Commons:Village pump/Archive/2016/09

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

Train coach body in harbour - upload ok?

Hi. I happened to take a picture of some train coaches (all the same type) in Barcelona which were ready to be shipped (or were shipped to Barcelona?) - I can't tell you what type of train coach this is (searched now for about an hour through the images here without success). The image was taken by me from a tourist boat (Golondrina). Is it ok to upload the image? (Would it be ok to upload a part of the image temporarily for finding out the type and legal belongings?) Greetings, -- 217.224.215.50 07:51, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

after some more image viewing: the images could show possibly the coach bodies of the Talgo AVRIL -- 217.224.215.50 08:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
I can't think of any problem with uploading such a picture. What do you see as a possible issue? - Jmabel ! talk 15:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
something like Community design issues and that the coach bodies were only temporarily exposed to public ... -- 217.224.209.151 09:54, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
That's totally unrelated to copyright. As far as I understand, the Commons:Non-copyright restrictions page is relevant here; although it may be protected by this patent-related restriction, we won't object to you uploading such an image, as long as you use a free license, specify that it's an own work, etc. as is required for all other images. This is not a statement about whether it's legal for you to upload the picture; it's merely not a problem for us to host it. Nyttend (talk) 22:13, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Is there a place to list/report people who upload images using BS PD-self claims?

For example, Sarfatti, whose File:Mercator Map (1578) - Asiae-Tabula IX.jpg is quite clearly not something xe whipped up in MS Paint. It's not a problem with this particular image (it's covered by PD-100; PD-Art; &c.), but any future uploads with a PD-Self claim should not be trusted. — LlywelynII 23:02, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Another: File:Kyivstar vkraina 1560-2.jpg "by" VLebid. — LlywelynII 23:40, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems? Ruslik (talk) 18:01, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
But you'd also do well to contact the person yourself & point out the issue. - Jmabel ! talk 19:09, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Photo challenge July results

Working animals: Entries • Votes • Scores
Rank 1 2 3
image
Title Animals working in nepal Amish horses at work in north west Pennsilvania Yaks carrying load on the Everest Base Camp route in Nepal
Author Gunjan Raj Giri PeledY TT4FT
Score 32 17 15


Leaf veins: Entries • Votes • Scores
Rank 1 2 3
image
Title Veins of a wine leaf Junge Walnussbaumblätter im Gegenlicht
Contre-jour photo of young walnut tree leaves		 Veins of a dried leaf.
Author Ermell F. Riedelio Ermell
Score 13 9 9

Congratulations to Gunjan Raj Giri, PeledY, TT4FT, Ermell and F. Riedelio. Also please vote for:

-- Jarekt (talk) 03:28, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Paul Bostaph with Slayer in 2013.jpg

I initially forgot to add a source link to the image and a bot marked it as unsourced. I just added the link, and would like if the image gets checked again. --Alicezeppelin (talk) 11:59, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

September 03

Image identification (Michael Hicks-Beach)

I just removed File:Michael Hicks-Beach.jpg from en:Michael Hicks Beach, Viscount Quenington and from wikidata:Q6831126, as I can't see any indication that this is a photograph of the son and not the father en:Michael Hicks Beach, 1st Earl St Aldwyn (see also Category:Michael Hicks Beach, 1st Earl St Aldwyn). A couple of questions:

  • (1) Can anyone definitely identify the person in the image?
  • (2) What should be done with the image if it is not possible to identify the person it is showing?
  • (3) Did I need to update the Wikidata item, or does that get done automatically?

Carcharoth (talk) 09:22, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Based on this (where there is an image of a beardless Viscount Quenington), the image we have is almost certainly the father (the son would have been 26 at the time that copy of that image was published in 1903). Is it OK to label it as such? Carcharoth (talk) 09:28, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Absolutely. Some of us do a lot of this detective work. - Jmabel ! talk 15:49, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

September 04

Creator:Maurice Seymour studio

Is it proper that I created Creator:Maurice Seymour studio, the template is designed for individuals. The studio is the legal entity, like Lennon-McCartney would be for songs. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:00, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

In USA corporations are legally considered "authors" of works made for hire. So, possibly, yes. Ruslik (talk) 17:48, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

September 02

Can a 68 year photo be used freely when it has been published in the many newspapers.

I would like to use an image of the aviator Nancy Corrigan in a Wikipedia article I am writing for her but I'm not sure about its copyright. It has been published in four newspapers that I am aware of and also used on a TV network programme guide. The photo dates from 1948. I cannot find it in Creative Commons. Nmwalsh (talk) 10:13, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Is the photo American or Irish? Which newspapers was it published in and when? {{PD-US-not renewed}} might apply, if it was published before 1963 and copyright was not renewed. If the photo is Irish, it will not be PD until 70 years after the photographer's death, so 2018 at the earliest. --rimshottalk 15:26, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
In other words, no, you shouldn't upload it. The newspapers may have been paying royalties or just risking lawsuits but actually being sure of its copyright status involves more work than you're likely interested in: you'd need to actually look up the renewal status of its copyright which last time I checked hadn't been digitized. — LlywelynII 20:57, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
i take it this is the image [1] here's a google image search [2] and with "with reuse" [3] so no CC licensed image. however, she died in 1983, so create the article and upload a "fair use" image on english here [4], like you did here [5]. you need to add a fair use rationale with the template here [6] and fill in all the fields - using the upload wizard on english makes it a little easier. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 23:54, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. I am claiming Fair Use. Nmwalsh (talk) 09:28, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

How do I disable Media Viewer?

The function is completely useless (if I wanted to zoom, I'd click on a resolution) and buggy (it lags on load and causes clickthrough where I'm trying to get to the summary section). Nonetheless there's no obvious kill switch in preferences.

It was always a bad idea, but please tell me there's some way to customize this so I at least don't have to see it again. — LlywelynII 20:57, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Under Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering in file settings. — Speravir_Talk – 21:23, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm sure you mean well but
a. your link goes to the appearance tab, which doesn't have an mw-prefsection-rendering area or anything that looks like one, and
b. I'm sure it's not your fault but that is a completely opaque method for referring to Media Viewer, which has configuration tabs in two places, neither of which includes an opt-out.
It's just terribly designed in general and worse for being so needless and obnoxious. — LlywelynII 14:52, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
@LlywelynII: There is a “Files” section in this Preferences/Appearance tab. And I have there a button for disabling the Media Viewer (did that myself short after introducing this, ahem, feature). — Speravir_Talk – 17:25, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
@LlywelynII: You can disable it globally by placing mw.config.set("wgMediaViewerOnClick", false); in your meta:Special:MyPage/global.js. Storkk (talk) 14:20, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
That was much clearer, your link went somewhere, and the thing you said would be there was there. So that's great.
Having saved that code on that page, Media Viewer still shows up.
Having followed that pages instructions for "bypassing the browser cache", Media Viewer still shows up.
I know it's not your fault either, but the widget should have a kill switch built in. — LlywelynII 14:56, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
It is possible you that you have to bypass the cache on each Wikimedia site after applying that change. The preference Speravir was referring to is under the "File" section of the "Appearance" tab - but you would have to apply that preference to each project you wish to disable MediaViewer for. As a side note, you appear to hold the erroneous belief that MediaViewer is somehow a Commons project or that Commons is responsible for it in some way. Please disabuse yourself of that notion (1, 2, etc.). It's a topic around which there has historically been an incredible amount of drama (e.g. the whole Superprotect fiasco), so I suggest treading carefully. Storkk (talk) 16:16, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Oops, didn’t read well enough, first. — Speravir (Talk) – 17:32, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Does your Media viewer page not have buttons on the right side? Example image Offnfopt(talk) 06:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

September 05

Calling Wikimedians from Romania!

Calling Wikimedians from Romania, particularly from the Maramures district or within train travel distance. As we previously announced on Romanian Wikipedia, the Carpathian Ethnography Project team will be in the area between Sept 13th and 18th - in one week's time! Any Wikipedians joining the team for 2 or 3 days are welcome to come and help! Travel costs will be paid from project grant. We are especially looking for Wikimedians who could translate English/Romanian, or help take photographs. Let us know if you want to come and participate! --Marta Malina Moraczewska (talk) 09:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Unofficial Wikipedia Discord server

There is now an unofficial server for Wikimedians/commons contributors on Discord. This new chat server provides a useful means of communication to discuss issues and to communicate with other editors more conveniently.

https://discord.gg/khvrRXV

Reguyla (talk) 14:02, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-36

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

  • Word-level diffs now work in longer paragraphs. [7]
  • Interactive maps now have a frame by default. This is to make them look like other multimedia objects. This affects all Wikivoyages, the Catalan, Hebrew, Macedonian Wikipedias and Meta. [8]
  • When you preview the MediaWiki:Captcha-ip-whitelist page it will show a validation output of the listed IP addresses instead of the list of addresses only. This can help you to identify if your whitelist rules will work or not. [9]

Changes this week

  • You will be able to use <maplink> on all Wikipedias. It creates a link to a full screen map. [10][11]
  • Sometimes when you mention another user they don't get a notification. You will be able to get a notification when you successfully send out a mention to someone or be told if they did not get a notification. This will be opt-in. [12][13]
  • The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 6 September. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 7 September. It will be on all wikis from 8 September (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 6 September at 19:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

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

17:12, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Unable to upload SVG images

For some reason I couldn't upload SVG images made with Inkscape as every time I tried to upload them the message "This file might be corrupt, or have the wrong extension" comes up. Editor abcdef (talk) 07:10, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

@Editor abcdef: Can you email me the problematic files (matma.rex@gmail.com)? I'll find out what's going wrong with them. You can also try uploading them with Special:Upload rather than UploadWizard, which will give a slightly more precise error message (this is a bug in UploadWizard and we're working on it, see phab:T32095). Matma Rex (talk) 20:57, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
I got your email, thanks. This is the second time I see this problem, so I wrote a bug report here: phab:T144827. I also emailed you a fixed version of the file back. Matma Rex (talk) 17:21, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Redoing a category name

Greetings: I noticed Category:Christ University Wiki in UG Pogram, since it's unlikely that this really is a "pogram", and more likely a "program" or "programme", could someone with more experience than I have in renaming categories, please fix this? Also it would be great if we could figure out who is the faculty advisor for this, several of their new users are mistaking Commons for Facebook. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:54, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Maybe we could also take this opportunity to look at Category:Deceased persons by name as well? That one has been open for a year. :-) Reguyla (talk) 19:57, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
@Reguyla: Done. Deletions here are a lot more lax than at Wikipedia: if you see a spelling error, you can just fix it and move the media yourself. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:13, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
@Koavf: I wish I could but that has been open for a year and frankly I am persona non grata to enough people I need to stay away from potentially contentious changes. Even if they would normally be perfectly fine to do enough people are gunning for me as it is that it would be more than justifiable to block me or ban me for a change like that. That's why I hardly even edit here anymore either. After all an insignificant talk page comment was used to ban me from the English Wikipedia...twice. So if you agree it should be changed please go ahead and do it. But I am not going to change a category that affects over 17 thousand other categories. Reguyla (talk) 20:20, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

fotos

Hola, mis fotos no son copyright, son mias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Etresincere (talk • contribs) 22:25, 06 September 2016 (UTC)

@Etresincere: En los EEUU, tienes cualquieres derechos con tus fotos--incluyendo el copyright. Si quieres darlos al mundo, puedes ponerlos aqui' y usar la pantalla {{CC-0}}. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:11, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

September 07

Display of edited version of an image

When I edit an image and replace the original, there are problems with the link to the high-resolution version of the image and with the image displayed in the "File history" table. See https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Silky_Lacewing_(6769953805).jpg and its talk page. Please help! Alandmanson (talk) 09:56, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Hm, I can't see the problem. Maybe you were too impatient and the server still had old versions of the file cached or you have the file in your loccal browser cache (try Ctrl+F5 to refresh). --Magnus (talk) 09:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Yip - it looks like you are right! Thanks! Alandmanson (talk) 19:14, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Speravir (Talk) 23:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Files displayed in "Pages" section

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T109238

There are two files in the category Category:Nové Dvory (Sedlec-Prčice) which are displayed twice: once correctly as files, and duplicately as "Pages". I see nothing unusual at their file pages what can cause this anomaly. --ŠJů (talk) 07:46, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Interesting. One of the older revisions of those file description pages has become "disassociated" from the page. So they both have two descriptions pages, for example:
The category page attempts to show both of them (except the link to the second, buggy one really points to the first one). These pages are apparently affected by phab:T109238 (the titles are even listed there).
If any daring administrator feels especially bothered by this, you could probably merge the broken ones into the real ones with Special:ApiSandbox#action=mergehistory. Matma Rex (talk) 08:30, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
See also Commons:Help desk/Archive/2016/07#Pages with 'File:' prefix in the main category, near the end of the section, where an administrator explains that occurrences can be fixed individually, but it's a lot of work. Probably not many administrators know how to do it. -- Asclepias (talk) 05:13, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
:This section was archived on a request by: Wikicology (talk) 07:11, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

template redirects

Are there template redirects? We have them for categories. It is impossible to remember the exact wording in templates and categories. Is it "Category: Burials in" or "Category: Burials at", so we have redirects. Do they exist for templates? Is it PD_Time magazine or PD-not renewed-time magazine or PD-Time magazine or PD_Time (magazine). I search and search when a simple redirect would always take me to the correct one. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:37, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there are. See Category:Template redirects. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:53, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
:This section was archived on a request by: Wikicology (talk) 07:12, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Notification of DMCA takedown demand - Jimi Hendrix by Gered Mankowitz 1967

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

Affected file(s):

To discuss this DMCA takedown, please go to COM:DMCA#Jimi Hendrix by Gered Mankowitz 1967 Thank you! JSutherland (WMF) (talk) 20:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

@JSutherland (WMF): reading the letter, I feel sad that the copyright holder went to the effort of using the DMCA procedure. This appears to be an image which could easily have been deleted on the basis of an informally written email to OTRS and a community deletion request. Could we do a better job of directing the public who may have concerns to the less formal alternatives? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 20:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
@Fæ: I was the nominator for the Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jimi Hendrix by Gered Mankowitz 1967.jpg deletion discussion. The discussion was headed for deletion anyways, albeit not unanimously. One effect the DMCA has is that it applies across all projects. I had lobbied to transwiki/copy the image to the projects that used it, providing that those projects allowed "fair use" images and, implicitly, that the image was reduced in size/quality enough to be a fair-use image. As it stands, it's likely that anyone who attempts to re-use the image as a fair-use image will have to go through a counter-notice procedure. For what it's worth, the discussion was prompted by this edit to an unrelated page. Davidwr (talk) 21:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
(Edit conflict)@Fæ: Copyright holder asked for help here, a DR was filed, copyright holder filed a DMCA anyway (which may be my fault, since I suggested it as an alternative just in case the file would be kept for of some odd reason). --El Grafo (talk) 21:56, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
i am not sad: given the low reputation of commons with photographers around the world, you should expect DMCAs rather than engaging here. you should expect more takedowns in the future. someone very well could upload a "fair use" version elsewhere without a counter-claim (not being the original uploader, they would not have standing to file). but then if/when the office action enforcement were to delete the "fair use", then file the counter-claim. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 23:56, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
If the uploader knew that the original had been deleted because of an office action, then re-uploading would probably violate policy, at least on the English Wikipedia (note: the image was not in use on the English Wikipedia at the time the deletion discussion started). Davidwr (talk) 03:22, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
probably not. the stern warnings are about uploading an image to the same project, where a take-down has been done. WMF legal might be understanding, if you wiki'splain you are now uploading to another project with an EDP, as fair use to get standing to go to federal court. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 17:00, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. It's reassuring to know that the alternatives were known about at least. With regard to copying files to projects with fair use available, as the person that may re-enable COM:FUUB, I'm concerned that the ethics of using fair use have not been thrashed out by the community. Though it has not happened in this case, if a open community DR were recommended to a copyright holder instead of a take-down, it would be pretty unpleasant if we at that point made fair use copies in other projects just because the DR was created. I'll have to give that one time to think about. --Fæ (talk) 07:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

September 08

Fall 2016 interest poll for PSD support in MediaWiki

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T91914

Are you interested by a PSD support on MediaWiki or on Wikimedia Commons?

If you support it for MediaWiki, but not for Commons, what's your use case?

Note proprietary formats aren't currently allowed on core Wikimedia projects, and our community recently rejected MP4.

I noticed we've a commonsarchive.wmflabs.org project with PSD allowed. For example, File:Amarna 1 llegenda.jpg is the JPEG output of a PSD hosted there.

Your feedback can help to prioritize the feature and address concerns if Commons should or not be targeted by it.

--Dereckson (talk) 02:14, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Dereckson
This is some kind of joke????
How about DNG files that we requested years ago???? To be more precise, since 2009 we are waiting... and this one is free, and could be a game change, especially for photographers...
Tracked in Phabricator
Task T21153
Why we are even having this discussion about implementation of proprietary files?
It's not free, it's not Wikimedia Movement. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 14:06, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
DNG. To support a new format, PSD or DNG, we need code to handle this format, generate thumbnail, check uploads against security issues, etc.
As such, the two requests aren't concurrent. I updated the reference, DNG support is T21153.
Proprietary files. To reject proprietary formats is a valid position, but we need to formulate it to answer requests like "please add PSD support to Commons".
--Dereckson (talk) 14:15, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Dereckson, we have a limited amount of human resources, the same one that would dedicate his labour to PSD, probably is the same one that would be dedicated his labour to DNG.
As, for example, I'm dedicating my time to write about it, and not contributing in other areas here...
-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 14:40, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
MediaWiki is an open source project, as such, it receives contributions from volunteers and contributors around the world. Your expectation was if someone would think to book time of a developer to implement DNG or PSD, but not the other. This isn't the way of an open source project, where everyone is welcome to participate, including people willing DNG or PSD and not caring about implementing the other format. --Dereckson (talk) 15:33, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I think per the rationale at Commons Archive, Commons isn't interested in hosting source material that isn't trivially "reusable", which would include camera raw files (CR2, NEF, ARW, DNG) and Photoshop documents (PSD). The lack of use of Commons Archive suggests there isn't a huge demand for this. Many photographers regard their raw files as personal property that are separate from the JPGs they give away for free. There are other internet sites geared up towards users collaborating on documents (Word, Photoshop, etc) whereas we're more interested in the published work.

Since Commons Archive already supports uploading these files, I presume the difficulty for MediaWiki is adding support for rendering them. And this relies on those files containing an embedded JPG, which is sometimes an optional feature. I don't see any harm in MediaWiki adding support for displaying this embedded JPG but it doesn't seem to be a priority for Commons. -- Colin (talk) 15:37, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

The preferred rendering of a raw file will presumably be a JPEG derived from it which is already on Commons. I didn't know about Commons Archive, I'll consider using it (speed of upload when considering hundreds of files may be an issue). --ghouston (talk) 04:22, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
@Colin: "Commons isn't interested in hosting source material that isn't trivially "reusable", which would include camera raw files (CR2, NEF, ARW, DNG) and Photoshop documents (PSD)" – Commons does, however, host a number of XCF files (see Special:MediaStatistics), which are to GIMP what PSD is to Photoshop.
"I presume the difficulty for MediaWiki is adding support for rendering them" – I have not tried out how well it works in practice, but ImageMagick (the software we already use to thumbnail most images) claims to have support for PSD files. Matma Rex (talk) 11:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Matma Rex, only 904 xcf files. I've no idea where the came from since the search by type doesn't seem to work. But that's a tiny number of files in terms of Commons database. It looks like Imagemagick can extract layers from a PSD, not just any embedded JPG. But also I'm reading mixed messages about whether saving Photoshop files as TIFF rather than PSB would (a) solve compatibility and (b) retain all the information Photoshop needs to continue editing it with no loss of functionality. I suspect it can contain all the information Photoshop needs since TIFF is a very general-purpose container format (DNG files are actually TIFFs) but just because data is saved in a TIFF doesn't mean another program will open and render it the same. So it might be there really is no value in supporting PSD, and if people want to collaborate on Photoshop documents and save their "source" on Commons, then they could use TIFF. Some more reading/investigation is possibly required. -- Colin (talk) 12:15, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Creator:Moffett studio

I asked once before but did not see an answer. Is it ok to use the creator template to make an entry for a photo studio, rather than an individual? All the fields are designed for an individual. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:58, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I answered the previous time you asked. In some countries corporations can be authors of the works of authorship, therefore it seems logical that they can be "creators". May be the template needs to be updated. Ruslik (talk) 20:09, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
there is Creator:Deutsche Presse-Photo-Zentrale (Inh. Hans Basch); we havn't done a Bain or National Photo Company, merely the license for those - Template:PD-Bain. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 02:45, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, sorry I missed the answer last time. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:29, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

September 10

Quotation marks

Are there any rules regarding use of quotation marks in English texts on Commons? Because I have noticed this edit which IMO is almost completely wrong because it replaces proper, typographic quotation marks with so called dumb quotation marks. --jdx Re: 08:47, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think there are on Commons. The person might be used to the rules of English Wikipedia, where dumb quotations marks are preferred (w:MOS:CURLY). Matma Rex (talk) 11:40, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
+1 This is only an outdated En-WP rule, here is a multilanguage project (where are different typographical signs are a main issue). PS: I semi reverted this. ↔ User: Perhelion 12:24, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
I do not believe there are any rules (or guidelines, or even sets of suggestions) on Commons with regard to the use of smart vs. dumb quotation marks, and in light of that I would say, "Do what you want". I will say that the use of the former is highly irregular here, in part because there are no keystrokes that can readily generate them— though the same can be said for that em-dash I just used there, for which my own computer has a automatic keystroke program: it also allows me to produce symbols like ° with little difficulty. But they are highly irregular and who knows? They might produce errors somewhere someday which we cannot foresee. In other words, there may be reasons NOT to use the smart quotation marks of which no one is aware because no problems have been identified and publicized, but since the "dumb" marks are used with regularity, there seems no reason to tempt fate with the smart ones unless absolutely necessary for some reason (which does not seem to be the case with this particular template). But as I said, do what you want: no proscriptions or prescriptions either way that I am aware of. KDS4444 (talk) 12:38, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
"They might produce errors somewhere someday which we cannot foresee" – as a MediaWiki developer I'd say this is highly unlikely. Various software has varying levels of support for Unicode, but both MediaWiki and web browsers support all the fancy characters very well (after all, we have Wikipedias in hundreds of languages in dozens of different scripts). It's true that they're not always easy to type in common keyboard layouts, but I don't think this means they should be discouraged. Matma Rex (talk) 12:49, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
+1 I do see also no problems there (in the German WP that's the norm). It's also not fully true what KDS4444 says, this quotation marks are also in the standard Edittools. PS: As like Matma Rex says, if someone "don't know", it's no really reason to forbid it. ↔ User: Perhelion 13:00, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
A much better way is to create your own keyboard layout. On Windows one can use Microsoft Keyboard Layout Creator and on Linux one can edit keymap file (I used to be Slackware user, perhaps there are easier ways in current distros). --jdx Re: 13:34, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

For an institution, can we advise on a single year before which all works are public domain?

I'm hoping someone has written a credible article on this, but I don't recall any simple advice being available, or such a thing being contained in current Commons guidelines. I am in the position of giving a date to an archive where they can consider removing all restrictions on works before a specific date, and despite my experience with GLAMs, I'm finding this tricky to find evidence for.

I believe that the British Library (a few years back), opted for 1874 as a very early date before which all their scans of newspapers could be declared public domain. However I'm wondering if there is a currently accepted very low risk later date that we could advise on, such as, say 1896 = 125 years post-creation. The difficulty is providing a date for archives which may include works created in multiple territories and how to interpret changes in copyright laws in Europe and the US which were retrospective.

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:29, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately there is no clear guideline here and individual GLAMS seem to come up with their own system, however for what it is worth, after much deliberation the National Library of Wales have gone with 1880. Personally i think that is too conservative, but that's the current situation Jason.nlw (talk) 09:54, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Jason, if there was a rationale to choose 1880 based on copyright law or precedent from other GLAMs, it would be great if the library could publish it. Perhaps as a short blog post or list email? :-) --Fæ (talk) 09:57, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
It depends on the origin of the book. If we're talking about books from Australia, it's 70 years from the publication date. So if they've never been published, that's essentially "never". This is an issue with things like soldiers' war diaries that have never previously been made available in a published form. Lankiveil (talk) 10:02, 9 September 2016 (UTC).
On publication rights, these are limited to an additional 25 years in the EU post-publication, however even then there is a limit on what can be claimed, as a work where the default 70 years post-death of the artist/author has expired cannot have a copyright retrospectively created. Otherwise we would have, say, 2nd century Roman tablets being fully copyrighted by the archaeologist that published the first paper about them. :-) So, my understanding is that the maximum this might add is 95 years post-death-date to a work. Consequently, an unpublished work found in the EU with no author known created before 1922, cannot be copyrighted. Handily, this then excludes unpublished personal photographs with no author known taken during WW1... --Fæ (talk) 10:14, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

UK Legislation:

  • (3) If the work is of unknown authorship, copyright expires—
  • (a)at the end of the period of 70 years from the end of the calendar year in which the work was made, or
  • (b)if during that period the work is made available to the public, at the end of the period of 70 years from the end of the calendar year in which it is first so made available [...]

