOINDEX__ magic word anywhere on the file's description page (as documented at mw:Help:Magic words). No idea about the Commons policies around this. Matma Rex (talk) 02:11, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Matma Rex, sorry to bother you, but will that prevent all indexing of the raw media file? i.e. if a file page uses __NOINDEX__, but that media is included using ([[File:....]]) on an indexed page? The help page doesnt specifically address the file/file-page aspect. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:29, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

No idea. Depends on the search engine. Matma Rex (talk) 12:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I also face the similar problem as @Tsui described, it will be a great tool if explored. -- Biswarup Ganguly (talk) 15:29, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I strongly suspect that the raw media file would still be indexed if the file is used on some indexed page. Except it should be noted that old versions of files will not be indexed for commons (but only for commons. Wikipedia et al have their old files indexed. I have no idea why only commons is included in robots.txt but others are not). Bawolff (talk) 19:09, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

geograph2commons tool

The geograph2commons tool doesn't seem to give the right description when uploading an image. For starters, the link doesn't work. It also comes out as [https://tools.wmflabs.org/geograph2commons/ grograph2commons]; notice the issue here? "grograph2commons", not "geograph2commons". I don't think I can change this, and even if I could I don't know how. If someone (an admin, etc) could fix these errors that'd be great. Anarchyte (talk) 15:03, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Once it's uploaded, you should be able to edit the wikisource as readily as anyone else. A link can be edited just like any other content.
As for the error in the tool, I believe Magnus Manske (talk · contribs) maintains that, though I'm not certain. He will almost certainly know who does, if it's not him. - Jmabel ! talk 19:29, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Fixed typo. The URL works for me. What's the problem with the description? --Magnus Manske (talk) 22:16, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

@Magnus Manske: Sorry about the mixup, instead of the description I meant the upload comment. I don't know if things can be Wikilinked/linked in there but at the moment (I just tested it) it isn't coming out as a blue link. Anarchyte (talk) 01:05, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

April 20

Deletion request

(sorry my very bad English) I create, in my mistake, this category Category:Solar eclipse of 1883 April 16, but the correct it's Category:Solar eclipse of 1893 April 16; please, anyone, delete first category? Tks, André Koehne^{TALK TO ME} 08:55, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Done with {{badname}} per COM:REDCAT. –Be..anyone 💩 11:19, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Problematic usernames

Does Commons have a noticeboard specifically for discussion usernames which are suspected of being in violation of COM:UPOLICY? Is COM:ANU the Commons' equivalent of Wikipedia's en:WP:UAA? The user in question is User:SDTsorority. Even thoough they've only made three edits (maybe some others were deleted), this kind of username would almost certainly be blocked on Wikipedia per en:WP:ORGNAME without discussion, but not sure how Commons' handles such things. Wikipedia does have en:Template:uw-username that can be added to the user's talk page, but again not sure if Commons' has a similar template. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:24, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Something similar to WP:ORGNAME has been discussed numerous times in the past, but rejected. See sections on Commons_talk:Username_policy. Storkk (talk) 11:11, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the links Storkk. Do you know whether COM:UPOLICY#Usernames requiring identification is often applied in to such usernames? -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:35, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't think there is a good answer to your question. Policy in general, here and on enwiki (and indeed in any community that creates and enforces its own rules), is enforced when a problem is identified and brought to the attention of someone who thinks it should be enforced. While that may sound unsatisfying or trite, we all have to prioritize our concentration and time, and administrators may legitimately decide that their time is better spent (and the community better served) elsewhere. My personal opinion that usernames should identify individuals, and that paid editing should clearly disclosed (morally, that is... we don't require it), but that investigating copyright issues is a much more important task than investigating username infractions, if they even are infractions. Storkk (talk) 12:46, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

To answer your original question, though: yes, I believe COM:ANU would be the right place. Storkk (talk) 13:01, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Category:Welsh Landscape Collection

@Jason.nlw: There are nearly 5,000 images in this file. I see that Jason, WiR at the National Library has created three pages (locations). Does it also need sub-categories for the collection (although each image has cats)? What's the protocol with pages vs categories, or go for both? Llywelyn2000 (talk) 11:36, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

4800 images in a top level category is just unmanageable so it should be split at least into the 22 principal area of Wales. Unfortunately, I don't see geocoords on any of them so it's going to be a manual procees, but not one I feel like doing now or ever. The category tree for Wales is woefully undeveloped and while I can do so much, I won't live forever. Rodhullandemu (talk) 18:23, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

