Last modified on 30 August 2014, at 21:54

Commons:Village pump


  Welcome to Commons   Community Portal   Help Desk
Upload help
  Village Pump
copyright • proposals
  Administrators' Noticeboard
vandalism • user problems • blocks and protections
 
↓ Skip to table of contents ↓       ↓ Skip to discussions ↓       ↓ Skip to the last discussion ↓
This project page in other languages:

বাংলা | Alemannisch | العربية | asturianu | авар | Boarisch | bosanski | български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | فارسی | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 |  | 한국어 | Lëtzebuergesch | македонски | मराठी | Nederlands | norsk bokmål | occitan | polski | português | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | српски / srpski | suomi | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | Zazaki | +/−

Welcome to the Village pump

This Wikimedia Commons page is used for discussions of the operations, technical issues, and policies of Wikimedia Commons. For old discussions, see the Archive. Recent sections with no replies for 3 days may be archived.

Please note


  1. If you want to ask why unfree/non-commercial material is not allowed at Wikimedia Commons or if you want to suggest that allowing it would be a good thing please do not comment here. It is a waste of your time. One of Wikimedia Commons' basic principles is: "Only free content is allowed." This is just a basic rule of the place, as inherent as the NPOV requirement on all Wikipedias.
  2. Have you read the FAQ?
  3. For changing the name of a file see Commons:File renaming.
  4. Any answers you receive here are not legal advice and the responder cannot be held liable for them. If you have legal questions, we can try to help but our answers cannot replace those of a qualified professional (i.e. a lawyer).
  5. Your question will be answered here; please check back regularly. Please do not leave your email address or other contact information, as this page is widely visible across the internet and you are liable to receive spam.

Purposes which do not meet the scope of this page


Search archives


 


Centralized discussion

See also Commons:Village pump/Proposals

Please help by translating these messages into other languages.

Note: inactive discussions, closed or not, should be archived.

Archive  • Discussion • Edit • Page history • Watch
Village pump in India. [add]





OldiesEdit

CharinsertEdit

The Charinsert extension is installed but I can't find its management in the Gadgets. In Wikipedia and Wikisource, I added a row of "User" characters and strings but here it doesn't seem to work. User:Ineuw/common.js -- 01:28, 21 June 2014 User:Ineuw

FotopediaEdit

moved to Category talk:Photos from Fotopedia#(Moved from Village pump)

