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.
Voting for cut-off date for PD-old with unknown date of death of author
Hi all, to conclude the discussion about how we should deal with old files if the PMA+70 rule applies and we don't know when the author died, I have started a vote: Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Voting. Please vote, so that we can come to a consensus. Jcb (talk) 22:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
This vote is scheduled to end tomorrow if sufficient votes are received (or if not, the vote will end as soon as there are sufficient votes). So if you did not yet vote, please feel invited to do it now. Jcb (talk) 16:38, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
February 24
Current preferred language ?
Is there a good way to get somebody's current preferred language, to pass on into a templated Wikidata query?
I know on Wikidata, the system software seems to use people's Babel template to generate a sequence of languages to offer. Is anything like that available here, and is it available to template writers?
In LUA one way is to call lang = frame:callParserFunction( "int", "lang" ), but as I recall the most robust way was to pass an language parameter from the template and template gets it from the user with {{int:lang}} default. See {{Date}} or {{Authority control}}. --Jarekt (talk) 14:43, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
We should probably make a central convenience function that does lang = frame:callParserFunction( "int", "lang" ) and fallback tree so we can use that in other places. If phab:T68051 (ever) gets implemented, it's an easy switch in one library. Multichill (talk) 16:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
February 25
Google’s new AI can determine image location without geotags
25% of the time it correctly identifies the country, and 47% of the time it correctly identifies the continent. If you're uploading an image, I would hope you can do much better than that.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
The algorithm is performing a little better than a human when asked to guess a country without any other information, and that is great achievement, but we do no want images categorized based on location that is a guess. --Jarekt (talk) 13:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
We could certainly add a "guessed" location, but I was expecting something where you could feed in that you took this photo on Tahiti and it would say that you were most likely at the Tahiti Taco Shop (Lat, Long), looking east. The number of times that the person who shot the photo didn't know the country and yet it was distinct enough this algorithm could help is few.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:02, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Files tagged with {{No permission}} end up with a message that the uploader needs to send the proper permission to OTRS, and are then added to Category:Media missing permission. Many uploaders send their permissions exactly as directed. Files in Category:Media missing permission are deleted after 7 days, by it takes ~60 days (at the moment) for files in permissions-commons OTRS queue to be processed, so those files are long gone. A savvy uploader might add {{OTRS pending}}, but that only gives then 14 days not 60. So although we can undelete them we can not restore them to where they were used. The whole process seems to be broken and very unfair to our uploaders, who might just get alienated. Shall we extend grace period for files tagged with {{No permission since}}, {{OTRS pending}}? Doubling the grace periods would not be enough to fully solve the issue, but it would be more fair. See for example this file: I have no idea why it was tagged with {{No permission}}, but once tagged it is waiting for deletion and there is not much uploader can do to stop it. --Jarekt (talk) 13:28, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Well, deleting and then undeleting means two admin actions, while avoiding alienation of uploaders and keeping any interwiki use intact would mean zero admin actions. We all know how much praise is given to the brave and valorous admins who delete myriads of images every day (as opposed to the derision given to users engaged in mere mass uploads), so this story kinda writes itself. -- Tuválkin✉✇16:25, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
I'd be all for a longer grace period than 14 days on {{OTRS pending}}. I don't think OTRS tickets have been processed that quickly at any time in the recent past, nor are likely to be in the near future. - Jmabel ! talk17:23, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
I just came around these pictures of the 2017 Oroville Dam crisis. I haven't got time to upload them but maybe someone would have the time to make them available on Commons.
I've seen images of the crisis with a copyright notice from the California Department of Water Resources. I am not certain that such a copyright claim would be legit; {{PD-CAGov}} sounds like it would apply to images made by the DWR, and people incorrectly claiming copyright on things they don't have rights to is common even in government departments. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
The site seems to be produced by the DWR and the pictures have a Public Domain license attribution on the site (click on one of the picture to see it. Maybe you're right, still. Good day, Letartean (talk) 16:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
I tried to get a few images, but I always get "Download unavailable. Please contact us for download access to this file." Any idea how to get them? Thanks, Yann (talk) 17:38, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
@Yann: On this page, there is a "Download" button (with a downwards-pointing arrow) in the lower-right corner. However, it appears that usage of the download option requires signing up for a free PhotoShelter account. On the sign up page, there is a note about accessing specific site content, which may be relevant. --Gazebo (talk) 14:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
iOS don't natively support WebM, so you can't play WebM files on iOS devices without a third-party app. Chrome and Firefox, which both have iOS versions, natively supports WebM. VLC (it also have an iOS version) also natively support WebM. ★Poké9509:54, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Is there a way to scrape The Noun Project website for icons?
Hi
The Noun Project has 1000s of very clean, well designed icons, many of which are available under a Wikimedia compatible license. Currently only a very small number are available on Wikimedia Commons. They would be incredibly useful for outreach projects, publications, Wikiproject pages etc, I have used them widely on the Connected Open Heritage project]. The site has names and categories for each icon and clear licensing, it also has an API. Would some kindly wizard be able to take a look at if it is possible to mass import them? I would be very happy to do grunt work.
@John Cummings: Sorry, the usage is not fully free as you assume. What you have done is against the license rules, strict saying. Your implemented images must link to the license (file description page). So please remove the |link= from the files. (PS: on the other hand you can use for menues the Wikimedia own icons for e.g. without link to the images) -- User: Perhelion12:53, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
FWIW, most of the icons at the Noun Project aren't copyrightable (in the US at least) as they aren't sufficiently original. Kaldari (talk) 09:05, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
I use lots of images from the Noun Project. Their categorization system has been a challenge for me to use and I also have imagined that if the files were on Commons then it would be easier to find images. Blue Rasberry (talk)20:38, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Do we have any policies against "counterfeit" images of subjects?
Given the result of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Samsung Galaxy Note 7.jpg, we don't. The accuracy and authenticity of this image has been disputed by at least 2 people. Me, and User:TheWikiContributor, due to various factors. Yet, the mere fact that it is actually in use trumps the fact that a potentially fabricated image of this phone is being used to represent it on Wikipedia.
We are an image archive. There are a lot of things we can do, but one of the things we shouldn't do is delete a file relied on by the projects we serve without a legal or ethical reason. That a couple people disagree with the accuracy of an image is not a justification for undermining the projects that depend on us to continue serving the files they're using.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:43, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm not totally sure about that, Prosfilaes. Those projects depend on us for images that are what they say they are. If we had an images of a lion named "Tiger.jpg", categorized in Category:Tigers and with a file description reading "A picture of a tiger", we'd be doing a disservice to any projects that use in their articles about tigers, and undermining their credibility (not to mention our own.) That doesn't mean we'd delete the image, but we'd be well entitled to rename it, move it to a more appropriate category and change the description. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:48, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
I would put that in things we can do. And when we rename, a bot will automatically go through and update the references to it on all the places it's used at, and likely anyone who notices the edit summary will check it out and choose whether or not to continue using that file.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:34, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Commons has lots of counterfeit images. Mostly Chinese copies of famous paintings. At some point we need to develop some guidelies about this. Kaldari (talk) 09:02, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Moving images to wikipedia?
There are images of sculptures in Category:Einar Jónsson that (by my reading) are still subject to copyright restrictions, but would be acceptable at wikipedia under en:Template:PD-US-1923-abroad because the sculptures were made before 1923. I don't suppose we have an easy way to transfer things to wikipedia and delete them from Commons? Thanks. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:18, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
I've added the script, but I don't see any new options. Should something show up on the image page or elsewhere? Maybe I need special permissions? - Themightyquill (talk) 11:12, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm writing (in Wikipedia) about the Australian wool industry. I would like to give an indication of its importance in the early 20th century by displaying the lower of the two images in this scan of the two sides. But my attempt to crop is blocked and there is a reference to OTRS. Is there anything I can do about getting that block removed? the top part of the dual image is wholly superfluous. Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 04:33, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
I see what you mean. I tried using crop tool & hit an "abuse filter" even though I was correctly trying to save to a different filename. I'll download to my machine, crop, and re-upload, which should be fine. - Jmabel ! talk05:29, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Probably a stupid question but here it goes,
If a youtube video is under a cc license - Can I upload segments of that video providing all of the licensing is correct or does the video have to be uploaded as a whole?
(For instance I want to cut this video up as individual buses as opposed to uploading the entire video), Cheers, –Davey2010Talk02:07, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
It says "Standard YouTube License"; I don't see indication of a CC license. But presuming you have evidence of a CC license, yes, you can upload a clip on the same basis can add the whole thing. Just remember to indicate source, author, and license and to indicate that it is an excerpt. - Jmabel ! talk02:16, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
The video had come up under the CC license search results earlier so not sure what happened then, Obviously I shan't upload that but thanks for your help - Much appreciated. –Davey2010Talk02:47, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
I've just found these two images: 120830-F-MQ656-154 (7938204064).jpg and 2012 Best Medic Competition 120830-F-MQ656-154.jpg. They are in fact duplicates, but the system does not recognizes them as duplicates because their file sizes differs for some reason. I suppose there are many other such duplicates coming from US DoD flickr account and DVIDS Hub, and we don't need to have by two !exact versions for them. An automated or semi-automated tool/bot to find and resolve such duplicates (by their VIRIN IDs) is needed. CC Fæ. --XXN, 20:07, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
MediaWiki built in duplicate detection are done using SHA1hash, so only the files that have the same bit-by-bit data are considered duplicates by MediaWiki (shattered.io would be a false positive). If we need more complex mechanisms using VIRIN IDs, a bot / tool will have to be built. (Though, MediaWiki may somehow use image fingerprinting for duplicate detection in the distant future) --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 05:07, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
March 05
"This character may get silently deleted by one or more browsers."