It's an image source category, and it's not really a problem if it has a lot of images. I looked at a few images and they have been added to other relevant Wales categories too. --ghouston (talk) 00:09, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Please let the category as it is. It's not only not a problem, but good to have categories that are not split into silly micro-categories, especially when they are rather technical in nature like an image source. --WolfD59 (talk) 10:04, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

April 21

meeting of Wiki World in Genoa

I wanted to inform you of the next meeting w:it:Wikipedia:Raduni/Genova Giugno 2016 as well as I did to the wiki bars and other projects Also Come vou :-) --Ettorre (talk) 15:14, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

April 22

Deletion request

please delete this:i didn't mean to upload it. i keep asking for it to be deleted. its been a long time now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Babpacih (talk • contribs) 2016-04-20T23:59:01 (UTC)

Apparently talking about File:Blood_Orange_Picture.jpg.

Deleted by Storkk, later presumably mutilated by a link bot. –Be..anyone 💩 00:25, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Share my Content here with CC-BY-SA and on Youtube with standard Youtube license

moved to:Village pump/Copyright#Share my Content here with CC-BY-SA and on Youtube with standard Youtube license

To be archived by ArchiveBot ★ Poké⁹⁵ 10:15, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Copyright for books or printed official publications?

moved to Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Copyright for books or printed official publications?

To be archived by ArchiveBot ★ Poké⁹⁵ 10:15, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

What license?

moved to: Commons:Village pump/Copyright#What license?

To be archived by ArchiveBot ★ Poké⁹⁵ 10:15, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

archive.org

moved to Commons:Village pump/Copyright#archive.org

To be archived by ArchiveBot ★ Poké⁹⁵ 10:15, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Great Britain & Ireland postcards

moved to Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Great Britain & Ireland postcards

To be archived by ArchiveBot ★ Poké⁹⁵ 10:15, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

April 18

Categories by name

I have been looking at categories with names like "<something> by name". I've noticed that these are used in (at least) two different ways.

In one way, the subcategories are groups of things that share a name. For example, in Category:Hotels by name, subcategories include Category:Hotels named Ambassador‎, Category:Hotels named Plaza, etc.
In the other way, the subcategories are for individual named items. For example, in Category:Paintings by name, subcategories include Category: A Bar at the Folies-Bergère by Manet‎ and Category:The Ballet Class (Degas, Orsay).

I am suggesting that we come up with different naming conventions for the two types of "by name" categories so that users can know what to expect in each. Normally we expect a "by <something>" category to be a meta category, but in my view only categories in the first group are really meta categories. It would be good to name at least the others in a different way.

I'm not sure what the best names would be. Possibilities are:

First group: "Foos by shared name"
Second group: "Foos by individual name" (still looks misleadingly like a meta category), "Named foos", "Categories named after foos"

Comments? --Auntof6 (talk) 07:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

It is possible, of course, but will a massive renaming effort be worth of some minor clarification that will result? Ruslik (talk) 14:24, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't see the issue here, they are both by name, one example has subcats for individual objects, the other groups more then one object together as appropriate to the subject covered, They are both Metacats as all the image files would be in subcats Oxyman (talk) 16:16, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

They are not both metacats. If every category that contained only subcats was a metacat, then we wouldn't need the distinction we get with the {{CatCat}} template. Each category in a metacat includes multiple things/people by some common characteristic. For example, Category:Cities by country has subcategories for cities of each country. Each category in the second group has files for only one thing/person. This issue only happens with "by name" (not, for example, with "by city") because the expression "by name" is used in English in a different sense. That gets carried over to our category names and makes categories look like metacats when they aren't. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:19, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

It would help keep non-metacategories out of Category:Meta categories, for one thing. To me, it doesn't seem that massive compared to how many categories there are here. There are a few places I'd start looking for these categories:

Category:Categories requiring permanent diffusion to zero: This category contains categories that use the {{CatCat}} template. There are currently 780 entries here, but only some of them are "by name". Most or all of the "by name" categories here would go into the second group.
Category:Categories by name (flat list): This category contains all the meta categories that specify the "name" parameter, along with others that map to "name". There are currently 567 categories here, but we'd only need to look at the ones that say "by name". This category currently contains a mix of first-group and second-group categories.
Category:Categories by name: Things are manually added to this category. There are currently only 68 entries here. It's likely that many of them are also in one of the other two categories.

There are probably other "by name" categories that aren't in any of those, because not everyone knows/remembers to set them up properly. We'd have to either find those some other way, or just take care of them when we happen across them. --Auntof6 (talk) 15:57, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

F.w.i.w., I think Auntof6 is completely right about this. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 02:45, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Should this one have been deleted too?

