This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
While I briefly saw the Chinese-language interface for the Commons I notice "Contact Us" wasn't yet translated. In Simplified Chinese it would be "联系我们" and in Traditional: "聯係我們"
WhisperToMe (talk) 23:10, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
@Astinson (WMF): Please explain: Does wikidata staff want to replace the filedescription pages with some wikidata equivalent? Is that true? Does wikidata staff want to replace the category system with tags? --Steinsplitter (talk) 08:55, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
The page that you linked to explicitly asks for creating subsections on that page, so you might want to ask your questions over there? --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 11:54, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
@AKlapper (WMF): No, i am asking it here so that everyone can rad the answer whiteout searching it on a project related page. Can someone from WMF answer the question now instead of asking me to ask the question again on a other page? :-) Thanks --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:03, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Steinsplitter: As I have said (to you among others) before: The system we are building will augment the file pages. The Commons community can then use it to the extend that they wish to use it. You have seen the first demo system and we'll build this out further together. Back then you had asked for opinions from more Commons people if this is ok and the response was a pretty clear yes for me. As for categories: I don't have the answer yet. I only know that categories as they are have a lot of flaws and we need to find ways to make them better or build a better system together. It is not decided how that will look or work. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 16:34, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
On Commons, it is extremely rare that I need the rollback link on my watchlist or on Special:Contributions pages. Watchlist notices tend to load or collapse exactly when I'm about to click a link, and I've misclicked (luckily my own) multiple times on Special:Contributions. Is there a way to, say with a common.js function, remove that [rollback] link? Storkk (talk) 20:36, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Can you view the HTML for the rollback link and see if it has a "class=" attribute? With both Chrome and Firefox you can right click the link and select inspect. If it does have a class you could do .mw-changeslist .nameofrollbacklinkclass, .mw-contributions-list .nameofrollbacklinkclass { display:none; } on your custom CSS sheet (you can find the link on your Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering page). Just replace "nameofrollbacklinkclass" with the class on the rollback link. I don't have rollback rights so can't quickly see the HTML. If you want you can paste some of the HTML you see around the link here put in <code><nowiki><code></code></nowiki> tags. The links could potentially be encapsulated in a different element that needs to be hidden instead, sometimes a span/p/li/etc element, it varies depending on the HTML. So if you're unsure you can paste some of the HTML. Offnfopt(talk)21:09, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Woohoo... thanks, Offnfopt! Inserting .mw-changeslist .mw-rollback-link, .mw-contributions-list .mw-rollback-link { display:none; } into my Special:Mypage/common.css (so that it affects mobile as well as regular) has produced exactly the behavior I was looking for :) Storkk (talk) 09:47, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
It is unlear for me how "realistically useful for an educational purpose" is applied - it may be easily argued in both directions, after all images of bicycles parkings may be used. But how many different ones from one city will be accepted? 1? 100? 10 000? Unlimited?
In the most extreme case I would upload about 1000 of similar pictures, so I prefer to ask to avoid wasted effort for everybody.
"realistically useful for an educational purpose" or COM:SCOPE are just catch all phrases that can be applied either way at the will or whim of the Admins depending on how they feel that day. Oxyman (talk) 10:15, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
The above cynical statement by Oxyman is unhelpful and I would suggest disregarding it. Someone with a chip on their shoulder rarely gives worthwhile advice. I myself try my best to apply scope in an even and reasonable fashion, as do most other administrators here.
COM:SCOPE/COM:EDUSE are usually pretty broadly defined. There are a lot of factors to consider with the images mentioned above. Quality is important, as is variety. It really comes down to the judgement of you the uploader. If you can put together 1000 images that you feel aren't repetitious, are as high as possible in quality, and give the widest possible coverage of the subject, than Commons will likely benefit from your contributions. We would want to see good coverage of the widest variety of bicycle parkings locations possible, images with good lighting, taken from different angles, and with the idea of educational use in mind. Say you had 100 bicycle parkings locations in Kraków; how many images would reasonable cover the subject? I would figure that 5 or 10 images or maybe a few more of a location would probably suffice. It would probably be hard to come up with more for each location without being repetitious.
As for educational use, many people in Kraków use bicycles daily. It would be valuable to them to know where the nearest parkings locations to their house or work are, or to a pub or coffee shop they might meet friends at, whether the locations provide cover in case of rain, how busy the locations are, how safe the locations look, etc. That you're asking the question here before uploading tells me you're already on the right track and will likely make some valuable contributions on this subject. I patrol 1000s of images per week, and you can tell right away who is giving thought to their uploads and who is just uploading every image on their memory card or device. The three images above look good to me. I would suggest short descriptions giving the location and maybe detailing closeness to important places like universities, courts, theatres, etc, if those places aren't in the images or the street location isn't well-known. lNeverCry10:33, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
If I have a "chip" on my shoulder why would that be? it can only be from experience can't it? anyhow I was not giving any advice either bad or good. The poster inquired how "realistically useful for an educational purpose" is applied, and I informed him, truth is that it does not come down to the "judgement of you the uploader" but the will or whim of the Admins depending on how they feel that day. There is nothing that a barrage of text can do to change that fact. Oxyman (talk) 11:35, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
That's your opinion, not a fact, and it's pure garbage. You didn't get exactly what you wanted at some point, so now you're going to show up to say something negative that didn't help the gentleman above in the least. He asked for advice, not for your poor little me narrative. lNeverCry11:44, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
You're not disregarding my comments then? And no it's not my opinion it't my observation of what happens and hence a fact. What happened in the past is irrelevant to this conversation except as a personal attack disguised as criticism of my behavior, you raised it, not me and that is another fact. As I already said The poster inquired how "realistically useful for an educational purpose" is applied, and I informed him. Your en:ad hominem attacks demonstrate how admins really respond to a disagreement. Oxyman (talk) 11:57, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
You didn't inform him of anything. You gave him your opinion. Even if this was based on how you were treated in the past, it would only signify the treatment of one editor by maybe one or two admins. I gave him meaningful advice, you gave him an unfair and inaccurate generalization based on your own limited experience. Let it go and move on. There's no need to go out of your way to try to set new users against Commons admins. lNeverCry12:39, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
I informed him of how moderators actually behave on this issue, you further demonstrated problems with commons admins with your en:ad hominem attacks and need to get the last word. It appears this is more then my opinion as other users are demonstrating that they know what I am saying. There is a problem here that can't be solved by just blaming me. I hope admins are able to consider other arguments but there is yet to be any evidence of this. potential uploaders should know what happens here and it is reasonable to tell them if they directly ask Oxyman (talk) 11:13, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
@Oxyman: Could you give example of a file, which an admin had nominated for deletion due to COM:SCOPE and 7 days later the same admin deleted it? Or, could you give example of a file, which an admin speedy deleted due to COM:SCOPE? --jdxRe:13:10, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
and when the editor rakes over the coals, then what? best to confirm with the new institution, about the toxic atmosphere here. btw, they are already aware of the "cultural buzzsaw" if you want a stable image repository, go to flickr. we all know "out of scope" is the new "i don't like it". Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge13:29, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
I agree with the spirit of the critical comments, they come from a starting point of concern for the long term maintenance of our collections. Unfortunately if someone with sysop rights makes a personal subjective decision, even many years after images have been uploaded, that they don't feel they have a likely educational purpose then they can claim they are doing a good thing by getting them deleted. I believe that the wider community does have a majority view that images should be kept where there is any subjectivity as to value, even when the educational value may be extremely slim. A good recent example was the mass deletion of portraits uploaded by Tm. These were high quality portraits showing a large variety of types of faces, expressions, ages, hair styles and so forth; in my view many hundreds were easily justified as having potential educational value for illustration or comparative analysis. Unfortunately as our processes only give a week before even mass deletions of thousands of files get removed, it is often only the regulars that have an interest in deletions that comment. Consequently though I noticed the DR, as this was happening in a busy week for me, I never got to express a view. It would be a great improvement if very large mass DRs, or any DR about an image that has been hosted on Commons for several years without issue, were to automatically take a month rather than a week before closure.
I suggest Mateusz Konieczny goes ahead with uploads without worrying too much about how to measure realistic educational value. If you think an upload will be of potential value to reusers, then you not going to be judged for volunteering your time. --Fæ (talk) 13:43, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Reasonable quality photographs of identified places are very unlikely to be considered not in scope, but the actual 'decision' of what is or is not in scope should always come down to the consensus at a DR ('scope' deletions should never be speedy). Usually images deleted as 'not in scope', in my experience, are cases of people trying to use Commons as if it was Flickr, to create personal photo collections of material with absolutely no context. Other than arguments about COM:PENIS type issues (by which I mean, if the image is redundant to all the other 'bad photos' of the same subject), images that give some usable context are not commonly considered as out of scope, and typically any 'plausible' explanation of how the image could be used is accepted. Reventtalk14:11, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
I think the complaint here is that it is subjective and the community has not an agreed definition of scope. There are some people here who would argue for uploading every picture on Facebook if it had the right licence. The mass deletion of "portraits" (or photo booth snapshots of random people, to give them a more accurate description) was a good example. While an individual image of many things, if of high technical quality, detailed description and excellent categorisation, could be considered in scope, the reality is that many low quality images, completely lacking descriptions and a generic category are not going to be "realistically" useful. Just because an image contains a picture of a human being, or was taken at an event, does not mean it is automatically a realistically useful image of a human or of such an event. It is interesting that several have compared Commons to Flickr and yet many of the problems are when people slurp up a Flickr stream simply because it is all freely licensed. -- Colin (talk) 21:04, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Mateusz, scope is very broadly defined. Reasonable quality photos of public places are generally considered to be in scope. So, please go ahead and upload those photos. As mentioned above, photos considered out-of-scope are generally "personal" photos, bad quality photos, or photos of subjects that attract people not really interested in Commons as a repository of educational content (i.e. porn). --Sebari (talk) 05:18, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello. I think there is no use to have both categories. When I discovered the red link, I couldn't remember the correct name of Category:Media with locations. category with maps is no good name, it's confusing and all files there, should be in media with locations. Traumrune (talk) 21:02, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
CIA on UFO
Hi, I didn't see this mentioned here, so just in case someone is interested. The CIA has released documents about UFO, available here: [1]. Some people might want to transcribe these on Wikisource, or any other idea? At least, no copyright issue here. Regards, Yann (talk) 23:29, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
In general Tuválkin is probably right, at least about the surnames, but this is a weird case, because her father was also a Vaz de Carvalho. Normally she would get one surname from her father and a second from her mother (or, with the de, it could be her husband's) but that seems not to be the case here. I'd appreciate hearing from a native speaker of Portuguese as to whether this pattern (first and second surnames both from the father) is at all common. - Jmabel ! talk22:17, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
For given names, I think the categories should be only for individual names, not multiple ones together. Using the example above, I think that person has two given names, not one given name with two parts. I would put that category only under Maria, but wouldn't object to it also being under Amália. I wouldn't like to see us have to have categories for every possible combination of given names, which we appear to be starting. Where given names are hyphenated, such as Category:Anne-Marie Slaughter, I would put them under the hyphenated names (in this case, "Anne-Marie").
The surnames are a different story. There are different ways of handling these.
If Portuguese surnames are determined the same way as Spanish ones, then Maria Amália also has two surnames that I would handle separately and not together. People who use that naming convention sometimes use only one of their legal surnames, which shows that the compound names are not seen as a unit. For example, a former president of the International Olympic Committee was known as Juan Antonio Samaranch, but his full name was Juan Antonio Samaranch y Torelló. His son is Juan Antonio Samaranch Salisachs, taking one surname (Samaranch) from his father and one (Salisachs) from his mother, showing that "Samaranch y Torelló" is not an unbreakable unit, but two separate names used together.
In some cultures/languages, people getting married sometimes add their spouse's surname to their original one. How to handle these depends. Some add the spouse's name and use their original surname as a middle name, considering their surname to be just the new one. These cases should be put under individual surnames. Hillary Rodham Clinton is one of these. Others use both names as a unit, sometimes hyphenating them: these cases could be put under a compound surname.