Do you have a few examples of the images of this institution? Vysotsky (talk) 12:27, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I'd rather keep it generic. There has been quite a detailed reply from Andrew Gray (previous British Library Wikimedian in Residence) at https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/glam/2016-September/001073.html based on the experience of the British Library and the Wellcome Library.
As a generic answer, the archive I have in mind has scans of UK historic documents, with a focus on drawings and artworks, that date to the 19th century and some in the 18th century. There may be some non-UK material and there is no specific most-recent date for documents. Records appear to have fairly minimal metadata, so this may be as limited as just having a title and a date, though independent research on the item could well uncover more reliable details (which they are unlikely to have funding to do).
Perhaps the focus here is more realistically what we can recommend as an ideal cut-off date that institutions could apply that could in practice give them an extremely low risk of take-down notices to handle. The issue with take-downs is that some archives may have very little legal support and want to be extremely cautious about exposing themselves to any legal issues, so some institutions might be comfortable with cut-offs like 1880, while others will find the very slim risk of a copyright claim for a document from the 1860s, something they want to avoid as they don't have to take the risk. So if we can boil it down to something like:
"pre-1850" = 0% risk of any take-downs,
"1875" = one in a million may be challenged
"1880" = one in 100,000 may be challenged
this could be a good rule of thumb to add to with later case studies to bolster the credibility of any risk assessment for the institution, along with some caveats as to the risks for particular types of archive (e.g. government records have very specific copyright rules, so there can be zero risk for archives of this type). --Fæ (talk) 12:59, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
I even think: "pre-1900" = one in 100,000 may be challenged. Vysotsky (talk) 13:42, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Take-down notices and asociated legal actions are quite extreme, but the usual Commons deletion actions are also very discouraging and may be even more difficult to explain to GLAMs. For example I was quite surprised to see how an image of an undated sketch of an old master painting was deleted though it dates back to the 1870s or 1880s. I think using 1850 would be the safest, because people seem to live longer and longer these days! See here: Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Christ's_Entry_Into_Brussels_in_1889.jpg. Jane023 (talk) 19:35, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Two laws apply: That of the country of the institution, an that of the United States, since Commons is hosted in that country. Commons doesn't have it's own laws, but respects those of the concerned counties. EU rules may supersede national laws of it's members, but if a national law does conflict with EU rules, it would be unwise for an uploader to ignore national laws, since by doing so you may be held accountable by your national authorities. And Commons would have to delete the files in that case. On documents there could be several laws that apply: On authorship, but also laws on archives in general, and laws on privacy. Perhaps the community of the local Wikipedia can help out? --oSeveno (talk) 23:41, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi OSeveno, the whole point is to decide on a date which works for this community, namely Commons. I think everyone responding here understands the complexities. The main problem is the difference between the Commons rules and the everyday reality of take-down notices and actual law. Sometimes it is hard to explain to people who are not active in our Wikimedia projects that what Commons calls "art" is leading for decisions regarding what may or may not be deleted. To avoid such discussions, which can often be confusing for newcomers to our projects, it should be possible to come up with a "safe date". My gut feeling is that this date should be closer to 1800 than to 1900. Jane023 (talk) 15:29, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Following this discussion here and the one on GLAM - Default maximum "Public Domain year" for digitisations I come to the conclusion that establishing any kind of "safe date" would be a scam. Institutions need to do a proper risk analysis for their individual collection in order to assess the eventuality of someone taking legal action against a work of a certain time period. First and foremost they need to follow national law. Unlike Wikimedia Commons they don't have to consider US copyright law. We on the other hand have to consider the copyright laws of the source country and the United States. To make things even more complicated a re-user outside of US or source country jurisdiction might have to consider a third copyright law for his use case. Rather than having one particular safe date, users, re-users and institutions might benefit from a tool for rights assessment. Existing approaches like http://outofcopyright.eu/calculators/ or http://www.publicdomainsherpa.com/calculator.html would be an improvement over browsing through endless pages of text. Unfortunately information required to run these tools is not always part of the metadata available to us. Bot rights assessments followed up by human verification might be worth a try. TLDR: A public domain calculator for Wikimedia Commons might be a preferable approach over a safe date. I'm curious to hear what others have to say about this idea. Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 09:29, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Need in practical help on fixing the category or what else can be done

Dear all – particularly administrators, According to the recommendations User:Ellin Beltz I am entering the Commons:Village pump as it is almost second day that I have not yet got my feedback on my below message with subject “I made changes into category relevant as per my view” on the “User:Ellin Beltz”. In this respect, hereby I would like to ask you practical help on fixing the criteria-category or what else can be done, so that I could succeed at the end as per the rules (or delete the category like CC-BY-SA-4.0?). I have 3 days left until the deletion days:

  • User:Ellin Beltz All noted-mentioned pictures by you on User talk:Khurshed.yusufbekov - File:Agakhanyanc.okmir.jpg; File:Khudoer-Yusufbekov and Agakhanyanc-Okmir.jpg; File:Amdinov family2.jpg; File:High School was established in 1936.jpg, I made changes into category relevant as per my view: cc-by-sa-4.0; self|cc-by-sa-4.0; PD-Russia; Category:Tajikistan; Updloaded with UploadWizard.
    Files - File:Agakhanyanc.okmir.jpg, File:Khudoer-Yusufbekov and Agakhanyanc-Okmir.jpg - uploaded as my own (I know Okmir Agakhanyanc from childhood, he was close friend of my father (both pictures taken by me), I have a lot of pictures where he and I are together. If you will correct me on other appropriete category for the sake of the pictures in the article, I will not have any objections;. With respect Khurshed.yusufbekov (talk) 16:26, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

P.S. FYI - Armenian Encyclopedia “Hayzag” already (Usage on ru.hayazg.info) using these two my own pictures, thanks Wikipedia. Here is the link[1].

With respect User talk:Khurshed.yusufbekov or Khurshed.yusufbekov (talk) 19:15, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

  1. ↑ Агаханянц Окмир Егишевич. Энциклопедия фонда «Хайазг». Retrieved on 2016-09-04.
I didn't delete these in a hurry. I looked at http://ru.hayazg.info/%D0%A4%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BB:%D0%90%D0%B3%D0%B0%D1%85%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%8F%D0%BD%D1%86_%D0%9E%D0%BA%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%80_%D0%95%D0%B3%D0%B8%D1%88%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%8715.jpg, and the other image, and both have as the uploader there "Lpetrosyan". Who is that? Authorship seems unclear with these, hence my deletion under COM:PRP. INeverCry 06:35, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Материал из Wikimedia Commons Файл История файла Использование файла Глобальное использование файла Загрузить все размеры Использовать файл в вебе Использовать файл в вики Отправить на e-mail ссылку на этот файл Информация об использовании

File:Khudoer-Yusufbekov-and-Agakhanyanc-Okmir.jpg Размер при предпросмотре: 800 × 526 пикселей. Другие разрешения: 320 × 210 пикселей | 640 × 421 пикселей | 1052 × 692 пикселей. Исходный файл ‎(1052 × 692 пикселя, размер файла: 79 КБ, MIME-тип: image/jpeg) Открыть в «Просмотрщике медиафайлов»Настройка Краткое описание[править] Описание Русский: Академик Худоер Юсуфбеков соратник, современник Окмир Агаханянц (справа). Памирский ботанический сад г. Хорог, 1977 г. Дата 27 июля 1977 Источник собственная работа Автор Khurshed.yusufbekov Лицензирование[править] Я, владелец авторских прав на это произведение, добровольно публикую его на условиях следующей лицензии: w:ru:Creative Commons атрибуция распространение на тех же условиях Этот файл доступен по лицензии Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International Вы можете свободно: делиться произведением – копировать, распространять и передавать данное произведение. создавать производные – переделывать данное произведение При соблюдении следующих условий: атрибуция – вы должны указывать ссылку на автора (правообладателя) данного произведения в виде, установленном автором или лицензиаром (но ни в коем случае не таким образом, который наводит на мысль, что автор поддерживает вас или использование вами данного произведения). распространение на тех же условиях – Если вы изменяете, преобразуете или создаёте иное производное произведение на основании этого произведения, вы можете распространять полученное в результате произведение только на условиях такой же или совместимой лицензии. История файла Нажмите на дату/время, чтобы просмотреть, как тогда выглядел файл.

Дата/время Миниатюра Размеры Участник Примечание текущий 16:24, 2 июля 2016 Миниатюра для версии от 16:24, 2 июля 2016 1052 × 692 (79 КБ) Khurshed.yusufbekov (обсуждение | вклад) User created page with UploadWizard Вы не можете перезаписать этот файл. Использование файла Следующая 1 страница ссылается на данный файл:

User:OgreBot/Uploads by new users/2016 July 02 15:00 Глобальное использование файла Данный файл используется в следующих вики:

Использование Khudoer-Yusufbekov-and-Agakhanyanc-Okmir.jpg в ru.wikipedia.org Агаханянц, Окмир Егишевич Категория: География Скрытые категории: CC-BY-SA-4.0Self-published workUploaded with UploadWizard"
No one is immune from error, please return my pictures. With respect Khurshed.yusufbekov (talk) 15:07, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

    • @INeverCry: P.S. I do not think they will qualify for authorship - from 18 to 25 July 2016, I helped them complement their version of the article, below a copy of my correspondence with them (Lpetrosyan & ...): "Прошу дополнить страницу новыми обновленными мною данными со стр. Википедия

khurshed yusufbekov <khurshed.yusufbekov@bk.ru> Кому: mailbox@hayazg.info 19 июля, 17:51 Уважаемый Lpetrosyan & Сергей Саядов, Близко знал Окмир Егишевича, очень рад тому что Вы украсили статью фотографией, сделанный мною в 1974 г. на Памире (https://hy.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D5%8A%D5%A1%D5%BF%D5%AF%D5%A5%D6%80:Agakhanyanc.okmir.jpg Պատկեր:Agakhanyanc.okmir.jpg). Окмир Егишевич был гражданином мира - любил называть себя космополитом. ... Ещё пожалуйста исправьте в разделе Достижения “член-корреспондент Международного географического общества“ на член-корреспондент Международного географического союза и соответственно внизу в разделе Категория (на международном уровне не как общество, а как союз). И ещё один момент, вставьте пожалуйста под моим вторым фотографией: Академик Худоер Юсуфбеков соратник, современник Окмир Агаханянц (справа). Памирский ботанический сад г. Хорог, 1977 г. (или как ещё, поверьте это не эгоизм во мне говорит - фотография без комментария как-то не логично, чтобы не гадали кто есть, кто из сидящих вдвоем друзей https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Khudoer-Yusufbekov-and-Agakhanyanc-Okmir.jpg?uselang=ru File:Khudoer-Yusufbekov-and-Agakhanyanc-Okmir.jpg). Это важно для достоверности (пока не разобрали личный архив ОЕ)... Хуршед Худоерович Юсуфбеков ... Понедельник, 18 июля 2016, 11:44 +05:00 от khurshed yusufbekov <khurshed.yusufbekov@bk.ru>" ..... Khurshed.yusufbekov (talk) 16:24, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest filing an undeletion request. INeverCry 19:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
I would be grateful if you restore the files. Khurshed.yusufbekov (talk) 20:30, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm going to have to decline doing that. I'm not sure about the authorship. I may be mistaken, but I have to be careful where copyright is concerned. You can easily file an undeletion request, and if other administrators agree that the files are OK, then they can be restored. INeverCry 21:14, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
@INeverCry: I'm sorry to sleep, then you're wrong - clearly, from where you have so many doubts, you have to be friendly: regard to the authorship, I started photography when I was 9 years old at the Club of Young Technician in 1969. First camera “FED” was presented to me as a gift by this person photographed by me including the one with my father in 1972 on the day of my birthday. The downloaded photos, as indicated, I took on August 25th 1974 and July 27th, 1977. FYI: Article Agahanyants, Okmir Yeghishe edited from 25.06. - 27.7.2016 (see it in History of this article), which I redirected through the section References to the article Yusufbekov, Khudoyer Yusufbekovich, also there I gave redirection in p/n 6 & 11 to the article Pamir (created pages (pictures) with UploadWizardon on 30 June 2016‎ & 2 July 2016‎) in ru.wikipedia.org, concurrently recommend reading ОКМИР АГАХАНЯНЦ. ВЕТЕР НАЗЫВАЕТСЯ «АФГАНЕЦ»=[OKMIR AGAKHANYANS. WIND CALLED «AFGHAN». (also from article comments) – “there were two telegrams. One of them from republican Academy of Science to the director of Bio station on Eastern Pamir to Khudoyor Yusufbekov. Due to this, my work at Circus “Zor” was disrupted. Director …” I can send a copy of my passport or I can even give you phone# of Okmir Egiyshevich daughter in St. Petersburg Natalia Okmirovna (Наталья Окмировна) or granddaughter Pauline (Полина Феликсовна) - ask them? Khurshed.yusufbekov (talk) 02:01, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  • @Khurshed.yusufbekov: I believe you are entirely well-intentioned here and are probably also entirely correct, but at this point undeletion requests are the way to to go. The offers about passports, etc. are not needed, but copy-paste the biographical information you just posted here as part of the undeletion request for any photos you actually took yourself. If some of these are photos by other people, that's another matter; I couldn't work out by reading what is here if any of them are. - Jmabel ! talk 03:38, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  • @Jmabel: Hi! In order to understand me correctly with my more tolerable Russian and poor English – the gist of my expressions in detail (last edited subpages of Files before removal, without visiting the nomination pages or Commons:Deletion requests/Files). On each of the files - File:Agakhanyanc.okmir.jpg downloaded 2016.06.30; File:Khudoer-Yusufbekov-and-Agakhanyanc-Okmir.jpg downloaded 2016-07-02; File:Amdinov family2.jpg; File:High School was established in 1936.jpg , there is a need to visit the previous history of the discussion page of https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:INeverCry&action=history Revision history of "User talk:INeverCry": (cur | prev) 13:12, 10 September 2016‎ Khurshed.yusufbekov (talk | contribs)‎ . . (26,494 bytes) (+7,549)‎ . . (→‎Ознакомившись в деталях с нижеизложенным надеюсь примите положительное решение: new section) (undo).
    But what is not clear for you in above said in Russian, it is File:Khudoer-Yusufbekov-and-Agakhanyanc-Okmir.jpg=[Файл:Khudoer-Yusufbekov-and-Agakhanyanc-Okmir.jpg downloaded 2016-07-02]. With respect Khurshed.yusufbekov (talk) 12:37, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  • @Khurshed.yusufbekov: I'm not really trying to understand this whole situation. I'm trying to tell you what forum you need to go to to get it addressed. Posting further on this page won't get your images restored. You need to go to COM:UDEL and possibly deal with COM:OTRS (if any of the pictures aren't your own or have been previously published). - Jmabel ! talk 15:40, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

September 06

In other projects

How come you guys don't have In other projects links on the sidebar (or when you do, it only links to WP categories)? Wikivoyage has links to Commons in most pages and could use a few linkbacks. They have a Google rank problem because of the whole fork/duplicate content business, so it would be nice to get some extra publicity and Google juice. Acer (talk) 21:14, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

@Acer: Um, we do. The contents of the "In other projects" and "In Wikipedia" sidebar sections varies for each page, and is controlled by the data in WikiData. To edit this data, click on "Edit links" which is at the bottom of the "In Wikipedia" section in the sidebar. As for "it only links to categories" I'm not sure what you mean. Flag has "in other projects" links to WikiPedia (the English one) and WikiQuote, and those links are not categories. That is just one example. Davidwr (talk) 22:06, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
@Davidwr: Right, sorry. I wasn't clear. I meant from Category pages here on commons. Most incoming links from WV and WP land on category pages. See for instance voy:Konanur which has a Wikidata link to Category:Konanur but no link back. I figure this is what happens in most instances. I was trying to say that the categories here only link back to categories on WP Acer (talk) 22:25, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
The sidebar links appear on Commons categories if the category has been site-linked to the same Wikidata item as the other projects. However Wikidata has been set up to separate ordinary items from category items, and Commons categories are only supposed to link to Wikidata categories, which the Wikivoyage pages won't link to. On some Commons categories, that's ignored, and they link directly to the main Wikidata item. It's a bit of a mess on the Wikidata side. --ghouston (talk) 00:35, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Is there a way to find the corresponding Wikidata article/gallery page ID from a specific wikidata category page ID? I.e. locate wikidata:Q213154 from wikidata:Q8218400? Should then be possible to write a smart template to add to Commons category pages. --Traveler100 (talk) 12:40, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, the "category's main topic" on the category item links to the main item. Templates are how Commons is supposed to cope with Wikidata issues: {{Interwiki from wikidata}} will add interwiki links, but it seems to work only for Wikipedia and not other projects. {{On Wikidata}} includes those interwiki links and also puts a link to the Wikidata item in the Category header (not in the sidebar, which is where it goes in other projects.) --ghouston (talk) 05:13, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
I see how this works in principle but cannot get it to work when I stack all the steps together. Add User:Traveler100/sandbox to a category to see the error messages. Probably something missing in my knowledge of modules. Feel free to edit the page if you can fix it. --Traveler100 (talk) 15:08, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't know much about this module, but it looks like you can't use {{#invoke:Wikidata|pageId}} unless the page is connected to Wikidata (presumably as a sitelink). That's why for {{On Wikidata}} the Wikidata page must be supplied as an argument if there's no sitelink. --ghouston (talk) 12:26, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

September 09

Researching year deceased

I scan a picture of the photografer Jh et P. jumpertz, Bruxelles. They took pictures from around the beginning of the twentieth century. For licences purposes it is necessary to find out when the photografer is deceased. If you Google: photo Jh et P. jumpertz, Bruxelles quite a lot of picture are found. The one I am scanning is: church of VerviersSmiley.toerist (talk) 12:29, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

If it can help, their first names are Joseph and Pierre. But not much beyond that seems to be found on the internet. You may have to look if there's something in the Belgium archives for the commune of Etterbeek or other communes. You could try asking your question at fr:Wikipédia:Oracle, or the equivalent reference desk on nl.wikipedia, if there's one, where maybe someone may know where to look. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:02, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

RevisionSlider

From September 13th on, RevisionSlider will be available as a beta feature in your wiki. The RevisionSlider adds a slider view to the diff page, so that you can easily move between revisions. The feature fulfills a wish from the German Community’s Technical Wishlist. Everyone is invited to test the feature and we hope that it will serve you well in your work!

Birgit Müller (WMDE) 14:57, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Joint Pathology Center

For an article about the boid inclusion body disease I would need some (histological) pics. At The Joint Pathology Center there are some interesting slides ([17] and [18]) but I´m not quite sure, whether the pictures are published under free common license due to the fact, that this Institute seems to be run by the US federal government ("federal government's premier pathology reference center supporting the Military Health System (MHS)"). Can I upload the pics here under free US-government license? Thanks for your help, --Gleiberg (talk) 17:24, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Gleiberg, It is unclear to me if all people taking the photographs are US military or government employees. Their email ends with .mil, but many labs are contracted to private companies, like here. The best course of action would be to ask them and than send the reply to COM:OTRS for safekeeping. --Jarekt (talk) 18:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Based on http://www.jpc.capmed.mil/privacy_notice.asp, I would presume PD. --Fæ (talk) 19:45, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you both very much, @Fae good link, didn´t see that. If there is no alternative, I´ll try it. --Gleiberg (talk) 21:32, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-37

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 Wikimedia Commons app for Android can now show nearby places that need photos. [19]
  • <maplink> and <mapframe> can now use geodata from Open Street Map if Open Street Map has defined a region and given it an ID in Wikidata. You can use this to draw on the map and add information. [20][21]

Changes this week

  • The RevisionSlider will be available as a beta feature on all wikis from 13 September. This will make it easier to navigate between diffs in the page history. [22]
  • A new user right will allow most users to change the content model of pages. [23][24]
  • The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 13 September. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 14 September. It will be on all wikis from 15 September (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 13 September at 19:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

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

18:04, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Everything at Special:Contributions/MaeLRie is copied from http://focusdesigns.com/media/ "Copyright © Focus Designs Inc, All Rights Reserved". I don't have time right now to tag them all. I assume they don't understand the difference between Fair Use press kits and freely licensed media. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:21, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

✓ Flushed - Jcb (talk) 20:28, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
I found one of the images on https://www.flickr.com/photos/billellisonphotographer/6292676304/in/gallery-58714430@N03-72157632886438997/ by bill ellison and "All Rights Reserved". That said I would prefer regular DR, so user:MaeLRie might have a chance to explain. --Jarekt (talk) 20:32, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

September 13

How to increase thumbnail size in categories?

I am looking for a simple way to increase image size in category preview (for example, on this page). I believe that some css code should be written. Could anyone help me with that, or point me to a relevant discussion? Thank you! --Alexander (talk) 12:39, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2016/08#Larger_thumbnails Offnfopt(talk) 12:55, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Offnfopt, thank you! So recent discussion... I should have made a better search through the archives. --Alexander (talk) 13:15, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Is it possible to always see categories with "?gallerymode=packed"? cc @Bawolff: Pyb (talk) 17:59, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Not super easily. I guess you could write javascript to change all the links on the page to append ?gallerymode=packed to the end of them if they are to a category. Bawolff (talk) 21:34, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

What are these files?

Oxyman (talk) 19:34, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Those are subtitles for File:The GLAM-Wiki Revolution.webm (you can select them through the CC-button in the player). --Magnus (talk) 19:48, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Relevant article COM:SRT. Offnfopt(talk) 19:58, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Oh, ok thanks. I get this message at the top of these files "No file by this name exists, but you can upload it. If a file used to exist, try to purge this page's cache" which confused me and led me to believe that this could have been some kind of upload error or other fault Oxyman (talk) 20:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Hmm, this does not look right. The subtitles are normally stored in the TimedText namespace. Here's a list of subtitles for this file: Special:PrefixIndex/TimedText:The_GLAM-Wiki_Revolution.webm. And here are the "fake" subtitles you found: Special:PrefixIndex/File:The_GLAM-Wiki_Revolution.webm/srt. Comparing these to the list in the media player, I'm pretty sure the "fake" ones are ignored completely; Spanish (es) subtitles are missing in the player, while Italian (it) ones appear. I don't know if these were created by mistake, or maybe if they are some old way to add subtitles; @Jean-Frédéric: you created File:The GLAM-Wiki Revolution.webm/srt in 2014, do you know what's up with these? Matma Rex (talk) 22:02, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Sure, I made those back in the days as part of a make-shift workflow to use Translate extension on subtitles, as described at phab:T44790#441327. These can be safely substed into the TimedText NS and deleted. I don’t think there is much interest in using such a cumbersome workflow. Jean-Fred (talk) 00:08, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
TimedText Why are these in the File: namespace instead of the TimedText: namespace? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:15, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
As explained on phab:T44790#441327, because it was not possible to enable Translate on the TimedText namespace. Jean-Fred (talk) 10:04, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
@Jean-Frédéric: We can just use / hierarchies or -language code can't we? This namespace is specifically for this text. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:36, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
@Koavf: I don’t understand your question. Which namespace is specifically for what text? Jean-Fred (talk) 12:15, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@Jean-Frédéric: There is a namespace for TimedText. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:46, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

September 12

Van in surname?