I came across https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:GothicSoldiersMissoriumOfTheodosius.jpg

The description says it is part of a larger image, which was removed (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Missorium_Theodosius_whole.jpg )

Should the smaller image have been removed at the same time? I am not sure I fully understand the deletion page - was it deleted because some made a political rant instead of a proper copyright statement? --Robert EA Harvey (talk) 14:32, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I would say that both images are slavish copies of an ancient 2D work and therefore are in public domain ({{Pd-art}}). Ruslik (talk) 19:56, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-17

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Problems

Wikimedia tested a new data center last week. This meant that the wikis could be read but not edited for 45 minutes on April 19 and for 20 minutes on April 21. [16]
When the data center was tested, new edits were not shown in the recent changes log for 20 minutes. They are in the logs now. You can read more about how to find the edits.
Unread notifications were sometimes counted incorrectly. This has now been fixed. [17]

Changes this week

Wikimedia Commons will have better access to Wikidata. They can use data from any page on Wikidata on any page on Commons. This will happen on April 26. [18]
It will be easier to choose if you want to watch files you have uploaded with the upload wizard. [19]
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from April 26. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from April 27. It will be on all wikis from April 28 (calendar).

Meetings

You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on April 26 19:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

The "Save page" button when you edit will be called "Publish" instead. This is to help new editors understand what it does. It already works like this on some wikis. [20]

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

21:02, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

April 26

Bird and nets

Hello, after adding some pictures I see there is some confusion in the categories about birds and nets: Category:Bird netting regroups hunting methods, ornithologists techniques (both are very similar) and anti-birds systems. WP makes the distinction: en:Bird netting and en:Mist net. Any suggestion? Category:Mist neeting vs Category:Anti-bird netting? Triton (talk) 21:00, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Ignore enwiki while you are on commons. –Be..anyone 💩 21:05, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

It seems like a reasonable distinction to make, and there's nothing wrong with using the names already picked by enwiki if they are good enough. --ghouston (talk) 00:29, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

In fact Category:Bird nets exists as well. Triton (talk) 11:44, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

April 23

What are the rules regarding euro coins?

I've read Commons:Currency#Euro section Euro coins, and this discussión Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Euro coin common face 2, but it is not clear. It seems they are not allowed but this category Category:Commemorative 2 euro coins is full of them. Who owns the copyright of the designs. I don't find anywhere that the designs are public domain but also I don't find any restriction in use. What is the appropriate license for them? If I scan a coin, it is really own work? Can I upload this http://www.mineco.gob.es/stfls/mineco/prensa/imagenes/2015/02/2E_moneda_Felipe_VI.jpg ? Triplecaña (talk) 13:58, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Folks disagree about the status of coins as 2D (scan, maybe okay) or 3D (sculpture, maybe not okay), cf. COM:EURO in COM:COIN, or in this talk archive. –Be..anyone 💩 14:41, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

April 27

UploadWizard should link to coordinates

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T133905

When I upload a file by Special:UploadWizard the fields for the coordinates get pre-filled with the EXIF data. So far, so good. But sometimes I upload images, e.g. of a building, and I don't remember exactly the name of the town I took it, or the name of the building or some other information. I can easily copy the coordinates into Google Maps and look it up.

But that would be even easier if there was a link next to the coordinates linking to a map showing the exact location given by the coordinates. On the toolserver we have this tool that also shows the heading (using a rotated Commons logo). The would be neat. Unfortunately I don't know any way to create such a link with the tool (or any other tool) so that it would display just one coordinate given by URL parameters. (The link needs to update, when the user changes the coordinates in the input field.)

Does anybody disagree that this would be a nice feature? Cany somebody implement it? --Slomox (talk) 07:15, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. Can you create a task in Phabricator? @Matma Rex: does such feature require community consensus? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 08:13, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't see why we'd need "community consensus" of the kind usually needed for configuration changes. This seems like a simple improvement, and not a change to existing tools. And besides, you folks are asking for it right now here, looks like consensus enough to me. ;) Matma Rex (talk) 13:42, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Great idea! Syced (talk) 09:49, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

The coordinates of already uploaded files link to mw:GeoHack (e.g., [21]). So it would make sense to use this tool also in the UploadWizard… – Simon04 (talk) 13:16, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

GeoHack is great in Wikipedia articles and Commons file description pages to give the user the full range of available services, but my idea was about convenience, so I would prefer a one click solution to the two click solution. But we could always add two links, one for the convenient one click solution and the second to GeoHack for the full range of services. {{Location}} already does this and links to both GeoHack and WIWOSM. --Slomox (talk) 14:22, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I created a Javascript that does what I want. See: User:Slomox/vector.js. It still lacks the "Commons logo indicating the heading" fun.