When in a Category links have been added to the Wikipedias via WikiData, it results on the Wikipedia pages in a link to the Commons category except for the Dutch Wikipedia. There I have to add {{Commonscat|XXXX}}. For example in Category:Terzaga there are 23 links. Except the Dutch Wikipedia all Wikipedias have a link to this category. How can this be solved? Wouter (talk) 07:43, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
when i look at nl:Terzaga i see a link "In andere projecten > Mediabestanden" on the left side. is that what you are looking for? if yes, maybe reload the page. Holger1959 (talk) 08:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
I noticed this a couple of weeks ago. It seems specific to nl-wiki. On other wikis, the sidebar link follows the P373 value on Wikidata to a Commons category (ignoring any gallery). On nl-wiki, the links appear to follow sitelinks. I suspect this is a local configuration decision that has been made on nl-wiki, and you need to ask there about it.
It does seem odd for the other wikis to ignore Commons galleries completely in their sidebars. Was there an RfC some time about this, when this decision was taken? Jheald (talk) 12:16, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Doesn't seem odd to me at all, as in most cases galleries at commons are poorly maintained, randomly chosen subsets of their categories and pretty much useless. It doesn't make much sense to automatically link to them from an article. --El Grafo (talk) 13:21, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
I mentioned the subject at the Dutch Helpdesk. It appears to be a "sensitive" subject. There is an impasse and it looks like that there will be no change in the near future. Wouter (talk) 16:20, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
@Parair: I think the file description pages after your edits explains the issue quite clearly: {{Delete}} is for regular deletion requests, in which a deletion discussion will take place and whether it is actually kept or deleted will be concluded from the discussion, usually after a week from the initial deletion nomination. For speedy deletions, please use {{Copyvio}} in case of copyright violations or {{Speedy}} in case of most other speedy deletions; admins will see and process files tagged with these templates faster --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 12:53, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
the fact that newbies do not know how to add licenses is a reason to fix the broken upload process, not stomp your foot to get faster image deletions. even license missing takes seven days. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge17:37, 6 March 2017 (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
You can now search on English, French, Hebrew and Greek wikis and find words even if you forget the diacritics. It also works if you use diacritics in your search but the wiki doesn't. [4]
When you use the mobile view and click on a link to an article in another language you will see that article in the mobile view. Previously it changed to the desktop view. [5]
Problems
Some watchlist gadgets didn't work for a period of time last week. This has now been fixed. [6]
Admins who click on "mass delete" on a user's Special:Contributions will be taken directly to a list pages created by that user. It has worked like this before, but not lately. [7]
Changes this week
The way you switch between wikitext and the visual editors in the desktop view has changed. It is now a drop-down menu. This is the same as in the mobile view. [8]
The "flag the edit in the abuse log" checkbox will be removed from the abuse filter interface. This is because the edits are always flagged in the abuse log. [9]
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 7 March. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 8 March. It will be on all wikis from 9 March (calendar).
Meetings
You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on 7 March at 20:00 (UTC). See how to join.
Clarification
The 2017/09 issue of Tech News mentioned 3D file formats you can soon upload to Commons. The AMF format will be available later.
Interesting. Apps hyped as 'Shazam for art' include:
Smartify app (2017 "the app will be launched in May and will feature all the artworks of Amsterdam’s Rijksmuseum and London’s Wallace Collection, as well as selected works from Louvre and The Met in New York.")
Artfinder app (2011: "Visitors to the Dulwich Picture Gallery, can download the app for £1.99 and then take a photo of any of the paintings in the Twombly and Poussin exhibition.")
Magnus app (2016: "The app does this by crowdsourcing information from users, kind of like an art-themed Quora, and populating it in the app's database. The information must be verified by multiple users and reviewed by the app's full-time staff of three. There are currently 8 million pieces of artwork in Magnus' database, 12% of which are from the primary art market. The rest come from publicly listed auctions." video. August 2, 2016: "... now off the market, following news that it operated using information grabbed from other art world databases as well as copyright claims by three German galleries. Apple has removed the free app from its store, as Artnet News reported, after a five-month run.")
Google Arts & Culture app (2016[10]: "We’ve also been experimenting with a new feature. The Art Recognizer is now available in London’s Dulwich Picture Gallery, Sydney’s Art Gallery of New South Wales and the National Gallery of Art in Washington DC. Just pull up the app, point your phone’s camera to a painting on display and find all the information you want to know about the artwork. We’re planning to roll this out to museums around the world—so stay tuned.")
Semi-related app for Android phones is Google Goggles. "used for searches based on pictures taken by handheld devices. For example, taking a picture of a famous landmark searches for information about it, or taking a picture of a product's barcode searches for information on the product" (t) Josve05a (c)11:14, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
100 Words Campaign
My best attempt at visualizing term Complete
Lately I found out about meta:Grants:Evaluation/100 Words Campaign and found it to be a very interesting challenge. It seems like someone identified 100 abstract concepts which are hard to visualize, like awareness, completeness, engagement, strategy, process, wisdom, etc. and the challenge is to find images that best visualize it. I am not sure why is this a grant of some sort and what the purpose of the exercise, but I hope me or someone else will use this exercise to improve image coverage on Wikipedia and Wiktionary for those terms. Many of the terms have categories associated with them, but with few or no useful images, search is also rarely good at finding useful images. Some of you have seen a lot of images on Commons, do any of them would be good for visualization of one of those concepts? --Jarekt (talk) 16:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
I have a question for WhatamIdoing. If we find a nice image that illustrate a concept that is not on the list but we think it is useful, can we add it? Is it a flexible workflow or those words are the one and only target (because they come form some internal report or similar)? For example I don't see "special" or "out of the box" or something like that but we had this challenge Commons:Photo challenge/2015 - January - Outliers. You use one of the winner for the word "others", but "outliners" looks to me like a very useful concept. Now I am sure that other people might what I am thinking looking around, so can they propose some update? --Alexmar983 (talk) 07:39, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Jarekt -- the traditional symbol of hope was an anchor. (Don't ask me why, but it was.) I'm really not too sure what the point of the whole exercise is (or why it's worth spending money on) if abstract symbols are to be excluded... AnonMoos (talk) 16:22, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
I am quite sure that in my culture an anchor does not mean hope. it means "anchor"... or sea stuff... And I could say the same about some of the other countries I have lived working around the world. Abstract symbols are always risky. 50 years ago in many places noone even had any ideas what the symbol for the shape of a hearth was. The sports icons were firstly "made official" at the Tokio 1964 Olympic games so foreigners could understand better what was going on. The symbol of a toilet is just two human figures, few decades ago in some rural area noone would have never associated it to the "dirty stuff". Unless you create a truly international committee to decide them, I would avoid symbols... images are probably better. BTW I've asked, noone is spending money on it.--Alexmar983 (talk) 05:21, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
That's nice. I looked it up, and it turns out that the anchor=hope association is based on Bible verse Hebrews 6:19. In any case, it was understood in artistic conventions of many Christian cultures for many centuries. There are many, many anchor=hope images on Wikimedia Commons; here's one that I happened to recently upload: AnonMoos (talk) 06:11, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
It looks to me more like some "Old testaments flavor". So I would expect it to be stronger in protestant countries, just guessing. Especially if they have a very strong maritime tradition. Where I come from it is associated to "Faith, Hope, and Charity", the three "theological virtues", so in my mind I see maybe an image of a nice woman on a church window.--Alexmar983 (talk) 07:04, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
I only notice now your image (very nice). And I was wrong about the Old testament... I was looking at your comment carefully. but there is maybe some closer attention to the gospel which is still a little bit more protestant than catholic. I am looking around and there are some examples of statues in Catholic churches in Belgium and South America and France (but where I live in France I never saw that), but I am sure not where I lived with my family in Italy. We might have some statue with an anchor but in my childish memories I noticed and I was told mainly about the symbols of the saints. No memory at all of that.--Alexmar983 (talk) 07:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Alexmar983, since it's a "big round number" of words, then I think it would make sense to suggest additional (or alternative) words/concepts on the talk page, rather than boldly adding them to the main page. I don't know whether the people working on that project really want to have exactly 100 words. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:46, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi Alexmar983, AnonMoos, I really enjoyed this conversation about what symbols represent for different cultures. This is exactly why we started the campaign: in order to start conversations about ideas beyond language barriers. Since the campaign is coming to a close, we can't add more words than the ones that are currently on the list, because we already have many pictures to work on. After the campaign closes, we have to edit the pictures to fit a 6 x 4 in frame, and add the license information before printing. If we add more words at this point, we won't make it in time to print the picture card deck before the next conference. I hope this makes sense to you, we still really appreciate all the conversation and thought given to what words to include and why. If you are interested in learning more about the word selection, please let me know, and I can expand.