"Van Gogh (surname)" or "Gogh (surname)" what is the preference here? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:31, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

FYI: The reason for this question is, I guess, Category:Von Rohr (surname) which I tonite moved to Category:Rohr (surname). regards. --JuTa 07:31, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
"Van" is part of his surname, not a middle name. However it's not unusual to sort the name under "G" instead of "V". --ghouston (talk) 09:09, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Talking as someone with "Van" in my surname, I agree that "it depends". My name has been Anglicised, so my direct relatives all use an upper-case "V" and in the UK we are invariably indexed under "V" (I suspect this would be a similar custom in the USA). None of this is true for distant relatives in the Netherlands, yet we all share the same family name. Consequently my lifetime of experience of how to index my name, leads me to believe we can set no hard rules for how to create name categories like this apart from checking to see what the individual prefered, or maybe how larger archives have done it in their catalogues for that name. --Fæ (talk) 09:19, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  • As others said, it depends on the person and the country they are from. There is a very useful publication by the IFLA titled "Names of persons : national usages for entry in catalogues" which can be downloaded in PDF format here. So, in Belgium, it would usually be "Van Xyz, <first name>", while in the Netherlands, traditional usage is "to place all prefixes, except ver, at the end of the names" (p. 30 of that publication), so it would be "Xyz, <first name> van" there. Vincent van Gogh was Dutch, so the preference in his case is indeed "Gogh, Vincent van". Gestumblindi (talk) 21:26, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Template:City rewrite in Lua

I am working on rewriting Template:City in LUA and I think we need to revisit the design of it. It has 3 calls to "#ifexist:" parser functions: for pages with the given name in Category, Template and Gallery namespaces. For example if {{City|X}} is called and X is not on a list of known places, than if a template:X exist than it is called hoping it is a template that translates the cities name, like {{Paris}}. Similarly if a gallery X or category:X exist than they are converted into links. Those calls are considered expensive and should be avoided. They also might not be necessary since we now have lookup table with almost 2k names of cities and other places. Also sometimes they produce very hard to figure out wrong results, try {{City|Main}} for example or a creator with "Main" as a place of birth. Another problem is that the template is used in many infobox templates like {{Creator}}, {{Book}}, {{Artwork}}, etc. to process inputs to any field that might have to do with cities and other places. I think we should stop checking for existence of templates and maybe also categories and galleries, as our lookup table should be sufficient and we can now also use Wikidata q-codes to create links for places which otherwise would be hard to disambiguate. Thoughts for or against? --Jarekt (talk) 01:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

That lookup table in Template:City seems a bit crazy to me, since even if it contains 2000 entries it's only a tiny fraction of the place names that may feature as somebody's place of birth, or whatever. The list of locations in the UK, for example, is extremely short. --ghouston (talk) 12:42, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
That lookup table (now in Module:City/data) is a list of hardwired most commonly used names that people added over the years, or for which location templates were created. It have vary uneven coverage, 230 cities in the Netherlands, 29 in the US, and 0 in most of African countries. I guess your point would be that we still need a look up for a gallery (often in native language) or category (usually in English) with the same name. That is how I wrote Module:City which is proposed to replace {{City}}. --Jarekt (talk) 13:51, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Shouldn't templates like Creator be able to look up relevant places in Wikidata, and also get enough information from Wikidata to turn it into a language-relevant Wikipedia link? For random free-standing links, Template:City also takes a Wikidata item number (Q-code), which seems preferable to trying to guess from a name that may be ambiguous or in an unexpected language. --ghouston (talk) 02:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes {{Creator}} will be able to look up properties like "place of birth" on wikidata and fill in information on Commons if missing, the way we do with {{Authority control}} templates. But in the meantime 25k creator templates are using {{City}} template or place templates like {{Paris}}, and they will continue to do so for a while. Once Creator template has ability to look up wikidata, we should move non-conflicting information from creator templates to wikidata, so there is only a single place where it is stored. Reconciling different data on Commons and Wikidata will be the hardest problem, as it is with {{Authority control}} templates, see for example Category:Pages with mismatching VIAF identifier. --Jarekt (talk) 13:38, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Image attribution licensing question

I have a general licensing question regarding attribution requirements for images. As a example case, see this page. This page uses the image File:The Bugle.png which shows CC-BY-SA-3.0/GFDL licensing. But on the page the image is used on, the image isn't clickable where it would take you to the image description. This means the licensing information and attribution information isn't easily accessible to less technical users. So my question, would this type of image use violate the licensing of the image? Just to note, I have no issue with the example page, just a example case, I've seen many like it on wikipedia. Offnfopt(talk) 09:37, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree that CC-BY images that can not be clicked on violate the license terms. IMO only PD, CC-zero, etc. images should be used in such way. That said I wonder how many flag images I added to various license templates with "link=" option that have the same problem. I should check on that. User:Offnfopt thank you for raising this valid question. --Jarekt (talk) 18:40, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Finding the "link=[nothing]" cases in which the image has an incompatible license sounds like a job for a bot. Any bot-writers with spare time on their hands interested in taking this on? Davidwr (talk) 03:38, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Good idea, but we should probably ask at Commons:Bots/Work requests --Jarekt (talk) 13:03, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Removal of hyphens etc from file names

Can I request that we clear out all symbols such as hyphens from image file names as they are causing a nuisance. In this 3rd party Dictionary of Species you can see, if you scroll down images taken from Commons. Over 12,000 are called via Wikidata's prefered image. However, if there's a hyphen, that image will not appear and the code is jumbled up. Scroll down to 'Anna's hummingbird' for example, which calls up File:Calypte anna -San Luis Obispo, California, USA -male -flying-8.jpg, but is stumped by the hyphens in the name, no image appears, and code is jumbled up. I can't think of any reasons not to remove these hyphens (and other symbols). I'm in discussion with another world-wide website which is also interested in taking a feed of birds (excuse the pun) from Commons, but sorting this out first would be good. Any thoughts please? Llywelyn2000 (talk) 13:24, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think this is a reasonable request. Commons has literally millions of images with a hyphen in the name (I ran a query and 13,371,540 out of our 33,334,313 media files have it) and there is no easy/performant way of batch-renaming images in MediaWiki currently. [As a side note, I can't see the website you linked to, because apparently "Access from your Country was disabled by the site administrator."] Matma Rex (talk) 14:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, this is a simple en:Hyphen-minus, which is part of the ASCII standard and thus should work fine in any computerized context (it's basically as "standard" as it can get). If that throws off llennatur.com, then there's something seriously wrong either on their side or at Wikidata. The example file File:Calypte anna -San Luis Obispo, California, USA -male -flying-8.jpg has whitespaces/underscores in front of the hyphens. Those are partially missing in their <img> tag for some reason:
<img src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/81/Calypte_anna-SanLuis_Obispo%2C_California%2C_USA-male-flying-8.jpg/512px-Calypte_anna-SanLuis_Obispo%2C_California%2C_USA-male_-flying-8.jpg">
--El Grafo (talk) 14:55, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
The URL at d:Q564265 looks fine as well. --El Grafo (talk) 15:00, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
User:Matma Rex - I see nothing unreasonable in my request. That which appears complex to you would simplify itself had you read the bit about Species, species with Welsh names - and there are 12,000 of those, not 13,371,540.
El Grafo Thanks for looking into the file name this end; as you, we can not see a problem (at either ends); that's why I suggest we could rename without the hyphen. I'll get back to them with your underscore suggestion. Do you too have a problem with seeing my above link / website or can you get in? Llywelyn2000 (talk) 15:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
@Llywelyn2000: I don't think it's reasonable either to expect me to know what this website is about when you don't say it, and the website itself disallows me from accessing it, like I wrote :) Matma Rex (talk) 15:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
llennatur.com failing to correctly parse files with hyphens, is not a reason to start mass renaming files on Commons. It is a reason for llennatur.com to fix their site as it is their bug. --Fæ (talk) 15:47, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Matma Rex - I did say 'what this website is about' - it's a '3rd party Dictionary of Species'. My second sentence.
Fæ Thanks! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 16:26, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
<div property="PT_DictionaryEntry" xml:lang="en" lang="en"><div property="PT_Heading"><span property="PT_term">Anna's hummingbird</span></div><div property="PT_Concept"><div property="PT_Preferred"><div property="PT_entry"><span property="PT_term"><span style="cursor: auto;" property="PT_termMember">Anna's</span><span style="cursor: auto;" property="PT_termMember"> hummingbird</span></span></div></div><div property="PT_LanguageSection" xml:lang="lat" lang="lat"><div property="PT_Preferred"><div property="PT_entry"><span property="PT_term"><span style="cursor: auto;" property="PT_termMember">Calypte</span><span property="PT_termMember"> anna</span></span></div></div></div><div property="PT_LanguageSection" xml:lang="cy" lang="cy"><div property="PT_Preferred"><div property="PT_entry"><span property="PT_term"><span property="PT_termMember">sïedn</span><span property="PT_termMember"> Anna</span></span><span property="PT_ptOfSpeech">eg</span><span property="PT_plural">sïednod Anna</span></div></div></div><div property="PT_Definitions"><span xml:lang="cy" lang="cy"><p>&lt;a href="<a href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Calypte_anna_-San_Luis_Obispo,_California,_USA_-male_-flying-8.jpg">http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Calypte<em>anna</em>-San<em>Luis_Obispo,_California,_USA</em>-male<em>-flying-8.jpg</em></a><em>" title="Alan Vernon (Anna's hummingbird (Calypte anna) in flight .... 1 of 2</em></p><p><em>Uploaded by Snowmanradio<br>
) [CC-BY-2.0]"&gt;&lt;img src="<a href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/81/Calypte_anna">https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/81/Calypte_anna</a></em>-San<em>Luis_Obispo%2C_California%2C_USA</em>-male<em>-flying-8.jpg/512px-Calypte_anna</em>-San<em>Luis_Obispo%2C_California%2C_USA</em>-male_-flying-8.jpg" alt="Calypte%20anna%20-San%20Luis%20Obispo%2C%20California%2C%20USA%20-male%20-flying-8.jpg" width="512"&gt;</p></span></div></div><div property="PT_Dictionaries"><div property="PT_Dictionary" id="130111_706_236"><span xml:lang="cy" lang="cy">Adar y Byd. Cymdeithas Edward Llwyd a Chymdeithas Ted Breeze-Jones 2015</span></div></div></div>
  • I guess, you are able to point the people of www.llenatur.com to their issue?
— Speravir_Talk – 17:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
I am indeed, now I know the issue is theirs. Many thanks for the positive pointers! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 17:23, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
@Llywelyn2000: I structured the page source code from above for myself. The problematic, defunct part is this one:
<div property="PT_Definitions">
  <span xml:lang="cy" lang="cy">
    <p>&lt;a href="<a href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Calypte_anna_-San_Luis_Obispo,_California,_USA_-male_-flying-8.jpg">http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Calypte<em>anna</em>-San<em>Luis_Obispo,_California,_USA</em>-male<em>-flying-8.jpg</em></a><em>" title="Alan Vernon (Anna's hummingbird (Calypte anna) in flight .... 1 of 2</em></p>
    <p><em>Uploaded by Snowmanradio<br>
    ) [CC-BY-2.0]"&gt;&lt;img src="<a href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/81/Calypte_anna">https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/81/Calypte_anna</a></em>-San<em>Luis_Obispo%2C_California%2C_USA</em>-male<em>-flying-8.jpg/512px-Calypte_anna</em>-San<em>Luis_Obispo%2C_California%2C_USA</em>-male_-flying-8.jpg" alt="Calypte%20anna%20-San%20Luis%20Obispo%2C%20California%2C%20USA%20-male%20-flying-8.jpg" width="512"&gt;</p>
  </span>
</div>
You can see, that the actual link to the file at first is correct, but the image embedding is mangled.
It’s exactly the same for the swallow-tailed hummingbird:
<div property="PT_Definitions">
  <span xml:lang="cy" lang="cy">
    <p>&lt;a href="<a href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Eupetomena_macroura_-Piraju,_Sao_Paulo,_Brazil-8.jpg">http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Eupetomena<em>macroura</em>-Piraju,<em>Sao_Paulo,_Brazil-8.jpg</em></a><em>" title="Dario Sanches from São Paulo, Brazil (BEIJA-FLOR-TESOURA (Eupetomena macroura )</em></p>
    <p><em>Uploaded by Snowmanradio<br>
    ) [CC-BY-SA-2.0]"&gt;&lt;img src="<a href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ac/Eupetomena_macroura">https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ac/Eupetomena_macroura</a></em>-Piraju%2C<em>Sao_Paulo%2C_Brazil-8.jpg/512px-Eupetomena_macroura</em>-Piraju%2C_Sao_Paulo%2C_Brazil-8.jpg" alt="Eupetomena%20macroura%20-Piraju%2C%20Sao%20Paulo%2C%20Brazil-8.jpg" width="512"&gt;</p>
  </span>
</div>
— Speravir_Talk – 17:54, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Btw, so far, we know that website disallows visits from Poland (Matma Rex) and Canada (me). From what country, if any, does it allow visits? -- Asclepias (talk) 17:39, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
I am in Germany, and can access the site (as proved by my writing above). — Speravir_Talk – 17:58, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Ok. Still, it's strangely selective. I wonder what their criteria are. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:15, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
They are the Language Technology Unit at Bangor University; I'll ask. Thanks all. Speravir - really great pointers; thanks! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 18:47, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
That looks like the sort of thing someone might be able to turn into an XSS vulnerability. Bawolff (talk) 21:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Open call for Project Grants

Greetings! The Project Grants program is accepting proposals from September 12 to October 11 to fund new tools, research, offline outreach (including editathon series, workshops, etc), online organizing (including contests), and other experiments that enhance the work of Wikimedia volunteers. Project Grants can support you and your team’s project development time in addition to project expenses such as materials, travel, and rental space.

Also accepting candidates to join the Project Grants Committee through October 1.

With thanks, I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 14:49, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

French-speakers should those categories be merged?

I was looking at d:Q653307 and it links to 2 commons categories: Category:Sèvres porcelain and Category:Manufacture de porcelaine de Sèvres. To me those 2 categories seem similar enough to be merged, but I am not sure. Opinions? --Jarekt (talk) 19:53, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

One category is about the Sèvres porcelain enterprise, images of porcelain artworks made there, artists, etc. The other category is about images of the factory building (historic monument). There's nothing to merge. That would be like merging Category:United States Congress and Category:United States Capitol. Wikipedia may have one article to cover everything, if there's not enough text to cover the two topics separately. But that's not the case on Commons. If Wikidata has a problem with that, it's their problem. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:07, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Asclepias There is no need to get angry at me. I do not speak French and there are no explanations of what each category should hold. Once you explain those differences they are clear, although French article fr:Manufacture nationale de Sèvres and de:Manufacture royale de porcelaine de Sèvres in German wikipedia, seems to be about the Sèvres porcelain enterprise and not the building. If we want a category related to the building than maybe we should rename Category:Manufacture de porcelaine de Sèvres to Category:Building of Manufacture de porcelaine de Sèvres (I do not like mixing languages). --Jarekt (talk) 01:56, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm unfamiliar with this topic, I shouldn't have tried to comment. -- Asclepias (talk) 02:32, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Jarekt, if there is no reaction here, ask in Commons:Bistro. English works (been there, done that). — Speravir_Talk – 16:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Help please

VisualFileChange isn't working properly on my phone so could someone please help me out by opening a DR on all the files of User:Info.gfl with the rationale "Low-quality images uploaded for a spam article on English Wikipedia. Licensing is doubtful as thr corporate underling who probably uploaded this probably doesn't personally own the company's images and may not have permission to license them. Moreover the user is untrustworthy: File:Diaphragm (Valve).png is acknowledged to be from http://www.bayportvalve.com/ but the license is made up. Logo may be likely non-free (it's a COM:TOO question), uploader clearly doesn't get it." There's no way I can tag all those on my phone. Many thanks, BethNaught (talk) 16:32, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done. All the best. Wikicology (talk) 06:44, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

September 16

Is this self-promotion?

@DeFacto: DeFacto has argued that car number-plates should always by blanked or disguised on Wikimedia Commons pages. Although I think that he is being paranoid, I support his right to voice that opinion. However, in my view, disguising a number-plate with the characters "D3F4CTO" here amounts self-promotion (See here).

Ifr so, should he be given a deadline by which these characters should be removed otherwise teh images

These comments also apply to a number of other images that he has created.Martinvl (talk) 13:30, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Geez... that's less disruptive than the usual watermarks und IMHO a creative solution for the problem with numberplates. --Magnus (talk) 13:39, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Wow. Never come across a case like this on WC before. The original registration owners are on public accessible records. DeFacto is DeFacto out of order on this. The most efficacious solution me-thinks, is to tag each one of his uploads with a 'delete' unless he either uploads the original image or hashes out his Photoshoped reg plate (which is not necessary on WC). Why leave him to make us do all the work he should be doing?--P.g.champion (talk) 14:54, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
You are not answering Martinvl's question. The case has already been discussed at length. --Magnus (talk) 15:02, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
The EXIF information from his images has been removed, so we don't even have an audit trail to confirm these are indeed his images, which we would have if he had uploaded the original un-photoshopted images. We have plenty of veteran motor vehicle images already, and we don't want any that have questionable copyright on WC -do we?. Just saying. If someone wanted to clone a number plate they do not need to look at WC. Public records are better. What has already been discussed at length didn't go any where. So I think Martinvl's question has been answered in around about way. These images need to be tagged for deletion, unless the up-loader can support them.--P.g.champion (talk) 16:16, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Well it is evidently self-promotion isn't it? I think these should be treated as Watermarked images Oxyman (talk) 16:19, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Photos that have been the subject of significant digital manipulation are almost always of lesser use than actual photos: rotation is always fine, of course, but fundamentally changing the entire appearance of part of the image causes the image to be significantly less true-to-life. Exceptions can always exist, of course, but unless there's good reason on one specific image to hide the license/number plate, the original plate needs to be visible if it were visible when the image came from the camera. Nyttend (talk) 22:08, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
@Nyttend: I believe there is a very strong reason to mandate number plate hiding. If you read my comments in this discussion above you will understand what they are. This article might help too. DeFacto (talk). 22:30, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Absolutely not: intentional editing of photos to misrepresent reality is disruptive. Your argument is totally irrelevant to the matter of developing a repository of free media that's useful for educational purposes, and your position would reduce such a repository's usefulness by promoting the introduction of unrealistic depictions of scenery. Hiding a component of an image and uploading it on top of the original image, moreover, would be in violation of COM:OVERWRITE, which specifies that significant changes must be uploaded under new filenames. If you want to modify File:Downtown Beaver Pennsylvania.jpg and upload it as File:Downtown Beaver Pennsylvania with license plates obscured.jpg, you can do that, but changing the original file is a clear violation of that standard. Nyttend (talk) 01:27, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
@Nyttend: do you think that hiding plates in this way (whether failing COM:OVERWRITE or not) should be considered as self-promotional? DeFacto (talk). 05:57, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
"intentional editing of photos" ooh - don't tell all the feature picture editors, who fix all the dust spots, lol - the selective outrage is instructive. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 01:19, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Whether this is self-promotion or not, images with faked details (especially undeclared fake details) should not be used in Wikipedia articles. The images should also be tagged {{Retouched picture |1= fake numberplate}}. Furthermore, as this is a rare car, it takes seconds to do a Google image search for "Napier Type 75" and find the number "EC 2968" on multiple images; and indeed no other car of that type. I don't know about commons, but on Wikipedia, en:WP:POINT would apply. Andy Mabbett (talk) 16:55, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Andy: I agree that the images should have a note on them describing any tweaks made, and probably the reasons too. That is why I had started adding notes to the images (even before this discussion had started) - see here, here, here, here and here. Up until today I was not familiar with the {{Retouched picture}} template, or I would have used that. So I thank you for bringing that to my attention.
Finally, please assume good faith for the reason I have recently started adding adding 'fake' number plates (reasons to do with QI assessments as explained in the My reasoning sub-section below) rather than continuing with the blanking/pixelating/blurring that I systematically did for my first 10 years worth (May 2006 - May 2016) of motor vehicle photo contributions. DeFacto (talk). 21:17, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Serious question - What is the actual point to blanking plates??, If I'm not sure of a vehicle I'll search at www.ukvehicle.com amongst others to find out ..... Number plates are extremely helpful if you don't know what the vehicle is and unless you own the vehicle and want it blanked then I really cannot understand for the life of me why anyone would want them blanked??, I could go outside, write someones car plate down, go back inside and purchase the details for what £5-£10 .... point is I don't see the actual point to blanking, On topic If Defacto really wants to blank them then use the white box like the rest of the images here, Personally I wouldn't say it's self promotion however it's not exactly a brilliant idea neither. –Davey2010Talk 17:19, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
@Davey2010: the primary reason is to try to avoid facilitating number plate cloning (where a crook finds the registration number of a car of the same make, model, year and colour as their own or one they've stolen and put a copy of it on their vehicle). Crooks use number plate cloning to avoid being detected or being apprehended (because the number is clean and not flagged on the police ANPR database) whilst committing fraud, deception, various serious crimes (armed robbery, etc.) and perverting the course of justice. See here for some scary examples.
The secondary reason is to help preserve the privacy of the owner/keeper/driver. Neither reasons are legal requirements anywhere or Commons policy (as far as I know) but are simply done as a courtesy (common decency if you like) to the vehicle's owner/keeper/driver. DeFacto (talk). 21:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
DeFacto - Oh good lord!, As stupid as this may sound I never realized cloning was that easy I honestly didn't, In that case now I understand why it's a brilliant idea and I take everything above back, Anyway thanks for the explanation, –Davey2010Talk 22:11, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

My reasoning

Let me (the accused) confirm that this was not done for publicity, it was done as a reaction to having a QI nomination criticised for having a blanked number plate here.

If you look at my uploads you will see that from May 2006 up until about May this year I blanked, pixelated or blurred number plates on vehicle images I uploaded as a courtesy (yes I know there is no policy or legal reason too) to protect the owners from cloning fraud and privacy infringements. The only exceptions I made were for historic or static vehicles where the registration number was part of the character or notability of the vehicle. I got numerous such images promoted as VIs.

After having the problem I mentioned in QI with this image and this image I decided to add realistic looking, but fake number plates to satisfy QI assessment. The problem then was what number to use. I didn't want to risk using a number in circulation, and lacking imagination, did what a lot of UK drivers do and created a number from my nickname using numbers for letters - but in a non-standard (so unregistered) sequence. The first use being this image if I recall correctly. Followed by this, this, this, a reworked this, a reworked this, this, this, this, this and finally this.

After a while I thought it a bit unrealistic to use the same number on every vehicle so now use anagrams such as here and here.

However, if consensus here decides that what I am doing is unacceptable for some reason, then I will happily adopt whatever alternate obfuscation convention is deemed appropriate to protect against fraud and privacy infringements and which is acceptable for VI, QI and FP. DeFacto (talk). 22:20, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

"D3F4CTO" isn't necessarily invalid. Some places allow self-selected number plates, so it's not obvious looking at the image that it has been manipulated. --ghouston (talk) 00:51, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
There is no policy that every number plate need to be forged. But the photographer is free to do so considering their need to respect privacy. It can be due to local law or their wish to respect the privacy of car owners. May be they have a prior agreement before taking those photographs. We need not interfere it as far as photographs are still usable. This is perfectly OK; otherwise it will not get a QI/VI stamp. Jee 02:38, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
@Ghouston: In the case of the United Kingdom, the registrations used by DeFacto are invalid - see here. Whether they are invalid or not, my question is "Are they being used for self-promotion?".
@Jkadavoor: I have no problem with the numberplates being annonymised, the real question is whether or not the annonymisation technique used is self-promotion when in fact many other annonymisation techniques exist.
Martinvl (talk) 17:17, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
S/he didn't even mentioned his/her real name in file pages or user page; so what is promotional here? De facto is a very anonymised name for me. (He has new Quality images day by day; I didn't anyone questioned his intentions there so far.) Other annonymisation techniques: Note that COM:QIC will not accept blank or blurred plates. It should like a real one. Jee 17:30, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
@Jkadavoor: COM:QIC also disallows editor "signatures" - Copyright and authorship information of quality images should be located on the image page and may be in the image metadata, but should not interfere with image contents. Martinvl (talk) 21:41, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Indeed. From his years of participation in QIC, no reviewer so far consider this as a signature. It looks just like a real number plate. If he uses DEFACTO, the situation will be different. Jee 02:27, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Type of ladder

Is there a name for this type of ladder? Would it be considered a "fire ladder"? If not that, do we have a category for it? - Jmabel ! talk 23:47, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm no expert on the subject, but seems to be called a turntable ladder.Offnfopt(talk) 00:20, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Hmm. If it has the eponymous turntable at the bottom, yes; unfortunately you can't really see here whether it does or not. - Jmabel ! talk 00:49, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps an "extension ladder"? Also the vehicle might be called a "ladder truck", see File:Lafd_ladder_truck.jpg. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:26, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

September 14

VANDAL BOT

Sorry if maybe I do not write in the proper place or if my post is a bit upset, but I am really desperate and angry! Every year I upload thousands of images to WikiLovesMonuments and as an experienced user I place each them in the most proper sub-category. For instance this image goes into Category:Reliefs by Antonio Canova in the Gallerie dell'Accademia (Venice), which is a sub-category of Category:Gallerie dell'Accademia (Venice). Then there is a stupid [fu*ing] bot that every time adds again Category:Gallerie dell'Accademia (Venice) to every thousand of images I just correctly categorized!! And I am particularly angry as I just spend a whole afternoon to reorganize the museums categories and now all my work is messed up again. And again and again, anda again, and again every year. Is it too hard to understand that if an image already has a sub category of the main category you should not add the main one again? I am really really tired, as now I have more than 3500 images miscategorized again, I have to make new uploads and I have not time to fix that. Also I am sure that if I fix the stupid bot will come again and place the wrong category again. Really annoying. --Sailko (talk) 08:57, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I noticed that several international users already reported the same problem, but he do not cares. He is pretending to remove categories such as Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Italy, but that category, as far as I know is used by the judges to select the local winners, and every image in that category as already a proper monument category authomatically (it comes with the upload wizard). I really have no possibility to fix this bug, I just wanted to say that all my 3550 images I uploaded so far this year were in a correct category, if someone has a bot to reverts the wrong edits I would greatly apppreciate. --Sailko (talk) 09:58, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Did you try to talk to the bot operator, Multichill?--Ymblanter (talk) 10:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
The bot operator is User:Jean-Frédéric. Btw, at least for WLM Germany main categories like Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Italy are discouraged, because through the template {{Wiki Loves Monuments 2016}} the files are already in the relevant categories. --Magnus (talk) 10:06, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
So let's just remove it! No need to place an extra wrong category. Can another bot do this? Sorry for my upset first post, the WLM contest for massive uploaders is a big stress and finding out that all the images you uploaded so far are now wrongly categorized is very frustrating. --Sailko (talk) 10:25, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Indeed. I have taken the liberty (and the time) to remove this spurious category from several thousands of your uploads @Sailko: . Jean-Fred (talk) 13:02, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
@Sailko: A bot probably would be better, but you may try to revert changes using VisualFileChange. Once I edited this way 3300+ files from WLE India. It took me less than 15 minutes and the most time consuming part was selecting the photos which should be edited. --jdx Re: 10:28, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestion. First I'll see and wait for a bot, as I have another thousand of images to upload now ;) --Sailko (talk) 10:46, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
(Edit conflict)
Hello. I’m sorry for the hassle ErfgoedBot may have created.
  • I have deactivated ErfgoedBot for Italy. I’m happy to do that for any country who requires it.
  • I have started removing problematic categories from Sailko files.
A couple of points:
  • « He is pretending to remove categories such as Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Italy » − I’m not pretending, this is the behaviour of the bot.
  • « but that category, as far as I know is used by the judges to select the local winners » That is incorrect. Competition Judges have better ways to do that.
  • « if I fix the stupid bot will come again and place the wrong category again. » − That is incorrect. The bot only ever operates on files in the overly general root category Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Italy te.
(While I understand the frustration, I would appreciate a bit more AGF here tbh.)
Jean-Fred (talk) 10:54, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Sorry Jean-Fred, I was very upset this morning... it took me a whole afternoon (about 5 hours, my finger were litterally aching at the end) to fix this same mistake in 1 property about the WLM 2014 files, then I found out it was just done again for 2016 files! Another thousands of files to fix, in the middle of the contest! I also had this wrong information about the "Cultural heritage monuments in italy" category, and I am already discussing of its purpouse with the organizers. I am deleting it now when I upload my new files. Thank you for fixing the files and for deactivating the bot for Italy. Sorry again, feeeling better now. --Sailko (talk) 13:14, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for taking prompt action JF. Sailko, keep in mind that all bot accounts have their operator listed as the emergency contact at the top of their bot user page. :-) --Fæ (talk) 18:28, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

September 17

September 18

Numbers on licence plates

Photograph with highly visible car numberplates, Hungary 1975.