However due to the fact that UploadWizard is so dynamic and has few obvious classes (or names for its input fields) the code is rather slow.

It would be possible to edit MediaWiki:Mwe-upwiz-location to insert the link, which would speed up the script. But this needs to be done in each language separately. --Slomox (talk) 11:27, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Neat, but please, nobody use this :) Watching the whole page with a MutationObserver is definitely going to be detrimental to performance, and then I'm going to have to field bug reports from unaware users saying that UploadWizard is horribly slow again.

I don't think editing MediaWiki:Mwe-upwiz-location would actually work (depends on what you had in mind), we display that message as plain text in UploadWizard (so you couldn't add any links etc.). Matma Rex (talk) 13:42, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me (I work on UploadWizard). We probably wouldn't want to use GeoHack or other Labs tools (Labs can't handle as many users as the "production" Wikimedia sites; while UploadWizard probably doesn't get enough traffic to cause problems, it'd still be frowned upon), but we have a shiny new beta maps site at https://maps.wikimedia.org/ which should be up to the job. I filed phab:T133905 about this and I'll look into it. (Alternatively, if anyone wants to contribute, feel free to submit a patch :D) Matma Rex (talk) 13:42, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer and your "warning" about my code ^^ (I agree: nobody should use the code without being aware that its creator hates the solution)

I was not aware of https://maps.wikimedia.org/. When you say it should be up to the job: is there documentation how to do dynamic stuff like pointers with it? And (that question has nothing to do with UploadWizard, but I am interested in it) is it able to display the map in different languages? --Slomox (talk) 14:53, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

The new maps will (hopefully soon) make it to all of the wiki. Read up about them at kartographer help page. For the use cases like upload wizard, they should use maps directly. The maps.wikimedia.org is not a good target - its a test server mostly, to make sure the tile server is still working. Thanks! cc:@Slomox: --Yurik (talk)

Problem with a video

Maybe some colleague with experience on creating + uploading videos could help. My problem is, that the OGV file I have recently uploaded on Commons, when viewed straight on Commons (by clicking on thumbnail), appears to have significantly lesser quality than this very same file when viewed via Windows Media Player on my computer. By doing the latter, the detail level seems higher and the colours more staurated. Again, it is the same file, and both times viewed in full screen mode, i.e. full resolution. What did I do wrong, and how to fix it? Thanks. --A.Savin 20:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

About this: I often have the problem, that WMP + movie maker arrive at something that is far too dark + too red. Apparently you have the opposite problem, windows okay, elsewhere washed out + too bright. If you're using FFmpeg I can post my current "make webm or ogg" script/options somewhere. Tweaking gamma/satuaration/... is excessively lossy, you can do it at most once, or restart from scratch. –Be..anyone 💩 04:01, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

@Be..anyone: Thanks for answering. Although I completely fail to get the last sentence, as far as I can understand the rest, the issue is not in my file or my upload, but in some script. So, the question is now, how to get it well viewable for a normal user, like myself. Yes, I use FF. To view a video from Commons, I usually click on the preview, or the play button there. --A.Savin 14:49, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Done I just clicked on the video again, and saw what I didn't notice before: there is some dropdown choice of compression rates (or so), and by selecting "webm 1080" you get nearly the same quality as on my PC. So this seems to be actually the issue. OK, there is still the question why the highest quality rate is not chosen by default; but that's somewhat not in my competence. Thanks again --A.Savin 14:57, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

The highest quality rate is not chosen by default because not all users have a fast internet connection. I actually use an internet broadband that is running at a maximum of 2 Mbps, and average is 300 to 400 Kbps, which is pretty slow. (Lucky that I can still access Commons with that kind of speed ;)) ★ Poké⁹⁵ 09:42, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: ★ Poké⁹⁵ 03:39, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Colour corrections by old slides scans

Old slides mostly discoulour in a consistend way, see most can be easily corrected with a colour adjustement during the scan. I notice that in some cases the discolouration varies between the darker and ligther parts of the image. But in this case it is even more complicated as a simple removal of purple shows:

The sky is more or less correct, but the foreground is to yellow.Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:36, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion on File:Scan_feb_1985_Belgium007_(upd).jpg, please speedy delete. –Be..anyone 💩 11:51, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Looks very good. Is the same correction used for the whole image? Is it a colour curve? (linked with another aspect of the image)Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:56, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I noted it on the temporary page:

Tool: http://www.simpelfilter.de/en/imaging/colormixer.html

Method: Green to 0

Maybe you could use it also on the original. –Be..anyone 💩 13:10, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