At the moment, we are missing images for these words:
The useless and misleading Annie Besant caption still hasn't been fixed in any way since the last time this was discussed in detail here on the Village Pump. AnonMoos (talk) 21:54, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
It's completely useless because it DOESN'T MENTION HER FERSHLUGGINER NAME (unlike all other portrait image captions on that page where the name is known), as I already pointed out multiple times in the last round of discussion. And it's misleading because it makes no mention whatsoever of what she considered to be her major life's work and accomplishment -- Theosophic occultism. And if it's left up to me to fix things, then I would change the caption in a major way, to be a lot less evasively vaguely flattering, as I mentioned before -- if that's what you want, then just give me the word... AnonMoos (talk) 13:12, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
If those comments are meant to be in reply to mine (despite being threaded in reply to Themightyquill), then they're a day late and a dollar short, and make you look annoyingly obnoxious. AnonMoos (talk) 13:54, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
if you were shouting, then your ongoing sea-lioning a simple photo gallery makes it timely. why don't you drag out this section another year without editing the caption, so that we all can be entertained by your behavior? Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge17:28, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi Ruslik. I just posted the image at the top of this thread. I blew it up to make it more visible, but as you can see it is faint lettering on black and quite hard to see. Go to File:Chicken sexing in Wenchang.ogv and click the bottom right of the video box that says "menu" then click the down arrow symbol to get the menu. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:48, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi, This proposal is open for more than a month with only 4 opinions given. I think that it is a sound proposal, and that is how a court would rule in most cases. Please comment. Thanks, Yann (talk) 16:36, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
March 09
A description that's arguably insulting (or worse)
I was surprised to see, in the article w:Leland Bobbé, a photo captioned "...two prostitutes in Times Square". The photo shows two women whose appearance is, I suppose, compatible with being prostitutes, but is certainly also compatible with having a "respectable" job, or no job at all. The image in question has an innocuous filename but its description here (provided by the uploader, User:Ethankennemer, reads '"Seafood" from the series "NYC 1970s"; two prostitutes in Times Square'. They're prostitutes on the say-so of the photographer/uploader. But what if they either (a) were prostitutes but prefer not to be so described, or (b) weren't prostitutes at all (and are unhappy to be so described) -- is there a risk of defamation? -- Hoary (talk) 13:57, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I removed that. EXIF mentions an author different than the uploader, so it needs a permission. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:13, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello. I'm uploading some photos which were taken during a photowalk organized as part of Wikimedia Community User Group Sri Lanka. The photowalk was made possible/attended by two people. Is it allowed to license the photo so that the "author" field contains two usernames? Or is it a must that the person holding the camera be listed as the author? If the latter, is {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0|attribution=User-A and User-B}} allowed? Thanks in advance! Rehman15:26, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi, is there any guidance for photographs over 100 years old that have been digitized in the UK and are available online - are they considered to be in the public domain? Can they be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons without the permission of the digitizer? Thanks 2.31.36.7602:29, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Scanning/digitization generally should not be an issue, but 100 years is not enough if nothing is known about the photographer. Consider a photo taken in 1917 by a 17-year-old. That person could well have lived into the 1990s. - Jmabel ! talk06:05, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
It's a complex area. Copyright was limited to the author's life plus 50 years after the 1911 act and before that was 14 years (with no relationship to the author's lifetime) but could be renewed for a further 14 years by the author. Works this old published in the US will be public domain there (pre-1923), but though many 100 year old works published in the UK will be public domain, there are plenty of cases where copyright may still apply. The topic of UK copyright is made muddy due to many UK institutions indulging in copyfraud by making various copyright claims over public domain works, or incorrectly attempting to claim new publication rights over very old works, and the perpetual issue of people worrying that "sweat of the brow" may be a justification for UK copyright claims. Fortunately the latter is pure bunkum and legal flimflam, as no case has ever gone to court to set a precedent. --Fæ (talk) 10:09, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
The coat of arms of Kenya, used in embassies, on websites, and on national memorabilia worldwide, looks roughly like this —>
However, since 2010 Commons and all Wikipedias have used instead a curly-haired, long-tongued variant. In correcting this on en:wp recently, I renamed the variant Alternate Coat of arms of Kenya.svg, though it should perhaps be renamed to something more descriptive.
Alt (Fanon?)
The tongue sticking out is the most explicitly wrong feature of the variant (and I see someone simply removed the tongue from the image two weeks ago) - that's considered offensive to some in Kenya, they call it a "dragon" or "demon" variant of the lion. There seem to be two non-canon variants with long hair and tongues, one is more wolf-like. At any rate, while I see plenty of derivatives online using those images, I cannot find a single official government site or image that uses them. So WP may just have amplified the prominence of the wrong image in search results and remix work.
I've switched en:wp over to using the canonical coat of arms, but there are over 500 other uses of it on the projects. Every one I looked at intends to use the actual official coat of arms. What's the best way to fix this across the board?
Rename the alternate image, without a redirect, and move the proper coat of arms to the original title "Coat of arms of Kenya.svg"
Run a bot to update every instance / reference, with some human oversight
Do this without a bot
Do this without a bot, on mobile, with a text-only browser
I have a way of updating instances globally. Give me a moment to look at it...
Okay, swapping:
From file >> File:Alternate Coat of arms of Kenya.svg
To file >> File:Kenya Coat of Arms-detail.svg
No, my way of doing this fell over. This appears to be caused by the new security introduced for bots to run across Wikipedias. I get a failure message of "Failed OAuth authentication for wikipedia:ab: The authorization headers in your request are for a user that does not exist here" when the write was attempted at the first matching Wikipedia. I'm not going to fix this, the idea of endlessly fiddling with Oath for every damn Wikipedia is too nuts, I'd rather retire my informal script and avoid playing with replacements in the future. There is a global replace tool, but I think it's restricted to admins, I've never used it. --Fæ (talk) 10:13, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Many of the changes have been made using https://github.com/Commonists/GlobalReplace. I ended up using Faebot as my Fæ account would not work, but this was a bit of a blunder as I'm not supposed to use that account on the English Wikipedia (discussion). I suggest the remaining instances are changed manually, as the GlobalReplace tool probably struggles with language script variations. --Fæ (talk) 11:02, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Again, we mention that according to the rules of heraldry, there is no difference in the images. Both are equally correct representations of the description. Rmhermen (talk) 21:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
redirection bot
Can someone create a bot to automatically generate redirect pages for category pages that do not have a page already? E.g. if "category:ABC" does not also have an existing page "ABC," then to create a redirect page for it? Entering "ABC" in search automatically redirects to "category:ABC" if "ABC" does not exist, but this redirection does not work for hyperlinks, so that someone hyperlinking to an image category on Wikimedia Commons will either need to manually create a redirect page on Wikimedia Commons, or hyperlink to it using an awkward %3A. Nicole Sharp (talk) 19:12, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
I am not sure that this is reasonable. "ABC" can have different meanings and each instance should be checked manually. Ruslik (talk) 20:26, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
March 11
March 12
Nominate for deletion tool inserting blank line above nomination
Hi. It seems the "Nominate for deletion" tool is inserting a blank line above the level three heading of the nomination in each nomination page, for instance in this edit I made using the tool. Stopping this behavior will help avoid unnecessary vertical whitespace when the nominations are transcluded into the day's deletion requests log. — JeffG. ツ05:00, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Backlog in permissions-commons OTRS queue
We have quite a backlog in permissions-commons OTRS queue with 640+ permissions waiting to be processed going back 2 months. I am working on the oldest permissions and many files related to them are already deleted so we need OTRS members with admin rights to process them. But any help would be appreciated. If you want to become OTRS member see meta:OTRS/Volunteering--Jarekt (talk) 14:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
I do not know. I have been volunteering at OTRS in minimal capacity for years, but only recently I started helping out with photosubmission and permissions-commons queues. Nobody ever welcomed and assisted me, but maybe it is better now. There are also some help pages at https://otrs-wiki.wikimedia.org . --Jarekt (talk) 18:58, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Jarekt: Not so long ago some OTRS admins did a big purge and pissed off a lot of people in the process. We lost a lot of volunteers that I don't think will ever work on OTRS again. I see this backlog as a direct result of this bad management. Multichill (talk) 18:52, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
That is sad, since they really need help. I also observed in some queues that some long-time volunteers seem to be more and more robot-like, which results in unfriendly manner they interact with people contacting them, overusing prefabricated replies that are only loosely related to the issue at hand. That is not unlike some of our most hardworking admins who work on DR and other deletion queues. It is hard to criticize such volunteers unless you are also helping with a given task. --Jarekt (talk) 19:09, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
I am reading the whole discussion, and looks like another crisis. Shall I readdress this at Meta-wiki, so the foundation can step in? --George Ho (talk) 22:01, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
George Ho, For years my only interaction with OTRS was checking already approved tickets and occasional approval of tickest from newbies I was helping with licenses, so I never looked at queue length. Now I did and was appalled, but I do not know what is a normal length of the queue so I can not judge if it is a crisis or just business as normal. However feel free to alert foundation if you think it will help. --Jarekt (talk) 17:25, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Part of the problem is that OTRS is opaque. This is necessary, of course, for its day-to-day work, but not for the recruitment, (lack of) training, treatment and summary dismissal of volunteers. Andy Mabbett (talk) 11:46, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Is there anything that can be done to help OTRS with the backlog without actually being in OTRS? Perhaps if some of the people who did the purge are gone or were to be replaced some of those folks would come back and help out again. I don't know the reasons for the purge but it sounds like it was a contentious issue and is causing problems. Reguyla (talk) 20:19, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Correct me if I am wrong but the "purge" was a removal of OTRS privileges from people that do not use them regularly, kind of like we do with admins here. So if you had OTRS rights but only used them when occasionally other business brought you to OTRS than you lost those rights. Maybe there was some other purge. As for Reguyla's question, there is plenty of interesting tasks to do that do nor require any special rights Category:Media without a license: needs history check, Category:New uploads without a license or Category:Wikidata related maintenance come to mind, but with OTRS backlog you do need OTRS access and for older tickets (which are most troubling) you also need admin rights, because it is all undeleting of files which did not got permissions processes on time. I would just ask for OTRS rights if you meet the requirements (I do not remember what they were if any). As I recall the process was easy. --Jarekt (talk) 18:26, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Quick heads up: There are two job openings related to Commons:Structured data at the WMF. See Commons talk:Structured data#CLs are hiring.21 and the following section for more information and links. Please share this information, especially with the experienced Commons contributors whom you'd most like to have these jobs. Neither position requires moving to San Francisco, so please don't let geography constrain your decision. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 05:01, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
@Whatamidoing (WMF): (Regarding Product is also hiring!) You are requesting "2+ years Product Management experience in a consumer-facing web property". Do you really think a lot onwik people are meeting that criteria? Please make sure to employ highly experienced commons users, setting such requirement will make it hard for you to employ such users. Best --Steinsplitter (talk) 06:42, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
@Steinsplitter: Certain jobs have certain requirements. If those requirements don't work for everybody (which is more than likely), there are still other open positions with different requirements to look at? :) --Malyacko (talk) 12:23, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
IMO (but note that I'm not on the hiring committee), anyone who was involved in building a tool for Commons has some "experience in a consumer-facing web property". Volunteer work counts as experience with the WMF. The hiring managers have consistently cared more about what you do than what your job title was.