PD image of David SlaterEdit

(I'm not sure were this question properly belongs; I placed it here thinking this was the best place to start the discussion.)
By the same logic that the famous macaque selfie is a public domain image, could we also upload the monkey's image of David Slater, the photographer, as seen here (or here, as printed in The Guardian)? Or should we wait until the whole copyright issue is settled legally? — Loadmaster (talk) 16:19, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I think that your logic is correct, but the words "add fuel to a fire" come immediately to mind, remember also that in addition to legal copyrights, individuals have Personality rights ( see Commons:Photographs of identifiable people), and given the present bad blood between Mr Slater and the Wikimedia Foundation, it would be very unwise to make such a provocative gesture.--KTo288 (talk) 17:38, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
What KTo288 is saying. I also think it would be a bit pointy. Much the same as the selfie fest at wikimania in my opinion was pointy. However that was also sort of a consequence of the media picking this from the transparency report and running with it like we landed on the moon... For attendees it was as much about the copyrights as the media's and social media's superficial obsession with things like this (that's how I interpreted it at least). Morally, I'm of the opinion that it is not necessary to drive this much further by uploading an image of David himself. TheDJ (talk) 20:54, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if this has been written somewhere but otrs is getting quite a few mails of unhappy people (eg. I have donated to wikipedia but will never again... , I love you guys but what you did here is really shitty… and so on). Publicity wise the monkey was not good for wikimedia and it was definitely not worth the few images the monkey took. Peoples opinion is, that even if it is lawfully correct, it is morally wrong. Should the copyright issue be settled in favor for wikimedia we will get that victory with an other wave of bad press and unhappy otrs mails. So maybe not upload more pictures taken by monkeys. Amada44  talk to me 19:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. As I said about that previous infamous incident, we must respect the interests and freewill of the authors than merely looking on the legal sides. Otherwise, we will loss a lot of gentle people. I know Flickr and many other similar sites give much importance for photographers. But Commons is difference. Here we care the interests of authors, reusers and the unpaid efforts of the maintenance volunteers at the same time. It is good, and I respect that point of view. But we should maintain an equilibrium so that the voice of each group is taken care and one group is not neglected by the aggressiveness of others. Unfortunately it is happening frequently because the maintenance community is most active and dominating here. Jee 02:51, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
You're not wrong about the bad publicity, I had been negotiating with an organisation to release photographs under a CC-BY-SA-3.0 license but it has fallen though due WMF's controversial position of the "Monkey Selfie" and they want nothing to do with any WMF projects. Looking at ORTS, most of the emails I've seen are from very unhappy people. Bidgee (talk) 06:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
We've got our hands stuck in the cookie jar, forgetting that the way to get more cookies is to let go of some of the ones we're holding.:(--KTo288 (talk) 14:42, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • It is really unfortunate if generous people made generous donations to WMF projects only to regret it later when they learned they didn't fully appreciate the meaning of free licenses. If that is what is happening with the potential donors who were alienated by our stand on the Monkey pics I think the underlying lesson is that we need to make sure those generous donors understand our core goals and principles -- not that we should amend our core goals and principles in order to chase donors.
Some people may think there are no underlying principles worth defending over the copyright of the Monkey pics. I disagree.
Mr Slater is not the only professional photographer who has shown he doesn't really understand the fundamental principles of intellectual property. It is sad phenomenon. It is unfortunate. And, IMO, these are principles worth taking a stand over.
Let me share a couple of anecdotes:
Infamously, there was a hapless innocent Afghan taxi driver named Dilawar who American GIs tortured to death in December 2002. An American freelance photographer sought out his family and published a family photo of the young man, from before his capture and torture. This freelance photographer claimed he owned the worldwide IP rights to the family photo.
Wire services, like AP and Reuters routinely add public domain images to their libraries. We routinely treat all images that have been published with an "AP file photo" credit as if that was equivalent to AP claiming they owned all the IP rights to the image.
I'd uploaded a considerable number of CC images from flickr. In November 2009 I decided I would always take an extra 20 seconds, and leave a comment on every flickr image I uploaded (1) thanking the flickr contributor for using a CC license; (2) telling them the URL of the commons page.
Lots of flickr contributors really appreciate being told their images are being re-used. But I have had three or four people who were upset, because they didn't understand what the CC license meant, or that it was unrevocable. In three of those cases I started a DR discussion over their images. One guy seemed to have a nervous breakdown. He was a very good photographer, and prolific. His position was undermined because he had created a Commons ID for himself, and had personally uploaded three or four dozen images here. About three hundred of his flickr images had been uploaded here by Commons contributors. But none of those earlier uploaders had ever told him they had uploaded one of his pictures.
My thank you seemed to precipitate a crisis for him. I think it made him look, and count, how many times an image of his had been uploaded here, and he was shocked to see how many there had been. He changed his default license on all his thousands of flickr images, from CC to "all rights reserved". And he tried to speedy delete all the hundreds of images that had been uploaded here.
As part of his meltdown, he repeatedly denounced us, calling us thieves, saying we had ruined his hobby of 40 years. Since flickr let him change his mind over licensing he thought we should too.
When the DR closed as keep, he swore he would dedicate himself to warning the world about us. He erased all his thousands of images from flickr.
The underlying lesson I took from this incident is that we need to do a better job educating our donors as to our fundamental core principles.
  • I think some of comments here imply a view I think is a big mistake. Should we be grateful to financial donors? Sure, just as we should be grateful to those who donate images, or donate their time in helping organize our files. IMO it is a mistake to treat financial donors as if they were the only donors who count. When facebook issued its IPO we saw how a major internet site could be worth ten figures. If the WMF projects were closely held, for profit enterprises, that were about to issue an IPO, their worth would be comparable to that of facebook or twitter.
Only tiny fraction of the value of the WMF projects is due to the financial donations -- so let's stop acting like they are the only donors whose views count. Geo Swan (talk) 17:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Can someone link to evidence of an active legal case? If there is no legal case on-going, then there is nothing more to say. However if there is a real case, then disregarding the interesting debate of theoretical copyright or non-copyrightability, if part of the case is on-going damages due to Commons hosting and promoting this image under a free licence which is disputed, then we (us volunteers, not the WMF) should re-open the DR and discuss the reasonableness of taking down the image whilst the case is open in order to show due care to limit potential damage and our good practice of simple courtesy. The image is not so educationally valuable as to justify ignoring the courtesy aspect and a legal case of this type, cannot really be considered an attempt to censor or suppress material of unique educational value. -- (talk) 04:09, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I think it is safe to upload that picture, the US Copyright Office released a document some days ago stating animal-produced works are not eligible for copyright. --Diego Grez return fire 05:28, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
@: My understanding while reading this is that David Slater approached The US Copyright Office and they refused to register those works. But I agree with you on the possibility of a courtesy deletion. Jee 03:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
That's not what that's saying. The US Copyright Office has a guide to their internal policies, and just released a draft of the third edition. Section 306 says "The Office will not register works produced by nature, animals, or plants." and has a list of examples, the first of which is "a photograph taken by a monkey". While I believe that choice was inspired by this case, it's a collection of general guidelines, definitely not a ruling on any case in particular.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

August 13Edit

MMS requestEdit

Hello, Photos and Videos are upload in my mobile phone. I send the photos in commons in my mobile phone please provide in the MMS number. Thanks you Naresh Raja Kumar (talk) 12:03, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