This all shows that surnames sometimes have to be evaluated carefully for cultural use, personal use, and possibly other considerations.--Auntof6 (talk) 23:03, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
I also suspect that with Maria as a first name it may be trickier than with some others, because at least in the Spanish-speaking world (not so sure about Portuguese) you have names like "Maria Pilar" that are kind of thought of as a single name, sort of like "Jo Ann" in English. - Jmabel ! talk15:31, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
They were deleted on copyright grounds. @Goodmorninghpvn: If you are the copyright holder, and they are not derivative of other works that you don't own the copyright to, please follow the instructions on COM:OTRS. @Oxyman: While I understand you are pissed off at one or more of us for reasons I am neither familiar with nor particularly interested in, repeated injections of random negativity in discussions where your interjections are irrelevant are unhelpful. Storkk (talk) 14:08, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
I'll continue to post relevant comments, what is irrelevant and unhelpful in more ad hominem nonsense such as accusations about weather I am "pissed off" Oxyman (talk) 14:13, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Making incorrect claims (except in the most egregious cases, they almost always require and get DRs rather than being deletable "whenever [admins] want") regarding scope-related deletions in answer to a copyright-related question is not relevant. And if it is not evidence of you being pissed off about something, how should it be read? Storkk (talk) 14:21, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
I made no incorrect claim, DRs can and do just end up in Admins deleting images on their whim without genuine or proper considerations and it's no use being offended that I have observed that the Emperor has no clothes. Admin challenge alert! can an admin respond withoutad hominem nonsense? Oxyman (talk) 14:24, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
@Goodmorninghpvn: laying aside Oxyman's remarks for a moment, and trying to solve this: as Storkk said, see the process at COM:OTRS for what we need. The reason this process is in place is to protect creators of copyrighted works from having just anyone come along and pretend to "release" someone else's rights.
Note that you only need to go through the COM:OTRS process once, not for each image. Just make it clear that the account is yours and that images of your work will be uploaded on this account. Then, once you get an authorization number from OTRS, you can use that same number on all such uploads. - Jmabel ! talk15:36, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello community, I kindly ask for clarification in regards to the following question: Shall anything be done if (old, copyright-expired) photos have been uploaded multiple times, or should I just leave them? I came across this problem while trying to order some categories with lots of old photos, like some ethnography-related categories from Southeast Asia. The following photo (uploaded independently 5 times) would be one example:
Hi D-M. We should not keep exact duplicates, so I've tagged File:Garçon et fillette dayak (Indonésie), vers 1920.jpg as a duplicate of the larger File:Dajak children.jpg using {{Duplicate}}. The others are not exact duplicates and could likely serve different needs. In other cases, for non-exact duplicates, deletion should be requested through a deletion request stating that they are out of scope, being fully superseded by the best version. However "fully superseded" generally means that the existence of the "better" version renders totally useless the "less good" version for pretty much any realistic educational purpose. This is a pretty high bar. I'd personally stick to tagging exact duplicates and nominating very nearly exact duplicates. Storkk (talk) 19:09, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Storkk, thank you for the quick answer! So, I just let them alone for the time being, unless I find unquestionable examples like the one tagged by you. Thanks again. --D-M (talk) 20:05, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
@D-M: it would be helpful to add them to the "|other versions=" fields in the {{Information}} templates, to let people who find one know of others they might prefer. To preserve sanity, if I were doing it, I'd just make sure those that are the "best" as I saw them were so referenced. You might also find {{Superseded}} useful if you find one that is clearly better but not so much better as to render the first useless. I don't think it belongs on any of these, however. Two principles to keep in mind are: a) think of disk space as essentially free and limitless b) strive to make the best easier to find. Storkk (talk) 21:25, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Just my opinion, but I think using a gallery tag works better than the {{Other version}} template. The template doesn't have any specific comments regarding the image being a different version so not getting any benefit from any type of localized message to the viewer. It is limited to a single image, meaning including multiple of the same template for multiple versions which can get a bit messy. With the template it will stack the images vertically, with the gallery it is configurable, goes horizontal and vertical which saves screen space. The template seems a bit unnecessary to me, a template including a template just to put a single image in a table versus using the gallery a built-in feature. Offnfopt(talk)22:54, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Storkk, Offnfopt, I've tried it with the gallery-feature, and I think it works fine (see any of the above images to see the result). I will attempt to cross-link other versions with this feature whenever I come across them, I think that is a veryo useful function for this problem.--D-M (talk) 23:38, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Please note that there are two separate templates meant to be used to fill the "|other versions=" fields in the {{Information}} templates: {{Otherversion}} and {{Other}} (maybe they should be merged?). They both allow for comments to be added to each presented thumbnail. -- Tuválkin✉✇12:07, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Apart from filling the "|other versions=" fields in the {{Information}} templates, some of these photos of which we keep several versions of, usually “famous”, historical photos, might benefit to be categorized together, as in Category:Guerrillero Heroico (this is routinely done for many paintings). -- Tuválkin✉✇12:07, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Pebble smartwatch app for finding nearby unillustrated Wikipedia articles
I recently made a tool that is probably of interest to Commonists who have a Pebble watch: Diderot, a watchface that shows you the nearest unillustrated Wikipedia article. I've been using it for about a month and a half, and it's been a lot of fun; I took a lot of photographs of places that didn't have photos. It uses a wmflabs tool that filters out articles that have only png or svg, so you can find articles that have a map or logo but not photograph.--ragesoss (talk) 22:04, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
The problem is caused because of a compatibility issue with the images using CMYK colorspace and the software used by the wiki to generate thumbnails. Currently what needs to happen to resolve the issue is convert the images to use the standard RGB colorspace. I went head and converted both images to use the RGB colorspace. Offnfopt(talk)01:50, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
I uploaded another revision to the images. The first was converted to RGB using photoshop. The second and current version was converted just by opening the image with irfanview and resaving as JPEG with highest quality setting, which saves as RGB. I also did a test converting to RGB using imageMagick but the result ends up with a green tint. You may be able to convert using GIMP, so you may want to give that a try also. Feel free to revert the images if you like the first conversion better. Offnfopt(talk)02:35, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
A visitor at English Wikipedia Vending machine clicks "Commons media". He arrives at Vending machine. He thinks "Okay. Those are all the images of vending machines Commons has." He does not notice the "Category (+): Vending machines" at the bottom. Maybe he notices it, but does not understand that clicking it will lead to hundreds of other vending machine images. After all, it does say "Category (+): Vending machines". Why would he?
He closes the page. Bye bye.
Comment:
If that scenario is experienced by even 10% of people who click the commons link from Wikipedia, it is too high. I suspect that number is 90%+. Don't believe me? Get your kids, friends, or significant others over to the computer. Show them the Wikipedia vending machine page and point out the Commons link. Ask them to find the images. I did. All of them arrived at the gallery and said "There you go." I even said "Is that it?" They all said "Yes." Try it. You can even point to the "Category (+): Vending machines" in the end and say "Look!" They will respond "Yes. I see it. It is telling us what is on this page. What is your point?"
I never quite liked the idea of galleries. But, when they serve as an outdated dead end, they really seem like a net negative.
Agree, when a gallery corresponds to a category, making a link to the corresponding category more visible on the gallery pages would be useful. - Jmabel ! talk23:32, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
It would be easy enough to make a more prominent template if desired. w:Museum links in the sidebar to the category, not the gallery, so it seems the issue can be avoided anyway. --ghouston (talk) 02:01, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Well, not really. The link at the bottom of the Vending machine article arrives at the Vending machine gallery via the search function on Commons. You get the same result if you enter "Vending machine" directly into the search box, so it's not easily avoided without changing how search works. --ghouston (talk) 02:12, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
The category link in the sidebar comes from the Commons category property in the Wikidata item. It's nice, but it's not as visible as the link at the bottom. Also, I don't know if that property is assigned everywhere that it could be. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:46, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Agree I agree about galleries not being as useful as categories. That's why I sometimes change the templates in Wikipedia articles to the ones that point to categories. If there's a fairly conspicuous way to let a gallery viewer know more media is just a click away, that can only be good. I wonder if there's a way to do that without editing every gallery page. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:46, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Another reason that galleries get created is that people want to link Wikipedia articles to Commons stuff in Wikidata, and there's a policy to link categories to categories, and galleries to articles. I think some galleries got created just so those links could be made. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:17, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
I think the best policy now is to go ahead and link categories in Commons with main Wikidata items. It gives the best results, and people seem to have given up complaining about it on Wikidata. --ghouston (talk) 23:18, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, but which kind of link do you mean? You can link a Commons category to a non-category Wikidata item using the Commons category statement; that makes a link in the sidebar of the Wikipedia articles, and I don't think anyone ever complained about that because that's its purpose. You can also link a Commons page (gallery or category) in a Wikidata item of either type under "Other sites"; I don't think that appears in Wikipedia, but this is the one that got the complaints. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:50, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
It's the site links that I meant. The software is set up for those, you just click on "Edit links" and link it. Then you get the language links and the Wikidata link in the sidebar and a Commons link in the sidebar of the wikipedias. If it fails because a gallery already has a site link, then I use {{Interwiki from wikidata}} instead. --ghouston (talk) 22:27, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
I agree, too. I’d say that most “galleries” (pages) are garbage, mostly contentless, or containing unmantained and obsolete haphazard galleries, often created long ago as a clone of the wp:en article (or as a draft for it, or even as a “safe haven” for stuff deleted in wp:en as OR). We’d do a great favour to Commons by deleting them all. The undue focus they get for being in the main name space (which is anything by “main” in Commons, unlike in Wikipedias) and due to the ass-backwards way Wikidata links Commons to Wikipedias makes this not a mere annoyance (like, say, the presence of a fat million or two of off scope files) but, as explained above (thanks, Anna!), a serious obstacle to the useability of Commons. -- Tuválkin✉✇09:20, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
What do you propose to do with pages like Seattle and the Orient, into which I put painstaking effort? Categories will never substitute for that. Similarly, Seattle seems very useful, digging deep down into subcategories for a good, rounded view, whereas Category:Seattle is almost a metacat. - Jmabel ! talk15:56, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
I guess there'd be no consensus to delete these galleries. I think we should investigate if the search engine could be modified so that galleries are either excluded from the default results or somehow ordered below everything else. --ghouston (talk) 23:22, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Or at least don't come up as a default result: e.g., searching for "London" opens the London gallery right away, and you get no chance to pick anything else. --ghouston (talk) 23:24, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Jmabel, apologies for the late reply: Concerning Wikimedia Commons pages/galleries/articles which are not garbage (and thanks for those two interesting examples), in most cases their contents should be (i.m.h.o.) either moved to the respective Wikipedia (the English one, in most cases) or to the synonym category — even when, or especially when, that category is a {{metacat}}, {{catcat}}, or subject to {{Categorise}}). Note that many such categories include much more than a terse two-line description of their contents, but rather a more or less sophisticated interface for the user to navigate in their subcat tree — there is even a special category for them. This is a radical solution, which would allow to fully kill off the “article” namespace in Wikimedia Commons. Alternatively, and less radically, to your question of what I propose I can only say: Let’s delete the garbage and keep the good stuff — but that’s what we do as par for the course, no need to discuss a new approach to get rid of the extraordinarily high noise-to-signal ratio in the main namespace — just need to work harder on it. -- Tuválkin✉✇12:26, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Unfortunately, en-wiki doesn't welcome stuff like these (after all, they aren't encyclopedia articles) so that's not an option. And it seems to me that something like the content of Seattle would terribly clog the category page. The problem, to put it simply, is that most galleries people have created here are crap. A good gallery takes almost as much work as a Wikipedia article, but most people try to knock them off in 30 minutes. By the way, here's another example of one I did that I'm very proud of Romanian Orthodox churches in Bucharest. I've already found it of enormous value myself in identifying what church someone had photographed when they uploaded an under-described picture of a Romanian Orthodox church in Bucharest - Jmabel ! talk17:35, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Aside from the fine idea (so: I agree, as well) and pointing to the already existing template {{Maincat}} (where you can find an example with additional use of {{Cat see also}}):
There must be an issue with Wikidata. For me pinging doesn’t work in the moment, so it would be kind, if someone of you, for whom it works, would do a {{ping|Lydia Pintscher (WMDE)}}, the Wikidata product manager. What’s the issue? I noticed this one recently while working on a file: We have here a gallery/page Paul Fürst and the cat Category:Paul Fürst; from page in dewiki, which is de:Paul Fürst (Kunsthändler), you will be on the left side linked to the page, not the cat, exactly like in Anna’s case above. Take also a look on the Wikidata entry for Paul Fürst d:Q2059687; there is both the Commons category property (P373, not surprisingly named as “Commons category”) and the link to the gallery page (in “Other Websites”). But from de:Potsdam (I accidently knew it, because this is my home town) and as I see now also from en:Potsdam the left side link goes to the cat Category:Potsdam, though also the gallery Potsdam exists here. Now looking on the Wikidata entry d:Q1711 you again will find the Commons cat property and the gallery link in “Other Websites”.