If you (any of you) know Commons and understand what the job involves and think that you would be good at it, then please ignore "the requirements" and apply. Send a letter with your application that explains what you've done and why you think that you're a good choice even if you don't technically meet every single requirement. I would seriously like the hiring committee to have a hundred applicants from Wikimedians. (Or, think of it this way: whether they like it or not, they probably will get a hundred applications from people who think that posting a URL to a Wikipedia article on Facebook is a way to contribute to the movement. So if you're better qualified than that – and I think that's all of you – and you would like one of these jobs, then please, please, please apply.) Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 00:20, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Too many publisher logos' categories
So far, I found three Category pages storing Publishers' logos. Can they be merged into a single category page and turn the old category names into redirects? The pages are:
Those are my thoughts. But please give it a day or so before proceeding, because someone else may see it differently. - Jmabel ! talk05:17, 13 March 2017 (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
You will be able to show references from <references /> tags in more than one column on your wiki. This is the list of footnotes for the sources in the article. How many columns you see will depend on how big your screen is. On some wikis, some templates already do this. Templates that use <references /> tags will need to be updated, and then later the change can happen for all reference lists. [11][12]
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 14 March. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 15 March. It will be on all wikis from 16 March (calendar).
Meetings
You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on 14 March at 19:00 (UTC). See how to join.
Future changes
Some old web browsers will not be able to use JavaScript on Wikimedia wikis in the future. If you have an old web browser on your computer you can upgrade to a newer version. [13]
CSS in templates will be stored in a separate page in the future. [14][15]
There are a lot of small changes happening in the next couple of weeks, and I wanted to give you all a quick heads-up about them. Please share this information with other people/languages/projects that will be interested:
There's a change to how columns in reference lists are handled, at the request of the German Wikipedia. This change will improve accessibility by automatically formatting long lists of <ref>s into columns, based on each reader's screen width.
What you need to do: Nothing visible is happening now. If your project uses the normal <references /> tag (or doesn't really use refs at all, which I assume is the case here at Commons), then file a Phabricator task or just tell me, and I'll get your wiki on the list for the next config change. If your project uses a "reflist" template to create columns, then please consider deprecating it, or update the template to work with the new feature. (If the template just adds a section heading but the part with the <references /> tag itself is plain, then the template should be fine now.)
The label on the "Save changes" button will change on most projects tomorrow (Wednesday) to say "Publish page". This has been discussed for years, is supported by user research, and is meant to be clearer for new contributors. (Most of us who have been editing for years don't even look at the button any more, and we all already know that all of our changes can be seen by anyone on the internet, so this doesn't really affect us.)
If you have questions or encounter problems (e.g., a bad translation, problems fixing the documentation, etc.), then please tell me as soon as possible. I don't know whether this will change any of the buttons in the UploadWizard or other tools, but it will change the button when you're editing a page (e.g., to change the description).
When we split "Save page" into "Save page" and "Save changes" last August, a couple of communities wondered whether a local label would be possible. (For example, someone at the English Wikipedia asked if different namespaces could have different labels [answer: not technically possible], and the Chinese Wikipedia has some extra language on their "Save page" button [about the importance of previewing, I think].) Whether the Legal team can agree to a change may depend upon the language/country involved, so please talk to me first if you have any ideas or questions.
As part of the ongoing, years-long user-interface standardization project, the color and shape of the "Save changes" (or now "Publish page"), "Show preview" and "Show changes" buttons on some desktop wikitext editors will change. The buttons will be bigger and easier to find, and the "Save" button will be bright blue. (phab:T111088) Unfortunately, it is not technically possible to completely override this change and restore the appearance of the old buttons for either your account or an entire site.
You may remember that nobody could edit for about 30 minutes twice last April, because of some work that Technical Ops was doing on the servers. The same kind of planned maintenance is happening again. It's currently scheduled for Wednesday, April 19th and Wednesday, May 3rd. The time of day is unknown, but it will probably be afternoon in Europe and morning in North America. This will be announced repeatedly, but please mark your calendars now. In particular, if you have a GLAM workshop scheduled on one of those dates, then please leave a note for me at w:en:User talk:Whatamidoing (WMF) as soon as possible.
That's everything on my mind at the moment, but I may have forgotten something. If you have questions (about this or any other WMF work), then please {{Ping}} me, and I'll see what I can find out for you. Thanks, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't know anything specifically about Egyptian law on this, but the original German concept of Panoramafreiheit is basically that if buildings, sculptures, etc. are permanently visible in public, then there is an exception to the copyright holder's exclusive right to make their works available to the public. So, the building or sculpture is still copyrighted, but a photo of it is OK under the principle of freedom of panorama; other than noting the matter of freedom of panorama, the photo has the same copyright status as if it were a photo of something that was not copyrighted. I believe Egyptian law is similar to German law on this (see File:Freedom of Panorama world map.svg) but there might be some subtle difference of which I'm unaware. - Jmabel ! talk15:39, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
TP Archival Bots
Hi all,
As a frequent editor on enwiki, one thing I have started to take for granted is the talk page archival bots, such as ClueBot III. I did some digging and saw that COM did have TP archival bots, but they have all been inactive for some time. I was wondering if we could try to get a new one up and running based on the code from the enwiki bots. TJH2018talk20:29, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
I disagree. They are an important part of history, science, and technology, and should all be uploaded if available, or at least one video per test, to place on their respective Wikipedia pages. Nicole Sharp (talk) 18:54, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Presumably some, but presumably not all: a library can contain work that is not their own. There is a contact on the page you linked to ask about rights for any specific materials; I suggest you write them about the materials you are concerned with. - Jmabel ! talk01:30, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Usualy I manage to put a notice in the local village pump, that I have an picture they may be interested in. In Japanese its get complicated. If I use the second tabsheet (the one usualy reserved for adding an entry I see way to add an english comment blindly.Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:07, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I read the discussions on your page, and knowledge about English Railways is above my pay grade. Sorry for the bother. — Ineuw talk21:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Help with translation needed
What does "trade lodge" in this context mean? Is this something like "dealership" or "branch" (of an organization)? I would like to translate the description into Polish, but first I have to fully understand it. --jdxRe:15:17, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
It would be a complex out of which a trading business was based, probably including residences for its employees as well. "Trade lodge" sounds like an over-literal translation from Dutch; "trading post" would be more common English. - Jmabel ! talk16:14, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
New grant proposal - digitalisation of the Geoscience Museum
A new step into the digitalisation programme of Brazilian GLAM
This project is an ambitious next step in the GLAM programme being developed in Brazil: the goal now is to scaling up initiatives, with a digitalisation programme in one of the largest museums of the University of São Paulo, the Museu of Geosciences of the Institute of Geosciences.
I uploaded this CC-BY video last year and see now that it has no information about the music in the background (author, name, licence etc.) Can you help? With Shazam app or other tricks? http://www.mooma.sh/ doesn't work for me (apparently works for nobody since 2016). --Atlasowa (talk) 23:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
March 16
Proposal to track metacategories that aren't sorted into flat categories
Netherlands and the World Exchange Platform is online
Wikimedia Nederland launches the Netherlands and the World Exchange Platform. The platform aims to stimulate global re-use of Dutch collections on non-European cultural heritage. In particular, it aims to stimulate collections on countries with which the Netherlands have had historical ties. These countries include Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Brazil, Ghana, Suriname, South Africa, and others.