By the scanner or photoshop: if I remove green I get back the Magenda (Purple) There is however still the dark green of the train. I may have to buy the tool. There is no reason not to keep several versions of the image. But as creator you have the rigth to refuse to keep the image in the Commons. One can keep only the best version in the categories, so it doesnt clutter up categories. The other versions can be linked bij other versions line. I include the original scan as an example of the type of colour distortions caused by the aging process of slides. Do we have a category for this?Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:00, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I used the free plugin (LE), and didn't test anything else (after one attempt with easyfilter smartcurve, also free, but it didn't directly help.) –Be..anyone 💩 11:26, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Smiley.toerist Is this more or less what you are looking for? - Takeaway (talk) 13:14, 28 April 2016 (UTC) ->

Yes. Perfect! And this without the invisible trademark placed by SF ColorMixer in the Scan_feb_1985_Belgium007_(upd).jpg? (I suppose this is why Be..anyone wants his version speedy deleted). I wil rename this version to a meaningfull name: Train by Franchimont in the snow in 1985 II.jpg. Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:22, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I mainly just lowered the saturation of green and purple, and added in a bit of clarity and some minor changes to light levels, all using Lightroom. Cheers! - Takeaway (talk) 13:14, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: ★ Poké⁹⁵ 03:39, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-16

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

You can filter Special:Log in more detail. You can filter different imports and new users. [22][23]
You can use Telnet to read Wikimedia wikis. [24]
MediaWiki wikis can handle bigger file uploads. The new limit is 4 GB. [25]

Changes this week

Wikimedia has a new backup data center in Dallas. Because of planned work on this, you will be able to read but not edit the wikis for a short period of time on both 19 April and 21 April. This will start at 14:00 UTC and last for 15 to 30 minutes. [26]
There is no new Mediawiki version this week. This is because of the data center test.

Meetings

You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on April 19 at 19:00 (UTC). See how to join.
You can join the next meeting with the Architecture committee. The topic this week is shadow namespaces. The meeting will be on 20 April at 21:30 (UTC). See how to join.

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

20:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

El_Grafo@Deep_Thought ~ $ telnet telnet.wmflabs.org
Trying 208.80.155.160...
Connected to telnet.wmflabs.org.
Escape character is '^]'.
                         ,'"/      ,^.___.--./`.
                       ,' ;"     ,-`     '-.  m `.
                      /v\./      \,.  __  (   _  ,^.
                     / .  `;      .J (  )__\,- `~' '.
                    /_ ' /"      _|___)     )    g  \
                   ;_':_|___  ,-' \        (_,.   _ |.
                   |    |  (__) ,-'   W  __    \,' L'|
                   |  ,-'    _  \_,.    (  |_,-"\_   |
                   |  `"}  _( )_    \   _|   .   _)  |
                   |^\__|____  __,--+--'   |/|  (   /|
                   '.   |   (__)    \_,-.  '     \,'\;
                    \ n `.-.  , /,    _,'  ,")_,-\  /
                     \_. ;-'  * #    (   __)   ,-' /
                      `\-+,.._   _,---\-'   q  "},'
                        `.'\  (__)  ,-->   _,..,'
                          `.L .  ~  '-[:>.' _,"
                             '--.<=L=:_,-=-'
                   _ _ _   _  _ _  __   ___  __     __ 
                   | | | | |_/  | |__) |___ |  \ | |__|
                   |_|_| | | \_ | |    |___ |__/ | |  |
                          The Free Encyclopedia
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Version 1.27                    16 Apr 2016                  131,217 Users
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            MotD last updated: 02:45 PM April 16, 2016

Welcome to Wikipedia!  We are the world's largest community driven dial-in
hypertext encyclopedia with over 5.1 million articles in English.
[…]

Wow, this actually kind of works! Seems like good (?) old Telnet might get a bit if a revival through Tor? --El Grafo (talk) 21:56, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

It was meant as an April fools joke originally. Generally speaking I don't think telnet is likely to get a revival for anything serious (but there are still places where you can play games over telnet - telnet://nethack.alt.org comes to mind), although I hear using ssh over tor hidden services is beginning to become popular for people who want to access hosts with dynamic IPs. Bawolff (talk) 19:13, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Support gopher. ;-) –Be..anyone 💩 00:01, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, useful or not, it's nice to see stuff like this still exists. There are stills some MUDs around too, tried MorgenGrauen myself for a few hours not too long ago. The Usenet seems to be dying a slow and painful death (with the possible exception of alt.binaries.*) – kind of sad to see this, even though I never really used it. --El Grafo (talk) 09:17, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Great! --★ Poké⁹⁵ 00:36, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Look familiar... I've got IEG for building it, see m:Grants:IEG/Telnet. Dispenser (talk) 19:49, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

April 19

Should CommonsDelinker remove redlinks from DRs?