I have found this edit while I was patrolling recent changes. I think I have seen a page on Commons which says that numbers on licence plates should be hidden, but cannot find it. Could somebody help me? --jdx Re: 03:15, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons policy on identifiable people has section on the right of publicity and the right of privacy. Extending this policy to cars, I do not believe it necessary to blank out the number plate if the owner is exhibiting their car at, say, a veteran car rally - there is even an argument that under the right of publicity the number plate should remain untouched. However, if the car is shown, as in the image in question, in a location where it could reasonably be identified as belonging to a particular person (in this case, the owner of the house in question), then the owner's privacy should be respected. The policy states "Even in countries that have no law of privacy, there is a moral obligation on us not to upload photographs which infringe the subject's reasonable expectation of privacy." On the other hand, if it is not possible for the casual observer to link the car to its owner, then local law should prevail. Martinvl (talk) 07:41, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
As far as I understand German, this is a parish and cemetary administration office, so it is a public place. --jdx Re: 08:59, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
I worked in Germany for about two years and in my experience, the Germans take privacy far more seriously that do the British. Try visiting Germany using Google Earth - only a few places (such as Frankfurt) have been filmed. Martinvl (talk) 09:19, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
It is my view, regardless of the country or the jurisdiction in which the car was photographed, or whether it is in a public or private place, that number plates should generally be blanked or disguised. This is not only for privacy protection reasons, but more importantly to guard against number plate cloning which is a serious problem in some countries (to avoid speeding tickets and fool other ANPR uses, for example). These are compelling common courtesy and moral considerations rather than legal or policy reasons why number plates should not normally be revealed. DeFacto (talk). 14:09, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
You say "regardless of country" but certainly not in the U.S. There is almost no legal expectation of privacy for anything done in a public space in the U.S., and the U.S. definition of a public space is quite broad. - Jmabel ! talk 15:43, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
@Jmabel: as I also said; the blanking or disguising is not for legal reasons - but for compelling common courtesey or moral considerations. Presumably you wouldn't condone publishing images of someone's credit card number on Commons, even if the law allowed it. Number plate content can also be used for criminal gain. DeFacto (talk). 15:56, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
So do you also think we should blur every face in a parade? (I promise that's not a rhetorical question, just trying to get a gauge on this.) - Jmabel ! talk 16:26, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Let's start with credit cards - would you publish photos with visible credit card numbers? DeFacto (talk). 16:37, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Of course not. That (unlike a license plate, which is inherently publicly displayed) is confidential information. Nor, to take the next obvious layer, would I publish someone's unpublished phone number. - Jmabel ! talk 17:09, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
I think that DeFacto is being a little over-zealous and in the case of photographs taken at vintage car rallys, depriving the owner of his right to publicity. Furthermore, I notice that most photographs in http://www.carandclassic.co.uk/ show numberplates in full. Martinvl (talk) 17:12, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
@Jmabel: In fairness to DeFacto, may I point out to Jmabel (who I believe is from the US) that in the UK once a numberplate is allocated to a vehicle, it usually stays with that vehicle for life. (There are ways to transfer "cherished numbers" from one car to another, but that is the exception rather than the rule!) Martinvl (talk) 17:17, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
FWIW, (1) I've lived about 2 years of my life in the UK; my father lived there well over a decade. The very cherished license plate "TVC-15" was in his neighborhood (on a very nice car; I'm guessing they had bought another vehicle for the plate & arranged to have it transferred); I would not hesitate to publish a photo of it if I had taken one. (2) While U.S. license plates aren't permanent, in most states they stick with the car for a decade or so. - Jmabel ! talk 17:29, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
@Jmabel: there is a difference between being visible in the street and being published on a searchable and publictly available website such as Commons. I don't know if number plates are camera-read in the US for automatic road charging, car tracking and to issue automaitic penalty notices for alleged road regulation infringements, but they are in the UK. So I don't want to help provide the criminal fraternity with a ready source of valid registration numbers to sell or to copy onto their own number plates. Not only would the criminal users avoid detection themselves and avoid the charges and the penalties, but the innocent owner of the numbers could end up out of pocket, even unjustly penalised and certainly greatly inconvenienced trying to prove their own innocence and getting their car registration and documentation changed to another number. DeFacto (talk). 17:51, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
@Martinvl: Commons isn't here to give free publicity to anyone. And regardless of how other publications behave, I don't want to facilitate the criminal use of cloned plates. DeFacto (talk). 17:51, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

@DeFacto: I think that you are being paranoic. If I was looking for a false numberplate, I would not search Wikipedia, I would search Auto Trader. I did a test using my own car as an example. It did not take me long to come up with five cars, the same model, year and colour as my own car that were for sale (number plates clearly visible) within 100 miles of me. If I was trying anything underhand, I would enter a town on the other side of the country before doing the search. Much quicker than Wikipedia and a much better set of results! Martinvl (talk) 18:06, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Why make them available on Commons at all when we don't have to? The less sources the better I think. DeFacto (talk). 18:18, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
  • How does posting a photo in which a plate is visible make it any easier to do "cloned plates"? Anyone who wants to do cloned plates can walk down any streets anywhere and grab all the license numbers they could possibly want. - Jmabel ! talk 18:04, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
It's not just the number you need here, it's a make, model, trim level, colour and age match you need. All obtainable from your armchair on Commons. DeFacto (talk). 18:18, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually it depends on the situation. For all who can read German Ralf Roleček provided his view and an example showing that blurring/pixeling is not unconditionally necessary: de:Benutzer:Ralf Roletschek/Kennzeichen verpixeln. If you insist I can try to translate the clue sentences (note, my English is not perfect), please let my know. — Speravir_Talk – 17:35, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

In the most of countries, registration plates are anonymized. Instead of the name of the owner or operator, only an anonymized sequence of letters and numbers is on the plate. And the vehicle register is not accessible publicly. The plate identifies the vehicle, not the owner or operator, nor even the driver, user or passengers. To devalue photos by erasing the plates is an absurd paranoia. Shouldn't we erase all names from war memorials and graves? Should't we make blur all house numbers at photos of well-known streets? Shouldn't we erase destination and line number boards on photos of buses, trams or trains, and station name signs and streetname signs, so that nobody can deduce, who and where can travel or go? --ŠJů (talk) 01:28, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I will reiterate that in my view DeFacto is being paranoic. On 14 August 2016 he photographed six "classic" cars, all in public places. When he published the photos later on Commons, he wrote "The geocoded location of the location of this image has been withheld for privacy or other reasons. Please do not add coordinates even if you can identify them". Why does he not want the location identified? I assume of course that if these are genuine photos, then the concentration of such classic cars suggests that there was a rally or meet-up or something - why else would six such vehicles be seen on the same day by the same photographer? If that was the case, this should be recorded with the images, if not, I think that we need an explanation, especially as some of these images have been given VI and/or QI gradings . Martinvl (talk) 07:27, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
In the UK the number is like a credit card number. Sure, you cannot find the owner, but if you clone the number plate you can get your road charges and infringement tickets charged to the registered keeper of the vehicle's account, and so escape payment and even conviction yourself. DeFacto (talk). 07:25, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
@DeFacto: That still does not explain why the locations of the six images that you posted on 14 August have been withheld. If these cars were part of a rally or some similar event (which is what I suspect), why is the location so secret? Martinvl (talk) 09:38, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
@Martinvl: this thread is about number plate hiding, please start another section if you want to discuss geocoding. DeFacto (talk). 09:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
@DeFacto: Both are linked to your paranoia about excessive confidentiallity. Martinvl (talk) 09:52, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
@Martinvl: this thread is not about me or the locations of my images though, it's about number plates. DeFacto (talk). 09:58, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Surely you must be able to contest infringement tickets when the infringements were done by different people in different vehicles. And is driving with false licence plates common practice? Over here you have to show the papers of the car when stopped for routine checks. Are those being falsified too? If caught with wrong licence plates and false papers, surely that is a much bigger offense than speeding or whatever you would get tickets for. --LPfi (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
@LPfi: you can of course contest false accusations - but the onus, expense and inconvenience is on you because the perpetrator is unlikely to get caught. You'll probably have to get your number plate changed too, with the expense and inconvenience of that. Then there's insurances to change, parking permits, and so it - it is a big pain. We don't routinely carry documents in cars here. If stopped, you are given a period of time to show up at a police station with the docs. Of course, if a cloner gets stopped, they then won't turn up at the appointed time and the innocent number plate owner will be charged with failing to do that too. Because a lot of traffic policing and road charging is done by automatic cameras here, there is a lot of cloning going on and it is getting worse. Criminals also use cloned plates for armed robberies, and other serious offences because the streets here are lined with surveillance cameras the crooks know that they wouldn’t get very far driving a stolen car on its original plates (read the horror stories in this article). To help reduce the scale of the problem, Google Street View blur car plates, car owners are warned to blur plates before uploading to any website (for car sales or whatever). Here are more articles relating to this massive problem: [25], [26], [27], [28]. DeFacto (talk). 20:52, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
If DeFacto feels that strongly about showing numberplates, then there might be a case (for British vehicles at any rate) to edit the numberplate so that it is stil realistic. One way would be to show a numberplate E123ABC for my old car, correct numberplate E384FPC. (The "E" shows is year of first registration). Alternatively modify one or two of the characters and make a note in the description that the numberplate has been digitally modified. For example, show my old car as having numberplate E394FPD. In ths way the photograph will still be encyclopeadic. Martinvl (talk) 21:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that plates need to be disguised - primarily as a duty to protect the owner/keeper from becoming a victim of cloning and secondarily as a courtesey to protect owner/user privacy. DeFacto (talk). 06:06, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
I've been driving and owning legally-registered cars in the UK ever since the mid 1980s. I can assert with some confidence and experience that the claim "In the UK the number is like a credit card number" is utter bullshit. I am neither legally obliged, or inclined, to publicly display my credit card number at all, let alone in ~6" high letters in front of and to the rear of me, as I proceed along the highway. Despite the registration number of my vehicle being visible in exactly that manner, no one can charge to it, or to me, any fees or fines that I am not rightly liable for. Andy Mabbett (talk) 16:44, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Andy: TFL use Automatic number plate recognition in the United Kingdom to issue penalty notices for en:London congestion charge (LCC) contraventions. If a crook in a similar car to yours and with a clone of your numer plate on it contravenes the LCC it will be you (not them) who gets the penalty notice. How is that different from a crook using a clone of your credit card to buy goods and you getting the bill? DeFacto (talk). 20:37, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
I may "get" the notice, but I won't pay it, and nor am I liable to. Nothing will be "charged" to me, nor to my "vehicle's account". Andy Mabbett (talk) 16:54, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
You'd have to pay it unless you can prove it wasn't you - like with credit card transactions - otherwise everyone would say that. Did you see this article? DeFacto (talk). 20:41, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, and having read it, I know that it confirms that your claim "You'd have to pay it unless you can prove it wasn't you" is bullshit. Andy Mabbett (talk) 20:21, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Andy, you appear to be in denial about this for some reason. It is very straightforward and didn't you see the advice "don’t ever upload photos of your car to any website with the number plate showing"? Here's another article describing how a cloning victim had to prove his innocence to several different police forces after receiving more than 25 fines from all over the country. Here and here are other articles supporting my view. DeFacto (talk). 20:56, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
As others said, the situation varies depending on the countries involved. For example, in most cantons of Switzerland, the vehicle registers are public and anyone can get the name of a registered car owner for a small fee. In several cantons this information can be obtained online or via mobile text message (SMS), often the price is 1 CHF per number. Formerly, the register ("Autoindex") was available in printed form. This is different from Germany where vehicle registers are not public. So, in Germany, the privacy issue is limited: A number plate might be recognized by a few people who know the owner, but the general public can't easily find out who it is. On the page de:Benutzer:Ralf Roletschek/Kennzeichen verpixeln which Speravir mentions, Ralf therefore argues that numbers on (German) licence plates should only be made illegible if the photo would be clearly problematic for the owner, e.g. clear parking violations. As the situation in Switzerland is different, I usually pixelate Swiss licence plates. I disagree with Martinvl's proposal to edit the number plate to still look "realistic" (with a false number), as this would mean creating "fantasy" images, even if they're only false in a little detail. As our images can be reused, "a note in the description that the numberplate has been digitally modified" will get lost with re-uses. I prefer to pixelate the license plates in an unobtrusive way. Gestumblindi (talk) 23:01, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
@Gestumblindi: as I have described above, the privacy issue is only the secondary concern with publishing photos showing original number plate details.
The prime concern is that by showing original number plate details on vehicles we are providing a free and searchable source of valuable information for criminals to use or sell for the purposes of fraud, deception and perverting the course of justice.
This is a particularly serious problem in the UK where number plate reading cameras are widely used to automatically apply road charges and penalty notices for traffic law infringements as well as for surveilance. The criminals replace the number plate details on their cars (cars which may be stolen and so would attract concentrated police attention through the extensive surveilance camera network) with the number plate details for a similar car (same make, model, colour) obtained from photos on the internet (on sites such as Commons and car sales websites), and can then flout road laws, use tolled and charged roads, run people over, cause widespread damage, rob banks, etcetera - without fear of detection beacause they know that all penalties, charges and police attention (including armed raids) will be concentrated, not on themselves but on the innocent person registered against the number plate details that they have abused. Here is a recent newspaper article describing some of the abuses facilitated by readily accessible number plate details. DeFacto (talk). 06:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Unless there are specific laws passed to prohibit such photos, you're not really preventing anything by removing/blurring plates on commons. A large number of images on commons come from 3rd party websites. When listing the source for these images we have to list where the images come from. So even if we did blur/remove plates on commons, the images would still link to the source image which would have plates visible. I think you're trying to solve a problem at the wrong location. The problem being that plates are basically just painted on numbers with basically no verification/authentication. It is probably time we stop using such methods and switched to cryptography + wireless communication for vehicle identification or even graphic display that used cryptography + barcode/QR codes etc that could constantly change but still identify the same vehicle. DeFacto you're bring the fight to the wrong location, use this motivation you have to convince your government to improve the system. Offnfopt(talk) 06:57, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
IMHO Defacto is being paranoic about the UK being a "special case" as regards the use of automatic number recognotion. When I was living in Johannesburg in the 1970's, cameras were a fact of life at traffic lights while I remember a Swiss guy showing everybody a photograph that he had been sent by the Swiss police for speeding. As I have said elsewhere, if a criminal wants to get a false numberplate for some nefarious reason, Wikipedia is not the place to look - it is too time-consuming to be of any real use. Martinvl (talk) 06:59, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
I take board what Gestumblindi said about photos being reused. While I agree that altering one or two digits might not be acceptable, I still see no problem with replacing all alpha characters by the sequence ABC.. and all numberic characters by 1234.., retaining only those characters that identify the year of manufacture. Thus the numberplate E123ABC is obviously a dummy numberplate for a car that was first registered in the "E year". Martinvl (talk) 07:15, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

The way I would describe the Commons norm, is that we may blank number plates when there is a request to do so by the car owner, or someone with a similar privacy concern. We may choose to blank number plates for cars in private places but normally only for photos taken in countries where there is privacy legislation that may encourage or enforce this as part of privacy expectations, or where there are reasons to think the photograph is intrusive, such as for cars parked in a notable person's private driveway.

As a consequence of past cases, I would be against any (Google streetmap-style) automatic blanking or replacement of number plates in photographs where there is no specific concern raised for the individual photo. --Fæ (talk) 10:28, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

From what I can see, the gist of discussion so far is that the numberplate on this image, VI and QI notwithstanding, needs attention. Martinvl (talk) 12:55, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
@Martinvl: why - it is a courtesy disguising to protect against cloning and privacy concerns that I have for the driver/owner/keeper of that car DeFacto (talk). 14:32, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
@DeFacto: - Why plaster something similar to your own name on the vehicle. If you used ABC123F or ABC123G, you could have achieved the same result and also retained the year of the vehicle in the image. Martinvl (talk) 17:58, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
@Martinvl: this thread is about the need to hide or disguise number plates, please start another section if you want to discuss my chosen hiding technique for this vehicle. And no, I don't plan to use a random standard (real looking) alternate number such as "ABC123F", or whatever, because the chances are that is already on a genuine number plate on someone else's car somewhere. That would be like disguising someone's face with an image of someone else's face! I prefer to use a non-standard character combination to avoid embarassing anybody.
And BTW, being a GB registered vehicle you cannot tell the age of the vehicle from the number plate. At best, if it does carry a year-coded plate, the most you can tell is the newest it could be as it is not possible to register a vehicle with a plate age newer than the age of the vehicle, though it is allowed and quite common to use an older plate than the car. DeFacto (talk). 19:53, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
@DeFacto: Correction - it is no longer posible to register a car with a plate age newer than the car itself - it use ot be possible Go onto the MOT verification site and check car XTT136S (Volkswagen) and you will see a 1975 car with a 1978 registration. Martinvl (talk) 19:06, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
@Martinvl: another hole then in your reasoning behind the idea of disguising one real number plate by covering it with another real number plate. DeFacto (talk). 20:32, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

In File:Kerkrade 2CV rechts.jpg, the uploader protected the dog's identity(!) but doesn't seem to have felt any need to disguise the license plate number (see related photos). AnonMoos (talk) 00:07, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the picture. Maybe the photographer saw the funny side to the number plate - a car displaying "DE" on the Dutch side of the German border. (The German village of Herzogenrath is effectively a suburb of the Dutch town of Kerkrade. Jokes aside, I still think that DeFacto is being paranoid about displaying number plates and again I think that he is destroying what could be good photos by plastering his name in the area where the number plate should be. May I refer him to the section "Examples" on this page which contains the text "Examples of files that are not realistically useful for an educational purpose: .... Advertising or self-promotion". Martinvl (talk) 06:52, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
@Martinvl: this thread is about the need to hide or disguise number plates, please start another section if you want to discuss another aspect of photo content. DeFacto (talk). 08:18, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Zum Aspekt in DACH... Man sollte die Unsitte des Verpixelns nicht noch forcieren. --Ralf Roleček 16:49, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

@Ralf Roletschek: Du hast die Diskussion hier wohl nicht ganz gelesen, deine Seite wurde bereits verlinkt und fand wiederholte Erwähnung :-) Gestumblindi (talk) 18:47, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Ooops, ich habe es nach den ersten paar Kommentaren weitgehend aufgegeben, es ist zu mühsam, eine so lange Disk. durch Google Translate zu schicken ;) Wäre es nicht angesagt, zu dem Thema eine allgemeingültige Seite hier auf Commons zu schaffen? --Ralf Roleček 20:27, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
  • The US ACLU has a list of principles they support on license plate privacy. They all deal with government agencies collecting, storing, and disclosing mass license plate and other personal data, but nothing about publishing photos things in public view. The NYT doesn't obscure plates. Nor does the Washington Post or LA Times. There is no legal expectation of privacy, and there is no social norm that public media won't show your license plate in a photo. It doesn't make sense for Commons to invent a new social norm; we should follow the same bounds as others. I know nothing of problems this could cause with no-US plates so perhaps a different policy is necessary there. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:20, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
  • @DeFacto: The pictures in question have the look and feel of having been taken in a British or an Irish town (right-hand drive, double yellow lines etc) and therefore British or Irish rules should apply as appropriate. This site, which is dedicated to a classic car event, has made no attempt to annonymise any numberplates. Either the organisers of that event are being negligent or DeFacto is be paranoid over-reacting in the name of security. Any comments anybody? Martinvl (talk) 06:33, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
  • @Martinvl: I have explained several times (and I still stand by it) why I think it is a matter of courtesy to disguise number plates for anti-cloning and privacy reasons. I have given links to news articles describing the cost and inconvenience caused to innocent motorists by number plate cloners. I have explained why for QI images I had to change from blanking/blurring/pixelating plates to creating realistic looking fictional plates. I have given links to articles advising never to publish photos showing number plate details. That some websites and some publishers choose to ignore this advice is outside of my control and doesn't imply I need also to ignore it. We know Google Street View blur number plates as often do the BBC and various other media publishers. Let's move on now and not waste any more time on this. DeFacto (talk). 09:52, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

lots of copyvios with source images.google.com

There are more than 1600 links to Google's image search's result page. All of them should link to the actual page or image instead. Many of the files with such a link as "source" are also copyright violations. I looked through the first 24 such results from the search query, of which 6 are almost certainly, 5 possibly copyvios (aside from misattributing the source), on 6 of them it's totally unclear why the link is there at all, the others are mostly US government works. I don't quite know what to do with the existing ones, but for the future I'm suggesting to add this to some spam block list, or whatever such thing there is on Commons. --Nenntmichruhigip (talk) 12:29, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

On second thought, it might be better to not block new files with such source, but use them as indicator for propable copyvios. --Nenntmichruhigip (talk) 13:48, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
This should be covered by Special:AbuseFilter/154. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Wikimedia Commons Welcome problems

While reviewing User:OgreBot/Uploads by new users/2016 September 16 00:00 I noticed several users which didn't have welcome message on their talk pages. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:58, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

September 19

Generalized technical question re: proposing changes to the wording of the software for the Commons image "File:" template

When any image file gets uploaded to Commons it is assigned a standardized template that includes parameters for its title, summary, licensing, file history, usage on Commons, usage on other wikis, etc. This template is not one that can be edited by regular users, of course, and I suspect even most admins don't have ready access to it, but I would like to propose a minor modification to the standardized "metadata" portion of it (the portion which currently reads "This file contains additional information, such as Exif metadata, probably added from the digital camera or scanner used to create or digitize it. If the file has been modified from its original state, some details may not fully reflect the modified file. The timestamp is only as accurate as the clock in the camera, and it may be completely wrong."). Does anyone know whom I might contact for this? Please let me know. Thank you! KDS4444 (talk) 12:16, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

All of the software texts (localisation messages) are editable as pages in the "MediaWiki:" namespace. You can look up the names by viewing a page with uselang=qqx, for example: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Example.svg?uselang=qqx – the text you're asking about is "metadata-help" and can be edited at MediaWiki:metadata-help. If the change you want to suggest only makes sense for Wikimedia Commons, ask an admin to edit it (or use {{Edit request}} on the talk page); if it makes sense for all wikis everywhere, create a task in Phabricator to have it changed in the software. Matma Rex (talk) 12:54, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
(Actually, this message is already customized locally here (the default text can be seen on MediaWiki:Metadata-help/en), so you'll need to have the page edited to change it. Matma Rex (talk) 12:57, 10 September 2016 (UTC))
Thanks for your help! Here is my proposed rewording of the above text, which I have also submitted on the MediaWiki page:
"This file contains additional information , such as Exif metadata , probably added from which may have been added from by the digital camera, scanner, or software program used to create or digitize it. If the file has been modified from its original state, some details such as the timestamp may not fully reflect the modified those of the original file. The timestamp is only as accurate as the clock in the camera, and it may be completely wrong."
I get the sense that the change initiated by Northernhenge three years ago was meant to discourage editors from nominating an image for deletion based on what might appear at first glance to be contrived or falsified timestamp information in its Exif metadata. I certainly understand that motivation. However, I have never yet encountered an instance of this myself (has anyone??): the proposed rewording is meant to reduce the current emphasis on the likelihood of inaccuracy in the metadata, as well as to distinguish between photo images and other types of images such as SVGs which are never timestamped by a camera, and a couple of stylistic and technical changes/ corrections— note I have changed "modified" to "original" in the final sentence, as I think this is what was originally meant. (If there was another motivation behind the Northernhenge's proposal, I'd be very interested in knowing what it was; here is a link to the MediaWiki page). KDS4444 (talk) 09:53, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I think there was a debate about the authenticity of an image and the argument depended to an extent on the timestamp. The camera I had at the time had a broken clock so I thought that timestamps could be misleading. That meant it wasn't a good basis for an argument. --Northernhenge (talk) 20:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
The current version probably means that a modified file may keep the timestamp from the original. Such a timestamp will not reflect the date of the modification. Ruslik (talk) 19:02, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
@Ruslik0: Okay, I can see that— is there a way that this helps us somehow? If the modified file retains the original file's timestamp, then that's a good thing and doesn't signal that the exif data has been messed with, right? Is there a reason anyone can think of why we would want to have the timestamp of the modified version of the file? And if the file gets a new timestamp from a camera or scanner, doesn't that mean the timestamp reflects a new derivative work anyway? I am trying to suss out the value of the accuracy of the timestamp for whichever version of a file, and how its being "completely wrong" might affect something material. Also: @Northernhenge: — any thoughts on the proposed rewording above? Let me know. Thanks! KDS4444 (talk) 08:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC) and again KDS4444 (talk) 15:00, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

September 11

Tech News: 2016-38

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

Changes this week

  • The new version of MediaWiki will hopefully be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 20 September. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 21 September. It will be on all wikis from 22 September (calendar). This is the version that was meant to go out last week.