The platform also aims to foster contacts between Dutch cultural heritage institutions and Wikimedia contributors across the globe. However, participation is not limited to Wikimedia contributors. Anyone can participate, making it relevant for education and research as well.
Key properties:
Dutch heritage institutions can post offers on (parts of) their collections that are relevant to non-European countries
Wikimedia contributors gain insight in the contents of Dutch collections and can make requests for digitalisation.
Knowledge exchange and cooperation are key concepts.
The platform is easy to use. After registration, users can post offer/requests notices, depending on whether they are looking for material, or want to offer material for re-use. Statistics on re-use are also available.
The Netherlands and the World Exchange Platform is part of the program The Netherlands and the World. This program is supported by Wikimedia Nederland and aims to make available knowledge and content on non-European countries.
Development of the platform was financially supported by DEN.
I am not an English speaker. This man is presented like being the French philosophe André Tosel. Sure, it's not the reality. Who is this man? (LaVoiture-balai (talk) 22:27, 16 March 2017 (UTC))
Why are there so many files that are lacking a description template with the appropriate language tag, such as {{en|text}}? PokestarFan (talk) 02:25, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Lots of people don't know about language tags. And prior to about 2008-2009, they weren't at all commonly used, so they are very rarely present on older files or non-Wizard newbie uploads. - Jmabel ! talk05:26, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
We invite you to join the movement strategy conversation (now through April 15)
This message, "We invite you to join the movement strategy conversation (now through April 15)", was sent through multiple channels by Gregory Varnum on 15 and 16 of March 2017 to village pumps, affiliate talk pages, movement mailing lists, and MassMessage groups. A similar message was sent by Nicole Ebber to organized groups and their mailing lists on 15 of March 2017. This version of the message is available for translation and documentation purposes
Dear Wikimedians/Wikipedians:
Today we are starting a broad discussion to define Wikimedia's future role in the world and develop a collaborative strategy to fulfill that role. You are warmly invited to join the conversation.
There are many ways to participate, by joining an existing conversation or starting your own:
Track A (organized groups): Discussions with your affiliate, committee or other organized group (these are groups that support the Wikimedia movement).
This is the first of three conversations, and it will run between now and April 15. The purpose of cycle 1 is to discuss the future of the movement and generate major themes around potential directions. What do we want to build or achieve together over the next 15 years?
We welcome you, as we create this conversation together, and look forward to broad and diverse participation from all parts of our movement.
I've taken some photographs this week and amongst them there is one of a scale model of a ship in the Reformed Church in Huisduinen (Dutch wiki). But I know of at least three others, and there should be severall more. Now I'm asking you: what is the English name for these ships so I can make a new category with an English name. Or is it a typical Dutch fenomena and should I use the Dutch name? Dqfn13 (talk) 21:00, 17 March 2017 (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
The Save page button now says Publish page or Publish changes on the Wikimedia wikis except for Wikipedias and Wikinewses. This change will come to Wikipedias later. The point is to make it more clear that the edit will change the page immediately. Publish page is when you save a new page and Publish changes when you edit an existing page. [16]
You can see monthly page views when you click on Page information in the sidebar. Developers can also get monthly page views through the API. [18]
The Linter extension is now on smaller Wikimedia wikis. It helps editors find some wikitext errors so they can be fixed. It will come to other Wikimedia wikis later. The extension will be able to find more errors later. [19]
The MediaWiki-Vagrant portable development environment has been updated to use Debian Jessie. This means local development and testing will be more like on the majority of Wikimedia production servers. [20]
Problems
On 15 March some interwiki links to other languages were not correctly sorted. This has been fixed. If you still see pages where the interwiki links are not sorted as they should be, they should be fixed automatically with time or you can edit the page and save it without changing anything. If this doesn't work, please report it. [21]
Changes this week
When you edit with the visual editor, you will be able to switch the direction you write in from right-to-left to left-to-right as you are editing. This is especially important for editors who edit in languages that write from right to left. You can do this with a tool in the editing menu. You can also use the keyboard shortcut Ctrl+Shift+X on PCs or Cmd+Shift+X on Macs. [22]
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 21 March. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 22 March. It will be on all wikis from 23 March (calendar).
Meetings
You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on 21 March at 19:00 (UTC). See how to join.
I disagree, the image is about a copyrighted comic book character. While the fan art author may have allowed the image to be used, he/she most likely does not have permission from the publisher to actually do so. MKFI (talk) 07:25, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
I would say it is clear copyright infringement on the character Emma Frost. As COM:FANART states: "Re-drawing does not avoid copyright infringement". The usage of the X logo and costume make it clear this isn't just some pinup of a blonde woman (compare to official art e.g. [23], [24]). If this were put in a comic book or trading card, Marvel Comics would certainly sue for infringement. Animalparty (talk) 21:46, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
In addition, the image appears to be a collaboration, note the signatures include "B N S(?) 02 Dally" , and colors by Nig. A link to "orignal draw" on the source Deviant Art page (now a 404) further suggests this is a derivative work. Assuming even the original is freely licensed, wouldn't we need the permission from both penciler and colorist? Animalparty (talk) 21:54, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
This gets into so many gray areas... hrm. Fan art is quite often derivative works (and not fair use). However, a particular piece of fan art is only derivative if it actually copies expression. Imagining and drawing a character from a book may not necessarily mean the drawing is derivative of the character -- they can be separate expressions of the same idea. On the other hand, making drawings of a comic book character -- which are drawings themselves -- will usually get into derivative work territory. For this one, I'm not completely sure. It's obviously of the character, given the costume. But given the original work links given, the general depiction of the woman doesn't seem derivative -- often characters are drawn in a particular way, and copying that particular style would definitely make it derivative (such as drawing a very recognizable Mickey Mouse in an original pose). This one, seems like there are many styles of drawing the woman out there, and unsure if this depiction is derivative of another, or a mostly original drawing of a woman with the character's costume added. If it's the latter, then there's a chance, though still a gray area -- even just the costume drawing may still be derivative. It is distinctive, and the risk of being derivative of a drawn character is much much higher than being derivative of a written description of a character. But... it sounds like this was a drawing by Ed Benes and Mariah Benes; here is a link to the black-and-white drawn version (and this seems to be another variant). A free license by someone adding colorization isn't very effective -- that may not be copyrightable at all, and since the original drawing was published elsewhere, there is no reason to believe the original artist allowed the license. So on the basis of that alone, it's a near-certain delete, without getting into any character derivative right issues. Carl Lindberg (talk) 09:37, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Reverting
Is there a way to revert all edits i made beginning from this till this. If so, please tell me how or just do revert it. --14:36, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't know an automatic way to do this. However there are "only" about 250 edits to revert, so list your last 500 edits, find the beginning and using middle mouse button ("open in new tab in my Firefox") click on "revert" link. Of course do not open 250 tabs at once – do it in batches of 20-30 tabs. IMO it should take less than an hour to revert all these changes. --jdxRe:15:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
This is the Commons village pump; Fæ's talkpage is located at User talk:Fæ. Like the annual fundraiser itself POTY has been advertised using ContralNotices for many years, therefore this "consensus requirement" (note the exact RFC closure statement) for new messages certainly doesn't apply. I would appreciate a less disrespectful attitude towards projects aiming to increase awareness of and participation on Commons – after all, this should be a goal we all share. FDMS 4 15:24, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
According to meta:CentralNotice/Usage_guidelines#Approval "Standard Community Notices" receive automatic approval; I do not see how a standard practice for many years has been changed, as we followed the described process. As for whether you wish to participate, it's your choice (and we'll respect your choice), but please do not use these words such as "solipsism" or "preening" unless you are backed up. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 16:26, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
well, there is a consensus requirement that is now openly flouted. if admins cannot follow the central notice policy to "4. Be consensus-driven" [27] then maybe they need to be desysoped. what is the point of having policy if no one will follow it? but i see there is a global turnoff of all central notices. good. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge00:41, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
read the link to meta CentralNotice/Usage guidelines about consensus. "Most banners will need some sort of consensus before hand. This can be achieved via the CentralNotice Request process. As part of this process the host communities should then be notified via the host wiki's community notice board (Village Pump, Cafe or equivalent) – or whatever is most suitable to efficiently reach most interested users - linking to the Central Notice request. Any request will be open for at a minimum of 7 days." one admin notifying the whole wide world with no discussion, is not a consensus process. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge12:49, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
i see last year they went through the motions of providing notice here. no such luck this year. i.e. where is the notice on each and every wiki which is getting banner spammed? you understand that the summary process tends to undermine the credibility and authority of the admins? you cannot say a word about the fundraising banners if you will not show good behavior on your banners. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge16:46, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Comment "Wikimedia Commons is a media file repository making available public domain and freely-licensed educational media content to everyone." And one user thinks an interactive poll among the Wikimedians to get a feedback on what they consider as the best and useful media here is spamming. See, this is a continuous process and it will give the photographers an idea on what the community is expected them. This poll includes images that are collected from other sites too; so this will help the content curators who frequently check other sites for potential media to upload here too. I can provide a lot more benefits this poll will give to Commons if the OP is interested to know. Jee02:42, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
no - misuse of the central notifications without notice or consensus is spam. if it is so great, why not go through the motions? no, i am not interested; rest assured "content curators" are not interested either - they go to flickr after getting their items deleted here. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge11:40, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
If you have a problem with the way how the notification is handles, please discuss it in meta as it is off-topic here. I know very well what Flickr is. Where you see a place for content curators there? Jee13:34, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
How to solve this circular categorization? // Gikü said done Sunday, 19 March 2017 23:11 (UTC)
I'd suggest that by analogy with Light, the study of which is Optics, Sound is the thing and Acoustics its study. Therefore Sound should be a parent rather than a subcat of Acoustics. Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:30, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Well, mechanical waves, and it depends how you define "sound" I suppose; considering vibration, sound, ultrasound and infrasound. --ghouston (talk) 01:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
@Ionutzmovie: The image depicts a literary work, so it is not {{PD-text}}. For that image to be moved to Commons, the copyright of the book depicted must have expired in its source country and the US. Who's the author of the book, and when did they died? When is the book published? Thanks, ★Poké9503:32, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