I added a "Commons gallery (P935)" property to the Wikidata item, then null-edited the German article. It's strange that that would help actually. --ghouston (talk) 00:36, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Oh, interesting. BTW you didn't mention, that the edits were for Paul Fürst. Yes, this property has already existed in Potsdam’s Wikidata page. But for me this is odd and I think, it would still be useful to ping Lydia, as I asked earlier. — Speravir_Talk– 00:59, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
I suggest we create a new version of {{Maincat}}, call it {{Maincat header}} or something. It would be like Maincat, but will take only a single category as an argument, and say something like "This gallery contains selected items from Category:Foo and perhaps its subcategories.". It can be formatted as a box, given translations to other languages and added manually to galleries as required. --ghouston (talk) 22:39, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Magog the Ogre Many files are discussed there so I'm not sure which file(s) you think need a DR. Disputed areas on a map are always a tricky subject, one side may claim a area is theirs while the other side claims it is theirs. Control of that area may flip flop between different groups. I don't think a DR is needed, it takes a lot more work to start a map from scratch than to work from a existing map and update it. Regarding the changes made to a map, best to have some type of reference to the changes being made, same way you would do for making changes on a wikipedia article. If you're making a change you should have some type of reference to back up your change, same goes for people reverting changes to a map, they should have a reference to back up their claim to revert the changes to the map. So I think best way to resolve this is to have both sides provide their evidence on why a change should or shouldn't happen. This in addition to the information provided on the Commons:Dispute resolution link posted by Pokéfan95. Offnfopt(talk)02:57, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
On Commons, we can easily have multiple versions of the same map. Usually two people shouldn't be fighting it out over one map (except perhaps where that map claims to represent the view presented in some particular source), they should simply each upload their version. - Jmabel ! talk17:38, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
I just found out Category:Bad file names. Is this a thing? I mean, we have detailed guidelines for naming and renaming of files, and one idea that comes out of reading them is that filenames are important and should not be chosen (anew), nor modified, at whim. And that’s exactly what this category and its subcats seem to aim for, and eitherway what it enables via simple categorization. Please note also that this cat (and check its file history, too) is not a regular maintanance category (or tree of subcats) with its contents transcluded from a renaming request (heck, it even lacks the __HIDDENCAT__ magic word!), but a regular category anyone can browse and transclude files to. I suggest that this category and its subcats be, at least, reëvaluated, with sheer deletion as a possible outcome of the discussion. -- Tuválkin✉✇12:44, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Sebari, concerning the possibility that several, even many, of the affected filenames might be subject to COM:FR — and also concerning that that’s not the matter in discussion here: Transforming the main of these cats into a redirect to the proper mantainance category and deleting the subcats seems to be the cleanest approach. (And thanks for reminding me of Category:Media requiring renaming, Sebari — I knew it existed by was too lazy to look it up.) -- Tuválkin✉✇14:33, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
I moved all the sub cats and added the move template. I do not want to move around 7000 files per hand - not even using cat-a-lot. --Sebari (talk) 23:16, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Slowking4
Clear license violations can be speedily deleted and do not require seven days' discussion. As you yourself pointed out in the DR that you yourself requested, the fact that these were license violations has been established, at the link that you kindly provided. No snark intended, but how does granting an early courtesy deletion of items that should clearly be deleted for license reasons anyway reflect poorly on commons? Storkk (talk) 20:41, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
OK - struck. I must admit that assuming good faith on your part, I really cannot understand your complaint, so perhaps I should butt out. Storkk (talk) 20:50, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't see any problem either, you're the uploader and made request to delete the files because the files are NC licensed which aren't allowed to be hosted on commons. There is no reason for 7 day discussion, the uploader doesn't need time to respond since you're the uploader that made the DR request and 7 days won't change the fact that the files are NC licensed, no reason to wait to delete the files. Offnfopt(talk)21:26, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Do you think that would be a good way for mapping communities in Wikimedia to go forward?
Wikimaps activities have been focusing on historical mapping, but the user group would be made for all mapping related activities. The goal is that people with many different ideas for using the geographic component in their projects would come together, share their expertise and help each other forward.
The user group would give the community an affiliate status within the Wikimedia movement, while still keeping the group organic and without organizational structures.
If you think you can endorse or join, please visit the page and leave your mark!
Just my opinion, but I don't see the reasoning behind needing a grant for a map usergroup. If the reason is having a common place for the group separate from a language specific wiki, you can create a workgroup page on commons and get a group going now. You make brief mention of the "Wiki Loves Maps" event, but you don't specifically say you want to organize that event and if that is what you're proposing, that should be a grant of its own with detailed requirements of funds needed for the event. You have a grant proposal but you're not listing the amount of funds you need and what they'll be used for. I don't see how I could endorse this without more details and reasoning behind the need for a grant. Offnfopt(talk)08:49, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments! I would like to clarify, that this is not a grant proposal, it is a proposal for collaboration. I am happy to be using the IdeaLab space since it is also made for incubating ideas, and it seems to work well for that. --Susanna Ånäs (Susannaanas) (talk) 12:29, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Polish speaker needed
Would someone who reads and writes Polish please take on some cleanup around Category:Blizna and Category:Blizna (województwo podkarpackie)? I think the intent is that the former is a river and the latter is a community, but if so the content of the categories makes little sense, and I suspect that for several of these images the poor categorization goes beyond these two categories in particular. Thanks in advance. - Jmabel ! talk05:38, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
@Jmabel: Yes, the first one refers to a river in north-eastern Poland and the second one to a village in south-eastern Poland. During WWII there was a missile testing ground in the village, now there is a kind of a museum (pl. Park Historyczny Blizna – en. Historical Park Blizna) and that's why these categories contain photos of military equipment. I'll remove from Category:Blizna photos which don't belong there. --jdxRe:09:13, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
See discussion in May 2016 archive. Commons manages well using alphabetic order and for the few uploads that benefit from numerically sorted names, we should be using leading zeros or use the sort key. There are plenty of examples, the most recent of mine is Gujin_Tushu_Jicheng. --Fæ (talk) 07:46, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
I think it is fair to say the only person who opposed the suggested change by User:Johan (WMF) is Fae. The rest of the community went "meh". So if you don't agree, your opinion is valid and would be welcome to start a discussion to gain consensus for change. Requiring users to prefix numbers with 0 like 01 or 0001 so they sort properly is silly, and only something computer hackers would accept. Having 11 sort before 2 just makes us look incompetent. -- Colin (talk) 09:37, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Ok, then a short explanation: I just didn't understand the opposition or why is this change (fixing a bug) is opt in, not opt out at all. I think that there is no disadvantage of the change but has a big advantage: the (numerical) sorting in categories would be correct without any hack or additional effort. (For example, if I would like to show pictures of an event using the slideshow feature, the time order is wrong now without leading zeros or sort keys.) If I forgot to use leading zeros, I shouldn't rename the files according to the policy. The only way to solve the problem (which would not exist after the bug fix) using sort keys for every pictures and for every categories. I can do this easily using my bot, but I am wondering why is this solution better than doing nothing and enjoy that the software works. Samat (talk) 21:15, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Indeed. Computer users/programmers only learned to put leading zeros in as a work-around for inadequate software. Can you imagine if someone said the system only sorts names correctly if they are the same length and I had to write __Colin so that it sorted before Richard. It's no longer the 1970s and we can expect better. I agree that WMF should just have fixed it unless it causes a bigger bug. Slideshows working correctly has to be a good reason. -- Colin (talk) 21:49, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
People like me who work mostly on categorization are “pleased” to know we’re not real editors. (Also: What’s wrong with your caps key?) -- Tuválkin✉✇03:41, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
If I had noticed that discussion back then I would’t have went meh. For me, alpha sorthing as exemplified is not a hack nor a software bug, is how text strings should be sorted. But I can understand how other people may think otherwise and have different needs. What I’d like to see is the behaviour of category keys and sorting taylored in one’s preferences: Turning on and off keys for files and subcats, and chosing numerical vs. string sorting in cat pages — is that even possible? -- Tuválkin✉✇03:41, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
@Tuvalkin: thank you for sharing your thoughts. I am afraid this switch is not possible currently: the sorting has to be string or numerical sorting. But this is an interesting idea, maybe it is worth to mention for the developers (at Phabricator). Samat (talk) 22:26, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
There are requests for both of these on Phabricator, I think (the use cases, I recall, are Chinese-language wikis needing multiple sort orders per category because there are multiple valid orderings of Chinese characters, and Wiktionaries needing different default sort orders in each category because they have categories with content in different languages). I could dig them up probably. It was not progressing because it would require a big schema change (right now the database tables have only one field for the sortkey per category entry) and there's quite a backlog of those built before WMF hired a real DBA, now slowly being reduced. Matma Rex (talk) 23:18, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
I'd also like to add that this is not just about numerical sorting, there is also the option of using the UCA sorting algorithm. This sorts non-ascii characters in a much more sane order (e.g. é gets sorted like e instead of after z, etc [The actual rules are more complicated]). My personal opinion is that ultimately categories are not a collection of "strings" of binary data, but human-language content, and should be sorted using human language conventions. Bawolff (talk) 17:28, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from November 8th. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from November 9th. It will be on all wikis from November 10th (calendar).
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 8 November 2016 at 20:00 (UTC). See how to join.
You can join the next meeting with the Architecture committee. The topics this week are Image Thumbnail API and allow SVG files uploaded on MediaWiki to have XHTML namespaces. The meeting will be on 9 November at 21:00 (UTC). See how to join.
Future changes
RevisionSlider will be enabled by default on all beta wikis, on testwiki, testwiki2, mediawikiwiki and de.wikipedia.org. [7][8][9]
No local knowledge, and I'm not sure how well this will copy and paste, but FWIW Google thinks they are distinct, with Split Archaeological Museum being at Zrinjsko-Frankopanska 25, while Museum of Croatian Archaeological Monuments is at Šetalište Ivana Meštrovića 18. Storkk (talk) 12:40, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Looking for small tasks and mentors for Google Code-in - Got something in mind?
Hi everybody! Google Code-in (GCI) will soon take place again - a seven week long contest for 13-17 year old students to contribute to free software projects. Tasks should take an experienced contributed about two-three hours and can be of the categories Code, Documentation/Training, Outreach/Research, Quality Assurance, and User Interface/Design. Do you have an idea for a task and could you imagine mentoring that task? For example, do you have something on mind that needs documentation, research, some gadget or template issues on your "To do" list but you never had the time, and can imagine enjoying mentoring such a task to help a new contributor? If yes, please check out mw:Google Code-in 2016 and become a mentor! Thanks in advance! --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 14:44, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
I think its very unlikely the sequence software will be brought back. If we need a feature like that, we would probably start over from scratch. 24.37.135.25017:19, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
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
Now you can include Commons video films with subtitles in your wiki language. Before you could see translated videos on file page at Commons only. [10]
The visual editor is now available on all wikis using only one language script. [12]
Changes this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from November 1st. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from November 2nd. It will be on all wikis from November 3rd (calendar).
Now you can use autocomplete for page names in "Preview page with this template" field when editing templates. [13]
@Trizek (WMF): can you please sign your posts? It is customary for all posts on Commons to be signed. There is no special exception for posts from WMF groups. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 08:02, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello Fæ - That's a newsletter not a post. Most newsletters are not signed, unless if they have been made by one person. I've checked on archives and none of Tech News issues I've seen have been signed in the conventional way. However, there is a kind of signature: " Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot" and a timestamp at the end of that newsletter. It is possible to contact the sender by checking the code if there is any problem (I guess you did), or follow the link in the newsletter's footer to see the newsletter history. I don't think it would be relevant sign; the messenger is far less important that writers or the message itself. Trizek (WMF) (talk) 11:38, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Could you point to where the Wikimedia Commons community agreed to this convention distinguishing "newsletters" to Village pumps have a special exception from being signed? As far as I am aware all bot operators are wholly responsible for the actions of the bot they operate, including messenger bots. Linking to a diffuse group of people is not taking responsibility for your actions. Let me know if we must have a vote of the community just for this, rather than you choosing to sign your posts. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 20:34, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Please do not turn a request that posts to the village pump are correctly signed, into unjustifiable allegations of hatred. If you can provide links to an existing consensus then do so. --Fæ (talk) 15:26, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
I am genuinely wondering whether you hate this news, as after all I am the one who subscribed this page to them [16] (previously they were only posted to Commons:User scripts/tech news, which no one reads). So far I have been under the impression that there is consensus that folks here appreciate them, and so far you've been the only person finding reasons to dislike it (the last time we discussed it was Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2016/02#Tech_News:_2016-07). The news are signed with a timestamp, allowing archiving bots to function correctly. They are not signed with a username because they are authored by more than one person and posted by a bot. Do you think it would be useful if User:MediaWiki message delivery signed its posts? Matma Rex (talk) 17:11, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
(By the way, it feels dishonest to me to begin by implying that the authors of these news feel that they deserve a special exception for them as WMF – and I'll note that some of them do it as volunteers [17]. This is not how you start honest discussions, this is how you start if you want to tar and feather someone.) Matma Rex (talk) 17:12, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The assumptions of bad faith made above are rediculous and deeply unpleasent, especially from a WMF employee/contractor. My opening sentence was "can you please sign your posts?", clearly not hateful words, nor an attempt to tar and feather anyone.