  • I can't make any sense of what you wrote there. Can you reword, or can someone who can make sense of this paraphrase? - Jmabel ! talk 15:58, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I think he wants to upload photos by sending them in a multimedia text message to commons (MMS = Multimedia_Messaging_Service). Which we do not support. Bawolff (talk) 05:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
And we have no plans of supporting: MMS is on its way out, and securely authenticating over it is... problematic. Also, it seems to me that the price of a MMS is higher than the price of mobile traffic required to upload a phone-grade image in most markets. MaxSem (WMF) (talk) 19:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

August 20Edit

License tag help requestedEdit

I've been reading the articles about possible tags for images, but can't find which one best suits the image I uploaded:

  • It's a photo of a painting made in the 17th century.
  • The artist is unknown / anonymous.
  • In my country it's considered public domain (70 years after death of artist or first published over 70 years ago)
  • It is in the public domain in the United States.

When I use template PD-Art|PD-anon-1923 the text it produces doesn't mention the part about the author being anonymous. Which template should I use with which parameters ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by OSeveno (talk • contribs)


I don't understand the problem. "PD-Art|PD-anon-1923", as you used in this example, shows the text of the embedded template, including in this case the mention of anonymous. Is it a problem when you view the text in a language other than English? -- Asclepias (talk) 17:57, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Correct; this is the case: in Dutch is doesn't mention anything about 'anonymous'. To try help clarify this issue, below is the original Dutch text plus the translation into English, the latter being my literal translation of the Dutch text, not the official English version:

Dutch text as presented by template PD-Art PD-Art]|PD-anon-1923:

  • Het tweedimensionale kunstwerk afgebeeld op deze afbeelding valt in het publiek domein omdat het auteursrecht op dit materiaal is verlopen (de auteur is meer dan 70 jaar geleden overleden of de datum van publicatie is van voldoende ouderdom). Reproducties van het werk kunnen ook worden beschouwd als publiek domein omdat het geen oorspronkelijk karakter heeft. Dit is geldig voor reproducties gemaakt in de Verenigde Staten (zie Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.), Duitsland en veel andere landen.

Literal translation of the Dutch text into English:

  • The twodimensional artwork depicted on this image is part of the public domain because the authors-rights on this material expired (the author deceased more then 70 years ago or the date of publication is sufficiently old). Reproductions of the work can also be can also be seen as public domain because it has no original character. This is valid for reproductions made in the United States (see Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.), Germany and many other countries.

I'd like to add that I noticed that there are other Commons license tags of which I noticed they do not present a correct translation into Dutch. In some cases when the license tag speaks of 100 years, the Dutch translation of the presented text speaks of 70 years. And since I didn't check all available tags, only about 10 percent, statistically speaking there may very well be many more. I have being the bringer of bad news, but here it is. Consequence of these errors could in the worst case be that a) uploaded material may be tagged as wrong license and therefor deleted; b) Commons may be sewed for violation of authors license. --OSeveno (talk) 13:33, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Ah, it seems that the problem is with the PD-Art template when viewed in NL. Then it does not embed and display the status template that is inserted as a parameter, as it should and as it does when it is viewed in other languages. So, in NL, the reader sees only the text of the template PD-Art/nl, but the text of the status template in the parameter, PD-anon-1923 or another, is not displayed. The code of the template PD-Art/nl currenly does not seem to provide a parameter. I guess you could fix the code of the PD-Art/nl template by making it more similar to the PD-Art equivalents in other languages. Compare for example with the code of PD-Art/fr, PD-Art/de, etc. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC) N.B.: I went ahead and updated the template PD-Art/nl with the provision for the parameter, to make it similar to the other language versions. But please update the Dutch text of the template PD-Art/nl to reflect a meaning similar to the other language versions and to include the links to Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag and Commons:Reuse of PD-Art photographs, etc. Also, note that the template PD-anon-1923 does not have a NL version PD-anon-1923/nl. You can create one if you want that template to display in NL. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:05, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into this and for adjusting the template. I'll try to find time to write a proper translation for the Dutch version. Regards, --OSeveno (talk) 17:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Categories duplicated for South KoreaEdit