Meetings

Future changes

  • Wikidata will start working on adding support for Wiktionary. The Wikidata development team is now taking one last look at the development plan. [31]

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

22:09, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

September 20

Image change request from the Prado Museum - Request for community input

Dear all,

TLDR: WMF Legal would like to know your opinion about whether and in what quality we should host images from the Museo del Prado based on their concerns about really high quality versions on Commons (list of images at the end of the post).

Background

The Museo del Prado has contacted the WMF, asking for the removal of a number of images from Commons. Initially, they simply wanted the images taken down, but after discussion with them, they have suggested that they are only concerned with Commons hosting very high-quality gigapixel images and they are willing to accept Commons hosting lower quality images of the artwork under a public domain license.

We’ve asked the Prado to define what quality they would find acceptable and they suggested that 1000 pixels would be acceptable. They also noted more generally that they would be fine with something that was “very good quality to be used on a screen and make possible to appreciate and study all the details of the paintings.” They also noted, if we agree to make a change, that they would be happy to provide the new files to replace the current ones.

I’ve put a list of every image that the Prado brought to our attention at the end of this post.

As many of you might know from the limitations on reuse of PD-art works, Spain has a 25-year ancillary copyright that may cover these images and could be brought against the uploaders of the images and anyone using them in Spain. Further, in this case, the Prado has argued that their gigapixel images, due to their quality and the techniques in creating them, go beyond mere 2-D reproductions and should not be covered by the U.S. Bridgeman exception or the Commons policy on reproductions of 2-D art. They, along with Google Earth, have made a video showing off the elaborate process used to create the images.

We don’t agree with the museum’s interpretation of Bridgeman, but we can’t say for sure how a U.S. court would handle this case. Because of these issues, we want to hear from the community about whether high-quality photographs of 2-D Spanish works should be hosted on Commons. We particularly want to consider how we should balance the desire to keep these images with the potential rights of the museum under Spanish law and consideration to safeguard image uploaders and reusers worldwide.

Our question

So, with that explanation, we want to ask you what you’d like to do with these images. Given the differences between the rules in the U.S. and Spain, and the different interpretations of these rules that are possible, do you think the WMF should make every possible argument to keep the high resolution images, or replace the current images with lower resolution versions? We’ve thought of a few different options for how the community could approach this issue and are open to others. We’ve tried to outline what we think the results might be for each one.

  • WMF and community members work together with the Prado to change to lower quality images provided by the Prado and remove the gigapixel images.
  • We think this may make the most sense in this case because it heads off a potential lawsuit, allows the images to all remain on Commons and be accessible for free worldwide, and is likely to lower legal risk to uploaders and reusers of the images.
  • On the other hand, it would make it harder to do close-ups of the paintings or reuse them in other ways.
  • Keep the images in their current quality.
  • This would likely mean one or more lawsuits in Spain under their ancillary copyright, followed by an uncertain one in the U.S.
  • Reusers would likely face higher legal risk as compared to replacing the images with lower resolution versions.
  • Community members choose to remove the images from Commons entirely.
  • This would avoid any debate about what quality is appropriate for Commons and avoid misleading reusers of the images.
  • Other projects would still have the option to host the lower quality versions of the images acceptable to the Prado if they wish to do so under the Licensing Policy (Spanish Wikipedia perhaps).


Portrait of Philip II by Sofonisba Anguissoña (Felipe II, Sofonisba Anguissola)
The Dead Christ Supported by an Angel by Antonello da Messina (Cristo muerto sostenido por un ángel, Antonello de Messina)
Fran Angelico: The Annunciatium (La Anunciación, Fra Angelico)
Lazaru’s resurrection by Juan de Flandes (Resurrección de Lázaro, Juan de Flandes)
Death of the Virgin by Andrea Mantegna (El Tránsito de la Virgen, Andrea Mantegna)
Artemis by Rembrandt (Judit en el banquete de Holofernes (antes Artemisa), Rembrandt)
Martyrdom of St Felipe by José de Ribera (Martirio de San Felipe, José de Ribera)
José de Ribera (San Andrés, José de Ribera)
Immaculate conception by Tiepolo (La Inmaculada Concepción, Gianbattista Tiepolo)
Self-portrait (Autorretrato, Alberto Durero)
Adam and Eve (Adán y Eva, Alberto Durero) (category link because we don't know which one they meant)
Las meninas (Las meninas, Diego Rodríguez de Silva y Velázquez)
La nevada o El invierno (La nevada o El Invierno, Francisco de Goya y Lucientes)
La maja desnuda (La maja desnuda, Francisco de Goya y Lucientes) (second category link because we don't know which image it is)
Peregrinación a la fuente de San Isidro (El Santo Oficio, Francisco de Goya y Lucientes)
Perro semihundido (Perro semihundido, Francisco de Goya y Lucientes) (third category link because we don't know which image it is)
Martirio de San Andrés (El martirio de san Andrés, Bartolomé Esteban Murillo)
Danae (Dánae recibiendo la lluvia de oro, Vecellio di Gregorio Tiziano) (4th category link)
Holy Family of the Lam (Sagrada Familia del Cordero, Rafael) (second version, also high-res)
Holy Family with Saints Raphael, Tobias e Jeronimo or the Virgin with a Fish (Sagrada Familia con Rafael, Tobías y San Jerónimo, o Virgen del pez, Rafael)
Christ Falls on the Way to Calvary (Caída en el camino del Calvario, Rafael (y taller))
The Garden of Earthly Delights (triptych) (El jardín de las Delicias, El Bosco) (second version, also high-res)

-Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 20:51, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Comment The Commons community has established that en:1080p or "full HD" is the lowest passable standard for images to pass community quality checks like Commons:Featured picture candidates. That standard is 1920 × 1080 or 2 megapixels. From the beginning of negotiations it seems that the museum is requesting that Wikimedia Commons reduce the level of quality to a level below the community's quality standard for viewing on contemporary devices. If they chose that level without knowing what resolution photo groups want then that seems strange, and if they chose that intentionally to be below current expected photo specs then I am not sure what that means. Can the matter be renegotiated to ask about beginning at Wikimedia Commons' minimal quality specs? If discussion begins below that standard of quality then I think the comments will go in a different way. I wonder if they made an arbitrary choice not knowing that full HD is a contemporary expectation, because there is still a huge distance between full HD and gigapixel. Images could be greatly lowered in resolution almost to the level they request and still pass quality review. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:27, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I think the usual Commons policies handle it. If they are copyrighted in their source country and there's no free license, then Commons:Licensing says they shouldn't be hosted at Commons. However any images (e.g., lower resolution versions) that Museo del Prado want to put in the public domain, ideally using CC0, should be hosted. --ghouston (talk) 00:01, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
    • No, that's not right. The usual Commons policy in this case is that "PD-Art" applies worldwide, regardless of local laws, and allows them to be hosted. In that case the usual thing would be to keep them unless there are uploaders facing potential legal risk in Spain who would like them deleted. A lawsuit in the USA would be useful for confirming Bridgeman (from the point of view of somebody who doesn't have to pay for legal defense). --ghouston (talk) 00:05, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Most of those images have relatively low resolution. The biggest is maybe File:The Garden of Earthly Delights by Bosch High Resolution.jpg at 30000 * 17078, which is about half a gigapixel. --ghouston (talk) 00:31, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Couple replies. First to Bluerasberry's comment, I think they would probably be willing to go up to 1920 x 1080. 1000 was offered as an example, but their comment about making it appropriate for viewing online along with Commons existing standard makes me think that 1920 x 1080 is something that we could reach as an agreement with them. For the latter part, I don't guarantee that we got every picture correct. They sent us a big list of names that I copied verbatim, and we tried our best to find links to all of them, but a bunch have many copies on Commons. The concern that the museum raised to us in their emails was specifically about the gigapixel issue though. -Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 01:11, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
User:Jrogers (WMF), please do threading. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 20:47, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Wait, wait — they just sent «a big list of names»? Names of what? Titles of paintings, or filenames? Apparently the former, in a show of (unsurprising) incompetence. Why are we here, then? How can a takedown be demanded if they cannot even pinpoint what they want taken down? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 20:47, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Even if they did not provide us with links to the exact files they want removed (or downsized), we can still discuss the general questions here: What resolution does an image on Commons need to be in order for it to be useful? What value is there in hosting gigapixel-scale images on Commons? To what extent is it worth hosting lower-resolution images (or removing images entirely) in order to avoid litigation and improve Wikimedia’s relationships with important cultural institutions? --CRoslof (WMF) (talk) 21:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
My guess would be to have a look at thez pictures in Category:Prado in Google Earth. Jean-Fred (talk) 12:02, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Just at a quick glance (the first image listed) there are likely to be other issues with these images, anyhow. File:Portrait of Philip II of Spain by Sofonisba Anguissola - 002.jpg was originally uploaded as part of the Yorck Project donation, overwritten with a retouched version, and then much later overwritten with a version from some other (unidentified) source. None of these later changes are reflected in the file page, which still attributes the Yorck donation. It's unclear if the current version is actually derived from the Google photography, though I gather from the comments above that the museum only identified works, and not specific files. Reventtalk 01:25, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, the 2nd version is possibly derived from the first, and the 3rd looks like a different scan. They should be split into separate files. A source would be nice, but since PD-Art applies regardless of source, it doesn't seem like a reason to delete anything. --ghouston (talk) 01:51, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
i know what user:Dcoetzee will say: "what is good for the national portrait gallery is good for the prado." if they want to sell their high resolution, then to be safe it should stay off-line, with the low resolution as bait. we need a major museum image metadata cleanup. i see User:Multichill is doing it with wikidata. maybe they should talk to User:Kippelboy about online strategy, and interacting with wikimedia. if the images are under 10 MB i would not sweat it, and the larger ones are out already, it is now closing the barn door. they might want to withhold future higher resolution, if they want to maintain their control issues. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 02:47, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
That’s a fair position, but it’s also unlikely to help us make friends in the GLAM world. Creating these gigapixel images did require a significant amount of effort and resources. Other GLAM institutions may hesitate to make the same sort of investments in digitizing their collections or making those collections available online if it’s impossible for them to maintain any control over the digitized works (even for a short time). That doesn’t mean we can’t or shouldn’t take a staunch position when it comes to PD-art images like these—we just need to be aware of the possible consequences. --CRoslof (WMF) (talk) 21:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
@CRoslof (WMF): It strikes me that the effort here was not actually expended by the museum anyhow... it was done by Google, by their team, with their equipment. When this images were originally released this was described by director of the Prado as "this project of Google Earth", and the announcement included the statement by the General Manager of Google Earth that "this project is a continuation of our endeavours to democratise access to information and culture". Did they mean this? Or is the access to these works only sufficiently 'democratic' if they maintain control of it, if they can 'brand' it? The article from New Atlas linked above, that includes the video, describes Google as having "become by default the gatekeeper of global information for this generation." I don't think access to our cultural legacy needs a gatekeeper. These works of art are the common property of all mankind.
There are many other major institutions, such as the Rijksmuseum and the Getty, that have truly opened their collections digitally, without it being paid as part of an exercise in corporate brand building, and I don't see that it has hurt them at all. I suspect, strongly, that this is far more about Google's interests than those of the Prado. Reventtalk 23:16, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Or maybe it's really about this. Reventtalk 23:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Humm, two main things concerns me, and they are in the same paragraph:

"'very good quality to be used on a screen and make possible to appreciate and study1 all the details of the paintings.' They also noted, if we agree to make a change, that they would be happy to provide the new files to replace the current ones2."
  • 1. For study, bigger is better, that's it; and our scope is related to education.
For that reason, do not make any sense to downsize this images. Plus, this is a 2D representation, and maybe in the future, this resolutions would be considerate average, and for that reason we request the max resolution possible... we need to understand the real reason behind this arguments, because if they want that we provide material for study, as they alligate, a giant image could be away better.
  • 2. This is a blackmail posture.
Accept that will not bring any good for the Movement, if they want to provide some images, great, but we do not need to remove any image in their favour. And this could open a gate to hell... creating a precedent of bad attitude can be very harmful for the Movement. Actually, we do not encourage downsizes, and accept this move is say "yes" to downsize, and it would open another gate, that could be an even deeper hell, as we already have a gigantic number of images downsized by the photographers in order to protect the max quality, limiting the usability of the images...

So  Keep, and the worst scenario it's to resize the images, however we still not accepting the blackmail doubtful proposal, and we say that downsize is not for us. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 18:16, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

  •  Keep, of course, and refuse to bow down to their blackmail. Even in those cases where actual pixels in our files come from the Prado site (and not merely depicting paintings that are hosted there with pixels from other sources), their photography work (the kind which is «mere sweat of the brow») is paid for by the government of Spain as part of their (Prado’s) mission to dissiminate culture; that photography work should not have its costs covered by the sale of pixels. On the contrary, inasmuch Wikimedia Commons does promote through its hosting and curation the collections held at the Prado, we are actively contributing to their ticketing revenue — if anything, Prado should instead thank Commons and offer to facilitate more uploadings.
Also, to a degree that’s maybe not much more, but surely not less, than the average for such national museums of powerful nations with a long history, a sizeable portion of Prado’s exhibits is war loot. I’m personally in favour of ignoring provenance and of keeping artworks and historical artifacts wherever they are safely in public display, but if the game is outlandish legal minutiæ, it can be played by all.
-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 20:42, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
We always defended {{PD-art}} so we should definitely do that now. Let's take the intro of Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.: " Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., 36 F. Supp. 2d 191 (S.D.N.Y. 1999), was a decision by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, which ruled that exact photographic copies of public domain images could not be protected by copyright in the United States because the copies lack originality. Even though accurate reproductions might require a great deal of skill, experience and effort, the key element to determine whether a work is |copyrightable under U.S. law is originality. "
That was back in 1999. In 15+ years the quality and resolution increased a lot, but still no originality in reproducing an image. Bring it on, Prado v. Wikimedia sounds like a good banner  Keep. Multichill (talk) 21:06, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Multichill. Unless we're going to surrender our position on PD-art in all cases, permitting images under PD-art only once the reproduction itself (not just the original work) is in the public domain locally, we have no reason to do anything here. Bridgeman v. Corel is only a district court ruling, not something that reached the Supreme Court or even an appeals court, but it has a great deal of w:persuasive precedent, and the chance that another US court would disagree is minimal; unless WMF Legal believes that we need to abandon PD-art for the sake of the survival of the WMF, we have no reason to listen. Let's not be rude, of course, but it's time for us politely to say no. Nyttend (talk) 00:30, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Keep Agree with "bring it on". The Prado would be profoundly stupid to take any of these high educational value public domain images into court with thin claims of copyright and unproven 'sweat of the brow' argumentation. Not only would they lose the case, it would set a legal precedent for all institutions ensuring that they can never make legal threats of this type in the future. Shame on the middle management wonks within the Prado that can find nothing better to do with their well paid for time. With regard to "Spain has a 25-year ancillary copyright", that can be shot down in the first minute of a legal hearing by pointing out where and when the same artworks were previously published before the Prado started making their reproductions, consequently there can be no first publication rights. Note for WMF Legal, it's better to avoid paraphrasing fear mongering legal threats. If the Prado want to make legal threats, please publish the legal threat fully in the Prado's own words and the community can then tease out more from the original words such as associated legal phrasing and intent. --Fæ (talk) 13:03, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Addendum with respect to ancillary copyright, the rejection appears simpler than I presumed as I was interpreting this as similar to other European publication rights. A bit more reading shows me that the 2014 Spanish ancillary copyright makes a presumption that the original works are copyrightable in themselves, without this nature partial or other reproductions in ancillary publications do not create new copyrights. The Prado would have to provide a clear explanation of their argument, with links to legal acts and existing case studies, as this looks awfully like pseudo-legal chaff in order to spread enough fear and doubt that unpaid volunteers like us will not touch their stuff. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:03, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Keep I also agree with the bring it on proposal. Public domain is essential to our vision as a movement, and we have consistently and proudly defended it over the last 15 years. Our standing for what we believe to be right is what distinguishes us from other educational charities and organisations, and unless we change our opinion about {{PD-art}}, we ought to refuse this request, even if it means legal action. Incidentally, this should be a good sign that we should increase our lobbying in favour of the public domain in the European Union so as to avoid such situations from occurring in the future. We know we are in the right, we will have the public on our side—I wonder how the Spanish people feel about being charged for access to works they have already paid for—so if it comes to it, we should stand our ground. As @Multichill rightly points out, Prado v. Wikimedia is going to look great as a headline. Also, if there are any Spanish residents who might be in legal jeopardy because of their actions as community members, we should ensure they get all the legal help we can provide them through our Defense of Contributors policy. And as a last point, I would like to thank @Jacob and the legal team for starting this discussion here; I think we all appreciate being consulted before any action is taken on behalf of our projects, and it makes a nice and welcome change from the past. odder (talk) 11:05, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Keep If we could not keep gigapixels images, we should not accept anything lower than high quality DSLR images, i.e. at least 24 Mpixels (6000 x 4000). This doesn't require stitching several images, and would therefore be acceptable under Bridgeman. Beside, would they accept volunteers with a high-end equipment to take pictures themselves? Regards, Yann (talk) 10:44, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Keep Per odder's comment. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:08, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Keep but we should do courtesy deletions if the uploaders prefer to have the files deleted. (Someone else can always re-upload the files under their own name after a courtesy deletion of course.) Natuur12 (talk) 12:40, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I am neither, of course, a lawyer, nor your lawyer, but I think we should consider this from a slightly different perspective.
The position of the USCO, as stated in the Copyright Compendium (310.6 and 310.7), is that neither creative skill and experience; nor time, effort, and expense required, have any effect on the copyrightability of a work. This is not a new rule from Bridgeman, which the USCO does not even cite. Instead, they cite a 1976 case which states that 'physical skill' and 'special training' cannot create originality, and that case itself cites ruling going back to the 19th century, that 'slavish and mechanical reproduction cannot create an author'. They also cite Feist: Justice O'Connor said "copyright rewards originality, not effort" and that the idea that effort mattered was against the basic principles of copyright.
Bridgeman was not 'new law'.... that it why it is so persuasive. The very effort of reproduction that the Prado expects to be rewarded for, that they are so proud of, was an effort to slavishly and exactly reproduce every detail of these works, down to the last brushstroke. It was an attempt to avoid the very original expression that copyright is intended to encourage and protect, and instead to mechanically replicate the creativity embodied in these works to the highest degree that could possibly be managed. That attempt at 'slavish and mechanical reproduction' is exactly what copyright does not protect.
I truly believe that the Prado does not have a leg to stand on, under US law.
But what about Spanish law? The very section 128 mentioned in our policy, that grants a 25 year term, is about 'simple photographs', ones that 'do not have the nature of protected works' that grants the normal term. They can't have it both ways. If it's granted that their effort is so special and extraordinary that it somehow transcends a lack of originality and thus deserves copyright protection, then it's not simple. It seems as if it's hoped that we, and possibly some court, will miss this inherent contradiction, or that they can somehow pick and choose what they claim to be true depending on where they are standing.
I say no, emphatically, to removing any images of these works on the basis of what I believe are baseless legal threats. Neither the Prado, nor Google, created these masterpieces.... this art is the common property of all mankind. Copyright is intended to encourage human creativity by rewarding authors for their efforts, not to reward those who simply manage to later hoard away the only copy. We are required, sometimes, to remove works because of laws we think are stupid... we should not remove works simply on the basis of threats. Reventtalk 12:30, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Sorry for answer so late Slowking4. I am available in case talk to someone at the Museum is needed, so just tell me. --Rubén Ojeda (WMES) (talk) 20:13, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
If it takes taking to the barricades and starting an all-out war to defend the public domain, then so be it. But yes, as a general principle we should try to exhaust all other possibilities before going to court. And just as a suggestion, please try to avoid overstating the issue; a single court case will cost nowhere near to spending the whole of the budget that the Legal team have been allocated. odder (talk) 13:27, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Museums and Wikimedians are natural allies, and it’s unfortunate when we wind up in an adversarial position. In such cases, the legal team doesn’t hesitate to defend the public domain, as we have in the German Reiss Engelhorn Museum lawsuit. In this case, though, there is the possibility of avoiding a lawsuit and earning goodwill with an important cultural institution if we make some concessions regarding image resolution. The question we’re trying to answer is whether that trade-off is worth it. (The consensus so far seems to be “no”.) --CRoslof (WMF) (talk) 21:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
@CRoslof (WMF): Make that a resounding no. Josve05a (talk) 23:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
What did the museum offer as trade-off for downscaling such images? So far they don't seem to have offered anything. Could they perhaps upload high-res images of a large number of their pictures (specially those not on exhibition) in exchange for such courtesy downscaling? Platonides (talk) 23:46, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
@Platonides: It seems apparent from the above that what they offered in exchange was "we won't sue you." Meh. Reventtalk 23:52, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
we also do not know the internal politics of the institution. we try to work with the outreach staff to get some wins, to argue against their legal staff, who tend to have bought the IP bar's practice. if we do not play nice with others, then commons gets a bad reputation, then they lock the door, as we saw with the Finnish photo museum. you can be as pure as you want about licenses, and you may become a walled garden. but hey, more wiki'splaining for me, thanks all. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 02:10, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
@Revent: I didn't consider “we won't sue you -based on a law apparently not tested in court- for storing some public domain images” to be "anything"… Specially not if we are consider this as a polite request by a natural ally requesting a courtesy downscaling. Platonides (talk) 23:12, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

"Museums and Wikimedians are natural allies" ehh... in a ideal word (not even wikimedias are allies...)... and for those saying that would accept 24 mpx, or 10... dudes, they are complaining about those, open up the list provided by them, there are some ~2'000 x ~2'000 pictures... probably they will provide a 2002 phone quality (1000 pixels) ... ¬¬

Anyway, Jacob, Charles, WMF talked directly with Google about it? As far we know, Google is who did the images, no? We can summary ignore Padro actually, because one of their allegation is violation of copyright based in the trouble to make giant pictures, and that the owner of those are images are the ones who took the pictures, and made all the process to deal with distortions... Google did it, based on the link that you provided.

The museum claimed that it contracted with Google and that, since Google worked with them under Spanish law, it agreed to display the images under a limited license that did not permit reuse. We have no reason to believe that's incorrect, and we're treating it assuming that if there is any kind of copyright applied to the pictures, it would be owned by the Prado. -Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 20:51, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Until now, I didn't understand why they are ...bi ... complaining about us have those images here, if anyone could access the same images in the Google Earth...