No I do not think it useful if a bot were to fake-sign these. The bot operator is always responsible for the actions of the bot. The group of people making a newsletter are not the individual that posts it. If there is any issue with a post then a signature provides a real person to raise questions with, not a bot, not a project page on some other wiki.
For the sake of clarity, and to return this thread to the issue rather than tangents of unfounded ad hominem accusations, the statement was "Can you please sign your posts? It is customary for all posts on Commons to be signed. There is no special exception for posts from WMF groups." --Fæ (talk) 17:21, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes. Obviously I have not done that here, however WMF employees seem determined to make repeated presumptions of bad faith to make my question go away. It seems a lot easier for them to address the question, odd that is not happening. --Fæ (talk) 17:21, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Fæ: There are several reasons newsletters are not signed. Some of them have been pointed out above. a) It's written by several persons. b) It's posted by bot, so signing it the normal way would lead to the message being signed by the MediaWiki message delivery bot, which wouldn't be very helpful – it's already saying so at the bottom of the newsletter. To avoid this, you could sign it with a signature in the MassMessage window, but c) that would irritate readers on right-to-left wikis (it's typically translated into Arabic and Hebrew) instead. One could hypothetically work it into the newsletter before translation, but d) we don't always know who'll deliver it when it goes out to the translators (it's normally but not always me) and e) it'd create extra work for the translators even if we could get it to work. We've updated the link at the bottom of the newsletter to make it more clear how to find the writers from the last issue. I hope this makes it clear that we're not ignoring it out of spite or just can't be bothered, but are trying to find the best compromise, with readers and translators in mind. /Johan (WMF) (talk) 08:22, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Wikidrone Photo Challenge - Aerial Photography
Irwindale SpeedwayWikiDrone Photo ChallangeDji Inspire 1 Professional Unit
Hello All. My name is Don and you might know me as WPPilot or D Ramey Logan, my aerial photos from around the world are all over the many Wikipedia projects. I have been a pilot and a photographer for many years, and I reach out to you requesting support for a WikiDrone Photo Challenge I have spent a lot of time in this space and the site needs to encourage more as the millions of drone users are going unpublished due in part of knot knowing the photos are allowed here, but not legal for any commercial sale, so the Creative Commons structure gets them published and keeps it legal. Not only is this a perfect fit, we can give them a place for advice, these drones use the same systems as all cameras. It is a double win. Please support the Challenge and ping me if you have any questions or concerns. Remember 800,000 drones will be sold this year, we have about 10 people that contribute with them here including myself so it is a educational process that needs to take place as well to get them to come. Vote YES on the WikiDrone Photo Challenge thank you very much..... ;) --WPPilot (talk) 06:32, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Good initiative! Can you explain the point on "not legal for any commercial sale" of drone photos. Photos on Commons should be reusable, also for commercial purposes. Do these two things bite each other or does it not concern commercial reuse? Basvb (talk) 20:31, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Basvb, that is a good question, please allow me to explain. I am not a lawyer but have some insight in this area. You can not directly charge for the work. I.E. Fly Drone for pay unless you are certified as a drone pilot is ok: FAA has developed regulations to allow the operation of small unmanned aircraft systems FAA part 107 UAV's pilot's. But the foundational issue here is that the FAA allows use of Drone for Hobby Flights. Editing on Wikipedia is a Hobby not something people do for pay/income etc. Donating the photo under any of the creative commons licenses removes the ability to charge for the service of taking it, but your now open to print it on a mug, and sell that mug on e bay as the exclusive rights were removed by the donation of the photo here to commons. LMK if you have more questions then answers.. Thanks. --WPPilot (talk) 21:19, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't see how releasing images under a free license has anything to do with hobbies vs. professional. Many professional release some of their images under a free license. In the opposite, many amateur photographers never release any images under a free license, but they are still amateurs. These two concepts are unrelated. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:11, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Yann, I think the point is that although our CC licences permit commercial use, they permit that use with requiring a fee to the photographer, so the photographer is still not "taking photos commercially", even if the photo ends up being used commercially. -- Colin (talk) 14:07, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
I am also a drone owner and freelancer and in the Netherlands there is also that special rule that you are only allowed to use the drone non-commercial without a flight license. I also use releasing by Creative Commons as a proof that I have no commercial win. The drone itself is owned by my company and I lend it to myself and when I release those pictures under CC I can proof that I am not making money. So yes, I see this win-win legal- and taxwise when drone owners publish under Creative Commons. Of course this is a strange situation and the EU is working on other rules --Hannolans (talk) 10:21, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Hannolansis correct and this is true in many countries now. During my last trip to France we discovered the same set of laws. I am talking directly with the FAA, so I have a direct connection to the industry being a pilot for over 30 years, and a aviation producer so I am willing to do some coaching of select drone pilots and offer them a path to becoming a commercial drone pilot. In the US we have 2 sets of laws that are applicable to Drone Users. Part 333 was first passed top allow pilots like myself to become drone pilots and it’s not that much work. To become a "commercial" or licensed drone pilot is a totally different process for non-pilots. Obtaining collective insight from others as is often done here is the PERFECT way for these new users to get feedback from others in a global location and it gives them the chance to have their worked published during the training process. You’re required to have at least 50 hours of training before you can apply for commercial certification. I hold a FAA Airplane pilot license as well as a part 107 UAV operator and a section 333 exemption so its safe to say that I have a LOT of experience here and am willing to share it with others to assist them in becoming a commercial UAV pilot one day too... I am going to make a video today, transcode it to OGG and upload it to aid in this programs proposal..... --WPPilot (talk) 18:38, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Related, a month or so ago, the supreme court of Sweden (The Supreme Administrative Court) ruled that drone photogrpahy is classified the same as illegal surveillance, and thereby illegal now in Sweden. So, I'm not sure about such image's copyright status. If a vandal make graffiti on a wall, it may or may not (depending on country etc.) be protected due to it being created as a crime, the same might apply or drone photography (in Sweden)... (t) Josve05a (c)22:53, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Coats of arms of cities of Indonesia needing source
Greetings all: I have found a small project for someone who might be interested. In "no source" we have a whole pile of Indonesian logos for cities and states. I've made a holding category Category:Coats of arms of cities of Indonesia needing source in the hope of encouraging someone to look for sources for these heavily used files. Thanking folks in advance for helping out! Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:02, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
November 11
Question about licensing
I cropped this picture and want to upload, but I can not understand what permission should be put.
It's certainly simplest if you are willing to just stick with {{Attribution}} indicating attribution to the original photographer, since that's the licensing on the original. Do you feel a need to be credited for your crop? If so, then I guess you can offer any of the above, as long as the attribution you require includes a mention of the original photographer. - Jmabel ! talk04:46, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
I edited the file and went to upload only to realize the file is protected, logs show upload=sysop, so a admin will have to update or unprotect the file. Offnfopt(talk)02:09, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
On the Hungarian Wikipedia, it can be somehow seen (maybe they somehow manage to automatically show Commons images, as the long name does not appear), and on the Russian wikipedia, the long name did not cause a problem. On the Romanian and Turkish wikipedias, the image cannot be seen, at least when checked from my computer. I think this is a problem that should be solved. When/if we do the name change, I plan to update the Wikidata entry, and at least the relevant Romanian and Turkish Wikipedia main articles to reflect the change. Should we go and do the move? --Bulgu (talk) 21:27, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
@Koavf: . Thanks. I made the move request with criterion #2 (new filename: Nicole Courcel Dömös 1957.jpg). I think it waits to be approved. --Bulgu (talk) 21:51, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
November 13
What was decided about contributing non commercial photos?
Are you accepting them or are you still rejecting them?
We are having a problem with attackers taking over wiki accounts with privileged user rights (for example, admins, bureaucrats, oversighters, checkusers). It appears that this may be because of weak or reused passwords.
Community members are working along with members of multiple teams at the Wikimedia Foundation to address this issue.
In the meantime, we ask that everyone takes a look at the passwords they have chosen for their wiki accounts. If you know that you've chosen a weak password, or if you've chosen a password that you are using somewhere else, please change those passwords.
I've made a edit to the template so it no longer adds the users to the default category. Vipingsnair recently made changes to the template so it uses the {{UsersSpeak}} template, but did not set the second parameter properly so it defaulted to that category. The relevant code from {{UsersSpeak}} is listed in the below switch statement:
The template expects the second parameter to have a value of N or 0-5, any other value will cause the default category to be assigned. Offnfopt(talk)03:37, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
@Offnfopt: Thanks. It looks like it's still putting stray stuff on the page, although different stray stuff. Take a look at User:Jigesh again: to the right of the user box, it shows the code for adding categories, as though the code were inside nowiki markup. Can you look at it again to see what's causing that? --Auntof6 (talk) 04:12, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
@Auntof6: I don't have any more time to look into it right now. None of the other ML userbox templates were updated so to keep the templates consistent I went ahead and reverted the changes by Vipingsnair which solves the issue you're seeing and keeps the ML templates consistent with each other. Offnfopt(talk)04:30, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
360 Video
I have uploaded a 360 degree video that was shot with the new Nikon 360 camera to commons in ogg format and released to the public domain. While I am still learning to use it, this is a fantastic tool that from what I can find has no open source support for a 360 degree player and I would like to reach out to the programmers that create some of the great tools here to consider creating a viewer that will allow the video to be viewed, in 3D:
3D Video of a short flight in Newport and Laguna
. I released all rights on this upload to allow its use in any manner seen fit.
It is interesting to note that the Category:3D videos only has 5 videos in it, including mine. The one I have loaded is a flight in the back seat that I stabilized with bungee cord off the boat and it worked well but I have yet to view it in 3D. With Nikons release of this camera we are going to see more of these types of videos and should be able to accommodate them as you see in this example here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olxpf6qqnuo using the same camera. I have even uploaded the video to You Tube and am unable to get the 360 feature to work. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Cheers ~ --WPPilot (talk) 18:59, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
I have created a ticket phab:T150624 to track this request. For Youtube, you need to look into this help, which suggests you need to set a special flag in the file for Youtubte to be able to recognize the file as 360 degree video. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 22:22, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
I have tried using the meta data tool suggested in this help, and this is the result: HERE it does 2 things nither of them are what I am looking for. In IE is looks the same as the other upload and in Chrome is stereoscopic or well seems to be I need to find my 3D glasses to see?? --WPPilot (talk) 00:04, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Jarekt I saw this example GLASHÜTTE LAMBERTS - glasstec Düsseldorf 2012 (3D Imagefilm) LambertsGlas Waldsassen Oberpfalz.webm and was unaware of the Category:360 panoramic videos. Thank you for pointing that out. In so far as the 360 panoramics photographs and video, this is a brand new camera from Nikon, so perhaps that will enable a more normalized format to evolve. --WPPilot (talk) 19:46, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
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
When you edit with the visual editor you can use meta + shift + k to add a reference. The meta key is often the control key or command key. [18]
Changes this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from November 15. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from November 16. It will be on all wikis from November 17 (calendar).
In Special:Preferences you can choose which language menus and buttons will be in. If there is no translation for that language, MediaWiki has a list of fallback languages. A fallback language is a language many will understand better than English. MediaWiki will now use English when there is no Ukrainian translation. [19]
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 15 November at 19:00 (UTC). See how to join.
You can now search for file properties such as file size and and file type
on Commons. This includes file media type, MIME type, size, width, height,
resolution, and bit depth.