So, we have both

(And this is the tip of an iceberg that I barely fathomed.) I’m sure that regardless of the finer details of this matter, there should be only one of each such categories. -- Tuválkin 21:11, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Its not used this way but surely Category:August 2011 in South Korea should be a subcategory of Category:August 2011 in Korea, with Category:August 2011 in Korea being a parent for categories from both the north and the south. Not that we have that many orlikely to get many files from the North--KTo288 (talk) 22:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree with KTo288: they categories are not duplicates. The one for Korea would include both South and North Korea. I'm not sure how useful the nonspecific Korea categories are, but they seem to be wanted here. To me, they make sense only for things that are either 1) related to Korea as it was before the split or 2) things that are cultural and not specific to North or South (which I suppose are things from before the split anyway). --Auntof6 (talk) 18:56, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Okay, if you guys want to pretend that in the example above, about 2011 — and indeed in any category concerning dates after 1956 — "Korea" means "both Koreas", and not as a misleading synonym for "South Korea" (based on the naive and oblivious notion that "Republic of Korea" can/should be named "Korea", just like "French Republic" can/should be named "France"), then we can play that game too:
So we have both Category:Tigers in South Korea and Category:Tigers in North Korea, then we should have an intermediate Category:Tigers in Korea, under the (grand)parent Category:Tigers in Asia (to be created) or the current Category:Tigers by country… Let this be done for tigers, august 2011 events, black and white portraits of smiling men facing left looking at the viewer at bust length in the 1970s, — and indeed anything and everything there is currently under either Category:South Korea, or Category:North Korea, or both. Even if this is a good idea, all these "Korea" categories should be treated as metacats, with any file content mandatorily diffused into either north or south, with maybe the exception of having all these "Korea" categories also being used as an equivalent of "...in unknown location in Korea" (i.e. unknow whether North or South).
Frankly I see no advantage in this: Looks like a true can of worms that should be better avoided — but the original point still stands: The current contents of Category:August 2011 in Korea should be moved to Category:August 2011 in South Korea, cause that’s what they pertain to. The remaining empty Category:August 2011 in Korea should be, if not deleted, then interspersed within its right place in the tree. (Ditto for an unfathomed number of such cases.)
-- Tuválkin 01:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
OK, I take your point that something in 2011 is either North Korea or South Korea. If everything in the Korea category is for South Korea (and I mean absolutely everything), then move it to the South Korea category. Then if you want, you could nominate the Korea category for deletion as an empty category.
As far as other Korea categories, I wouldn't create new ones without the north or south qualifiers if the only thing in them would be the corresponding categories for north and south. I'd also be in favor if deleting existing categories if their only content is one or both of the north/south categories. The Korea-only (no north or south) categories should be only for things where either 1) we don't know which place it belongs to, 2) it pertains to the country before the split, or 3) it's about things that can't be differentiated for some reason. We won't get rid of the Korea-only categories completely, though, because we do keep categories for former countries (such as Korea, the Soviet Union, etc.). Those go under "by country" categories along with present-day countries unless there's a separate category for former countries. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:05, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree. -- Tuválkin 11:50, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

August 21Edit

Are photos from public university websites considered to be public domain?Edit

I have a public domain related question. Are photographs of US Federal, State, or local governmental facilities, officials, etc. posted on official governmental websites considered to fall under public domain? Would such coverage, if applicable, also extend to public educational institutions? I am just curious because I came across these two photos (File:Robert S. Nelsen.jpg and File:Havidan Rodriguez.jpg) uploaded to Commons and currently being used on Wikipedia articles. If there's no problem with the licensing, then fine. If there is, however, a problem, their use on Wikipedia would be affected. If this kind of thing has already been asked and answered before or if it should be asked somewhere else, then my apologies in advance. Thank you - Marchjuly (talk) 02:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Photographs taken by U.S. federal government employees in the course of their duties, or taken as part of "work-for-hire" on behalf of the U.S. federal government, are certainly normally in the public domain. The same applies to a minority of state governments (by no means all). The only "federal universities" in the conventional sense are the service academies (West Point etc.), as far as I'm aware... AnonMoos (talk) 02:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply AnonMoos. Would "work-for-hire" also include photographs taken by professionals not employed by the federal government? For example, a private photographer hired by a government to photos of certain government officials, etc. Would the photographer in such cases still typically hold, unless they have agreed otherwise, the copyright over said photos?
Regarding the two photos I referred to above. One of them (File:Robert S. Nelsen.jpg) was deleted about an hour ago for violation of copyright. The other photo File:Havidan Rodriguez.jpg was essentially uploaded using the same rationale, but was not deleted. Not sure what the difference is between the two. File:Havidan Rodriguez.jpg was taken from this webpage. At the bottom of the page is says "Copyright 2014 The University of Texas-Pan American™". I am assuming that copyright includes not only the text, but also the images on the page. Would such an image qualify as "public domain"? - Marchjuly (talk) 04:18, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
It is copyrighted, it isn't in the public domain and isn't licensed as CC-BY-SA-3.0 by the university. Photo deleted. Bidgee (talk) 04:48, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Well, the second one also should be deleted. (I see it just has been deleted.) Photos on university websites, whether public or private, are in general not in the public domain. And while AnonMoos' statement above is technically correct, "The same applies to a minority of state governments (by no means all)" may be misleading. In general state materials are not in the public domain. There are a few license templates in Category:PD-USGov license tags (non-federal), mostly about traffic signs, and then about public records from a select few states.
Even on websites of the federal government you need to watch out for contractor's works and works that the government doesn't own but uses under a "fair use" clause. Contractors' works and commissioned works, even if commissioned by an agency of the federal government, are copyrighted. The contractor retains copyright unless the contract stipulates otherwise. In particular works from U.S. national laboratories may be copyrighted, see the cautionary note in {{PD-USGov-DOE}}. (The U.S. government in such cases typically has the right to use the works, but that doesn't place the works in the public domain.)
Back to public universities: the same rule as for other websites applies: unless there's a clear mention of a free license or of public domain copyright status works are copyrighted and must not be uploaded here at the Commons. Lupo 05:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone who replied. Just for the record, my goal was not to get these two particular photos deleted. I assumed they were uploaded and used in good faith. The rationale behind their licensing just seemed a bit of a reach to me. I am always looking for photos to add to certain Wikipedia articles, so if photos such as these could be used without any problems, then that would make it much easier to upload other similar ones to Commons. Anyway, thanks again for all the information. - Marchjuly (talk) 07:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • With regard to "service academies" -- there are two service academies that might be overlooked, and I believe there are other educational institutions that are both solely education DoD personnel, whose staff are all DoD personnel.
  • The US Army, Navy and Air Force each run a separate University for future officers. Graduates of the Navy College can opt to be officers in the Marine Corps. The Coast Guard also has a service academy, and among the several colleges that train students to be officers of merchant vessels, there is one that is run by the US Federal government, that I believe is also considered a service academy.
  • The USN runs the Navy Postgraduate School and several other degree granting institutions, that I think are not usually considered "service academies". I think their staff and student are, nevertheless, Federal employees. I started an article on a USN officer who was part of the stable of high-class call girls operated by an infamous Washington DC madam. It has since been deleted, at afd. But I remember that she was an instructor at a DoD institution that was not a degree granting institution, like the service academies, that granted certificates. But its staff and students were also all federal employees.
  • So it is my impression that there are at a dozen, propbably several dozens, of institutions with students and staff who are all federal employees. Geo Swan (talk) 18:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Bot for automatically maintaining Category:Videos by technical criteria?Edit