Talking about that, why we did not seat with Google and bring all this processes documented? -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 08:50, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

  •  Comment File:The Garden of Earthly Delights by Bosch High Resolution.jpg is one of those files that I understand the request. That's incredible detail that took quite a bit of work to produce. Most of the other stuff, eight megapixels are barely starting to see the painting, and one megapixel is so low we can probably replace it with a scan from a book and come out ahead. As for internal politics, it's not worth folding on the merest hope that maybe we'll be able to do something in the future.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:48, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I want to address the Prado's motivation in this discussion. In all the emails that I've had with them, they have been very reasonable. I think they are coming at this from the perspective that they have rights in these pictures and believe that they should protect those rights. I'm sure that's done in order to help them make money, but I think they plan to use that money to help preserve the art and disseminate information about it, and I don't ascribe bad motives to them in this whole matter at all. Rather than demand removal, they've tried to compromise and instead asked us just to lower the quality of the pictures. The list including images that aren't in super high quality was likely due to unfamiliarity with Wikipedia leading them to pull every link that came up with "Prado" rather than a bad motive to remove more content than they intended. The point of this discussion though, is that regardless of the Prado's position, we want to get community input about what to do in response to that offer. We weren't sure if the Commons community would even want to host the high quality images in a situation where the laws of different countries might come to different conclusions. Now, it does seem like the conversation is a pretty strong keep, but I do want to make sure it's because the people participating think it's the right thing to take a strong stand for placing these kind of gigapixel images in the public domain and not just because it might appear that the Prado may not have done things right in this particular case. -Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 21:04, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

few here collaborate with GLAMs, so it is easy for them to tell them to "bring it on". this community approves of w:National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute, and w:Monkey selfie; and seeks to thrust bridgeman around the world. they have very little tolerance for the rear-guard revenue seeking (which is a delusion), or stewardship of the public domain. we need a wikimedian on the ground to collaborate, with some tactics to route around the adversive culture here. email is not good enough. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 03:00, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, we do think that Bridgeman should be a principle world-round, and being stewards of the public domain ourselves, we're a little frustrated with groups who claim to be stewards of the public domain and who generally do so poorly.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
I think if the issue is the gigapixel images, that the discussion has been miscentered, because the files pointed to were not generally gigapixel images.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Hi all, this is Discasto. First of all some clarification:
    • Prado Museum possibly holds exploitation right over such pictures, but only for 25 years. That's so according to the article 128 of the Spanish Intellectual Property Act. It creates new exploitation rights over works (even if they're in the public domain) and therefore, according to the Spanish law, Prado Museum possibly holds such rights. Such statement is registered here but has been universally ignored until now.
    • On the other hand, I can't see any difference with regard to I wonder why the official position of the WMF in this case should be different from the w:National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute.
    • Finally, if the community agrees to fulfill Prado's requirements, the same rule should apply to every equivalent picture and therefore, any picture from public domain works in Spain not actually taken by a person must be removed. Or I'm missing anything...
    • My €0.02 --Discasto talk 14:44, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment The problem is, that, as soon as we implement a special deal with the Prado, we acknowledge that there is a protection-right covering 2D-redroductions. And that opens the gate to any body else, to claim rights on the hundreds and thousands of Reproduktions here on Commons, without offering anything in reward.
    • And this in includes the cases, where the WMF has already taken legal action (namely Reiss-Engelhorn) as well as...
    • the reproductions done by private Persons, that have never been tagged with anything but the PD-tag (that may not be sufficient anymore).
I'm afraid that this case may have consequenses, that are going far beyond this small deal with the Prado. // Martin K. (talk) 15:09, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Keep, as long the Prado don't allow us (and others) to take pictures there, we need to get images of old art in different ways. We can talk about it, when the Prado stops sitting on their by the mankind borrowed (not owned) art. Marcus Cyron (talk) 16:37, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Keep per others above. Keeping these images strengthens our position on treating two dimensional reproductions of public domain works as public domain. Additionally, lawsuits in Spain and possibly the US would be useful to remove legal uncertainties for uploaders and reusers. Our past GLAM cooperations have shown that increased exposure of institutional content (through Commons, Wikipedia, etc.) lead to more visitors to their websites, sales through their online shops and effect other metrics that matter to institutions. An increasing number of applications like retina displays, print/web/game design, etc. require high resolution content. Last but not least hosting and disseminating high resolution content is a sustainable approach for the future (think of destroyed archives or inaccessible online services). Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 18:34, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Downsize until Reiss-Engelhorn Museum of the City of Mannheim v. Wikimedia Foundation appeal is complete - For those itching for a court case (ghouston, Multichill, Fæ, odder, Steinsplitter, Christoph Braun) there is already one in progress. Reiss-Engelhorn v. Wikimedia Foundation (which we lost the first round of) is basically identical to any court case that would come out of this situation. Both Spain and Germany have ancillary copyrights for sweat of the brow, so museums in those countries are free to claim copyright (25 years in Spain, 50 in Germany) over images they have digitized. It doesn't make sense for the WMF to waste money on 2 nearly identical court cases. Let's see what happens with the Reiss-Engelhorn appeal, and then go from there. We're playing a long game with limited resources and we need to choose our battles. Starting another court case on the exact same premise would be a waste of money, IMO. Also, there's a pretty good chance that Prado would win (at least within Spanish jurisdiction). Keep in mind this is a very different situation than the National Portrait Gallery threats. I would completely support entering into a court case within the UK, as the UK doesn't have ancillary copyrights, and we would actually be clearing up a grey area. Personally, I don't see any potential benefit for us entering into a case against Prado. Also, on the issue of clarifying Bridgeman, I strongly doubt Prado would be interested in suing within the US, as they would have very little chance of winning a case there (even if that means they can only enforce the decision within Spain). IANAL. Kaldari (talk) 18:54, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
@Nemo: The German law is here. The Spanish law is here. The wording of the two is very similar. Output from Google Translate:
Spanish law: "Whoever takes a photograph or other reproduction produced by a process analogous to that, when neither having the character of protected works in Book I, enjoy the exclusive right to authorize reproduction, distribution and public communication, on the same terms recognized this Act to the authors of photographic works. This right will last twenty-five years counted from 1st January following the date of completion of the photograph or reproduction year."
German law: "Photographs and products which are manufactured similar to photographs, are protected in application of the rules applicable to photographic works provisions of part 1. The right referred to in paragraph 1 shall belong to the light generator. The right referred to in paragraph 1 expires fifty years after the publication of the photograph or if its first permitted public communication took place earlier, publicly after this, however, already fifty years after the manufacturing, where the photograph within that period not published or legally has been reproduced. The period shall be calculated in accordance with § 69th."
They are both ancillary copyrights (or "related rights") specifically for photographs not otherwise protected under copyright. Commons:Reuse of PD-Art photographs#Germany seems to agree with this. It mentions that "purely mechanical reproductions" such as photocopying are not covered, but explains that photography with a camera is. It's my understanding that this is why we lost Reiss-Engelhorn v. Wikimedia Foundation. Perhaps Jrogers (WMF) could confirm. The situation with Prado seems identical as far as I can tell, except that their reproductions were even less mechanical (judging by the video). Kaldari (talk) 15:01, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
The wording, as translated, doesn't seem similar at all to me, especially as one says that it's not copyright and the other says it is (to work around the 50 years limit per Berne convention, presumably): «when neither having the character of protected works in Book I» vs. «are protected in application of the rules applicable to photographic works provisions of part 1». Hence the jurisprudence. However the translation may be tricky; do you have some source for claiming the two provisions are very similar? Nemo 15:05, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
@Nemo bis: Please read the laws in the context of the full documents. The Spanish law essentially says "Photographs, when not protected by normal copyrights, are granted an ancillary copyright. This right lasts 25 years from when the photograph was created." The German law essentially says "Photographs are granted an ancillary copyright. This right belongs to whoever took the photo. This right lasts 50 years after the photo is published." For the purposes of this discussion, the laws are effectively the same. They both grant an ancillary copyright that is based on production of the photograph rather than any creativity or originality. They also both exist alongside regular copyrights covering any creative works. Kaldari (talk) 19:51, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep Jane023 (talk) 20:50, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep per above, especially Martin K., I wonder that after many years that many of those photos exist, they start their question. The number of files which might be inflicted too, is much bigger I guess.
And please and urgently read my new topic Commons:Village pump#Commons admin and oversighter @Rama: from France refusing Licensed-PD-Art-tag and insisting on her copyright for merely PD-Art photographs, dealing with the inverse case within commons--Oursana (talk) 02:48, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Deleting/downsizing a 7 megapixel PD-Art photo that anyone could take with a phone? Nonsense. Also, this is not a negotiation unless the Prado offers something. Other than keeping the photos as is, I only see two possibilities:
    • we organise an editathon/photathon inside the Prado to take our own photos of all the items, given photos are allowed (we could also use their own app for the 50 main ones: https://www.museodelprado.es/en/apps/photo-prado ), and upgrade the resolution for all photos;
    • Prado offers a content release of their own photos to increase our photo collection, e.g. offering at least 10 thousands images; Prado and Wikimedia (ideally WMES, if they're interested) decide together what resolution makes the effort worthwhile; the Commons community, convinced by the gain in coverage, allows such such photos to override existing ones even when there would be a resolution downgrade. outreach:GLAM/Case studies#Museums and galleries (in particular Tropenmuseum and Kelly 2013) can be used to convince them.
Hopefully Prado can show some commitment to the promotion of culture. If not, they'll need to be forced by the sovereign people. Nemo 07:34, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
I suggest the WMF allows WMES to take a lead, perhaps offering some extra funding to cover basic expenses of volunteers. Based on my work in other large national organizations, this is what I would do to help the Prado, I would:
  1. first understand their published goals as an institution, work inside to understand how much revenue they make from these images and the costs of digitization, and understand which parts of the organization believe that they should lock-down the high resolution versions. I would look to gain an insight from staff within the Prado that we know support open knowledge goals, which may well turn out to be most of them.
  2. present a plan back to all interested staff that confirms the financial and legal facts, then goes on to suggest projects to increase the Prado's public impact and revenue by opening up their collections.
  3. find supporters outside the Prado, including the potential for project funding for a Prado open gallery project from EU sources, Arts grant bodies and the WMF and its sponsors. This may be as simple as helping to fund a more innovative digitization project through to funding for an in-house Open Knowledge advocate who can support internal education events on copyright and open knowledge programmes, as well as the (now classic) public engagement with edit-a-thons and external media promoting the Prado's collection.
So, the question for Prado should be, how much money do you believe you would lose by leaving the high resolution images on Commons, and would you like us to help you make back that money and increase the Prado's international profile? --Fæ (talk) 08:17, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Renegotiate terms with the museum as described above by Nemo, inside a GLAM framework. --Marcok (talk) 07:50, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Engage + negotiate but keep, as Fæ and Nemo describe. Use Prado's interest in this case to engage at a few levels: local community members and global GLAM enthusiasts who have organized collaborations at this scale elsewhere. Agreed that Prado and WMES together can work out what resolution would make such an effort worthwhile. We might also clarify Commons policy on acceptable minimums in such contexts: what counts as 'low resolution' definitely changes with time; 24MP seems reasonable today. --SJ+ 13:49, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
    Also, @CRoslof (WMF): wrote:

    Creating these gigapixel images did require a significant amount of effort and resources. Other GLAM institutions may hesitate to make the same sort of investments in digitizing their collections or making those collections available online if...

    Effective integration in WP almost always results in better visibility and publicity for the museums. We should make this clear in each interaction. (We should also have an estimate of how much it would cost to have our community generate such images, for friendlier collaborations. Many musuem digitization projects are supported entirely by grants; if we can do the digitization /and/ ensure PD availability to the whole world, our community would be an effective conduit for such work.) --SJ+ 13:58, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment. Without having read the whole discussion: I'm surprised by the "List of images the Prado would like changed". File:José de Ribera 028.jpg (2,310 × 3,071 pixels) or File:El martirio de san Andrés.jpg (2,717 × 2,076 pixels) are supposed to be of ultra-high resolution? I'd say that by today's standards, this is really no particularly high resolution; that said, it is so low that the difference to ca. 1920 x 1080 which, according to Jrogers (WMF) the Prado would probably be fine with, wouldn't be that huge, and so I somewhat wonder what the fuss is all about, if I may say so. I mean - on the one hand, changing the resolution in these cases wouldn't be a big loss for Commons, but on the other hand, what exactly loses the Prado if File:José de Ribera 028.jpg is ever so slightly larger? As far as I can see, only four images in the list fall into the "extremely high-res" category: File:La Anunciación, by Fra Angelico, from Prado in Google Earth - main panel.jpg, File:The Immaculate Conception, by Giovanni Battista Tiepolo, from Prado in Google Earth.jpg, File:Selbstporträt, by Albrecht Dürer, from Prado in Google Earth.jpg, and finally, File:The Garden of Earthly Delights by Bosch High Resolution.jpg. The last one, "The Garden of Earthly Delights", is a special case. This is a large and incredibly detailed painting where a 1920 x 1080 resolution simply wouldn't be enough to appreciate it - in this case, if the result of the discussion were to honor the Prado's request, I really think they should allow for a higher resolution. However, I tend to agree with Martin K. - wouldn't even the appearance of acknowledging 2D reproduction rights be dangerous? Gestumblindi (talk) 23:39, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Good point about the painting size. Rather than a fixed resolution, for such a varied material it's wise to talk about ppi/dpi. For instance, 150 dpi (usually considered insufficient for printing) would mean a 23000 pixels wide image for that 390 cm painting (which is a bit less than the current resolution). Nemo 16:38, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
I hestitate to mention it, since it isn't on their list, but this painting is nearly 3 x 10 METRES in size, with several photos on commons and a long article on English WP (plus one on fr). I certainly agree ppi/dpi is the way to go. My general view follows in new point. Johnbod (talk) 16:05, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

August 10

August 12

How to represent GIMP as last tool of a tool chain?

@Sarang: Several of my uploaded images are the result of a toolchain of programs, i.e. dcraw, hugin, and GIMP. The software GIMP being only used for some minor colour changes. Nevertheless I still want to record its usage.

So far I have used [[Category:Created with GIMP]] but this now gets replaced with |Other fields={{Igen|GIMP|n|+}} which as a side effect adds the wrong "PNG created with GIMP" hidden category for such JPEG images.

Personally I feel that a [[Category:Modified with GIMP]] would be most appropriate.--KlausFoehl (talk) 10:03, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Hallo Klaus,
the problem with the wrong category "PNG ..." is well known. When the category system for "SVG created with" was established we needed something for not-SVG; a category "Raster images created with ..." would have been correct, but after all discussions it was thought that the shorter "PNG ..." might be enough. To define own categories for the very few JPG, GIF, CXF, PDF etc. etc. seemed less necessary than to get SVG and non-SVG each together but separated.
When you believe that it it will be useful to have more diffused categories, eg. "Modified with GIMP" then define and fill them. Just don't categorize into meta categories like Created with GIMP and others, where only templates should categorize. Of course you can define user categories like "Images where Klaus Föhl used GIMP, Hugin, Tool-X, Tool-Y and Tool-Z".
To specify more than one used tool is also possible with {{Image generation}}; the best might be to name first the most essential, and then all the others in sequence: |Other fields={{Igen|Draw|n|+|t={{Created with Hugin}}{{Created with GIMP}}}}
If you got ideas to make tyhings better: Just let know ! sarang♥사랑 11:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello and thanks for the answer. I do not want to loose too much time on image upload, but still give meaningful information. Hence I like to use Hotcat for adding categories, such stuff as |Other fields={{Igen|Draw|n|+|t={{Created with Hugin}}{{Created with GIMP}}}} is extra burden and time, so in doubt less images to commons. P.S. can one customise the pre-loaded text in the Summary box? -- KlausFoehl (talk) 15:36, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Coherence in zoological classification

The situation is:

I know it's a mess and the reclassification is in the process of stablishing itself, but how do we uniformize here in Commons? Sobreira (parlez) 10:16, 20 September 2016 (UTC) P.S.:

Renaming Wikisource books

I am seeking for some advice here.

I am a volunteer in bn.wikisource project. In this project, the procedure we follow,

  • We collect scanned Bengali books those are on PD as PDF or Djvu and upload those on CC.
  • As These ebooks come with machine generated long filenames with Roman characters, we rename those books in Bengali Script according to their original title.
  • Then we import that on Bn.wikisource.

This renaming happens with the consent of the original uploader (@Jayantanth: ). Until now these renaming work were done by the uploader or any volunteer who has FileMover permission. Currently, we are running with very limited volunteer resources. When the uploaders cannot get to manage enough time to rename these files, these files don't get to imported into bn.wikisource for a long period and work chain hits a bottleneck.

To tackle this we decided to share the workload. So, I started to rename these files. To keep the CC admins less busy, I even applied for FileMover rights[34], though it is very unlikely that I may get that right since I don't have significant number edits here in CC. I was also advised by @Wieralee: that I should not make this renaming without serious discussion (NOTE: We, BN:WS volunteers, already have discussed this procedure and agreed) since there is a risk that BN:WS index pages may get spoiled and overall it's not a safe procedure. While seeking for some advice on how should I proceed forward, @Wikicology: suggested that I should start a discussion here.

Now, I am seeking for some advice on how should I proceed forward? Should I keep renaming the files? Or anyway else?

Thanks. -- Tarunno (talk) 11:36, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Tarunno: I don't see any problem with filenames. They don't need to be renamed. Just make an index with the old name and work in it. The index is a workshop place (for editors only) -- and it's name doesn't matter. The real name of the book would be another...
If you have limited volunteers -- why do you start so many books? Maybe you should start proofreads, not mass-renames?
On pl.wikisource files have another names -- and the books have another titles. We have no problems with it, it's OK. Wieralee (talk) 11:46, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Wieralee, there is no need to rename those files. Commons community will have much easier job maintaining/categorizing files is the names were descriptive to English speakers. I am also not sure is any of the renames meet our Commons:File renaming criteria: the original filenames are unique and not misleading. --Jarekt (talk) 14:05, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi, @Wieralee: , @Jarekt: , as per local BNWS policy, the index file name should be equal to original book name.So we have to rename the file to respective name in bengali script.One redirect leave here so if anyone want to find name in latin, they can find. We have no issue. I am sorry this is my work load, I am doing this one by one. Tarunno wanted to doing this, so he wanted a file mover access. Thank you all. Jayantanth (talk) 15:44, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Corrupted previews of File:La Peñuela, Zinacantepec, Estado de México.jpg

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T141739

Does anybody know why previews of the photo look this way and how to fix it? Only the full resolution version looks as expected. Isn't it a bug in MediaWiki? --jdx Re: 09:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what programs are used behind the scenes to generate thumbnails, so can't do tests or answer the question of why. But I uploaded a modified image, converted to RGB instead of CMYK, resaved and uploaded and all seems good now. Offnfopt(talk) 09:44, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
FYI this is how Firefox displays the photos: File:Comparison of photos.png (I will nominate this file for speedy deletion in a week or so). The original is on the right and has very saturated green. --jdx Re: 14:27, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
@Bawolff: May this be an issue caused by the old version of ImageMagick used on Wikimedia servers? Or is the latter not true anymore? — Speravir_Talk – 15:57, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Possibly the same issue as phab:T141739. Matma Rex (talk) 17:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
BTW found in Help desk: Cf. first versions of File:Bernadotte-aktionen. Danske Røde Kors busser kører gennem Odense d. 17. april 1945 på vej til Sverige med danske fanger fra tyske koncentrationslejre (7392607518).jpg. — Speravir_Talk – 17:26, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Follow list

I keep track of all the files I uploaded with the follow system. Today two of my files where renamed. There are redirect links from the old name to the new name. As usual I removed the follow mark from the link to avoid double counting. Unfortunately I didnt notice that I dont have a follow mark on the file with the new name. As there is no history of changing follow marks, I cant cant find the renamed file to put a mark on it. As I follow 8590 files uploaded over a period of ten years I cant easily find the missing files.

Update: The two files are in fact on my follow list: File:Calle Redes, Seville 001.jpg, File:Calle Abad Gordillo, Seville 001.jpg, but the name change doesnt trigger an entry on the recent notification list. That why I was confused. Before you got two entries on the recent modification list: The creation of the new redirect link and the rename itself.Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:51, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

White Man Contemplating Pyramids by Richard Misrach

File:White Man Contemplating Pyramids.jpg
White Man Contemplating Pyramids by Richard Misrach

How can this image be public domain? I don't see any reference to an OTRS ticket or any explanation for it's supposed public domain status neither on the picture page itself or in the edit comments of the file. TommyG (talk) 21:21, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Seems unlikely to me. Uploader Djkeddie seems to have uploaded a lot of Princeton Art Museum images that were deleted on just that basis. I'd suggest either taking it up with the uploader or simply nominating for deletion. I don't see anything here that needs the broad forum of the Village pump. - Jmabel ! talk 23:28, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
I uploaded a number of images that the Princeton University Art Museum itself classifies as in the public domain. However, after some back and forth with OTRS they wanted documentation the art museum was unwilling to provide. Given that those images were deleted. By all means mark this one for deletion as well. My apologies for the trouble.Djkeddie (talk) 14:34, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I have marked this photograph for deletion. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:White Man Contemplating Pyramids.jpg. I suggest avoiding all images where the copyright symbol is used in the catalog, others may be fine to upload based on the original artist's death date, for example http://artmuseum.princeton.edu/collections/maker/530. --Fæ (talk) 01:50, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

September 21

Quality maps and ortophotos freely licensed

HI. I found that es:Ministerio de Fomento de España licensed (official bulletin) released nine months ago the content digitally available published by the es:Dirección General del Instituto Geográfico Nacional with a free license "compatible" with CC BY 4.0 they say.

This would include a huge amount of content (MTN25 and MTN50 Mapa Topográfico Nacional, and even aerial photographies of PNOA (Plan Nacional de Ortofotografía Aérea), and more stuff). Terms are:

1. Conforme a la Orden FOM/2807/2015: www.boe.es/boe/dias/2015/12/26/pdfs/BOE-A-2015-14129.pdf, por la que se aprueba la política de difusión pública de la información geográfica generada por la Dirección General del Instituto Geográfico Nacional (IGN), esta licencia de uso ampara el uso comercial y no comercial, la reutilización, la redistribución, la modificación y la generación de productos y servicios de valor añadido a partir de los productos y servicios de datos geográficos digitales del IGN.

2. El usuario titular de la licencia se compromete a citar al Instituto Geográfico Nacional (IGN) mediante la fórmula: «© Instituto Geográfico Nacional» como origen y propietario de la información geográfica suministrada ante cualquier exhibición o difusión de ella, o de parte de ella o de cualquier producto que, aun siendo de forma parcial, la incorpore o derive de ella.

-Si se tratara de Ortofoto o MDT5 (PNOA®), la mención se sustituirá por: «PNOA cedido por © Instituto Geográfico Nacional».

- Tratándose de datos LiDAR, la mención se sustituirá por: «LiDAR-PNOA cedido por © Instituto Geográfico Nacional».
- En caso de datos SIOSE®, la mención se sustituirá por: «SIOSE cedido por © Instituto Geográfico Nacional».
- Tratándose de CartoCiudad®, la mención se sustituirá por: «CartoCiudad cedido por © Instituto Geográfico Nacional».

I want to ask if this is ok for Commons. And if it is... A new specific template would be required and I need help with that. Strakhov (talk) 16:54, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

September 22

What is wrong here?

Is this Mural in the General National Archive in the Dominican Republic or Colombia? --Jos1950 (talk) 17:58, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Jos1950 why Colombia? And this should be discussed here: File talk:DO AGN Mural inside of the General National Archive in Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic.jpg. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 04:27, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Because Category:Archivo General de la Nación is the one in Colombia. More interesting: who painted that mural and when? I would expect it to be copyrighted and I don't know whether Dominican freedom of panorama extends to meeting rooms. If it did, that would be unusual. --rimshottalk 06:40, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Well, type (don't need to press enter) at google "Archivo General de la Nación", you will see that Mexico, Argentina, El Salvador, Uruguay, Venezuela, Republica Dominaca, Perú... have one.
In Brazil, freedom of panorama is very extensive, some panels as this could be okay. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 23:03, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Fan art

Is this a valid edit? I don't know too much about fan art. --jdx Re: 06:59, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Category language confusion

Hi, folks. I have a problem finding the appropriate name for a category. I want to provide pictures from the green houses of the recently abandoned botanical gardens of Saarland University.

  1. Do I mark the garden as "abandoned" (or similar) in the category name (as far as I know it is the first botanical garden in Germany that a university has given up on, Karlsruhe supposedly being the next to follow)
  2. Do I use a German or an English language label, given that I need the following two super-categories:

Thanks for any insights you can provide. --chris 論 17:55, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Category name shouldn't mention "abandoned", since we'd presumably use the same category if we got older photos from before it was abandoned.
  • I'd stick with English. I'm actually a little surprised that Category:Universität des Saarlandes uses German, since there would be an obvious English-language name (Saarland University), and category names normally use English in such a case. - Jmabel ! talk 02:29, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. Shouldn't then the university category be moved? --chris 論 06:16, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Addendum: After having another look it seems most, if not all German university categories use the German label as if it was a proper name, e.g. Category:Technische Universität München, even in combination with other English labels, which I find very confusing: Category:Alumni of Technische Universität München. So we apparently can't just move one cat. This has potential for a nice and extensive discussion x) --chris 論 06:28, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Flickr license verification request

Can I do a request for a license verification of a Flickr photo here in the Village pump ? I uploaded a CC0 image from Flickr, and since Upload Wizard doesn't have a option under the Flickr section for selecting Flickr-CC0 license, the file needs to be verified by someone with authorization to do so. It concerns this file: File:Sunset at the beach near the harbor of Scheveningen, The Hague (2015).jpg. If there is an other, more convenient way to get through this process, please let me know. I red some of the archived discussions on the matter of Flickr Public Domain licenses, but couldn't distill from it the correct way how to go about with it in practice. --oSeveno (talk) 14:14, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Do you have any doubts that the person who posted the image on Flickr is a photographer? Ruslik (talk) 14:27, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
I have no doubts about the poster being the photographer, but as I understand it, all photographs on Commons from Flickr need to be confirmed that the license is that what I post when files are uploaded. Or did the Commons policy change ? --oSeveno (talk) 15:50, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
A license review can be requested by adding a template to the description page. For a bot review of a flickr file (if the file has not been modified), the template "Flickrreview" can be added. For a human review, the template "LicenseReview" can be added. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:53, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
All I think that is needed is that the Commons bot can confirm I uploaded a Flickr file with the correct license. (CC0) --oSeveno (talk) 15:50, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
OSeveno - You can use the Flickr2Commons to upload images (even those under this licence), The only ones that shouldn't be uploaded are Public Domain Mark] (and a few others) but CCO and Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic etc are fine, Cheers, –Davey2010Talk 16:41, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Davey2010, I am going to look into that option. --oSeveno (talk) 17:11, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
You're welcome :), Forgot to add but F2C is here if you didn't know, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk
I'll just note that UploadWizard has built-in functionality to "Share images from Flickr", which handles this license automatically and correctly. It was not used here, because unfortunately it is only available for administrators and license reviewers here on Commons. Relaxing these restrictions would presumably require community discussion. Matma Rex (talk) 17:48, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

 Comment Adding the template {{Flickrreview}} to the license tells the bot to review the file... it should be able to correctly handle CC-0 images. Reventtalk 03:43, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Max upload size?