Hello all! I come across this photo on flickr. It is a photo of the USS Ohio by the US Pacific Fleet. To my understanding, since it is a work by a member of the US Navy , it should be in the public domain. However, it is license as CC-BY-NC 2.0 on flickr. License-wise, is this photo acceptable on Commons? -Mys_721tx (talk) 22:27, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
In case you didn't know, there are frequent discussions about categories that might need to be deleted, renamed, used differently, or that have some other issue. Links to those discussions can be found at Commons:Categories for discussion. These discussions sometimes don't get much participation and some of the discussions have been open for years, so it would be great if more people would give input. Please take time to look at them and give any thoughts you have about them. Thanks! --Auntof6 (talk) 21:34, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
As I've said several times before, the current process is fundamentally broken, in that you can have many potentially affected images on your watchlist, but if you don't have the categories themselves on your watchlist, then you'll never be notified that any discussion is even taking place. That's how the whole stupid "adolescent girls" category fiasco happened, and several other less than optimal outcomes... AnonMoos (talk) 18:57, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
November 10
unexplained connections to categories
There are several similar Cottage house, Munich pictures. They have the Category:Firefighters of Germany. There is no explanation for this categorie. My suspition is that these are the homes of firefighters where visiting Korean firefighters where lodged. But this is pure gueswork on my part.Smiley.toerist (talk) 15:46, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Smiley.toerist, File:140929Munich Cottage House, Munich, Germany15.jpg was made in Unterschleißheim, which is a separate village and not in Munich. I hope someone will be motiviated to recategorize those files: For some time I have tried to keep Category:Munich organized, fine-categorizing everything that came in. But the mass-uploads by bots and the low value of many of the sightseeing snapshots uploaded without any selection made this rather futile and I gave up. No point in pumping out the basement while the sluices are wide open and the sea is still pushing in. --Rudolph Buch (talk) 14:22, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
There is no {{Won}}. I assume you mean {{Own}}. But please don't do this: people are allowed to indicate their authorship of a work as they wish. For example, I always use "Photo by Joe Mabel" rather than "own" so that if (as often happens) someone does a minor derivative it is less likely that they accidentally take credit for the work as a whole, and because it also is more likely to stay intact with my name if pages are scraped off of Commons. This is really the uploader/copyright holder's legitimate choice. - Jmabel ! talk16:49, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
While I fully agree with Jmabel concerning the misuse of {{Own}} in the |author (and such other) fields, the content currently transcluded from {{Own}} is equivalent to «Self-made image», which is hard-coded as the source statement in many (all?) files of Category:Images by Kolforn. ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 is merely requesting for internationalization of the contents of the |source field, and that’s within policy and doesn’t hinder Kolforn’s authorship statement at all. -- Tuválkin✉✇19:03, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Am I rignht or wrong ? You have deleted the illustration that was inquired to furnish.
Poor action from me to have taken half a day to do it with the appropriate pictures I
have taken myself. what has been your real argument to forbid what was autorized ?
I Just cannot understand it. Is there sommebody else revendication about ?
I would like to have the name of that good heart. Thanks for your ansewer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wordmanner (talk • contribs) 14:16, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
I assume this is about Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Wordmanner. You had 6 days to reply, and said nothing. Clearly you are not Gilbert Pélissier, he is not alive, and at least the bulk of these are his paintings. Are you saying you are the legal heir to his intellectual property rights, or what? Because you uploaded these saying "own work", which is clearly not the case. - Jmabel ! talk16:55, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Is there a list of all the Wikimedia photography competitions somewhere?
Hi all
Please could you tell me if there is a list of all the Wikimedia photography competitions somewhere?
I recently noticed that the image File:Old Roman road leading to Jerusalem.jpg has a license that says: "This image was uploaded as a donation by the Brooklyn Museum," and "While the Brooklyn Museum cannot make an absolute statement on copyright status for legal reasons, it supports and encourages the Wikimedia community..." That seemed a generous policy, and I wondered if Wikimedia has many institutions that contribute on such a basis, or if there is a project to approach institutions for contributions according to such a policy? I for one would be willing to approach local institutions with a request for participation. Drbones1950 (talk) 20:04, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello DrBones, I recommend you to dig into Wikipedia:GLAM. GLAM is the common acronym for "galleries, libraries, archives and museums", and we have many volunteers in our communities partnering with these institutions. One of the outcomes are, among others, content donations like the one you have found. Cheers, --Jcornelius (talk) 22:29, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
November 16
What proportion of uploads get patrolled?
Where can I see what is the current average proportion of uploads that get patrolled? (excluding auto-patrolled)
File:Landini Tractor 1706.JPG is a test shot I took on a Nikon Coolpix P610. 11th November if I recall. I ran it through Upload Wizard to test whether the embedded geotag would be displayed, where and how accurate Nikons GPS detector is. The upload wizard worked like a dream- detected that a geotag existed. It placed a template on the file saying that a BOT had been informed, and the tag would be placed not immediately but 'usually within 24hrs'. This was a bit disappointing as I wanted to see the tag, check its accuracy and sign off the job. The bot still hasn't sprung into action- is there a simple reason?
Commonist 1.6.0 can pull the date out of the exif- could we please persuade the maintainer to add a similar feature- to pull out the geo-coordinates, and add them to the image description. --ClemRutter (talk) 23:57, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
That is strange, UploadWizard has always added geolocations from my images immediately, see for example this image. I have never seen that template. --Sebari– aka Srittau (talk) 16:23, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Life is strange on planet wiki- Public footpath signs, Strood. I used the UploadWizard you provided- and replicated the process I had used before- and got exactly what I wanted!
I looked at the next 3 files in the test and they have different file history. I suspect that during some work on a server- the GPS was temporarily unavaliable, and the it triggered an exception that was serviced by this markup. From the attribution tag this was a Commonist 1.6.0 upload with the tag added manually- so the question changes to how do we force Commonist to release the GPS data from the EXIF? UploadWizard does work perfectly.
(Hello!)
... did something not perfectly helpful by making a change not really fitting the purpose of the original writing. This diff is an example for it. I'm not bothered by the usage of the license-header section (that's actually something nice). But the bot changed the plain URL in my license explanation text(s) to Wiki markup, and that's not so much convenient, as the markup cannot anymore serve the purpose of offering an easily copy-able string out of the "page source code" to any re-user. Have I to undo it by hand (on approx. 150 files, I guess), or is there any bot operator who could give me some help there? Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 01:08, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
To be honest, I think any reuser would either copy and paste the visible text or right click on the link and choose "Copy Link" (or equivalent). The source code text is unlikely to be used. --Sebari– aka Srittau (talk) 02:14, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
That came to my mind, too. Reminder to myself: never do bot-like work, like adding attribution variables to the templates, late at night being tired, that makes sure to oversee some stuff, like an URL already there in plain text, resulting in somewhat stupid postings... lol. Forget this request, please. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 02:51, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Accidentally I found images in the disambiguation cat Shell (and later also in Shells). I now have moved all, but one image. Could someone, preferred a native English speaker, sort it into a suiting category, please? — Speravir– 00:04, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
I've added {{Disambig}} to the filter that applies to these batch uploads. It's now disambig|photographs|categori[sz]e|catdiffuse|CatCat, so should skip any categories with matching templates. --Fæ (talk) 16:35, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello.Why do we find some of the projects need to local logos (Like wikispecies and some Arabic projects) and some of the projects dont need to local logos (Like Wikidata and Arabic Wikipedia)?Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 08:16, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi all, I'm planning to upload a large amount of historical pictures from here. Photographs are provided under a CC-BY-SA 3.0 license and I guess it would be possible to upload the pictures with some scrapping. However, I don't know how to proceed with license verification. As per current procedures, it's not possible the uploader to validate the pictures s/he has uploaded. However, it will be a totally automatic procedure run by a bot. Of course I can include a {{LicenseReview}} template, but it would require the verification of several hundreds of pictures. Any advice on how to proceed? Best regards --Discastotalk15:38, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
I'd just go ahead and upload them without using LicenseReview. You will be quoting the source and the licensing is very clear. Using LicenseReview is not a hard requirement on uploads, you can skip it if you are confident. We use them for large uploads from Flickr as a bot can sort it out and as a source we see a lot of Flickrwashing which means everyone gets queasy about very large uploads from there. If your upload were to be challenged, it would be for the entire batch, which makes it easier to discuss or find exceptions. --Fæ (talk) 17:11, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
OK. Thanks. I'll start to work in the scrapping in order to get all relevant information and compile it as a CSV file. Once done, I'll start the upload process. Thanks for your tips.. --Discastotalk22:27, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
What percentage of files on Commons have been created by Wikimedians and what has been imported from external sources?
Bottom graph shows that 66% of license templates on Commons are CC licenses and 20% are PD
Hi
Is there a way to estimate how many photos, videos, audio files etc have been copied from existing external sources e.g from large organisations like NASA or from Flickr accounts? I would really like to know what percentage of the media available on Commons is created by Wikimedians and what is imported from other sources.
Which probably contains none of (for example) my 40,000 files here, because I don't use a category to indicate that. And I am guessing I'm in the majority that way. - Jmabel ! talk23:40, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
We have 39 variously categorized architectural drawings of the Hallwyl Museum in Stockholm. Example: File:Inredningsritning, Landesmuseum Zürich - Hallwylska museet - 102179.tif. The data on the file pages is very confusing, as are the file names ("...Landesmuseum Zürich - Hallwylska museet..."). My original assumption was that these drawings reside in Zurich, and represent a museum in Stockholm? But, if so, why do they say "Current location" is "Hallwyl Museum"? If anyone knows the story, or can work it out via the sources of the images, it would help a lot in categorizing them correctly. Uploaded by a bot, so who knows who triggered the upload. - Jmabel ! talk00:24, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Wanted: illustrations & comments on tutorial for new users
Hi all,
We've been working on producing a new tutorial for users of the Commons app, to improve new user education. The current tutorial in our app was designed several years ago - it has a nice layout that we were hoping to keep if possible, but with the addition of more content.
I have a draft of the content we want to include on each page of the new tutorial, along with screenshots of the existing tutorial for layout reference. We would very much appreciate:
Comments/review of the new tutorial content - is there anything you feel we should add, change, or remove?
Illustrations for Pages 1-4, to make it more pleasant for users to read. The illustrations can either be in the style of the original, or whatever the artist feels is best. They probably have to be smaller than the original ones, to accommodate more text on each page.
UploadWizard will now verify that a license template selected using the "Another reason not mentioned above" option is valid, that is, transcludes {{License template tag}}, and not allow the upload to proceed otherwise. This change is live as of a few minutes ago. (phab:T140903)
We finally implemented a long-requested ability to go back to the previous step at any time. (So if you're filling in the details and realize you forgot a file, you can go back and add it now.) This will not lose any of your input on any of the steps. This change will go live per the usual schedule, on Wednesday between 20:00–22:00 UTC; in the meantime you can test in on beta Commons. (phab:T122923)
@Matma Rex: Thanks for your work. Hopefully this will stop one source of image uploads without a license templates. However looking at Category:New uploads without a license I see that files without licenses are still being uploaded. Quick survey:
I suppose the usual approach would be an abuse filter (we'd have to do some coding to add an option to easily check whether a template is included on the page), or tracking down the tools involved and improving how they handle upload licenses (I suspect the last two were uploaded simply with Special:Upload, since the upload comment is identical to the page contents). I'm not sure if it would really be worth it, how many new files like this appear every day? Matma Rex (talk) 19:30, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
I came across Category:Class of 2013 at the University of Exeter today, and I think this might be well outside Commons' scope. What educational value is there in a series of graduation photographs? Especially the more bizarre ones like this? As they are head-and-shoulders shots the academic clothing isn't shown very well, just the student's faces. To my mind, the only really useful files are those that show notable graduates.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:23, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
For me they are portret foto´s wich need permission from the pictured person. You never know person wil become important in the future, but even then there wil be pictures available of the VIP´s in the future. The only graduation picture wich can later be usefull for us is a groups picture of all the graduates. These are not portrets as there are to many faces in it and it has a formal character. You socialy cannot practicaly refuse to be in the picture as graduate.Smiley.toerist (talk) 14:02, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
I do not know the legal situation. For scope, apart from the images where academic clothing is shown, I think these are in the same category as holiday snapshots and private portrait photos. I think it is very valuable to have a good large sample, but I have no idea what kind of sampling strategies should be used. I think for graduation photos an entire class, as probably here, is more valuable than random individuals --LPfi (talk) 17:14, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Connected Open Heritage: suggest your story!