Could we have a bot for automatically maintaining Category:Videos by technical criteria? Video resolution and format should be easy to find, and the Category:Silent videos can be added if the video contains no audio track. MKFI (talk) 08:30, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Will the upcoming Wikidata/Wikibase/Structured Data/Whatever it is called stuff, which I don't fully understand, obsolete the need for categories like this? (And for all of the "taken with such-and-such camera" categories?) I sort of got the impression that one of the things it would enable is searching on metadata directly? --Ppelleti (talk) 01:57, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
My plan is to make that possible with structured data support, yes. However it'll take a while to get there. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 05:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
We talked with user:Manybubbles about indexing this kind of metadata in the search. That would be possible, but no really user friendly way of retrieving the data (unless you consider querying the api with javascript user friendly).
Indexing could probably implemented now already, but without an easy way to retrieve it, it would be a bit of waste of effort. Multichill (talk) 13:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Join the discussion about Structured DataEdit

First slides for the "Structured Data" proposal

Greetings! As you may have heard, we are starting a discussion about Structured Data on Commons, in collaboration with the Wikidata team and community volunteers from Wikimedia Commons, such as Multichill, and other sister projects. We invite you all to join that discussion, to help define goals and first steps for this community-driven process.

The Structured Data initiative proposes to store and retrieve information for media files in machine-readable data on Wikimedia Commons, using Wikidata tools and practices. It aims to make it easier for users to read and write file information, and to enable developers to build better tools to view, search, edit, curate and use media files.

This process is likely to be a massive collaboration between the Commons and Wikidata communities, to define what they would like from structured data. Once we get a clearer idea of what our communities need the most, the WMF Multimedia and WMDE Wikidata teams plan work together to provide the engineering support architecture to empower our volunteers.

To that end, we propose to investigate this opportunity together through community discussions and small experiments. If these initial tests are successful, we would develop new tools and practices for structured data, then work with our communities to gradually migrate unstructured data into a machine-readable format over time.

Earlier this month, we had some great roundtable discussions about Structured Data at Wikimania, where we started to brainstorm ideas around these first project slides and community suggestions -- such as this draft of one possible roadmap for this project.

We would now like to extend this discussion to include more participation from other community members interested in this initiative. Please take a moment to read the project overview on Commons, then let us know what you think on this talk page.

We also invite you to join a Structured Data Q&A on Wednesday, September 3 at 18:00 UTC, so we can discuss some of the details live, in this first office hours chat on #wikimedia-office on Freenode IRC. Please RSVP if you plan to attend.

Wednesday, September 3 at 18:00 UTC − You're invited to join our first office hours chat on #wikimedia-office on Freenode IRC. Please sign below if you plan to attend, to know how many folks to expect. (please note updated time and location)

Lastly, we propose to form small workgroups to investigate specific challenges, such as identifying workflows, data structure, research, platform, features, migration and other open issues. If you are interested in contributing to one of these workgroups, we invite you to sign up directly on this hub page.