What is the max upload size (for various methods)? I have videos from 60 to 800 mb, and the large ones fail to upload. What does it mean on the file page "Transcode status", the files was already in webm 480 format when uploaded - has it been re-encoded again? That lowers the quality, I would say. --Janwikifoto (talk) 11:59, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

You should be able to load 4GB files; Commons:Maximum file size. Whichever method you use, the larger files will fail unless you are using chunked uploading and even then may have failures due to operational issues or the file being detected as problematic once in the process of being 'assembled' at the server side. As for transcoding, this is to make the video available in a number of (lower quality) sizes, if your original is in webm, it should stay unchanged. --Fæ (talk) 12:33, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
I have used Commonist, as I am able to set copyright template with that. THe doc says it fails over 100 mb, so no gb there. The Upload Wizard has no description of sizes. I use mobile data, so I can not "play and test" several hundred mb woth of billed data traffic. Hard documented facts would be preferred. No, I am not going to use chunked upload, it will create too much work for me, to learn. --Janwikifoto (talk) 12:40, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
I have reported the issue to the GitHub repo where the code is maintained. On the other hand, Commons:Maximum file size is the "hard documented fact" regarding maximum file size. UW should be quite straightforward to use. And for non-chunked uploads, I'm sorry, HTTP isn't designed to upload large files in a single request ([35]). And AFAIK uploading 100MB+ files to commons without chunked uploading is technically impossible because of the max request body size restriction set somewhere. And as for your rationale of mobile connection not suitable to "play and test", well, you're of "play and test" without chunked uploading, as any disconnection/failure in the process force you to restart from the first byte, wasting more traffic than with chunked uploading. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 13:05, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for reporting the issue.
As a rule of thumb based on my 2 million uploads, if your files are greater than 40MB, you can guarantee regular failures in a large upload. I would say it's worth using chunked uploading for any file over 20 MB. I believe the standard upload wizard does handle chunked uploading, though I don't know where this is documented in the help pages.
P.S. don't use mobile data for uploads. It would be worth having a chat with your local library, university or school to see if you can save up your upload projects and use their broadband connection. It may even give them ideas for local open knowledge projects. --Fæ (talk) 13:14, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
I use the Commonist for my regular uploads from less that 1 MB to 100 MB and the VicuñaUploader for more than 100 MB upto more that 1 GB. Biswarup Ganguly (talk) 15:03, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
I've used chunked uploading for 'many' files, including images over 100MB... it works quite well, though the way to create a 'new' upload with it is less than obvious. Reventtalk 02:56, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
@Janwikifoto: As Fæ says, UploadWizard uses chunked uploading (you do not need to learn anything, it happens automatically) and can happily handle files up to the maximum size, 4 GB – this is documented at Commons:Chunked uploads. I have also heard good things about VicuñaUploader if you prefer a desktop tool, although I never used it myself. Matma Rex (talk) 18:52, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Two versions of same painting

I notice that Wikimedia Commons has both File:Edvard Munch - Melancholy (1892).png scanned at 1,409 × 949 pixels, and File:Munch Melankoli 1892.jpg, which appear to be the same painting scanned at 4,000 × 2,682 pixels. Assuming that they are in fact the same, should the lower-resolution scan maybe be replaced with a redirect to the other? I don't know what the policy is on that sort of thing: if a change is appropriate please do it, it not then never mind. --69.159.61.230 23:00, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

See COM:Dupe. Since they are the same scan, from the same source, I'll mark the lower resolution version as a duplicate. --ghouston (talk) 23:35, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

September 26

Disabling Commons:Upload Wizard blacklist issues

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T146417

When an upload in UploadWizard is blocked by a TitleBlacklist entry, we give the user an option to report the failure as a false-positive. These reports go to Commons:Upload Wizard blacklist issues. As far as I can see, no one ever responds to them, and rightfully so, because every single one is wrong. Should we disable the ability to submit them in UploadWizard? (It's a simple configuration change.) Matma Rex (talk) 17:54, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

OK, looks like agreement to me… Phabricator task: phab:T146417. Matma Rex (talk) 14:30, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Rotating Images

(Automatic translation) Hello, by chance someone will know if there is some kind of code so that images can be rotated directly from the projects? (Wikipedia, Wikibooks, Wiktionary, etc.), without having to rotate from Commons (ie, without having to upload a new version of the file and rotated) Thanks in advance and sorry for machine translation. Miguu (talk) 04:52, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Assuming the rotation you want is a multiple of 90 degrees, and that it would always be correct for the image in question, Commons is where to do it. No need to re-upload: request it with the {{Rotate}} template. - Jmabel ! talk 18:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Jmabel Yes, but the problem is that the rotated image will be displayed in all places in which it is used, I just want to be displayed rotated in place where needed, something like the code image pixels when you link, but in degrees of rotation / orientation of the image.
Is there any way to make this possible?. Miguu (talk) 01:11, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
It is possible to rotate images using CSS, but the browser has to support that feature. If the browser doesn't support it the image won't appear rotated. The number of users this affects would probably be a small percentage, but to make sure everyone has the same experience I think an alternative solution is best. Having a modified version uploaded would be best to make sure the experience is consistent. Just curious but what is a example case of when a image would need to get used in its original state and a rotated state? Offnfopt(talk) 01:54, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Not only that, it also has no effect on downloads of the images for instance. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Help of a New Zealander is needed

What does "manuka" mean in the English description of File:Kiwi feeding mason bay nz.ogv? Does it mean "a piece of land where mānuka shrubs grow"? --jdx Re: 13:48, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Try to ping someone active in w:Category:Wikipedians_in_New_Zealand or w:Category:User_mi: User:Kiore, User:Ingolfson, User:Akld guy, User:Kiwi128, User:Nurg (these names I saw active on enwikipedia in the last month, for example). Or ask directly on w:Wikipedia:New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board.--Alexmar983 (talk) 14:18, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
@Jdx: @Alexmar983: Manuka is a type of tree, as the en:Leptospermum scoparium article says. It starts as a shrub and can grow into a tree of substantial height. 'Manuka' is NOT used to refer to a piece of land. The description means that the kiwi is feeding amongst the manuka trees. The description is badly worded. The kiwi feeds on insects in the ground and the manuka trees are not related to its diet. The film has simply captured images of a kiwi that happens to be feeding in an area where there are manuka trees. Akld guy (talk) 19:40, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
The file appears to have been uploaded by a user who is not a native speaker of English and he/she may have used an idiom "feeding in manuka", meaning "feeding in an area where manuka trees grow", that is used in his language but is not appropriate in English. I will change the wording in the next day or two. Akld guy (talk) 21:06, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
@Akld guy: Thanks for explanation. In Polish translation I have already used phrase "żerujący pomiędzy krzewami manuki" which almost exactly means "is feeding amongst the manuka trees" – I have used "shrubs" (Polish "krzewami") instead of "trees". --jdx Re: 03:47, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-39

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

  • If your wiki wants numerical sorting in categories you can request it after a community decision. See how to request it. [36]
  • When you edit text and mention a new username they are notified if you add your signature. Before this only happened under certain conditions. [37]
  • Users are notified if they are mentioned in a section where you add your own signature even if you edit more than one section. Before, users were not notified if you edited more than one section in one edit. [38]

Problems

Changes this week

  • There will be no new MediaWiki version this week. [41]

Meetings

Future changes

  • Abandoned tools on Tool Labs could be taken over by other developers. There is a new discussion on Meta about this. It will be discussed until 12 October and then voted on. [42]

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

18:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

September 27

File:Karikatur-Hattar.gif

Hello.Is this talk true? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk • contribs) 2016-09-27 13:26:58 (UTC)

Looks iffy: The licensing tag goes around the notion of photography of a 2D original, but is nowhere said how is this recent 2D orinal artwork in Public Domain in the first place. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 13:50, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
IMO this would only be a valid licence if the copyright in Jordan expires with the death (murder...) of the artist. --Magnus (talk) 13:57, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Category:People by name et al. as flat list?

Hi, I currently have a little dispute with Raimundo Pastor. In my eyes the categories Category:People by name, Category:Men by name and Category:Women by name are "flat list" cats. So: Any people should be in Category:People by name, every man should be in Category:Men by name and every woman should be in Category:Women by name. Since a while I'm busy checking a lot of people cats and adding those and other missing cats. Its now the first time somebody reverts and disagrees these edits. Whats the opinion of the others. Should i.e. Category:María Teresa Torras in Category:People by name and Category:Women by name although it is in Category:Women of Spain by name, or not? --JuTa 21:12, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Hola:

La idea principal de las categorías es su posibilidad de organizar los contenidos por medio de características objetivas para poder buscar información. Organizándolo como una estructura arborescente, desde categorías más generales, que se subdividen en categorías más específicas. Por eso Category:Women of Spain by name es una subcategoría de Category:Women by name, esta a su vez es una subcategoría de Category:People by name by gender, y esta a su vez es otra subcategoría de Category:People by name by gender, etc. Lo mismo se consigue con la categoría Category:Men of Spain by name. Esto permite disponer de localizadores más específicos y ganar en calidad a la hora de buscar contenidos.

Si se mantiene Category:People by name como único buscador de personas, se corre el peligro de que sea tan grande (entran todos los seres humanos) que en la práctica no sirva para localizar a nadie. Puedo entender que se use como identificador en Wikidata, pero no como una categoría en Wikipedia o en Wikimedia Commons, ya que no aporta nada. Un cordial saludo:--Raimundo Pastor (talk) 10:57, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Por lo general, Vd. tiene razón, pero creo que esto es uno de las pocas excepciones. Hemos decidido hace años crear y mantener unas pocas categorías planas. Sí, son grandes. Grandísimas. Y es OK. Por gran parte, beneficiaron bots, no usarios humanos. Pero, según los operadores de los bots, son útil. Favor de dejarlos y no revertir. - Jmabel ! talk 14:54, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
OK, I will create new Category:Men by name by country and Category:Women by name by country and sort them under Category:People by name by country and not anymore under (Wo)men by name. Then any catscan and similar dont get anymore confused by such subcats. And furtheron all 3 cats (1, 2, 3) can and should be handelded as flat categories in future. regards. --JuTa 19:13, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

September 25

Contrast in thumbnails vs original

I asked this before, but I don't remember the solution, because each time I think I solved all known cases of it. Look at File:Harriet_Quimby_054.png then click on the original and see how the contrast is optimized. The previous solution was to reopen in GIMP and save with GAMMA settings checked. Is there a way to automate getting the thumbs to have the right contrast without opening and resaving in GIMP? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:31, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Not after upload, but if you have a bunch not yet uploaded, you can add the gAMA chunk using ImageMagick's convert (with +gamma .454555) or pngcrush (with -g 45455) from the command line. Storkk (talk) 10:40, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

September 28

Hillary Clinton in a wikiquote banner

It's not a technical matter, but still I am informing local projects, I can also link it here File talk:Bandeau wikiquote.jpg. Clinton or not Clinton, If anyone is good with graphics maybe (s)he can easily upload a more balanced version including more women or non-white or scientist or whatever. Nelson Mandela, Marie Curie, Mother Teresa... name one. Faces people can recognize but with much less "sociopolitical tension".--Alexmar983 (talk) 11:22, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Why not just remove the banner from wikiquote? Regardless of who you put on the banner there will almost always be someone that doesn't agree with that choice or wish for someone else. You're better off letting individuals pictures stay in their own domain (i.e. articles about those individuals). Offnfopt(talk) 12:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
If a wikiquote wants that specific banner, fine with me. I think it was used because it's one of the few ones with that style. It is in fact better than "File:Bandeau wikiquote2.jpg". Itwikiquote has a nice banner too but with mainly Italians, so it's too local. In any case it was popular because it is effective for wikiquote (and wikisource, it's used for the author index on itws). I mean it was a nice, balanced style, I like it too. It's used because it's good. But if we had a version without Clinton would be better. Someone will never agree, ok. But there are people on whom we can all agree 99.99%, bcause they are part of history. He should have focused on some of those.--Alexmar983 (talk) 12:24, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
I would recommend getting a consensus first on the wiki where the banner would be used. After it has been agreed who would be on the banner (and ideally even found some image(s) to use for the edit), then you could make your banner request at the Graphic Lab. Offnfopt(talk) 13:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
I linked the file talk from all those wikis. I wasn't going to ask the Graphic Lab directly. I just though it should be discussed at least, than if they are ok with it, let's stick with Hillary. In any case, creating a new banner of a similar quality is also a possible strategy, they can choose later to replace it. I think we discussed enough here.--Alexmar983 (talk) 13:19, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

How to assert right of integrity

Is there a recommended statement to add to images that I have uploaded to make it clear that the original descriptions should not be changed? As in this discussion, I am unhappy that another editor has made statements that the plants I photographed in a botanical garden are mislabelled in that botanical garden. (Of course, there is a taxonomic issue here, but it is not relevant, since taxonomic opinion is just that, an opinion (and I say that as a professional botanist).) If there is no neat way to stop people from maligning the botanical gardens and their staff, then I will make a decision not to upload any more images from such institutions. In practice, I think that would be a pity, because those gardens are likely to yield photos of quite a number of rare plants for which we do not yet have photos, and the wikipedias could potentially benefit from such images. Nadiatalent (talk) 21:51, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Sorry, you cannot lock down the descriptions here on Commons. Just like Wikipedia, people can edit. I have no idea who is correct about this particular plant, but User:MPF is correct to state that a dispute over the filename is not a reason to delete. I've seen plenty of images uploaded with mis-identifications by the uploader, and we need to be able to correct those. Just for example, I recently encountered a picture of Everett, Washington whose uploader identified it as Seattle. Part of the point of a wiki is to be able to correct things like that. I'd suggest that if you wish to upload photos in a way that no one else can edit the comments in your master, you might consider a site like Flickr or Panaramio rather than a rather open wiki like Commons.
  • On the other hand, if the facts are in dispute, the person who made the edit should not be able to choose unilaterally to have only their view of the matter in the description. - Jmabel ! talk 23:34, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
    • @MPF:
    • I'm not very strong in botany, so I could be completely off-base here, but if I understand the edit User:MPF is asserting that C. arizonica var. glabra is a synonym for Cupressus glabra, and that that is what we see here. this would seem to be one of an almost infinite number of disputes about biological taxonomy, in this case over whether this is considered a varietal or a distinct species. In that case, while there may be a disagreement here, there is nothing in the labeling that could clearly be considered wrong; at most, it's incomplete. - Jmabel ! talk 23:46, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Commented in the DR. Jee 03:56, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
thank a lot for driving away another contributor. there are less bitey ways to correct species names. but why bother when you can edit war. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 15:23, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

September 24

Covers of books

I don't known it, for this reason I wonder it: you can upload to Wikimedia Commons freely covers of books if the author is alive and without authorization in OTRS? I ask it for the files uploads by Carlos Marianidis. It is highly likely that the user is the author of these books because he uploaded a cover in 2015 from a book published en 2016 (File:Nocturno 48, Editorial Libros & Libros, Bogotá, 2016.jpg). --Metrónomo's truth of the day: "That was also done by the president" not an excuse. 15:56, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure I understand exactly what you are asking ("I don't known it, for this reason I wonder it" is very unclear English, at least to me, then it's followed by what is grammatically a statement but is followed by a question mark. (Si Vd. es hispanohablante, creo que sería más fácil si Vd. escribe en español.) My take on File:Nocturno 48, Editorial Libros & Libros, Bogotá, 2016.jpg: OTRS would certainly be a good idea, but in this case I'm so close to certain that the uploader is the author of the book that I myself would never start a deletion request in such a case. - Jmabel ! talk 04:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
When a book has artwork on the cover, this is rarely the direct work of the author, and may have a different copyright to the book text. Any OTRS statement would have to take account of that. --Fæ (talk) 04:44, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
In File:Nada detiene a las golondrinas, Ediciones El Naranjo, México 2015.jpg you can read "Adriana Campos, ilustración" ("ilustrated by Adriana Campos") and in File:Las Cuatro Estaciones.jpg say "ilustrado por Sandra Lavandeira". The drawings are the work of different authors, as you can read here. --Metrónomo's truth of the day: "That was also done by the president" not an excuse. 10:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
De todas formas yo quería preguntar algo más general. ¿Para subir una portada a Commons es suficiente que lo haga el autor del libro (que generalmente es solo autor del texto) o se necesita algún permiso extra? Como el autor de las ilustraciones, el fotógrafo (si hay una fotografía) o la editorial que lo publicó. Las cláusulas del contrato con la editorial no los conocemos. --Metrónomo's truth of the day: "That was also done by the president" not an excuse. 12:29, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Ah. Typically, OTRS from the publisher would suffice, since they need to have all the copyrights in line; I suppose ideally we would have OTRS from artists for individual design components. I agree that technically the author of the text doesn't have all the permissions, and I suppose someone could nominate this for deletion & it would succeed. I personally am not such a stickler where it is pretty clear that someone this connected did the upload: it's hard to imagine that the author was acting without at least the implicit consent of all involved. - Jmabel ! talk 16:49, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Wimbit-Jellinek-Phoenix8hp.jpg

Need review of sources and edit histories:

Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 01:03, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

September 30

Big purge of old images?

I notice a pattern:

  1. Old file got transfered to Commons
  2. Lot's of bots work on it and empty out one of more template fields
  3. Someone tags it as {{No source}} without looking very closely
  4. Admin just deletes it after 7 days

All these steps have a small mistake in them, but together they form a very destructive pattern currently getting a lot of old files deleted. @Jcb: & @Ellin Beltz: for plastering my userp age and @Basvb: for objecting on it. Multichill (talk) 18:01, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I notice a pattern too. User doesn't fill in templates; user gets upset when file is tagged, user reverts tag, user doesn't fix problem, user complains. But seriously it would be of more help if you made sure files you worked on were done when you close them, especially after taking off tags and tossing them back into the system unfixed. For the image which I just noticed of this type File:V-2-Nederlands.jpg, I reviewed the entire history: It was imported by BotMultichill... without a valid source. All the bot fixes thereafter didn't break anything, the file template was incomplete on upload. There is no reason to complain about the system not working when it was the uploader in this case who didn't provide a source. The system is working fine to remove images without source. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:07, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
If there is a proper source and everything checks out, the files can be kept or restored if necessary. If there is no proper source and the status of the files cannot be determined without said source, deleting them is correct. --Rosenzweig τ 18:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Most likely a lot of these files are ok (PD-old), but don't have the source mentioned or mentioned on the wrong place. Part of the issue is that these files don't really have an involved uploader or are curated by their uploader. This is because they were uploaded long ago on other projects and moved by a bot (and we can't expect the file movers with 100.000s of moves to fix all these 100.000s of files (in a short timeframe)). The way you describe that the files should be handled is indeed a valid way in theory, but in practice nobody will try to restore these files after they are deleted, because nobody will know what exactly the files do contain. Basvb (talk) 18:28, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Maybe giving some specific examples will help here: sources get removed, same, 3, and the example Ellin Beltz mentioned. I'm wondering what the criteria where for the blanking of these images their sources? In the first two cases there is a source described in the description (in this particular case a long discussion can be held on whether we can take files from that source, but that is a DR discussion), at least one of 4 steps mentioned by Multichill should find that out, preferably all 4 steps should be able to do so. @Ellin, this issue is on processes, not on specific persons. Note that the first step Multichill mentions is the one he performed. A lot of these files are used somewhere and can be kept without much of an issue (the 3rd example is a 1400-1700s image), deleting these files simply results in a loss of information. These files have been moved to Commons because local wikis moved all their files (eg. nlwiki) and uploaders in some cases even give valid information, but not according to our structures (information template), which are much more recent compared to when these files were uploaded. I think we (those involved/interested in the process) should try to ensure that these kinds of files are not deleted on this scale. How we best do that is open for debate, fixing the 1st step is not going to solve the issue (step is long past), some clarification on the second step is welcome, and being more careful/less strict in step 3 and 4 is probably the short term solution. Basvb (talk) 18:24, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

"Transferred from nl.wikipedia" (or any other wikipedia) is not a proper source when the original uploader is obviously not the author of the file. We need the original source from where the original uploader took the file when uploading to nl.wikipedia. --Rosenzweig τ 19:02, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
In that case I think we should focus on performing step 3 and 4 a bit more carefully, if one is going to tag a file as having no-source I believe that (especially for older files) we can expect the one tagging the file to take into account source information provided outside of the correct information-template fields (for example a "source = xxx" in the description). Another thing would be to have these images from another wiki in an: incorrect source provided instead of the regular no source provided maintenance category. Anyway, removing files where valid sources are provided, just not on exactly the correct location, especially when these are old and in use (thus clearly in scope) files shouldn't be happening and especially not on this scale. Basvb (talk) 19:55, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
The book " Wonderen van het heelal" (ed. circa 1915) was written by G.J. Vries and G.C.J. Vosmaer ([43]). The name G.J. Vries is a very common combination in Dutch names and a query in Google produces too many results; On the other hand, G.C.J. Vosmaer doesn't seem to have published after 1935. His first publication I could find dates from 1880 (his PhD thesis). ([44]). Therefore, it's safe to conclude that he was born before 1858. It's likely that he died before 1946 but this is not conclusive. JoJan (talk) 16:19, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
It probably would have helped if the word "source" would have been anywhere in the description and not the Dutch equivalent "bron" (which was used in two of your examples). Not everybody will realize what this word means. --Rosenzweig τ 20:43, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
A very interesting example is the now deleted File:Red ribbon.gif, this file was uploaded by a file transfer bot in 2007. This is before all our information template structures were really common. In the description there is a clear source mentioned. That source being File:Red ribbon.jpg, and in that source also clearly the original source is mentioned. However as the files were duplicates (different filetype) the .jpg got deleted. And, maybe because of that, or maybe even just because the source was not in the proper information template field the .gif was also deleted. This all while valid sources were provided, just not on the completely correct location. Basvb (talk) 18:43, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for that example. Worrying. --Fæ (talk) 18:54, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Try any of these red ribbons in Category:AIDS red ribbon... The ones which remain have sources & licenses. The one which was removed did not. It's not worrying, it's "housekeeping." Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
The original file did have a source, a link to [45]. The link is dead, so there could be some discussion on whether that source is valid enough (we can't currently verify it, that is however quite common for older files and the internet). Anyway, the file is not a plain deletion imo, but worth a good discussion. Basvb (talk) 20:56, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
I suggest everyone lay off marking old uploads of U.S. Federally funded artworks or photographs with the "no source" template, which virtually guarantees deletion after 7 days, these actions are damaging our Commons project mission. If you have a concern, then raise a deletion request which might have more chance of getting noticed. In the case of posters or images from nih.gov, they are public domain unless clearly produced by a commercial source. @Basvb: please undelete the jpeg, you can add https://history.nih.gov/nihinownwords/docs/page_43d.html as a current official source at nih.gov, which justifies the PD-USGov-NIH template. It's worth noting that web.archive.org exists, and were anyone to make the effort to search the archive of NIH web pages there, they can find the original source at http://web.archive.org/web/20090618094130/http://aidshistory.nih.gov/imgarchive/ribbon.html - so I suggest that's added too.
In the discussion of solutions rather than blame, I suggest we again have the perennial discussion about auto-archiving sources, adding web.archive.org links automatically to our more treasured files would be a great start and avoid some of the unnecessary deletions which seem based on inevitable linkrot rather than valid copyright violations. --Fæ (talk) 07:55, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Auto-archiving sources would be an outstanding thing. Reventtalk 02:52, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree with Multichill that there is a serious issue here, both a systemic one and a behavioural problem, one that can damage this project's reputation for the hosting of public domain archive media. For public domain images that have been transferred from other projects many years ago (in the example it was 2009), there should be care to retain as much information with the image as possible everytime there is "housekeeping". I have complained directly about the actions of OgreBot 2 here, and received replies I still find unconvincing, considering that these unthinking automated actions are resulting in the deletion of public domain material. I also find it hard to understand why marking very old files with 'no source' templates, then doing nothing to see if the public domain license was there for good reason when it was uploaded in good faith on another project, by users that may have retired but have an excellent history of contributions, is somehow justifiable or a "good thing". What's needed here is a bit more intelligence in the process, and from those operating it, to ensure we make every reasonable effort to preserve public domain material, rather than blindly follow procedures we made up more recently than these images. If you are in danger of within 7 days causing perfectly valid public domain media that has been here for 7 years to be deleted from Commons, then you are at fault, not an uploader who has been inactive since 2009, not Multichill for creating a bot 7 years ago, not the handful of community members who are willing to look at these cases and waive a red flag. As a quick fix, perhaps we should automatically add an extra 7 days to the normal deletion notice period for every year the file has been here on Commons. At least then in these examples we would have 8 weeks to notice there was a problem and discuss it. --Fæ (talk) 18:54, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
I think it's an assumption that user's are not trying to find sources for images. I don't hit "no source" without a good valid try to find a source for the image, without searching the file history, and I do attach quite a few sources to unsourced images as I'm going along. I'm not happy to be told that people who are not looking over my shoulder while I'm working are making unsubstantiated allegations about what I do or don't do. I am also not pleased to be told I'm not being intelligent, or not making a reasonable effort, "blindly following" and so on. How about just discussing the issues without the extras?? Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
So let's discuss the issue and ignore the extras. Do you think the current processes work perfectly fine, or do you see these issues as well? You indicated that the fault (often) lies with the uploader for not providing correct sources ("when it was the uploader in this case who didn't provide a source" on File:V-2-Nederlands.jpg (BTW, the uploader did provide sources there, but in Dutch and a bit vague in the description, but lets do that discussion in the DR)). I believe that if we are that strict we will lose lots of valid material, we can't expect the uploaders from 10-15 years ago to still be around to fix their material according with our standards, which have changed a lot over this time. On the other hand we have big backlogs and loads of images with valid concerns surrounding their permission and source info which should be dealt with. Basvb (talk) 21:05, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
When a file that an article is using is tagged for possible deletion, does the talk page of that article get a message? Jim.henderson (talk) 18:58, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
No, what we have right now is totally naff. Non-Commons re-users will not see any notices. The original uploader of the image is not notified, only the person that transferred it to Commons or the person that most recently overwrote the file. --Fæ (talk) 19:03, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
digression not really related to this discussion
::Please refrain from using vulgar slang referring to the human sexual process and discuss the issue on its face without the Sexual Term which can so easily lead over to sexual harrassment issues. Thank you. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
@Ellin Beltz: I consider your exception a tangent. Naff as used here is a '60s British Polari term. It is not considered vulgar but 'informal' language, and in the sense I used it is not a euphemism for "fuck" which it could be argued to have meant in the 1950s, but not post-1960s. That is why it was famously used in the sense I used it on mainstream BBC radio in the 1960s. I refuse to be forced to use American language instead of perfectly normal British English on Wikimedia projects, especially when it is part of my expressing myself in my native dialect. If you want to have a debate about the precise definitions of words, then raise a thread somewhere else, rather than using it to take this thread off track with bogus scare tactics around sexual harassment. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 20:33, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
It's a term which means "not a fuck" or "Not available for Fucking" in British Polari Slang. I think you could omit it in polite (ahem) intercourse. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:56, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
You are conflating "naff off" as in 'go away' with "naff" as in 'poor style', obviously my usage is the latter. The definition you are referencing is a reverse engineered speculative etymology which has never been proved, other sources say it may have come from NAAFI. Again this is a tangent that actually makes sexual harassment look like a petty issue, please do not continue a discussion about the meaning of a word here; amongst other things it's a totally naff thing to do when 95% of the readers will not know what Polari is and a vanishingly small number would have used it as part of their gay culturation. --Fæ (talk) 21:11, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