@Pokéfan95: with all due respect, you are wrong. This is not the body of the work in question, it's the cover. Nothing here should rise to the level of being copyrightable: it's simple typography on negligible content. But I'd probably use {{PD-ineligible}} rather than {{PD-text}}. - Jmabel ! talk06:03, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Oh, thanks for correcting me. I didn't knew that cover pages with no copyrightable elements are not themselves copyrightable. ★Poké9509:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
March 24
Any guideline for User Templates in Commons
As a referece to This Template used Here shows that its a possible use of advertisement for photoshoots or event shoots. Does this type of template allowed, or as an uploaded user, some relaxation can be offered. The doubts particularly on contact me area of the templates ...Captain......Tälk tö me..10:48, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
@Guillom: Any thoughts on making the credit template wording less promotional? More simply, linking to a statement about your photography work on your own website, where you are free to say whatever you want, would avoid any possible contention on-wiki. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:56, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello. I appreciate the ping, Fæ; thank you for making sure I'd see this discussion. I've never made any money from photography; indeed, over the past 12 years, I have instead poured thousands of euros and dollars into travel, conference fees, and hotel expenses to take photos for Commons. The wording was merely to avoid the (very real) expectation that some people have that I would just take photos for free for their benefit, whereas my priority was to take photos for the benefit of Commons. I have tweaked the language of the template since I sadly don't have time to do any photography any more and I have sold all my equipment. guillom15:43, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
i don't see anything wrong with the template, any more than the hybrid license "advertisement" such as User:Fir0002/credits. if you want to get a consensus on "non-promotional" terms on reuse, go for it. but i think you will find you have an out of consensus view. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge02:46, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
This Template Looks good now, But as indicated User:Fir0002/credits template is still confusing If you require a less restrictive commercial license please email me to negotiate terms public will be confused on the wording and will be doubt if the image is free or still copyrighted, A standard guideline on such template is good for using as a reference guide- ...Captain......Tälk tö me..16:48, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
@Captainofhope: It's perfectly legal to offer an image under multiple licenses... as long as it's offered under a license we allow, we can host the image. We don't 'have' to mention any license other than one that allows us to host the work, but it's not an uncommon practice and the community seems to generally think it's okay. - Reventtalk11:48, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
March 15
Native English speakers: Copyright issues with cartoons from John F. Knott
I asked this on the village pump copyright corner and got the advice the start deletion requests, but I think it would be useful, when a native English speakers looks at it:
See cat. John F. Knott. Most of the images there are uploaded from a Flickr account ofSMU Central University Libraries. On the Flickr pages for every file they claim, that there are no known copyright restrictions. But: John F. Knott died in 1963. For the US only cartoons from before 1923 should therefore be in public domain (and the now used license tag would be wrong); for most other countries it will last decades, before the images will be free. On the other hands it is possible to hand over copyrights in the US. How to find out, whether this is the case here? — Speravir– 00:18, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
There’s another possibility, that the cartoons were published without the notice, registration or renewals that US law required at the time. No idea whether or not that is actually the case here, just pointing out that publication before 1923 is not the only reason for a US copyright to have lapsed ahead of the now-usual 70 years pma.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 02:05, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
i'm not showing any hits for renewals at [28] (after 1978 online) don't know why you are second guessing SMU library. you realize there is a greater chance of an "FoP germany" getting taken down, than a "no known copyright"? Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge03:18, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Since the library's putting itself at risk of lawsuits if it publishes these images recklessly, and since copyright is a critical issue for us professional librarians (we're always dealing with it), we shouldn't question them without evidence for continued copyrightability, e.g. a lawsuit by Knott's heirs. Plus, if you donate physical items that you've created to academic archives, they'll typically require you to donate copyright as well (this way, they don't need to worry about getting permission to use them as they want), so if these images were still in copyright, it would be the exceptional case in which the library didn't have the right to release them under no-known-restrictions. Either way, I see no reason to question these images given what we know about them now. Nyttend (talk) 01:25, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Quick template transclusion and backlinks counter
Hey guys. Currently we have link of "Transclusion count" on Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Navbox but I just wrote a tool to provide the functionality much faster and easier that you can test it on this link (the (count) link) near the "Go" button. I wanted to ask from the community if you guys like to enable this new tool as a gadget or a default enabled script and possibly remove the old tool afterward? Thanks −ebrahimtalk09:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
I understand that black-and-white images or high-contrasted images or x-ray-like images or thermal images are very well in COM:Scope of Commons and we do not impose uploaders to only upload the natural unfiltered original image. However, I noticed that Akshatha Inamdar (talk·contribs) has uploaded various derivatives of their own works. In good faith I would assume that they were uploaded as part of Wiki Loves Monuments challenge and to get a good chance of winning through artistic derivatives. But the quantity of such uploads is vast and I see no use in keeping just the plain b&w version or high-polarized-or-whatever version when the original simple one is available. Sample gallery included. Thoughts any? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:58, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Stargate Atlantis
I was looking for the location of this image. Someone pointed out that this is from the TV serie Stargate Atlantis. However I suspect this is a picture of a floating model used for the series. The wave size does not match the scale if this is really a bigg city. The floating object I estimate at 50 meters large. Even if this is a model I suspect there are copyrigth problems. I would still like to know more about it before it is probably deleted.Smiley.toerist (talk) 21:16, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
It appears to be computer-generated. This may actually be a concept shot for the series finale; I don't remember there being any land so close to the city in the show. Nicole Sharp (talk) 03:01, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
FWIW, I'd tend to agree with @Smiley.toerist: looks more like an actual scale model shot on a lake to me. Pretty sure we can't keep it either way. Stargate Atlantis was shot in and around Vancouver, so the hills in the background could potentially lead to the shooting location. But you'd probably have to ask a local to identify it, as there are many lakes with hills around them in this area. this location looks quite similar, for example (check it out in StreetView). --El Grafo (talk) 12:30, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
I am pretty sure this is not a real-life shot. Considering the amount of sunlight, I would expect building side-facades to be illuminated, but all we see is a silhouette. Additionally, if you follow the shade lines on the floor at the left, they do not converge at the center of the sun. --HyperGaruda (talk) 14:52, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
The following DRs indicate that fake logos are out of scope because they give false information about logo that do not exist and are not "realistically useful for an educational purpose":
However, I am somewhat surprised by the result of this DR: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Coats of arms of Taiwan. In my opinion, if the logos are fake they are inherently of no educational value. Whether they are in use is merely an indication of whether they are educational, and usually is a very good indication. Should we still consider that whether they are in use outweighs the fact that they are inherently non-educational? --Wcam (talk) 18:09, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi, If these are fake, they should be replaced, and then deleted. But yes, we don't delete files in use unless they are copyright violations. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:26, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
COM:INUSE: "A media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose, as is a file in use for some operational reason such as within a template or the like. Such a file is not liable to deletion simply because it may be of poor quality: if it is in use, that is enough." I didn't see those fake logos but I suppose technically the true reason of their deletion is not "Not educationally useful" but another one: vandalism. And if they are vandalism, even if they are in used, they should be deleted according to the deletion policy. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 00:37, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
As I see it, these aren't logos per se (they probably should be renamed, COM:RENAME#3) but basically graphical representations that call to mind the actual logos. Aside from the filenames, there's no reason to consider them logos; the descriptions are merely "[charactername] in a circle", which can't possibly be wrong unless the wrong character has been used. Analogy: imagine that File:Logo-GOP.png weren't in the public domain, so it was hosted at en:wp under a fair-use justification. Would it be vandalism to create a red rectangle with the letters "GOP" superimposed on it in red, and then to use it whenever we wanted to have an image associated with the US Republican Party? Would it be nominated for deletion on the grounds of "fake logo"? I don't think so, and I don't think we should treat these images differently. My only objection here is the claim that the originals, zh:File:Np logo.png and zh:File:Emblem of People First Party.svg, are nonfree images that require fair-use rationales — unless ROC copyright law has an extremely low threshold of originality, neither a simple orange oval nor a red square is copyrightable, and superimposing the simple name of an organisation on top of one of those shapes doesn't make it copyrightable. Barring a T-of-O issue, these should be considered {{PD-shape}} and moved to Commons. That done, the "call to mind" files can be replaced with the logos they're supposed to evoke, and once they're unused, it will be reasonable to renominate them with rationales such as "not useful, since file A is now on Commons", plus a link to this discussion if you think it would help. Nyttend (talk) 01:13, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
So we're in the business of enforcing Communist law on ROC images now? Are we also enforcing North Korean copyright law on stuff from South Korea? Nyttend (talk) 10:52, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Nyttend - An image equivalent to File:Republicanlogo.svg was claimed to be copyrighted/fair-use on English Wikipedia in 2012, which was why File:America Symbol.svg was created as a non-official quasi-equivalent which could be used incidentally / decoratively. So your hypothetical is not in fact hypothetical at all... AnonMoos (talk) 23:19, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
By the way I actually happen to be the creator and/or retoucher of those Taiwanese parties' "fake" logos. I made them or helped to edit them because some Taiwanese editors were so keen to put logo in front of every occurrence of a party name on zh-wiki but most of the logos are fair-used and cannot be used repeatedly. These "fake" logos on Commons could serve as kind of a compromise and they could use them to represent these parties on zh-wiki. However I definitely don't suggest anyone do so, since these "fake" logos are not accurate to represent a party. Nevertheless these "fake" logos are still largely used on zh-wiki and also in some en-wiki articles. Some Taiwanese editors might find these "fake" logos inaccurate or ugly or something and started creating a new set of replacement: zh:Template:KMT/logo2, zh:Template:DPP/logo2, which are not bad at all, may be better than the "fake" logos. Meanwhile, some Chinese editors keep opposing the "fake" logos and trying to delete them on Commons, which appears to be the most efficient and laziest way to stop any current use and prevent any future use. I don't see the legitimacy of such deletion. In a nutshell, to make my opinion very clear:↵
1.-1 A media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose.