We look forward to productive conversations with many of you in coming weeks. In previous roundtables, many of you told us this is one of the most important contributions that our teams can make to support multimedia in coming years. We heard you loud and clear and are happy to devote more resources to to improve our infrastructure and provide a better experience for all our users, in collaboration with you.

Onward! Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 20:08, 22 August 2014 (UTC) -- for the Structured Data project

I'm not seeing much uptake here, i'm MediaWiki_talk:WatchlistNotice#New_watchlist_message_8 proposing a watch list messageTheDJ (Not WMF) (talkcontribs) 11:47, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Support for Opus codecEdit

As I read the page about audio codec Opus it seems to be superior for all codecs we are now using in Commons. But the prefered codec is still Vorbis in Ogg container. When we could use Opus audio in its native container? I know, there is filed bug on Bugzilla (now rated as "Low enhancement with 3 votes"), but there was no contribution for year. --KuboF (talk) 23:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

As soon as we upgrade libav to a version that supports opus so that people can play the file. From what I understand, that's going to happen as part of the app server upgrade when moving to HHVM (aka people have been saying soon for a really long time now. Last status update at [1]) (Point of note, the native container for opus is ogg. The only difference between an ogg file containing opus audio and a file ending in .opus, is somebody renamed the file. Opus can also be used for the audio part of a video file [Both in .ogv and in .webm]. There are currently about 343 files containing opus data on commons). Bawolff (talk) 01:07, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
p.s. To actually be really clear, if people want to be able to upload files ending in .opus and are ok with them not yet being playable, all that's required is a vote to show consensus. Bawolff (talk) 01:07, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Bawolff! So, I will wait some weeks and if not change, I will ask about uploading .opus files (if successful, should be thousands of files ;). --KuboF (talk) 13:59, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
You want the .opus file extension, right? Otherwise, you could just batch-rename the files you have to have an .oga or .ogg extension, from what I get from bawolff's reply. -- Rillke(q?) 14:05, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

August 23Edit

Managing the deletion of files depicting modern buildings in South Korea.Edit

The FOP in South Korea is limited only to non-commercial uses and is not compatible with COM:L, we have a whole slew of Category:South Korean FOP cases of where we have had to delete files of modern architecture in South Korea. Our reading of the South Korean FoP rules has set the precedent that files of modern South Korean buildings is incompatible with Commons. I have therefore begun a discussion to manage the deletion of such files. Thanks. --KTo288 (talk) 10:48, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

August 24Edit

Croatian MoD photos - questionEdit

Hi. I was wondering if it's possible to use photos published on the site of the Croatian Ministry of Defence. I'm not an expert on photo copyrights so I was wondering if this explanation at the bottom of this page means I could somewhow upload them on Commons?

"Copyright © 2008-2014 Ministarstvo obrane Republike Hrvatske. Sva prava pridržana. Sadržaji s ovih stranica mogu se prenositi bez posebne dozvole uz navođenje izvora. -
Copyright © 2008-2014 Ministry of Defence of the Republic of Croatia. All rights reserved. Content from these pages can be transferred without a special permit with the acknowledgment of the source."

--Saxum (talk) 15:27, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

The given statement implies that content from the site can be reproduced when attribution is given, but it is not clear that producing derivative works is permitted. It might be useful to contact the Croatian MoD to request adjustment of the permission statement for clarity (this may not be very likely) or have them provide confirmation via OTRS. --Gazebo (talk) 01:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Also, we require a statement that explicitely allows commercial use. --El Grafo (talk) 08:32, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

August 25Edit

Votes and comments on Commons by WMF employees on WMF programmes of workEdit

For a very long time, I have found it confusing when WMF employees take part in !votes or discussion about WMF programme initiatives, without making it clear they are commenting while being an employee; often it being a shock to find out that someone I had been interacting with was an employee and I was automatically talking to them assuming they were a completely unpaid volunteer. Sometimes the only comments against a WMF statement has been employees using non-employee accounts saying how they support it, this latter situation is particularly of concern due to the potentially misleading impression of support from unpaid volunteers it gives when actually no unpaid volunteers have made any comment. This has always looked like an undeclared conflict of interest, especially as it is quite hard for volunteers to trawl through various user pages in addition to following long discussions (often, if employment is mentioned, it turns out to only be mentioned on non-Commons user pages).

Reading the recent statement by the WMF here, I would expect WMF employees are now consistently to use their employee accounts in all situations that relate to prioritizing, supporting, promoting or communicating WMF projects of work, even when only tangential to their personal employment. In the past, volunteers like myself, probably felt it was somehow rude to ask questions about whether !votes or comments had an undeclared conflict of interest, I suggest that we move away from that culture of embarrassment, where being an employee, or other potential undeclared interests, was something to keep quiet about, to a more straight forward and consistent style where it remains perfectly clear who are employees and who are unpaid volunteers by using well named employee accounts.