Is behavior like Special:Diff/164712655/192642388, Special:Diff/193266615/prev, Special:Diff/192642388/prev, Special:History/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:AIDS_Poster_from_Wellcome_Images_(check_needed) and most recently Special:Diff/193784503/193941566 new for CommonsDelinker? I would think it obvious that it is extremely undesirable, but am I totally off-base here? Is there ever a reason for CommonsDelinker to edit DRs at all? Not sure who to inform other than Magnus... ideas? Storkk (talk) 11:22, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Currently fixed for DR and REFUND. Storkk (talk) 12:40, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

If we talk about CommonsDelinker, I want to add, (for the 3 time), that it will be good that CommonsDelinker don't edit the logs too (e.g. the Featured picture candidates logs) as the result is some bugs with the transclusions that include file names. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 12:59, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
- Is there any good reason for it to remove links from the Commons namespace at all? Wouldn't redlinks for, e.g. Village pump archives, be more desirable for the entire namespace? Storkk (talk) 12:56, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

The redlinks remains red until there is not a new file with the same name....Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:16, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Maybe, and bots SHOULD avoid unclear issues. –Be..anyone 💩 03:12, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Another bad example, it took me about an hour to fix the VP. –Be..anyone 💩 04:12, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree for not to remove links from the Commons namespace. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 22:04, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
I Agree. --★ Poké⁹⁵ 09:38, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

April 24

April 25

Mobile edits and uploads

So I had a look at recent edits in the File namespace tagged as mobile edits. These are the results for yesterday:

Edits

Special:Diff/194223989: spam
Special:Diff/194224345: test/vandalism
Special:Diff/194226025: test/vandalism
Special:Diff/194226133: test/vandalism
Special:Diff/194229235: test/vandalism
Special:Diff/194238863: test/vandalism
Special:Diff/194249192: apparently constructive
Special:Diff/194263038, Special:Diff/194263214: self-reverted
Special:Diff/194284172: test/vandalism
Special:Diff/194299281: test/vandalism
Special:Diff/194310156: test/vandalism
Special:Diff/194328574: mostly harmless
Special:Diff/194329292: test/vandalism
Special:Diff/194338564: test/vandalism
Special:Diff/194350022, Special:Diff/194350770 and Special:Diff/194351205: test/vandalism
Special:Diff/194369889, Special:Diff/194369978: self-reverted
Special:Diff/194374120: test/vandalism
Special:Diff/194378211: test/vandalism

Total: 15 disruptive, 5 neutral, 1 apparently constructive (<5%)

75% of the disruptive edits were undetected.

Uploads

File:Sebastian stan.jpeg: copyvio, file description consisting of nothing but a URL
File:TOR BADE PRAN KANDE.jpeg: copyvio (deleted)
File:Ananta Jalil during a promotional photoshoot for grameenphone.jpeg: copyvio (deleted)
File:Gabriel.jpeg: out of scope selfie, file description consisting of nothing but a name
File:Federico Casaretto.jpg: likely copyvio, completely empty file description
File:小矢部市のホワイトラーメンの画像.jpeg: possible copyvio (lowish resolution, no source, no license, no metadata), file description consisting of empty {{information}} template
File:Welcome to Pulkovskoe!.jpeg: apparently constructive
File:Muhammad Abdullah Zaheer.jpeg: out of scope (deleted)
File:Abc merbabu montain.jpeg: likely out of scope spam and/or copyvio (lowish resolution, no source, no license, no real metadata), file description consisting of nothing but some contact details, uploader's edits on other projects were spam
File:Wikybanna rajpoot.jpeg: out of scope selfie, file description consisting of empty {{information}} template
File:Какво са приятелите.jpeg: out of scope (deleted)
Magdalena Zumarán.jpg: likely out of scope self promotion and/or copyvio (lowish resolution, no source, no license, metadata indicates it's a screenshot, uploader appears to be the subject of the image), file description consisting of what looks like a Spanish Wikipedia infobox
File:Alberto Zumarán.jpg: likely copyvio (low resolution, no source, no license, no metadata), completely empty file description
File:Luc Beauséjour dans la chapelle du Bon-Pasteur.jpg: apparently constructive
File:Arado que se utilizaba en la época galo-romana.jpeg: copyvio, file description consisting of empty {{information}} template
File:نادي ظفار.png: copyvio, file description consisting of nothing but the text "Dhofar Club logo" in Arabic