2. Self-promotion or vandalism/attack
Analyses:
File:Partido Nacional Chile 1970.png and other fake logos are 2, thus deleted on Commons (even if they are in use on wiki, thus 1.-1, thus not 1)
These "fake" Taiwanese party logos are in use on zh-wiki, thus 1.-1, thus not 1; and they are not 2 too, kept on Commons
If an editor (such as User:Wcam) wants to prevent "fake" Taiwanese party logos from being used in the articles on zh-wiki, try seeking a consensus on zh-wiki. However:
Even if such prohibition exists and "fake" Taiwanese party logos are not in use in articles on zh-wiki, I see they are currently used in userboxes and projects on zh-wiki to illustrate editors' political view and other stuffs (I see no likelihood to prohibit such userbox usage), they have educational usefulness, so still kept on Commons↵
Chinese variant translations should not be disabled
It's almost the same post as the one here: User talk:MtDu#Chinese variant translations should not be disabled. I re-post it here because User:MtDu didn't respond and I'm not sure it's him who's responsible for the new translation technique so I'm here seeking opinions from more editors and admins:
I'm the creator or major editor and Chinese Simplified (zh-hans) + Traditional (zh-hant) translator for several license templates, including {{MIT}}. I've just found that when User:MtDu converted autotranslate Templates to "ext.translate" ones, {{MIT}} for example, the Chinese variant translations were deleted or ruined somehow.
The two variants of Chinese Mandarin language, zh-hans (sometimes represented by zh-cn since China "cn" is the largest region using zh-hans) and zh-hant (sometimes represented by zh-tw for the similar reason) are always in need, there are many difference between the two and people who use one as their first writing system usually cannot write by hand (and some could have difficulty to read) the characters in another system, it's also possible to have more variants zh-cn zh-hk zh-mo zh-my zh-sg zh-tw. Chinese Wikipedia implements zh-hans, zh-hant and 5 other variants - only omits zh-my.
zh-hans, zh-hant and other variants do exist in language settings of Wikimedia Commons. But now {{MIT}} and other templates using ext.translate cannot use those variants. Wikimedia Commons users (or Chinese Wikipedia users) choosing to use one variant may be forced to view the page (it's also possible to view Commons page from local Wikipedia e.g. from the link zh.wikipedia.org/zh-tw/File:1107@692@Hang_Hau_North.jpg) in another language variant. That's not very nice. Back to the time where {{MIT}} used autotranslate, we don't have this problem.
Please restore what they were or find a way to solve the problem. Please also enlighten me which translation technique I should use if I want to translate a template into both zh-hans and zh-hant in the future. Thank you. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 00:23, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Sorry I can't help, but I find it interesting that the various script variant communities on Chinese language Wikipedia seem to get along better than the Brazilians and Portuguese on Portuguese language Wikipedia -- and way more so than the speakers of various versions of Belarussian and Serbo-Croatian! AnonMoos (talk) 16:08, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello! Wikimedia Movement Strategy process discussion has started, I invite everyone to discuss what will the world, the movement and Wikimedia Commons in it be like in 15 years with our efforts. The big question of the discussion till April 15 is "What do we want to build or achieve together over the next 15 years?" — share your thoughts!
Yours sincerely, --Base (WMF) (talk) — a Meta-Wiki Strategy Coordinator — 02:01, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
What do you all think about enabling the QuickDelete gadget for all registered editors? I think that having "Report copyright violation" in the side bar might help us get a few more Wikipedians (correctly) tagging copyright violations for deletion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I think that the people most likely to notice it (and therefore have a chance of using it) are experienced editors from other projects, so I do think that it would most often be used appropriately. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:58, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Experienced users from other projects know how to turn on a gadget. There is absolutely no evidence that this would have a positive effect other than your speculation. One of the reasons why we can process copyright violations fast is because most off the tagging is done by experienced editors. A possible scenario is that enabeling the gadget will encourage editors unfamiliar with our policies to nominate files even more easely. Btw, is this WhatamIdoing the volunteer or WhatamIdoing the staffer speaking? Natuur12 (talk) 18:04, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps but I rather be sure since the staffer could be able to pull resources for a pilot while the volunteer likely can't. Natuur12 (talk) 01:16, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
[edit conflict] Yeah, her userpage says I provide services as an independent contractor to the Wikimedia Foundation, but this is my personal account. Edits, statements, or other contributions made from this account are my own, and may not reflect the views of the Foundation. Plus, after the kerfuffle a couple of years ago with the WMF staffer overriding community consensus with his personal account (the situation for which superprotect was imposed on us), WMF basically started requiring employees to use (WMF) accounts whenever they do anything while wearing the employee hat. Nyttend (talk) 01:19, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Actually, I think that the trigger was enwiki's confusion about whether it was acceptable for a former WMF employee to wheel-war with a current WMF employee, when the current WMF employee said that his action was an official WMF action. :-) (The Superprotect incident involved three people: one [now former] dewiki admin wheel-warring with another volunteer dewiki admin and a WMF staffer using a "(WMF)" labeled account.)
But to be clear: When I'm at Commons, unless I'm in the other account, I'm here as the same volunteer capacity that I've always had. If I screw up, then come talk to me about it like any other volunteer. And even in the other account, you can still come talk to me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
"Experienced users from other projects know how to turn on a gadget."
I agree that experienced users know how to turn on a gadget. But I don't think that most of them know that this gadget exists. (Who has time to read through all the gadgets at all the wikis we encounter?) I'm not convinced that inexperienced people will make a mess by reporting copyvios, but maybe we can come up with other solutions. What can we do to make it easy for a Wikipedian to report a copyvio here? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:29, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
March 22
Technically incorrect image
On the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabal_minor, the image, Sabal minor3.jpg (hfttps://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sabal_minor3.jpg) is not correct. The plant, Sabal minor, has all stems originating from ground level and the plant in the image, Sabal minor3.jpg, clearly does not. Additionally, the image is from Japan and the species does not natively occur outside the southeastern United States. There is another image in the Commons, Sabal minor.jpg (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sabal_minor.jpg) that is technically accurate.
How would it be best to try and acheive a "general agreement that the image is not "Sabal minor"? How do you get people to weigh in on something like that?
But, in the meantime, since there is an image in Wikimedia Commons that is Sabal minor (verified by the USDA Plant database and public), can I just edit the page to use that image or is that something that is handled at a higher level?
Oh, yes, please be bold at wikipedia and make the change. I imagine starting this discussion at the village pump is your best chance to get general agreement that it's not Sabal minor. Your edit at wikipedia may also help gain input from others on the matter. - Themightyquill (talk) 00:09, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
@Norm Shea: The best place to gain consensus on English Wikipedia is to ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants. Knowledgeable editors there can aid in identification, and help select the most accurate and most encyclopedic image(s) from Category:Sabal minor for inclusion. Note that even if File:Sabal minor.jpg is accurately identified, it's a fairly poor quality image (low resolution, blurry), and probably should not be used if better images can be found. Animalparty (talk) 03:14, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
The disputed file is in use also on other Wikipedias.
On the other hand on the disputed file we see particularly a label, too, and it seems to me, that there is another species denominated. It would be great, if we could get some Japanese users to tell us, what the Japanese part tells us.