We still have 300k files in Category:Media missing infobox template which do not have a proper source in proper place. Also most file transfer bots I have seen can not match many of the templates and styles used on each wiki with Commons templates, often resulting in missing data. I was often frustrated by how hard it is to digout the original description in wikipedia which is often deleted soon after transfer. (In my opinion files should be transferred with the full edit history through page export/import) Old files and transfered files can not be held to the same standards as the new uploads, but to the standards at the time of the upload. --Jarekt (talk) 02:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

File history can be transferred now. I can see how to do it and not cause any problems with current images. However it needs sysop tools, which rules me out. Maybe you could raise a work request? --Fæ (talk) 03:02, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh, the word has a sexual, scatological sense. In my rustic colonial innocence I took it as meaning "imprudent" which indeed is how this deletion by bot process appears to me. Probably most of those pictures have nobody actually watching them on a watchlist, so a more prudent method would be better. At a minimum, notify the talk pages of the using articles, and delay deletion by a certain number of weeks per year since the file was originally uploaded. Perhaps additional measures, such some kind of notification per Commons category, would also be appropriate. Jim.henderson (talk) 18:58, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

My advice would be:
0) put in a list all file in Category:Media missing infobox template that are not used, in another on those that are used in ns0.
1) for those that are used but not in ns0 or that are not used at all list them by date of upload (pre-2007, 2007, 2008...). Than send a polite message to all uploaders of early cats here and say that at least the oldest ones would be soon erased, unless info is provided;
1bis) crunch the number if there some effect.
2) for those that are used in ns0, send a bot in ns1 on every wiki (at last those where we have contacts or share sysop or whatever) asking for help with infobox templates (a file useed in this article is missing...). Just that. Language by language, the one you can. It is a surgical low-intensity approach. No menace of erasing, just ask for help.
2bis) crunch the number if there some effect.
3) Send a message to all general and project village pumps summarizing the effort so far. Ask again for help. Expert users can help. Don't menace deletion.
3bis) crunch the number if there some effect.
4) At the point, start with the deletion of oldest unused picture, date by date. Proceed manually.
4bis) crunch the number if there some effect. Check if the rythm is ok (the number of files in the category is decreasing) and stop If you arrive to the recent ones (e.g. post 2014),
5) Send a message to all general and project village pumps summarizing the effort so far.
6) At the point, start with the deletion of oldest used picture, date by date. Proceed manually.
6bis) crunch the number if there some effect. Check if the rythm is ok (the number of files in the category is decreasing) and stop If you arrive to the recent ones (e.g. post 2014),
If after a linear, organized cycle of work you reached an original target (e.g. 50000 files), just stop and let the natural rythm of the platform handle the job.
that's the idea (tailor it if necessary)
But whatever is the strategy, please don't just take a bunch of random files here and there and throw them to the deletion procedures. it does not solve anything. If it did, the situation wouldn't be so bad, IMHO.--Alexmar983 (talk) 05:26, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
There's plenty that could be done to handle these better. If no volunteers wants to invest the, fairly significant, time needed to do this well and automate some of it, then perhaps someone would like to consider a WMF grant proposal? It would be an excellent investment of some grant money. --Fæ (talk) 13:10, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Another one? I am contacted/suggested for a lot of grant lately :D But seriously Fæ as I always say in this type of discussion, if you want to be Batman I can be Robin. Happy to share all my expertise.--Alexmar983 (talk) 05:51, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately this discussion appears to be having no impact on the behaviour of administrators who enjoy using the 'no source' template. This public domain 1912 document was marked for deletion within 7 days by Jcb earlier today: Routebeschrijving Anglo Dutch Reliability Trial 1912.jpg.

Does anyone have any suggestions for how policy or guidelines could change to put an end to this pattern that puts our validly public domain material under threat of deletions? --Fæ (talk) 01:26, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Dunno. We could create a pre-warning template to be used with old files, to be posted in local wikipedia at Wikiprojects. This way they can at least save it locally if it's used, that's how they survive many times. Or they can find the right source, the problem is mainly cultural, we clearly need less procedure and more knowledge of topics in this case. That's also what makes real long-term quality. Also, I would suggest to create some automatic lists with oldest unused files, so maybe they can erase those first, with at least a lower impact.
Also for some cases of "rigid" commons deletion procedures please take a look in m:NonFreeWiki, a proposal to create a new fair-use wiki to host almost all of the non-free content currently hosted on all the other wikis and then stop all local uploads.--Alexmar983 (talk) 06:03, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
"I see deletionist" "In you're dreams?" "....No" "all the time, they're everywhere ... "
The problem is that back there we didn't had the obligation of sourcing the work and some Wikipedias also didn't adopt this policy, and this actual obligation should not be applied in the old files.
We should assume god faith, and see as "free" the old ones without the source (or if the it came from one of those wikis).
A bit of that images spread in internet, and we cannot prove that they are or not the originals... PD it's easier, and if you don't have time to check, you also may not have time to delete it...
So, we should change our posture for those, in a case that someone claim the copyright of some image, then we act, not the opposite, for this particular cases. Probably 90% of those without the template and without source are free.
Deletions like this: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Bowl of Hygieia are comply harmful for the community. As we develop and create a lot, based in some files, than you are discarding contribution based on nothing, you are preventing something that do not happen.
We can create a special disclaimer, explaining that the image is without source, it's unusual, that it is a old file and we could not attest the source, if you help find the source, or contact the volunteer it will be wonderful, however use with careful.
Deleting like crazy, pressing two buttons, will not help the community,
And a small reminder, Commons it's not a repository for other wikis, if are not in use in wikis, this do not matters at all, this a mediatheque for the whole society, Wikipediacentrism let it out of here, pleas.
-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 21:30, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
"ns0" refer in my case to all wikis, so it is more correct to say "wikimediacentrism". wikimediacentrism has a practical role in many cases, not ideological. If these images without source come from local wikipedia, considering the support of those local wikipedias in order to fix the problem when possible is a sensible move. Also, statistically if a file is not used on any wikimedia project after so many years, it is quite often not the best one available anymore, or largely out of scope (and our project have a very large variety of scopes, that's the point). Considering that the core idea is not to delete unused file for sure but to discuss their deletion with order, it is reasonable assumption to organize the sorting of thousands of files according also to this aspect. When you try to minimize the damages, making assumption is a necessary step. If stating principles would solve practical problems, of course things would be much smoother. But does it?--Alexmar983 (talk) 12:38, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
"statistically if a file is not used on any wikimedia project after so many years, it is quite often not the best one available anymore, or largely out of scope": I think that's just wrong. Consider for example Category:Seattle and the Orient, scans I did from a 1900 book. Most of these are not in any other wiki. If I'd done this earlier and been less clear about source (or if the source info had been lost along the way), would you want them deleted? Clearly US, clearly pre-1923. - Jmabel ! talk 15:57, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
statistically what I said it is correct. And no I don't want them deleted. As you can read, I want that in case of many deletion procedures (which are not compulsory per se), their procedure starts before the one of a used file. In the case, I will oppose to the deletion. Because the same overall perspective that tells you to start to revise an unused and old file before the others, suggest you also to look at the category of the files. Because if you accept a file of one source, this assumption is valid also for the unused one of the same source. It wouldn't have any consistency otherwise. I was just starting here with one of the simplest step, the one that if applied statistically reduce the damages more than the other. This reminds me when I listed on itwiki in 2011 orphan articles from 2004-2006 and I said, "please before erasing a newly published article, could you just take a look here?" I was right, a huge percentage above avarage were deleted but noone cared at the time. The most important goal for some users was to prove there was something "rigid", which there wasn't. Not from my side, statistics based on experience are not rigid, they are neutral. BTW it was a strategy proved effective in a lot of quality festivals about articles and files in the following months. Actually it helped reducing the amount of excessive deletions in many areas for a while (I am not a deletionist). Rigid people erase whatever they want in any case, but when focusing on those groups they were busy in areas where there was less stuff worth saving so we had more time to save it when necessary. But there were some inclusivists who were so "rigid" they didn't even get it. they just attacked the concept. --Alexmar983 (talk) 16:52, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Refer to Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#Commons:Deletion_requests.2FFiles_in_Category:Bowl_of_Hygieia. --Fæ (talk) 21:44, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
@Fae: Since you cannot see it... the original content of the file page. for the original file File:Bowl hygeia.jpg, which was deleted in 2009, was "Bowl of Hygeia: The symbol of Pharmacy". That's it....no indication, at all, of where the image came from. The original uploader was active until a year ago (or, ~5 years after the file was deleted) and never modified the file page after the original upload. While in this example, the image is (IMO) probably simply PD as an ancient symbol with no original authorship, many such files indeed have no determinable information, but they should often be considered 'grandfathered'. Reventtalk 03:18, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Years ago I did an analysis on copyviol on itwikipedia. It turned out that we have something like 50000 articles created by IPs or few-edits-users. A sampling of hundreds of them made me discovered that at least 10% were probably copyright violations. So 5000 highly possible copyright violation under our nose (more or less), undetected for years. Nothing happened. Funny thing is, you have these people that jump to the face for a similar sentence (even with a clear source where it comes from is provided) but they don't care at all when this big picture emerges. Even funnier, I collected a list of violations done by "expert" sysops. I never asked for their deletion, it is much more interesting to show to newbies "tortured" for a similar sentence just to "put things in perspective". It's fun, newbies like it very much. But the perspective is that we, on every wikimedia projects, have thousands of violations that are much more risky than other ones. Our main duty should be to find the most critical ones, whilst pushing a button for procedural reason is not solving anything, it's a "shortcut for conscience". If a critical copyright violation emerges, knowing that you spent hours of time to erase some of the pictures described here, IMHO it does not look like if you're smart, at least it does not to a lot a third parties.
BTW, if it were to me with these old files I'd be for the parce sepulto approach. But with a clear grave. There might be in some cases a risk of copyviol above the average, something that didn't emerge mainly because the very same copyright owner didn't care after so many years. We put a warning that does not imply deletion. Just to be clear: this is much more than a lot of local wikipedias are doing to deal with their real dust-covered probable copyviols. If they don't care and are still operational, I think we can survive as well. If we manage to find an efficient way to monitor copyright of all new files, than we can start to clean the attic.--Alexmar983 (talk) 13:09, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
threats of deletion, or automated deletion will not improve the metadata of images. it is not about efficiency, it is about competence. you have people not fit to hold a position of responsibility, telling other people what to do in seven days. and incapable of doing a risk analysis: they are the risk. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 00:02, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
i would say it is about culture, which is more specific and stronger than competence. We have to start to think that when possible if you know nothing about a specific topic or language, you don't start a deletion procedure of a file related to those aspects. The main goal should be learning and sharing information, not doing. But in the meantime an efficiency approach is one of the card to play. At least from my experience with backlogs. Some users just don't want to go to the specific projects or stay focused in a field. they want simpler scheme where they can "push the bottom". They exist, so you try to reduce the negative effects of their approach. There are also positive effects, they can really work hard, but you have to regulate them. Guide the flow.--Alexmar983 (talk) 08:55, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
yes, it is a toxic culture, from a callous disregard for the for the work of others, not seen in competent people, along with a passive acceptance by the majority. it is a dysfunctional process of stripping information, and automatic deletion by box-checking, rather than image curation with research. it is backlog reduction by summary deletion, rather than metadata improvement. this will not change as you see below, but happily, the attention span of the toxic individuals is short, so the semi-professionals can route around the censorship. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 15:58, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
you're nasty! :)--Alexmar983 (talk) 06:35, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposal - a statute of limitations for the precautionary principle

The key issue with the examples of deletions of files which are believed to be public domain but lack a source, is the element of reliability of Wikimedia Commons as a host for reusable images if very old images are going to be deleted on a technicality. I propose a simplistic approach of setting a time limit for deletions on the basis of no source, so that any file which was uploaded before the time limit is by default considered to have no significant doubt as to the release, unless new evidence is presented. In simple terms, if Commons contributors, reusers and the general public have had a large number of years to challenge a file and have not been interested, then the doubt must be considered insignificant unless new evidence is presented. This shifts the burden of evidence from the uploader (who is often absent after several years) to the contributor requesting deletion.

Here's a form of words to consider adding to the Precautionary principle:

  • Files uploaded or transferred to Wikimedia Commons more than 5 years ago declared as public domain but fail to have a verifiable source, default to having no significant doubt as to their public domain status. Any files suspected of being copyright violations that have been hosted longer than this are not eligible for speedy deletion, but must be nominated using the normal deletion request process where the new evidence as to significant doubt must be documented.

--Fæ (talk) 16:18, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

  •  Oppose As a public domain reviewer (Commons:WikiProject Public Domain/PD-Art review) I see quite a few times where people uploaded images as PD, but withouth them actually being PD. As with any other part of COmmons, it is the one who uploads the images that always needs to prove that they do "good". We should not force people questioning authenticity to have to investigate it as well, only those who wants to keep it should. There's a reason PRP exists, and it is the exact opposite of what this proposal is for - to ensure our reusers that we do everything we can to make sure that all content actually is free, and not just "this has been here 5 years,. it may or may not be free, we don't know beause we aren't checking this file due to age". 5 years is not "long ago enough", if such a thing would be introduced. Just my 2c... Josve05a (talk) 16:27, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I think the proposal confuses a few areas and amending COM:PRP is not the place. Instead it seems more that the Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion should be amended. If these files are being deleted based on File #5 "Missing essential information", which normally gives only 7 days grace, then perhaps this (and some other) speed criteria could be amended to say that files on Commons for X years cannot be speedy deleted merely for lacking paperwork. Provided the admin team and others who participate at DR are happy with the consequential increase on their burden, then that might be a reasonable approach. Speedy deletion is always a pragmatic concern to ease the load where files are obviously unsafe and likely merit no further examination. If we had infinite resources then it wouldn't exist and all files would be examined. So policy concerning what should and should not be hosted, such as COM:PRP, are quite separate from procedural steps that we as a community decided to take for pragmatic reasons.
COM:PRP is policy for all deletion, and isn't concerned with speedy/slow. The comment about about "shifts the burden of evidence from the uploader .. to the contributor requesting deletion" is unsafe legally and I think confuses the "evidence" that the file is free with "evidence" of significant doubt. Surely it has always been up to the person creating a DR to explain why there is significant doubt, otherwise the DR is without merit. But the legal burden, to demonstrate the file is free, has always on the uploader (and on any re-user of our content) to satisfy us (or themselves, when re-using) that the content actually is freely available.
Commons is only useful where our medial is reliably determined to actually be free. If unsourced files have been ignored for 5 years, that doesn't say much about our reliability. -- Colin (talk) 17:11, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support there needs to be curbs on the behavior of deletionist admins, since they will not discipline themselves. i am sick and tired of apologizing to GLAMs for their deleted files, which get deleted after 7 days and then undeleted when the otrs gets reviewed, meanwhile disrupting the editathon. let the admins clean up some of the metadata, before deleting any more. make no mistake, the reputation of commons can not get any lower: it is as a "cultural buzzsaw". Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 23:52, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Tangent collapsed
    • How many dead links to university and museum sites does Wikipedia have? At least we have a justification beyond "somebody felt a need to reorganize the website." If the reputation of Commons among such people can not get any lower, then we really don't need to concern ourselves with how they'll react to what we do, since they obviously want nothing to do with us and nothing we can do can make it worse.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
      • Dead links has never been a valid reason to delete files from Commons. This is why we have the very simple license review process (so if links disappear it does not matter to the image copyright status), and if anyone suspects that source links are not permalinks, they should be ensuring that files are marked for license review at the time of upload (it's automatic for many of my mass upload projects) or that they convert links to permalinks or archive links, for example using http://archive.org/web/. Most of our GLAM partners include permalinks schemes for their online image catalogues, so the potential for later dead links can be avoided with a little commonsense. --Fæ (talk) 05:33, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
        • that's right User:Prosfilaes, be as bad as you can be, the professionals do not care and will not engage, rather you will have to deal with interlocutors like me. i'm cleaning up metadata, are you? what are you here for? you have two times edits in deletion discussion than file uploads? really? are you pontificating about your idealistic claptrap again? yawn... mass delete more images in use, see if anyone cares. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 15:38, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
          • The USPS paid for the rights to use the image on Statue of Liberty Forever stamp and was hit with a multimillion dollar lawsuit over it. You can not give a fuck about our reusers, but I'm here to create the world's greatest archive of Free images, so people don't have that problem. The whole fucking point of half of my edits on deletion discussions is so that files don't get indiscriminately deleted.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:38, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
@Slowking4: If you are having a repeated problem with that, you should probably start using (or tell the people you are working with to start using) the {{OTRS pending}} template, so that the files won't be deleted after seven days. You and Prosfilaes also need to both stop the insults. Seriously. Reventtalk 19:00, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
  • You know that we do similar politic for old-scans?
We wait for someone claim the authorship of the file, and until them, we simply keep it.
2 cents. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 22:29, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Category changes in Wizard...

I now realise the changes in how to add categories in the Wizard Upload, and s h i t this is horrible! First I was staring the page trying to find the "add category", it's not intuitive put more than one category in that space, specially when your category have 6 words... Second, I was trying to put a name after to facilitate the search like: Category:Wikimedia Movement|W, and now this do not work! And if you are typing, and for some reason, you remove the attention of the box, the whole sentence disappears!!! o.O

After years, the Upload basics now is better again to put categories, holly mother, tks for the attention, I had to take this off my chest. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 23:11, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

PS:And if the category is a red link, it keep giving a warning blocking the contribution, seriously, I'm back to basic. 23:34, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. I work on this "s h i t", UploadWizard that is, in WMF's Multimedia team. The change you mention happened nearly a year ago (phab:T112764) and so far I think it was mostly appreciated. Let me reply to each point separately:
  • "First I was staring the page trying to find the "add category", it's not intuitive put more than one category in that space, specially when your category have 6 words..." Hmm, this is a fair point. Do you think it would be helpful to add a placeholder text there? (quick mockup: [46] [47]) If not, do you have any other suggestions?
  • "Second, I was trying to put a name after to facilitate the search like: Category:Wikimedia Movement|W, and now this do not work!" I don't think category sortkeys were ever intentionally supported (although they might have worked accidentally), but I was under the impression that they are discouraged for files? Why does the sortkey need to be different from the file name for your file? Commons:Categories only documents using sortkeys for subcategories.
  • "And if you are typing, and for some reason, you remove the attention of the box, the whole sentence disappears!!!" The field only accepts input that is a valid category name, and in that case it definitely does not disappear. It's an unfortunate interaction that "Wikimedia Movement|W" (with the non-working sortkey) is invalid :/ I think this is still more intuitive in the general case than allowing the input to remain, and then be discarded later because it is invalid. I guess another alternative would be displaying an error message.
  • "And if the category is a red link, it keep giving a warning blocking the contribution" It keeps giving a warning, because in most cases adding files to a non-existent category is a mistake. But it does not block the contribution, you just have to click "OK" in the pop-up dialog to confirm you want to do that? I know that some users prefer to upload the files first, and create the category later, and this is definitely supported.
Matma Rex (talk) 19:28, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Matma Rex I was very frustrated about this, however I did not wrote that it is a shit, I wrote that is horrible... ;)
I was looking my recently uploads, none of them used multiple categories, normally because the specificity of them... and I'm more editing already uploaded images, so maybe because of that I didn't felt the changes.
  • The main problem is when we have something like "Projeto Commons da Faculdade Cásper Líbero (JO/2016)" or "Image overwrites by Jan Arkesteijn for independent review", the placeholder solution maybe not gonna work, as it will probably disappear in those cases... Putting "Category or Categories:" could reinforce the idea of plural, or give to lines to write, but I don't know. And this is more for old idiots, as me, that was used to have the "add category" button, I can see this as problem, but not that big and not a general issue, as this is a similar tool used in other websites. One thing that could be implemented is the FB example, you type your friend, he writes it above, as a confirmation, could be good.
  • We discourage, however for maintenance purpose in some cases I had to do it, for example the category "Projeto Commons da Faculdade Cásper Líbero" is the one that I was working. In this case, students are responsible for one monument, and they have to produce 20 photos of them. We can see whole work of single student crossing categories, but is not that easy as we are talking about 170 students, and 20 photos per student. The sortkeys was a solution to agglutinate the files of the students, without using subcategories, because for this case, is not that necessary, and was easier to see the whole thing. This is not a general problem, but I don't see why we can't do it in Wizard...
  • I don't know, but this is like that for how many characters? It's just for | and /?
  • The red link part was the worst one, first I typed and nothing happens, I retyped, and retyped, and them, I cancelled the upload, do all it again, retyped, and them someone call me at FB, I changed the tab, and them it appears... because now you have to remove the attention or press enter to generate the red link.. nothing different from the past version, but it was intuitive, as we removed the mouse clicking in add new category, and we did not realise the system.
Students of this project also had difficulties to create a red link category, it's not intuitive, and we can't obligate every contributor to realise how it work.
To click okay I had to click 3 times to go... I don't remember why, but something prevented the first tentative, them I put one blue link, and tried again... I could press something wrong, however, this is already red, we have a a giant phrase down there (One of the categories lacks a description page. Are you sure you typed the name correctly?), I don't see the necessity to put one more gate, could be good for preventing mistakes, but this deteriorates the experience of contributing here, and we can fix mistakes latter... One more thing, you are assuming that we are making a mistake, you could assume that we are creating something new... One of the categories lacks a description page. You'll create a new one or it's just a mistype? Coming back to the confirmation phrases, we could put one small "new?" in red ones, to grab the attention of the volunteer.
Thanks for your time, and for the contribution, I was rude, I'm sorry for that, but this was a sum of bad experiences in just one moment.-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 22:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
(I will reply to this properly soon, sorry about the delay. I'm just bumping so that the thread doesn't get archived.) Matma Rex (talk) 19:01, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

@Rodrigo.Argenton: I filed T147812 Rethink the behavior of mw.widgets.CategorySelector when invalid title is entered and T147813 Categories field in "Describe" step should have a placeholder to make it clearer that you can input multiple categories about the issues we discussed. I'm not sure whether supporting sort keys in UploadWizard is something we'd want, but perhaps it'll happen as part of T147811 Unify mw.widgets.CategorySelector and ve.ui.MWCategoryWidget (eventually… I don't think this one will be done soon). I honestly don't know what happened with the last problem you reported, as far as I can tell the warnings about non-existent categories work correctly. Feel free to comment on these Phabricator tasks if you have any more comments (and sorry for taking so long to reply that this got archived already). Matma Rex (talk) 20:18, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

September 23

Possible jpeg rendering or import bug

I have noticed a few of my uploads in the past week appearing corrupt in thumbnails and sub-sizes after upload but not at the source nor when viewed at full size. These corruptions do not look like the normal digital corruptions I see from truncated uploads, which would normally have a grey area in the lowest part of the image. Instead these are odd striations, looking more like the failure I would see with a software bug or a faulty camera CCD. The numbers are very low, i.e. down at around 0.1%, however the same problem can be seen when importing jpegs from different sources. Worryingly I don't know of a automatic way of discovering these, though SHA1 comparisons may work, but this would be expensive in bandwidth for large batch uploads. The uploads are done as uploads by urls via the Commons API, rather than the files being downloaded to my local computer.

Examples:

Anyone experienced this in the past week, or is it a known problem? --Fæ (talk) 10:40, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Both images used CMYK color instead of the preferred RGB color. There was a recent post about the same issue, if you convert the pictures to RGB color it resolves the issue. Offnfopt(talk) 10:53, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I've subscribed to Phab:T141739 and added these examples. I'm not going to fix any more of these, I'll leave them broken as the Commons system should be able to cope and even detecting the problem is a bit of a nightmare for batch upload projects. --Fæ (talk) 11:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Grants to improve your project

Greetings! The Project Grants program is currently accepting proposals for funding. There is just over a week left to submit before the October 11 deadline. If you have ideas for software, offline outreach, research, online community organizing, or other projects that enhance the work of Wikimedia volunteers, start your proposal today! Please encourage others who have great ideas to apply as well. Support is available if you want help turning your idea into a grant request.

I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 19:52, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2016/09&oldid=431237089"