See the related archived Commons RFC on this issue [2].

Thanks -- (talk) 08:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Wait, you mean that you want WMF employees to always use their WMF accounts in votes ? That's just insulting.... TheDJ (talk) 12:16, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Please take a moment to read the words I have written rather than what you think I have written. I have not said that WMF employees have to use their WMF accounts in all votes. Thanks -- (talk) 12:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
This seems contradicting to our new Commons:Paid contribution disclosure policy, which states we don't care whether or not any contributions (including votes and comments) being paid by any (including WMF). Jee 16:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
No contradiction, the policy you refer to is focused on declaring commercial interests when creating Commons content, the WMF statement is concerned with transparency of its employees' activities in relation to the projects they are being paid to support, which in practice has almost nothing to do with particular content. -- (talk) 17:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Reading User:Philippe (WMF)'s statement, it sounds like what's going to happen is that work related edits must go through (WMF) accounts, and non-work related edits will need to be done on non (WMF) accounts. Since comments on !votes are mostly people commenting from their personal perspective (To my knowledge, WMF hasn't paid people to vote a certain way on things, pretty much ever), the new WMF policy actually would require people to do the opposite of what you're suggesting and use their personal accounts to denote it as a personal non-work action (based on my, possibly incorrect, reading of it). That said, I actually somewhat agree with you that in those cases there are undisclosed conflict of interests which aren't being handled in the best way possible, I just don't think Philippe's statement is agreeing with your statement. Bawolff (talk) 17:54, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Over the last couple of years, every time this subject has arisen one of the key reasons put forward for avoiding any improvement to transparency has been that employees are acting as volunteers. When a discussion or vote is about the programmes of the WMF, policies of the WMF (such as this one), or as elsewhere on this page, senior managers are making announcements, I find it bizarre to pretend that when employees are making comments as if they were just ordinary volunteers, that us "unpaid volunteers" are supposed to look the other way and pretend that employees do not have a legal contract in place that means they risk their job if they say something that were to damage the direct interests of the WMF or otherwise be against their contract terms or HR policies. For this reason I have never accepted this as a valid line of argument, and I remain completely unconvinced that it could be a reason to avoid the simplest measure of transparency, being that it is ethically right that employees declare their vested interest in the outcome of discussions, policy changes or ensuring that WMF management announcements have a positive reception by the community. In most volunteer communities, it would be extremely clear who "paid volunteers" are, even while they are free to influence the "unpaid volunteers".
Wikimedia is now in the shameful position that when a brave volunteer such as myself, dares to ask employees to declare that they are in fact employees, they are shouted down with claims, such as has been made here, that even posing the question is "insulting". There is something fundamentally wrong with this picture, you should not be ashamed to be an employee and it is not an act of "outing" to call you one. -- (talk) 18:32, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
I made no claim about the morality of using non (WMF) accounts. All I'm saying is that you claimed that Philippe's statement supported your position, and when I read it, it sounded like it was saying the opposite of what you were saying. Maybe what you're proposing is a good thing, maybe its a bad thing. All I intended to do was raise a technical objection to your argument. Bawolff (talk) 19:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
The WMF statement includes "work-related edits will be made from specifically designated (WMF) accounts, and there will be no more comingled accounts". My understanding of "work-related edits" on Commons will be any edits you make that are related to your work in the WMF in any way. To avoid issues, it should be fairly obvious that this ought to be interpreted conservatively by all employees. Consequently doing things like discussing WMF related employee policies (this discussion) would require you to use your designated WMF account, responding to communications from managers in the WMF where the community is being encouraged to support roll-out plans, consultation on plans, strategic changes, associated staff project rights, staff issues, WMF politics such as election of trustees etc. etc. are all work-related edits.
I fail to see how such a clear statement from the WMF is the opposite of anything I have written here.
Let me repeat my earlier clarification, to avoid any possible further tangent or misunderstanding, WMF employees are most welcome to use their personal accounts on Commons to do whatever they want, so long as they are not making work-related edits. Examples might include uploading a photograph of your cat, using cat-a-lot to recategorize 1,000 images of cats or taking part in Commons policy discussions or !votes that are not "work-related", for example discussions about the taxonomy of Felis catus that have nothing specifically to do with the WMF (your employer); when they do, it is prudent and common-sense to use your designated WMF account. -- (talk) 13:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I think the confusion comes from treating this situation as if its a binary WMF vs non-WMF edit type of thing, where really its ternary. Edits can either be totally unrelated to WMF (how to categorize cats), Official actions/proclamations of the WMF (e.g. Things that people are literally being paid to say/do, such as office actions, super-protection, Fabrice's official response to media viewer rfc, etc), and the third in between category, where people are making an edit not as part of their job, but their opinions might be influenced by their job. For example, someone not on the multimedia team, but still working for the WMF voting on the multimedia viewer rfc. They would be allowed to vote any which way they want, but the fact they work for the same organization could influence them to support their co-workers. I think all three categories of edits are different, and that WMF accounts should only be used for the first case (My reading of Phillipe's comment was that WMF accounts applies to only the first case, and that they shouldn't be used for any other case. But I could be misunderstanding). However perhaps some other form of conflict of interest deceleration should be used for the last category. Bawolff (talk) 16:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
May be the threshold should be that if the discussion is on the subject that is directly related to your job, than you should use WMF account, but if you are voicing an opinion not related to the projects you are responsible for than you should use your volunteer account. So for example if your day job is upload wizard development and you are replying to comments about upload wizard, than it should be clear what is your role and WMF behind your username would be a great start (info on your user page would be great too). But if you are participating in the discussion about lets say wikidata development than I do not see a need to identify yourself as WMF employee. In general I do not share view about this being a big problem and as someone with regular and [[User:JarektBot|bot accounts] I found the process of switching between accounts quite annoying and troublesome. I assume it is similar with other multiple accounts. --Jarekt (talk) 17:43, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Please try to avoid exaggerating my position, it causes unnecessary polarization. My words above included "confusion" but not "being a big problem". By the way, using Chrome as a browser is a very easy way to run multiple accounts at the same time (or you could use different types of browser), though this is never an issue for me as I do not log in as Faebot or Noaabot manually.
It would be useful if the Foundation clarified its own statement for the benefit of its employees. None of us unpaid volunteers can do that for them. Thanks -- (talk) 13:09, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
For people who accept technical solutions for social problems we already have a "mark admins" gadget, which could easily be extended to mark foundation (or chapter) employees. Just throwing this out here. Personally I have not experienced a problem here, let alone the sensation of being shocked or the like. --Dschwen (talk) 13:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Not a bad idea, though perhaps more useful if anyone is to check back through history for a report. In practice, the simple move by the WMF to adding "(WMF)" to work account names removes most potential for confusion ([3]), such as when someone unfamiliar with specific WMF employee account names is reading through a long on-wiki discussion about a WMF roll-out problem. -- (talk) 13:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