Total: 14 disruptive, 2 apparently constructive

Tell me again why we don't just shut this nonsense down with an abuse filter? And where's the Phabricator ticket for the fact that mobile uploads are not checked for the presence of source, authorship or licensing information? All I could find was phabricator:T70321, but that was closed two years ago. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:38, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree this does not look good, but than again I sometimes find it easier to upload a photograph directly from my iPhone than download it to computer and than upload. May be uploads and edits from mobile devices for users with proven track record. --Jarekt (talk) 20:50, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

+1 to LX. The question is: Do we need a few good phone uploads comparing the work we have deleting all the copyvios and selfies?--Kopiersperre (talk) 11:24, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

The net benefit is clearly negative (by a ratio of about 10:1 for uploads in this sample). An individual uploader burdening us with five illegal and two useless files for every decent one and whose edits consisted predominantly of vandalism would be swiftly blocked. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:34, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Uploads from mobile web browsers have been disabled in 2014 because of exactly this (official statement on mobile-l). If these uploads are coming in from mobile web browsers, there's something wrong. If, on the other hand, they are coming in through the Commons:Mobile app, User:Syced might be able to help … --El Grafo (talk) 13:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

They don't appear to be coming from Commons:Mobile app. AFAIK all uploads via the Commons:Mobile app will have the template "Uploaded with Mobile/Android" or "Uploaded with Mobile/iOS" as stated here, which I do not see in the photos linked (all of which appear to be uploaded via the mobile web browser, hence "Mobile web edit"). Re-tagging User:Syced for confirmation. Misaochan (talk) 09:02, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

The uploads and edits are all tagged as mobile edit ("Edit made from mobile [web or app]") and mobile web edit ("Edit made from mobile web site"), not mobile app edit ("Edits made from mobile apps"). In any case, it's not just a matter of uploads. Less than 5% of non-upload edits are constructive, and most of the vandalism goes undetected. We don't have the resources to deal with this many greasy-fingered mobile zombies. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:34, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I couldn't agree with you more on this LX. I usually revert a half dozen or so of these mobile edits each time I take a look at IP recent changes, and I can only remember seeing a few mobile edits that weren't vandalism. Worse than "Cross-wiki upload", but that's still around pumping out copyvios... INeverCry 02:32, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Interesting research, thanks! I would like to point out that all of the edits and uploads above have been done via mobile browser. None have been performed via the Android app. On the opposite, here are the pictures uploaded via the Android app: as you can see, almost no selfies/copyvios (I counted only 9 useless files among 500 uploads). So the problem lies with the mobile website I guess. I am not involved in that website's development, but just a suggestion: To avoid copyvios, how about checking for EXIF data? Copyvios are usually pics found on the web, and most of them don't have any EXIF data. Cheers! Syced (talk) 09:31, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

There's also phab:T64598, and still a lot of past mobile/web uploads to be checked at Commons:Mobile access/Mobile upload needing check. Lupo 21:33, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, I thought mobile uploads had been disabled a while back. Maybe Jdlrobson knows more about this. Ryan Kaldari (WMF) (talk) 02:38, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Mobile uploads have been disabled since 2014. Edits have always been possible. I suppose you could disable the edit icon for everyone but that seems a bit extreme when 50%+ of all Wikimedia traffic is on mobile. Note edits via the desktop site on mobile phone may get tagged mobile edit. 2607:FB90:428:7D21:DCD9:5DDF:8F58:C2 04:02, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Overall traffic is completely irrelevant. Mobile phones are great for looking stuff up and reading. They are not at all suited for any serious wiki editing work, as clearly demonstrated by our greasy-fingered friends in the list above. Allowing that mob to continue to create a ton of cleanup work for almost no benefit – that's what's extreme. And if mobile uploads have been disabled, and these are really from the desktop site, why do we end up with empty file descriptions? The desktop site doesn't allow that. We don't get that kind of upload from desktop site users without mobile web tags. I'm not buying that explanation. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:10, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what else to tell you. Mobile uploads have indeed been disabled since 2014. There is no code whatsoever relating to image uploading in the code for the mobile site (and when we did provide it it was quite obvious which files came from mobile as they had a random number in the title). I'm thus not quite sure what's being asked of here. How does one shut down uploading via AbuseFilter? There is no accurate way to tell if someone is using a mobile device.