The Wikimedia project Connected Open Heritage - led by Wikimedia Sverige - is organizing a photo exhibition aimed at enhancing the importance of the digital preservation of the global cultural heritage. The pictures displayed will not only portray monuments, but they will also tell their stories by showing the transformations they went through because of wars, natural disasters or simply human negligence. Everyone can contribute to the project by suggesting a story concerning a cultural property in danger.
Dear users. A request has opened to decide if apply a Global ban against Marrovi. Other users who have relevant information can participate. Here is the link; You can also review the guidelines here. For the same policies I have to notify in the projects that he participate. Regards. --Akapochtli (talk) 17:54, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Is it possible to have the common names next to the scientific names in the featured pictures directory?
Hi all
I've been thinking about ways to improve Featured pictures directory for non Wikimedians e.g teachers, publishers etc who are looking for high quality open license files. One of the most obvious ways I can think of doing this is adding the common names next to the scientific names, I looked at the page source and it's far to complicated for me. Does anyone know how to do this?
The other thing I think would be super useful is making the 'more' button stand out more, I've been looking at this with a few people who are not Wikimedians and they all missed the more button and assumed that was all there was.... just making it bold would help a lot I think as a quick fix.
Hi John Cummings, the difficulty with common name is no universally accepted common names for organisms. The fact that Commons is a multilingual project make the situation more difficult. If you prefer a discussion, you can continue it at Commons talk:Featured pictures as most people active in that project watching that page. Pinging Christian Ferrer who designed most new gallery pages there. Jee16:10, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
...though there would be nothing to stop anyone from creating an equivalent page specific to English (or any other language). - Jmabel ! talk16:36, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi, if I well understood John Cummings, he don't want to customize the galleries but the main Featured pictures page and specially the sections with the links. E.g. instead of "Hymenoptera" we could put "Hymenoptera (Ants, Bees, Wasps & Sawflies)", I made an attempt for this text, is it what you asked for @John Cummings: ?. The text can be changed in the main page but the customization must be done in Commons:Featured pictures, list which is trancluded, but yes this can be done. I will see what I can do in the next days/weeks. Regards, Christian Ferrer(talk)18:55, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
@Ghouston: Thanks for the info. Some of those pics I edited using Google Photos, so those say "Google". However, if you look at File:Bolton Abbey ruins.jpg, that one was uploaded directly from the scan, and it says "Google PhotoScan". So there is the possibility of missing images that were edited post-scan, but I figure we can at least catch the unedited ones. —howcheng {chat}19:48, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Answering another thread this question came into my mind: Is there in Commons a special place for discussing suggested template enhancements or improvements? — Speravir– 19:43, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, yes, this is always possible. I actually wanted to ask about a place for templates in general. Ehm, I know – special vs. general. — Speravir– 20:52, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't think there is anything, um, specific to templates in general. I'd say start it here, we can spin it out if needs be. - Jmabel ! talk01:42, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
We have quite the problem with media from this website as all our media sources are gone with it. All links to it would need to be replaced with archive.org replacements (or if an archive website is posted, then to that). It would be great if someone can reach the White House camp to make sure history isn't purged.
I devised {{USPresidentialTransition}} to mark most of these, but about 20 do not seem to use the template. I have not investigated as to why. Media from transitional pages are NOT PD US Gov and instead come with a CC license.
It seems like globalchange.gov was the culprit for the discrepancy. I did revert the bot on a few occasions where it miss-labelled them. Who knew there were two different change.gov's out there. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 12:55, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
The fact that the media is free is not in serious doubt, and has been verifiable since they were uploaded, which was years ago. There's no requirement that all dead links be fixed. The CC license tagging may well be erroneous (unintentional w:copyfraud); who do you think did the work if not US Gov staff? Bush's white house .gov pages are archived on a .gov site, IIRC.--Elvey (talk) 20:29, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
@Elvey: Bush had a transition website for a very short time and it was redirected to the whitehouse.gov fairly quickly. Their content was with all rights reserved tag. it was pre-Wikipedia era back in 2000s. I am not too worried about that content.
Change.gov existed for the past 8 years until the election more or less. It has content to be mined. We do not know for sure if change.gov was operated by whitehouse staff or by third parties. Content is freely licensed so that is fine. We should seek out what happened to the website.
While not required, it is recommended that we deal with content from this website by repairing URLs to archive.org etc.
There is a huge problem. タチコマ_robot was commanded to change the license of these files to the new template, and added {{License review}}, but,
Most of these files has been already reviewed by a bot or trusted user several years ago.
Altrough change.gov website is gone, several of these files are sourced from Flickr (where the only CC-BY version offered by it is the 2.0), and the Flick account is still alive, the files are still at the source (Flickr), and the license remains unchaged.
Creative Commons licenses are irrevocable, so there shouldn't be licensing issues.
Therefore, should be better to revert any edition from the bot, then, re-add the new license, and review every file (by humans) that has been not already reviewed (and as the website is gone, we should see the archived version at Internet Archive, therefore, add the link at the Internet Archive in addition of the death link). --Amitie 10g (talk) 18:19, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
I can't make any sense of your question. Could you either reword it or, if English is not your native language, ask in a different language? - Jmabel ! talk16:48, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Waarom kan ik de files in de aangegeven categorieën niet vinden?
Most likely because both pictures were taken at locations off the ship. Or else it is just an oversight; somebody has to add the category link to the image page. Dankarl (talk) 17:15, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Tag the with {{Duplicate|Name of matching file}} and they will be deleted. Make sure (1) that you do this only for exact visual duplicates, (2) that if the images are different sizes you tag the smaller one, and (3) if descriptions, categories, etc. differ that you merge information from the image to be deleted to the image to be kept before tagging. - Jmabel ! talk16:52, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
I thought so. I do not know the intention of the categories, the files have different names and different descriptions. I delete the Category:Duplicates and leaves it to the authors. --Jos1950 (talk) 18:45, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
November 20
ایجاد رده جدید
دوستان لطفا برای ایجاد رده برای مذاکرات مجلس شورای اسلامی لطف کنند و اقدام کنند تا این موارد بدون رده باقی نماند
According to Google Translate, looks like Farsi; I can't make much sense of it, but I think the user is asking for help in categorizing images of documents. Can someone who can read and write Farsi please help out here?
The Photographer has taken many high quality photos for Commons, and like many photographers here likes to take high-resolution photos by shooting lots of frames and stitching them together to create a panorama. However, this is very hard to achieve (particularly for interiors and buildings) without having parallax errors that spoil the stitching. The best way is to use a special panoramic head on a tripod. In addition to high-resolution photos, The Photographer also wants to create 180 × 360° panoramas which require a special viewer to appreciate them. Several photographers on Commons are now creating such images and they are a great way to explore a scene as though one is really there. I think that in order to photograph these 180 × 360° images, The Photographer needs to set his goals a little higher and aim to buy an 8mm fisheye lens in addition to the panoramic tripod head.
Like YouTube, I suggest enable "Automatic detection of non-free content" on Commons.This makes any stolen file from the Internet and has own work Source or license automatically contains {{Copyvio|source=Source discovered}}.Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 08:35, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
This is not easy, we'd have to either have a massive database of all copyrighted files on the Internet to match against (or at least, some sort of visual hashes of them), or have to pay someone else who already has such a database to share it (e.g. Google Images). YouTube presumably has a database of movies given to them by the studios, since at their scale, that's more efficient for all parties involved than sending individual DMCA takedown requests. Matma Rex (talk) 17:06, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Can we be sure that they are always correct positives? Sometimes authors double publish there work in the Commons and outside. And sometimes Commons works are republished as protected work.Smiley.toerist (talk) 14:10, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
A few years back, uploads which matched at Tineye.com were automatically flagged as such (though for many reasons no deletion or violation template was automatically added). You might want to find out why that was discontinued... AnonMoos (talk) 06:04, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
As previously discussed at the village pump, the Interactive team would like to enable shareable multi-lingual Commons data in the upcoming weeks. You may already experiment with it on beta cluster, e.g. graph and map. The first release will let community create Commons pages with the table and map data, and use it from any other wikis:
The data pages will be accessible from all wikis
Both maps and tables will allow data to be stored in multiple languages
All data pages will be stored in the Data: namespace
Localized wiki tables and lists can be auto-generated from a data table, e.g. this example
For now, all data must be licensed under CC0 (Public Domain dedication). More license support may be available in the future.
Each Data:*.tab page is a table with each column being either a number, a true/false boolean, a "string", or a multi-language string -- {"en":"string in English", "fr":"string in French", ...}. See Data:Sample.tab example
Each Data:*.map page is a map data (in a wrapped GeoJSON format). See Data:Sample.map example
Use shared data in a graph on any wiki, e.g. this chart, or the same chart in Russian. (Click "play" to activate)
Once the new functionality is successfully deployed, our next step would be to build a spreadsheet-like user interface for tabular data, a maps editor, possibly integration the with the translate wiki, better integration with graph and map attribution text, and eventually - support for the very large, externally-hosted authoritative data sets managed by the community-driven process.
--Yurik (talk) 17:55, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Yurik is there or will there be a way to have a data page in a users personal namespace? I'm asking because if that is not possible, I'm wondering what will be the recommended way for users to experiment with this on the production environment when it is live? Offnfopt(talk)18:50, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Offnfopt, just like with Lua modules, there won't be a way to have this data outside of the Data: namespace on Commons. I would recommend Data:Sandbox/User.tab or Data:Sandbox/User/MyData.tab style naming. "Sandbox" in the name would tell everyone that this is a test. Or we could have a different naming schema of course - I don't really have a strong opinion on this. --Yurik (talk) 18:58, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Yurik thanks for the information. I'm looking forward to having this feature live. In the past I previous played around with passing data stored on a wiki page to <graph> using the "url": "wikiraw:///" option, but that wasn't user friendly or easily distributed across different wiki projects. I think this new feature will be a great addition and will really help to allow even more users to contribute to updating graphs/charts/maps etc. Thanks for all your work on this feature really appreciated. Offnfopt(talk)03:21, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
I had uploaded a significant portion of my images through the OTRS process and I find it surprising that it is not actively encouraged for newcomers. Maybe they want to spread the freedom?
While the process is long and confusing, and some image authors may ignore the request, the process could be seen by uploaders as a valid way to proceed without lying that the image is their own work. Plus some image authors could agree and we get more free images here. Therefore for newcomers who found an image on Google, it might be useful to highlight the "contact image author to do the OTRS permission email chore or to upload themselves" process more clearly in the upload part of the wiki.
Special:Upload allows me to select "I found the image on Google somewhere" and get instructions "The uploader did not provide sufficient information (a valid and suitable tag) on this media's copyright status. Unless the copyright status is provided, the file could be deleted seven days after the upload (--). Please note that Commons does not accept files claimed under fair use. It is suggested to read the intro of Commons' licensing policy, about essential information and (in many cases) about Internet images. If you need help ask at the Commons:Help desk."
The upload wizard takes me to "I've found it on the Internet — I'm not sure: I believe this work is freely licensed or legally in the public domain. I understand that if I do not add the necessary licensing information in a timely fashion, the file may be deleted."
I appreciate that both these tools don't let me finish such an upload without adequate licensing, but I would propose to add a sentence to the effect of "As an alternative, you can also ask the image author to release their image under a free licence by email or by uploading it themselves." to these two places. Please tell, would you find such change useful in the context of your experience reviewing images or watching the upload and review process? --Gryllida04:25, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Slowking4It is only minor edits, adding two sentences in two places. I can attempt make these edits myself without adding them to the wishlist.
Or you mean we need some massive programming effort for handling the increases in OTRS queues? What assisting measures or tools would the volunteers need in such case?
Do we need more people to comment to gain consensus before making the edits? If yes, how to attract attention to this request? --Gryllida02:53, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
yes, if you would have more email contact, then you will have to recruit more OTRS volunteers, and streamline the OTRS tl;dr. (like a permission wizard), you might also need a permission teahouse team to council newbies in clarifying their permission, since most do not care as much about CC licenses as the average commons admin. for example the MacArthur Foundation. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge03:00, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Slowking4There is a permission wizard called relgen already. Does it need improvements?