The label on the disputed image shows an illegitimate synonyme of Sabal minor: Sabal adansonii Guerns, cf. The Plant List — Sabal minor (Jacq.) Pers.Guerns. should have been Guers. from Louis Ben Guersent (1776-1848), who created this incorrect name in a species description, where he referred to the first describer (abbr. Jacq.), who had given the species name Corypha minor, but in his description he shifted the species into genus Sabal. The right name was later given by Christiaan Hendrik Persoon, why the right species name has his abbreviation: Sabal minor (Jacq.) Pers.
All in all the doubts are unfounded, it is a picture of Sabal minor.
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 see a visual diff as well as a wikitext diff when you review your changes. [29]
Problems
Special:AllPages was disabled for two days due to some performance issues. It is back, but the filter for redirects is gone as the cause of the performance problem. It still needs to be fixed. [30][31]
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from March 28. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from March 29. It will be on all wikis from March 30 (calendar).
I have some friends that are willing to authorize to publish bird photographs unexisting at Commons, of their authorship, under a proper license, but they do not have an account at Flickr and they do not want to take the work of doing by themselves, delegating that to me. They just want to send an email to me attaching the picture and saying "by mean of this email I authorize to publish this picture at Wikimedia Commons under the license CCBA....etc etc" Is that acceptable? How I document that procedure during the uploading?
Many thanks for the help.
--Hector Bottai (talk) 15:19, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Hector Please read COM:OTRS, especially the part about email template ask your friends to modify that permission to say something like I hereby affirm that I [friend's name] am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of files uploaded by Hector Bottai, which list my name as the photographer, and I have legal authority to release the copyright of that work. ... and than send it to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. You can also upload them all to some category like Category:Bird photographs by Judy Gallagher and than ask your friend to give permission to all the files in that category which were uploaded by you. Ping me if you have any question about OTRS. Keep in mind that we have quite a backlog of the emails waiting for reply by few OTRS volunteers, so most emails wait about 50 days for an answer (oldest unanswered email is 62 days old). --Jarekt (talk) 16:30, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
50 days till they completely clear the process, but if they've sent the email, you can just mark the relevant file with {{OTRS pending}} and everything should be fine. - Jmabel ! talk00:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
As I see it this is partly a result of blocking and banning useful and positive editors and preventing the work from getting done for petty reasons or no reason at all. I would have gladly helped out and I was doing a lot of positive contributions, but because I got blocked for responding to bullies who are threatening and trying to intimidate me I am being demonized as a behavioral problem. I personally don't have any sympathy for these backlogs because I was helping to work on them prior to getting bullied out of this site. Reguyla 138.162.0.4116:09, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
March 29
Plain text version of CC BY-SA 4.0?
I'm reading this HTML verison of the CC BY-SA license. Is there a downloadable preformatted .TXT version of this license as well? Usually you can find one for GNU licenses, but I couldn't find any for CC. Thanks. SharkD Talk 06:21, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
I’m having an issue with uploading a SVG file which contains JavaScript/ECMA-Script. I’ve disabled the JS by commenting out everything containing scripting (script elements and elements with event handler attributes; this is totally fine as it’s the same as if someone had NoScript not disabled), but MediaWiki still complains about it. I’d like to keep the JS in commented-out form though, so others can reenable it if they really want to. So, what do I need to change so MW won’t complain about the (now technicaly scriptless) file containing scripting?
The file also contains data-* attributes (which will be explictly allowed in SVG2, and are fine in the W3C validator). Is this enough to make MW complain? I’d rather want to keep those, as changing them would mean a lot of refactoring and would make the W3C validator mark it as invalid. --Nenntmichruhigip (talk) 14:23, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
If you do <!-- <script type="text/ecmascript">...</script> --> then I bet it won't work. You might try <!-- script type="text/ecmascript" -->...<!-- /script--> -- AnonMoos (talk) 15:57, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
I’m usually doing <!--script><![CDATA[ code() ]]></script-->, but have now also tried <!--script--><!--[CDATA[ code() ]]--><!--/script--> and putting A behind the first character of onclick=, without success.
The link to the checking code is what I hope to get here, but I don’t see anything which matches my SVG there.
I know very little about the MW code base, but what I've seen often relies on pattern matching strings rather than using DOM parsing. In other words, if MW sees "<script" anywhere (even inside an XML comment), it might reject the file. It may also reject the file if it sees "(?:ecma|java)script" anywhere. Your file would have to defeat the string matches rather than just disabling the XML.
I thought I tried validating an SVG file with data-* attributes and it failed. If you provide a file with a DTD, the validator will use that DTD, and if data-* attributes are not in the SVG 1.1 DTD (they won't be because DTDs don't have wild attributes), then it will fail the file. I used the direct input option to test your file at validator.w3.org, and the data attributes were errors. If you leave out the DTD and feed the file to the validator via a text box, then it will verify as plain XML (not as SVG!). However, if you then upload that SVG file to Commons and try {{Valid SVG}}, the file will fail. The validator accesses the file from Commons, and Commons serves the file with an SVG MIME type. The validator now knows that the file is SVG (rather than a generic non-DTD XML) and validates it against an SVG 1.1 + XHTML + MathML 3.0 (with RDF and Inkscape extensions) schema, finds the data-* attributes in the SVG (valid in HTML 5 but not SVG 1.1), and fails verification. IIRC, the validator does not have an option to select that verification from the web interface; it only happens for served files with an appropriate MIME type. You can use entities to extend the SVG 1.1 DTD, but that gets ugly fast.
Thanks for letting me know about the validation error. I read this somewhere and indeed tested it before I added the DTD (which wasn’t added by the export script I used…). I’ll find something to resolve this (propably just changing them to classes) :-) --Nenntmichruhigip (talk) 15:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi, So that file is not failing the SVG javascript tests, but the old-IE mime type detection tests/general generic blacklist (It is being detected that some older browsers may autodetect the mime type as a html file) [e.g. The warning you are getting is mediawiki:uploadscripted as opposed to one of the other upload warnings. The check for JS in svgs usually give a more specific warning]. Basically to get around this, change the <script... tags to < script (e.g. Add a space between the < and the script in the commented out script tags). And make sure that there are no type attributes, and no href attributes that use the javascript url protocol. Bawolff (talk) 03:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
I am indeed getting MediaWiki:uploadscripted (I wasn’t aware there are different ones). So you’re suggesting <!--< script ty pe="application/ecmascript"> and </ script>-->? I’ll give it a try once I changed the data attributes to something valid. If that doen’t work and no other option is mentioned here, I’ll try completly removing the JS and putting the non-JS-free source in a user aubpage. --Nenntmichruhigip (talk)
Although I want to see {{Valid SVG}}, it is not essential. For data-* attributes, I'm tempted to pass on validation. Don't use a DTD. SVG 2.0 is not out yet, but I'd be tempted to include a version=2.0 attribute on the SVG element. The data-* attributes are in HTML 5 and it is a good bet that they will be in SVG 2.0. The alternative, overloading class, seems less attractive, but it is used in en:COinS. Glrx (talk) 19:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
If I wanted the file to have data attributes and also validate, then I'd try extending the SVG 1.1 DTD to define each data-* attribute with an "SVG.External.extra.attrib" parameter entity definition.
Nice :-) I had read about this, but somehow I thought it would be more complicated. I’ll keep it in mind for future projects. But since support for CSS attribute selectors is not required after the change (and whatever MATE uses for their graphics seems to not support them, and afaik they can’t be used for a nice larger-than/smaller-than anyway), I’ll keep it as it is now. --Nenntmichruhigip (talk) 04:38, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Note, that we also ban uploading svgs with weird internal dtd subsets (Basically anything other than a (non-parameterized) entity). Bawolff (talk) 20:56, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
File:The Bird of Time.djvu has suddenly become corrupt. Previously all pages were ok. I was proofreading the index at enWS, the file was fine till proofreading of page 18. Then it has become corrupt, in today morning. Now the pages are not visible either at Commons or enWS. Original file link not working, error message saying that the file is not present. The file cannot be overwritten by re-uploading, error message saying that the file is in an inconsistent state in the internal storage backends. Any solution? Hrishikes (talk) 04:59, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
I get that same error a lot when doing deletions, and it makes deletion impossible. It usually goes away after half an hour or so. Then I can delete the file normally. You may be able to re-upload after waiting a bit, or maybe the original will work again after waiting. DaphneLantier06:01, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
.jpg)
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 7 March. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 8 March. It will be on all wikis from 9 March (calendar).
Done Right. Files tagged, user warned. Yann (talk) 14:24, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Comment - I am not really surprised. Andy asked an important question, nobody seems to have answer that question. The truth is, we sometimes unnecessarily put burdens on the OTRS volunteers. I invite everyone to look at User_talk:Wikicology#Nikki Phoenix Picture, this blog post, Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2017-02#File:RT_SF9A0489-cropped-small.jpg, here, Commons:Deletion requests/File:RT SF9A0489-cropped-small.jpg, and this. Why on earth should we continue to put unnecessary burden on our support team? Wikicology (talk) 20:12, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
CSS in templates will be stored in a separate page in the future. [14][15]
Support although I would keep the old tool for a while. --Jarekt (talk) 11:41, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Colour
BnW
Colour
BnW
Colour
BnW
Colour
BnW
Natural
Sunset-like filter
.jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