Why the uploads are coming with empty file descriptions is not clear but remember anyone can upload via the API. I could make my own script right now that uploaded images tagged `mobile edit`. Is it possible there is a 3rd party app/script that might be doing this and incorrectly getting tagged `mobile edit`? One of your examples shows the image has been inserted into the infobox manually. How then it got uploaded I'm not sure. Only that user knows. Maybe via the link "No existe un archivo con este nombre, puedes subirlo a Commons" ? I'm not sure I can help here without understanding the route cause. Have you tried reaching out to these users via talk page to understand them a bit more? What's motivating them and how they are doing it? If you can replicate this workflow we can attempt to fix it / stop it but until then it's just guess work. Jdlrobson (talk) 17:51, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Autotranslate problems

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T131516

I am having serious problems with Autotranslate, and I can't find the talk page for translator admins. I tried to make Template:Infobox flag much easier to translate, and thought I made it. But then the <translate>-tags showed up on every page using the template. I've tried to fix it, but now all parameters just show their own names (The {{-tags are visible). There are so many subpages and templates involved in autotranslate. What have I done wrong?

-abbedabb^talk 11:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

It's not your fault, <translate> tags are a usability nightmare. I'm aware of two folks here + one on mw: knowing how this works, and they have lots of more important/interesting things they might care about. –Be..anyone 💩 11:57, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

abbedabb Usually you have to use <noinclude></noinclude> to make it not show up on all the pages transcluded by the template. A better more longterm solution IMO would be to convert that translate function into Lua. Reguyla (talk) 17:48, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

April 29

GPLv3 ??

Hi, I have found on the Internet a book (PDF) explaining how to use Inkscape (in French). In this book, we can read Ce livre est publié sous licence libre GPLv3 (this book is published under a free licence GPLv3). It's OK for free licence but as far I know GPLv3 is for softwares and not for books. So, can I upload this PDF and which licence will I choose ?? Cordially -- issimo 15 _!? 18:10, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Creative Commons 4.0 can be converted to GPLv3, but not from it. See [27]: People may *not* adapt a GPLv3-licensed work and use BY-SA to license their contributions. This is not allowed by GPLv3. Thus, this compatibility determination only allows movement one way, from BY-SA 4.0 to GPLv3. So it would have to be uploaded as GPLv3. Wnt (talk) 01:14, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

May 01

Commons:Village pump/Archive/2016/04

I can't upload video

Vandalism issue

Getty pictures

April 01

Unidentified location in 1980

libAPI update

April 03

PD-textlogo for comedy film logo Climate Change Denial Disorder

Bug on Commons:Upload

Year in rail transport in Serbia

Tour de France pictures not on subject

March 28

Open Engineering and Defensive Publications?

Listing file

Looking for help in formatting a guide

Tech News: 2016-14

April 05

Ongoing de-admin discussion

Templates for "source" and "author" when neither is known nor relevant?

Manipulated image

April 07

How to remove these images from Category:Temples?

April 04

Would it be possible to import PD image from Commons under CC0 license from Flickr?

April 08

Checking a photo

Using image with Governmental source?

Duplicate images?

April 10

Geocoord harvest

Categories for Aviation and for Air transport

How can I add marks based on coordinates on a .svg location map and then download the edited file?

Category:Memorial of Rebirth

April 11

Images not appearing in categories after UW upload

Please can someone change the license templates on the files in Category:Images from Dry Tortugas NPS Flickr account to Template:PD-USGov-NPS?

How big is Wikimedia Commons?

Looking for assistance mass changing the categories and license templates on a set of images imported from Flickr using Flickr2Commons

April 09

Tech News: 2016-15

April 12

IEG grant submission for Wikimedia-powered e-books - feedback welcome

Just in case someone is totally bored right now …

Wiki Mesh Network Community

Wrapping up an old discussion

Wikidata support: arbitrary access is coming on the 26th f April

April 14

Files do not appear

Input requested for building a database for public domain (AutoresAr)

New categories not showing up

Bug on this wiki: int:lang returns "fr" when uselang=pcd

Hide button for editing change tags on history pages

April 17

Category system

April 12

Biggest donation of photos from Italy

Replacing DEFAULTSORT with {{MenByName}} as appropriate

Default namespaces in search feature

April 15

Non-empty subcats

Meta categories by denomination

Places of the Spanish Civil War

Proposal to globally ban WayneRay from Wikimedia

Does anyone know of any good guides or tools for understanding rules around content reuse outside of copyright restrictions?

Is there a mass import tool for importing content from Internet Archive?

Download multiple photos at once

How much cleanup is permissible in a documentary photograph?

Johnny Depp and Amber Heard: Australian biosecurity

Server switch 2016

Is there an easy breakdown of scenarios when a file is considered a duplicate?

Commons and (image) search engines

geograph2commons tool

April 20

Deletion request

Problematic usernames

Category:Welsh Landscape Collection

April 21

meeting of Wiki World in Genoa

April 22