I think recruiting more OTRS volunteers is not a Foundation's job, it's our. How do we do it? At what point do we call it enough and proceed with the proposed edits to the upload wizards? --Gryllida03:12, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
yes - but it is well down the OTRS page, and how would a newbie find it? you can be bold - nominate yourself OTRS leader and build consensus to change landing pages and upload pages. go for it. upload wizard is getting "improved" by WMF team so you will want to interact with them via Phabricator. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge03:25, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Cross-wiki saving problems
Having major problems saving pages at numerous wikis; repeatedly getting "Sorry! We could not process your edit due to a loss of session data" error message; sometimes it saves after 5 attempts, sometimes not even after 50 or more attempts to save. Have tried the logging out and logging back in as advised by the error message, and it makes no difference. So far, Commons seems to be the one unaffected site. - MPF (talk) 15:18, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Smiley.toerist I did a reverse search of the image and I've found black and white versions and other colorized version but all the same image and each I found say it is Omaha Beach. Here is the description of one of the images:
"Landing ships putting cargo ashore on Omaha Beach, at low tide during the first days of the operation, June 1944. Among identifiable ships present are LST-532 (in the centre of the view); USS LST-262 (3rd LST from right); USS LST-310 (2nd LST from right); USS LST-533 (partially visible at far right); and USS LST-524. Note barrage balloons overhead and Army "half-track" convoy forming up on the beach. The LST-262 was one of 10 Coast Guard-manned LSTs that participated in the invasion of Normandy, France. (US Coast Guard photo # 26-G-2517)
Edit: I'm unsure now, all the sources that say it is Omaha aren't official sources, the wording above is similar to this official source, but it doesn't specifically say Omaha like some of the sources I found (and pasted the quote from), instead the official one just says "one of the invasion beaches". So I would say undetermined until we can find more credible sources. Offnfopt(talk)15:35, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
The 'original' image is https://catalog.archives.gov/id/12003973 - "Original caption: Supplies Pour Ashore for Invaders of France- This striking panorama of the French invasion beach was made by a Coast Guard combat photographer from a hillside cut with the trench (foreground) of the ousted Nazi defenders. The channel waters are black with shipping, as reinforcements and supplies are funneled ashore for the conquest of the Cherbourg Peninsula. Balloon barrages float overhead to protect the ships from low-flying enemy strafers. One balloon rests on the deck of an LST. Headed inland are long parades of trucks, loaded with troops and supplies."
Looking at this copy of the landing table, however, it seems that this is not actually Omaha Beach.. none of the specific LSTs shown landed there. This was probably Utah, but I can't find an specific list to verify it. Reventtalk11:22, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Actually, I take that back.. the 'loading table', on that same website, does show them landing at Omaha... maybe they landed later on, the photo looks like it was after the beachhead was well established. (shrugs) Reventtalk11:47, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Connect to the user
Hello! Is it possible in any way connect to Lailuks75 user, who missed to switch "Enable email from other users" on? He/She is Latvian Wiki Loves Monuments 2016 winner and the award is waiting for him/her. I have searched in Latvian Internet, but unfortunately can't find this person. May be someone/kind of superadmin/ can do it? Just send message "please switch this option on"? Thank you so much for the help. --Voll (talk) 16:32, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Possibly someone, though not (for example) a normal admin; it's also possible that this user didn't provide an email address at all. - Jmabel ! talk16:41, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Would it be possible to have a filter on the search results that showed only high quality images?
I've been doing some work with people who work on publications and in social media on how to reuse images from Wikimedia Commons. Whilst the licensing has tricky the main issue has been them being able to find high resolution good quality images. This isn't because those kinds of images don't exist for the subjects they are searching for but because they have to look through 100s of lower quality images to find suitable ones. Would it be possible to add a tick box to the search bar (perhaps in advanced search) to only search for images that have been featured pictures or assessed as quality images? I managed to find out if you add 'incategory:Featured_pictures_on_Wikimedia_Commons|Quality_images' after a search term you can do this but its not exactly convenient or easy to remember, especially for non Wikimedians. Where would I formally propose something like this and what would be the proccess of getting it implemented?
And I would like to be able to cut off images below a certain resolution or below a certain file size. A problem with QI is that not every featured image is a QI and also QI only applies to user-created images, so useless as a quality test for imported files. -- Colin (talk) 13:14, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi Colin, I didn't know that it only related to user created images, that's really interesting. Yes perhaps filtering images under a certain file size would be a potentially useful proxy for quality, but also useful in its self (perhaps with an exemption for .svg files?). What I meant was that you had a button that said something like 'high quality only' and that would return results from both QI, featured images and possibly other things like national finalists from the various photography competitions like Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves Earth, Wiki Loves Africa and European Science Photo Competition --John Cummings (talk) 13:35, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Well there's the "Good pictures" button at the top of categories that combines QI and FP and wiki-FP. But it is a bit weird sometimes in what ends up in the category, and it includes all the Wikipedia FPs, some of which have fairly low quality standards. Actually, many WLE/WLM winners would fail to pass the other quality tests but ultimately there are so few winners (compared to the size of our database) that their results are irrelevant. It would very much help Commons if there was a "good image" attribute that could be easily applied by trusted users, and people focused on that rather than fussing over noise or CA on 36-megapixel images. -- Colin (talk) 13:45, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Colin this seems sensible, I guess if we can define the goal as something like 'provide users with high quality easily reusable images outside of the Wikimedia websites' that would be a good start and then work out how to get there and what would be the minimum viable product etc.--John Cummings (talk) 15:01, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks very much Matma Rex, do you know if it is planned to integrate this into the search bar in a graphical way? Syntax is not very user friendly for non Wikimedians :) --John Cummings (talk) 20:36, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
As far as I know there are no such plans yet, but I don't follow Discovery department's work closely, so you should probably ask them instead :) Matma Rex (talk) 22:46, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
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
Administrators, bureaucrats, oversighters and checkusers can now use two-factor authentication. This makes their Wikimedia accounts more secure. This can be turned on in Special:Preferences. There are discussions on how to best turn it on for everyone. [21]
You can now search for file properties. For example you can search for media type, how big a file is or what resolution it has. [22]
A hacker group is hacking Wikimedia accounts. They can probably do this because users have the same passwords on Wikimedia wikis as on other sites. Please have a password you use only on the Wikimedia wikis and nowhere else. This is especially important for administrators, bureaucrats, oversighters and checkusers. These users can also turn on two-factor authentication. [23]
Changes this week
There is no new MediaWiki version this week.
RevisionSlider will be a default feature on German, Arabic and Hebrew Wikipedia. This will happen on 22 November. It will come to other wikis later. [24][25][26]
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 22 November at 19:00 (UTC). See how to join.
Future changes
It will be possible to do cross-wiki search. The developers who work on this are looking for communities that want to test this. [27]
Hovercards will leave the beta stage. The Wikimedia Foundation Reading Web team wants communities to set Hovercards as a default option for readers who are not logged in. Communities that are interested can say so on the Hovercards talk page. [28]
Notification of DMCA takedown demand - Skotnik images
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.
It ended with most people thinking something ought to be done. It was then archived. Does this mean it is forgotten about? Is there a process or system for a next step? What happens now? Cheers. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:47, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi, at the top of a gallery page you can put something like that
Could there be some sort of bot that finds commonscat templates that lead to commons galleries and adds such a template to the top of those commons galleries? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:51, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
I have an updated photo of the East Chop Lighthouse in Martha's Vineyard taken October 2016 and would like to replace the current one. How do I go about doing this? Thanking you in advance for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.72.215.94 (talk) 14:49, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
You shouldn't replace an image here on Commons: the old image remains historically important. You should upload a new image just like you upload any other image and, presuming you are talking about an image in a Wikipedia article, replace the reference there to the image by name. -Jmabel 16:53, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Josve05a, the deletion request only discussed what license the UN licensed them under not whether they could actually claim copyright (if they had reached the threshold of originality). --John Cummings (talk) 14:03, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Some of them individually might fall below the US's high-ish COM:TOO. Together, the poster almost certainly crosses it, IMO. The three discussions Josve05a linked to didn't explicitly mention COM:TOO, it was implicitly assumed--likely correctly.Storkk (talk) 14:38, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Taking a second look, I think individually an argument could be made that 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 12, and 17 might fall below the US's COM:TOO... however applicable law appears to be England and Wales, which has a much lower TOO. Storkk (talk) 14:43, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
@Srittau: It doesn't matter if the category exists or not. The problem is caused by {{OTRS pending|year=2016|month=August|day=18}}, however I don't understand its mechanism (yet ). --jdxRe:21:09, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
This is to inform the community that there is a nomination for Oversight rights here. It was agreed a couple of years ago that such requests (and for Checkuser), which are quite rare, should be publicised due to the high level of trust required in users with these rights. Trijnsteltalk22:47, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
November 24
[Advice wanted] Transcribed vs. broadcasted interviews, as source for Wikipedia
Hi,
I would appreciate your consult/meaning/ideas about the following:
One of the volunteers participating in the project is an avid collector and researcher of these types of newspapers. In the past (1970-80s) he has privately interviewed people that created/issued underground newspapers during WW2 to document their memories and stories for the next generation. He has written out these oral interviews on paper, and keeps these in his private archive, so they have never been published so far (which the volunteer is very willing to do). There are no audio or visual recordings of these interviews.
These interviews contain testimonies and other information that would be very relevant for the Wikipedia articles in the project. So we are wondering if & how we could use these interviews as source materials on Dutch Wikipedia. I see some obvious issues:
The interviews were held privately, so there were no “independent witnesses” to verify that the transcriptions truly reflect what the interviewee said.
Their transcriptions have not been published. Could this be overcome by placing them directly on Wikisource or Commons, or should we first make a secondary publication (like a book) out of them?
To what extend are interview transcriptions considered to be original research (and primary sources)?
To what extent should transcribed interviews be treated differently than publically broadcasted audio or video interviews (on radio, TV, podcasts, YouTube, etc.), as far as them being source materials for Wikipedia?
I did some research on how publically broadcasted interviews are dealt with within Wikimedia projects
From the above I’m inclined to believe that it would be OK to use publically broadcasted audio/video interviews as a source for Wikipedia articles, as they can be verified by others, and it does not matter if they were transcribed or not.
But what about interview transcriptions, for which there is no publically accessible video/audio source equivalent?
So far I see 3 scenarios
The interview was conducted eg. 150 years ago, when there were simply no AV-media to record it.
The AV-source was taken offline after the transcription was done, see this interview on Wikisource, the link mentioned at the top is dead). Would this be eligible as source material for a Wikipedia article?
The interview being held privately and no AV-recording equipment was present (eg. my case above) . I think this interview transcription on Commons is similar. Would this be eligible as source material for a Wikipedia article?
Hi, I think this is a great project for Commons and Wikisource. Whether these interviews are accepted as sources on Wikipedia may vary wildly accross languages. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:55, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
yes, if interviewer wants to release CC-BY then ok for mass upload. use pattypan uploader if you have metadata in spreadsheet. might want to confirm he took the interviews via OTRS. will want to include personality rights. you could also build your own website such as http://www.aaa.si.edu/ which would give you more control. you could also upload to Internet archive and then use IAuploader to get multipage documents here. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge17:31, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I hadn't read the discussion that eliminated the category. I removed it from the latest files which I had added it to. Frankly I thought it was a bug of the system, not a decision to remove the category. -- SERGIO(aka the Blackcat)11:09, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Before discussing a potential enhancement of template {{Pixabay}} I’m interested in another issue: You cannot tell it from the documentation, but if you look into the source you will see, that in fact you can add up to 3 Pixabay IDs, which means you will get links to up to 3 source files. But the phrasing of the language sub templates is only for one file, and I also asked me about the purpose of linking more than one source. A search tells me, that in the moment this option is 6 times used: Search results. What I see, are in fact combinations of files, so the phrasing has to be adapted in this manner then (for all existing language sub templates!) or both source files should uploaded separately to Commons and then the combination should point to these uploaded versions. I cannot find this, but wasn’t there a special template for these combinations? What do you think of this all?
My goal is actually to enhance the template for videos, see #Pixabay video URL, and to put the URL into the main template, i.e. remove it from the language sub templates. Hence the sub templates would nonetheless need some rework. — Speravir– 23:42, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
These from 01 to 49 pictures of dance show against the station background. At that time there was no FOP in Belgium and the station is built by Santiago Calatrava. However there could be other reasons for removal, but this is the only documented one. Can a dance presentation also be protected as creative work?Smiley.toerist (talk) 23:04, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Question about straight vs curly apostrophes
On English Wikipedia the page en:Ball's Pyramid is being placed in the maintenance category en:Category:Commons category with local link different than on Wikidata because the template en:Template:Commons category is being used as "{{Commons category|Ball's Pyramid}}" instead of "{{Commons category|Ball’s Pyramid}}" (note the use of a straight vs curly apostrophe). English Wikipedia has a preference for straight apostrophes. I don't know about Commons. What is Common's policy or norms regarding types of apostrophes, especially for category names? I had a strong bias against the curly apostrophes and quotes. Would it makes sense here to move the category to the straight quote? This would solve an incongruence between Commons and the English Wikipeida. Jason Quinn (talk) 12:05, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Per Commons:Language_policy, the consensus is currently to prefer English category names. The normal reading of this is to default to the simplest language for the category names, avoiding over-long names or syntax. Just as we avoid ligatures and accents when sensible to do so, the simple apostrophe should be best practice, even though this is not explicit in policy, to make searches and tools that rely on the API as reliable as possible.
So, unless there are good reasons to use curly quotes and apostrophes in a category name (I can't think of any examples), then it should be the plainest default characters instead. The same reasoning does not apply to Filenames, there may be all sorts of reasons we want to use non-English accents, matching formats to external use and even less well used characters from English, such as "æ". --Fæ (talk) 12:18, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm entirely in favor of straight apostrophes in category names. They represent exactly the same character in the language (the only difference is typographical, not linguistic) and they can be typed from the keyboard in a normal manner. - Jmabel ! talk17:52, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
If so, please open someone a RFC, so we have a minimum reason to change the Commons policy. PS: It seems “Common's policy” with apostrophe was also a joke. ↔ User: Perhelion22:10, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Tuvalkin, please don't bring sarcasm to a serious discussion. I'm not sure why you thought that tone was warranted here. Be okay with me if it contained some key idea but it didn't. If you want to make a point, please state it. Jason Quinn (talk) 09:28, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Probably should be done by someone who can read Hebrew; I'm hesitant to move something where I can't tell what is there, apply appropriate Commons categories, etc. - Jmabel ! talk00:57, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Changes this week
When someone tries to log in to a blocked account they will be blocked by a cookie. This means their browser will be blocked even if they change their IP address. This makes it more difficult for returning vandals. [31]
When you use Content Translation to adapt a template to a new translation it will work differently. You can adapt big templates such as infoboxes. Translators will have control over the template parameters. A first version of this is released this week. It is possible it will not work correctly with all templates. There will be more updates for this soon. [32]
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 29 November. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 30 November. It will be on all wikis from 1 December (calendar).
Gadgets will have a new option called "hidden". This means you can register gadgets that can't be turned on or off from the preferences page. Hiding gadgets was already possible by using [rights=hidden]. You should now use [hidden] instead. [rights=hidden] in old gadgets should be changed to [hidden]. [33][34]
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 29 November at 19:00 (UTC). See how to join.
Upload to Commons app: Making more licensing options possible
At 26 November 2016, 11:37 (UTC+8), I filed a task in Phabricator to make more licensing options on the Upload to Commons mobile app possible. As Misaochan (josephine_l in Phabricator) suggested in the phab task, I created this thread. Currently, Upload to Commons only allows CC0, CC-BY-3.0, and CC-BY-SA-3.0. However, there are people like me who wants to release images under a different license instead. What licenses should we add to the licensing options? There are six options I propose, which are GFDL/CC-BY-SA-4.0 multi-licensing, GFDL/CC-BY-4.0 multi-licensing, CC-BY-SA-4.0 only, CC-BY-4.0 only, FAL, and GFDL/FAL multi-licensing.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose additions
No, not more options. More is not better. One of the huge improvements in the UploadWizard over the previous system is that it didn't over loads of confusing options. And GFDL? Are you serious? That's a blast from the past that should never be used on any new uploads. Multichill (talk) 21:36, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Okay, I think there is enough consensus saying that more options should not be added, so I withdrew those GFDL and FAL options. However, I didn't withdrew the CC-BY-SA-4.0 and CC-BY-4.0 part, since the Android app currently uses only the 3.0 versions. UploadWizard already included the 4.0 versions (while keeping the 3.0 versions). Should we replace the 3.0 versions with 4.0 or just add the 4.0 versions as UW did? Thanks, ★Poké9501:46, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Requested videos
Are there any commons-compatible licensed vids hosted elsewhere that commons users would like to have on commons but are not on commons yet because they are not encoded in a video format that commons uses? If so, is there a list similar to "requested articles" which lists such videos? Reason I am asking is that I could donate CPU to video conversion and upload such a video per request. --Wesalius (talk) 17:24, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Wesalius I am not aware of any pool of unconverted videos waiting for a conversion solution. However, I am not even sure that there sufficiently developed instructions for anyone to convert a video to an acceptable format. There is Help:Converting video which is really dense as a beginner guide. Either that or Commons:Video would be the hub for a service like "request mass conversion".
Overall there are a lot of conversations about video which have not yet happened in Commons. The service you are offering is generous and would be useful but I am not sure how to sort it or advertise it. Blue Rasberry (talk)21:20, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, please I need some help. Last year I created an article called Javier Echecopar, I tried to use a couple of images, but all of them were deleted. Last week I returned to review this problem and someone of Wikipedia suggest me to make a photo to make the upload donate it with zer0 licence to not have problems. Now I have an image shooted by me, and I wish to donate it to Commons with CC0 License to use it to my articles. But it's my first time and I don't want to make a mistake. I need some guidance. What can I do first? I really appreciate the attention. Best Regards --Xhendyc (talk) 05:41, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
User:Xhendyc, as long as YOU took the image and you have already said that you are releasing the image under the correct license, you should not have any issues. You can use the upload wizard and it will take you to the form that will help fill in the required data and you should be good to go. Go ahead and upload the image, and I will take a look to see that you have do it correctly. Cheers! --WPPilot (talk) 06:06, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you very much WPPilot, I just uploaded my picture, I really appreciate all your help. I hope everything will be alright. --Xhendyc (talk) 11:45, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Software needed to change file data
I've just discovered that, somehow, the date in my camera was set wrong for a while. I need a Windows app or apps to bulk update 1) file properties 2) EXIF data, by just changing the year. Suggestions, please... Andy Mabbett (talk) 17:39, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
The files need to be re-uploaded with correct EXIF data. The easiest to understand way of doing that is to create a macro for your locally held collection in a tool like Photoshop or GIMP. It is possible to create a script to do all that, but probably a magnitude cheaper in volunteer time to use an off-the-shelf tool. --Fæ (talk) 17:52, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
@Fae: Thank you., but the files have not yet been uploaded; I need to run the app locally first, hence the request for a Windows app. I have GIMP, so if anyone can advise how to make such a macro, or point to a tutorial, (or suggest an app per my first post) that would be great. Andy Mabbett (talk) 19:15, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: Windows has a built-in simple image metadata editor. Just select the files in explorer, right click → Properties → Details, edit the "Date taken" field and click "Apply". Matma Rex (talk) 00:03, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
The first link mentions Picasa. Be warned in regard to this: Coincidentally, there was a posting some days ago in the German Village pump equivalent with a complaint about the fact, that Picasa adds itself as author into EXIF and IPTC area, cf. first uploaded version of this nice cactus image: File:Eriosyce odieri ssp. glabrescens.JPG. — Speravir– 00:28, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
i am reporting here an issue, which was noted on Commons:Forum#404_Not_Found:
at the moment a couple of images can not be displayed, either the full resolution only is "lost", or both preview and full resolution are not visible.
Then there would be a reason to have a category distinguishing the film. But the stage play is equally as "musical". - Jmabel ! talk00:38, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello! The Reading team at the Foundation is looking to support readers who want to take articles offline to read and share later on their phones - a use case we learned about from deep research earlier this year. We’ve built a few prototypes and are looking for people who would be interested in testing them. If you’d like to learn more and give us feedback, check out the page on Meta! Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 20:08, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Notification of DMCA takedown demand - BR-5972 LAjandrive16 MG a02.jpg
In compliance with the provisions of the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), and at the instruction of the Wikimedia Foundation's legal counsel, one or more files have been deleted from Commons. Please note that this is an official action of the WMF office which should not be undone. If you have valid grounds for a counter-claim under the DMCA, please contact me.The takedown can be read here.
I don't know any general policy. For Seattle, which is what I'm most involved with, we classify by year and (in recent years) even by month, but as far as I know we never (or almost never) have those as the only Seattle-related category. There is always an effort to put at least one category about geography more specific than Category:Seattle (neighborhood, specific building, etc.) if at all applicable, plus of course there are often things related to a specific person, or Category:Government of Seattle or its subcats, etc. I think what we do there works well. (Feel free to paraphrase or quote me in the CfD.) - Jmabel ! talk15:58, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
In the meantime a similar case shew up (see this CfD) where a user created categories of the pattern Category:(location) photographs taken on (date), for example Category:Finland photographs taken on 2007-09-06. Do we really need such a level of intersection which will lead to many thousands new categories at the best? I think we don't. --Achim (talk) 19:33, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
► March 2006 in Osaka (5 F)
► May 2006 in Osaka (5 F)
► June 2006 in Osaka (4 F)
► October 2006 in Osaka (5 F)
► November 2006 in Osaka (17 F)
▼ 2006 in Hiroshima (1 C, 18 F)
► August 2006 in Hiroshima (4 F)
► January 2006 in Tokyo (4 F)
► February 2006 in Tokyo (3 F)
► March 2006 in Tokyo (11 F)
► April 2006 in Tokyo (10 F)
► May 2006 in Tokyo (1 C, 5 F)
► June 2006 in Tokyo (9 F)
► July 2006 in Tokyo (6 F)
► August 2006 in Tokyo (2 C, 4 F)
► September 2006 in Tokyo (2 C, 9 F)
► October 2006 in Tokyo (7 F)
► November 2006 in Tokyo (35 F)
► December 2006 in Tokyo (1 C, 12 F)
Some people don't treat Category:Photographs taken on (date) as a flat one and say "Oh, 400 images here, I should immediately create some subcats." --Achim (talk) 14:47, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
November 12
Doubt on licensing and commons compatibility
I m not an expert of photo of sculpture so I prefer to ask here instead of starting a Deletion request :
The licensing on this picture is doubtful File:Wheelchair sculpture 6493.JPG. Photo might be done by the uploader but the object of the picture might be considered as art (at which point is it art ? ). Loreleil (talk) 19:42, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
The original "sculpture" might indeed considered a work of art. Actually, the photographer mentioned the artist Tony Heaton. However, the photography might be o.k. per Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#United_Kingdom if the location is "open to the public" and the sculpture "permanently situated". --Túrelio (talk) 20:25, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
The 'artistic merit' of a work is not part of what is considered for copyrightability... it's only if the work embodies the creative originality of a human author (i.e., is it above the TOO). I think this is, but as mentioned FOP might make it okay anyhow. Reventtalk00:48, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Ghuston. I also wanted rename some Russian names to English, where I recognized the picture, but that was rejected. --Jos1950 (talk) 14:10, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
The template {{Pixabay}} uses the short form URL https://pixabay.com/p-<ID> (BTW poorly written, because instead one time it is added several times into every language sub template). You have to find out a similar URL for videos, then either the template you’ve created could be fixed or – in theory better - {{Pixabay}} enhanced. — Speravir– 19:41, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
--Fæ (talk) 13:43, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
_(14784316012).jpg)
Agree and 
Support! --Atlasowa (talk) 22:57, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from November 8th. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from November 9th. It will be on all wikis from November 10th (calendar).
Done - Offnfopt(talk) 09:49, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
.jpg)
Fisheye view
High resolution
,_vers_1920.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_and_the_Sun%27s_energy_received_at_the_top_of_Earth%27s_atmosphere_(red,_bottom)._Solar_energy_has_been_measured_by_satellites_since_1978.gif){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
_and_projected_(2000-2100)_global_emissions_of_carbon_dioxide_and_atmospheric_concentrations_under_five_emissions_scenarios_(USGCRP).png){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
,_hands_out_toothbrush_and_toothpaste_kits_to_081013-N-HT438-016.jpg){kind=link}
_gives_candy_from_his_meals_ready_to_eat_to_a_Dominican_Republic_child.jpg){kind=link}
Comment see:
). --jdx Re: 21:09, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Resolved
-2016-11-30T00:45:00.000Z-Notification_of_DMCA_takedown_demand_-_BR-5972_LAjandrive16_MG_a02.jpg){kind=link}