New search: second attemptEdit

Hi all. After trying to switch the default search engine over to Cirrus just before Wikimania, we had to roll back due to performance considerations. We've done a couple of things that should help in this regard so we'd like to try cutting Commons over next week. Nik and I planning to do this at 16:00UTC on Monday the 1st of September if all goes according to plan. The deployments calendar will be updated shortly. As always please let us know if you encounter any issues or have suggestions on ways to improve it. ^demon (talk) 22:00, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Mea culpa! I forgot Monday is a holiday in the United States. We'll be doing it Tuesday instead, same time of 16:00UTC. Thanks! ^demon (talk)

Kingdom of the NetherlandsEdit

I notice that Category:Aruba, Category:Curaçao and Category:Sint Maarten, Dutch Caribbean‎ aren't part of any country in Commons, since Category:Kingdom of the Netherlands isn't recognised as a country. However by "country", Commons seems to mean sovereign state, since Category:Puerto Rico, Category:Norfolk Island, Category:Hong Kong, Category:England etc., are considered part of other countries. Doesn't this mean that the Kingdom of the Netherlands should be considered a country in Commons, and Category:Netherlands should be considered a subnational entity? --ghouston (talk) 22:15, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Strictly following the legal situation (as I understand it) this might seem correct. But following common understanding I doubt that it would lead to desirable results if Category:Netherlands was moved to Category:Subnational regions in Europe and lots of subcategories were rearranged along that line. I´d fear a complete loss of usability for the sake of a little more of legal correctness. Before anyone starts on such a project, I´d like to be sure that all implications are understood and that it will be maintainable also in the long run without needing comprehensive expertise for netherlandish state law to handle it. --Rudolph Buch (talk) 14:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't think there'd be any problem finding the Netherlands, since Kingdom of the Netherlands would be listed under N in Category:Countries of Europe and Category:Countries of the Caribbean. However it would be like the UK, where you have a lot of categories "X in the UK" which only contain X in England, X in Wales, etc. The Kingdom of the Netherlands has a mililtary, foreign relations, and citizenship while the component countries don't. On the other hand, only the European part of the Netherlands is a full member of the EU. --ghouston (talk) 00:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, there are other alternatives. We could merge Category:Kingdom of the Netherlands and Category:Netherlands, call it Netherlands and say it's an abbreviation for Kingdom of the Netherlands. It would be less accurate, but would be mostly good enough for the purposes of a media repository. Alternatively, we could ask the Kingdom of the Netherlands to change its structure to something more convenient. --ghouston (talk) 23:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Merging the categories to Netherlands seems the best choice, other monarcies of Europe have similarly just Category:Spain or Category:Sweden. MKFI (talk) 06:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
But Spain and the Kingdom of Spain are the same thing, and likewise for Sweden. The Kingdom of the Netherlands is more like the UK, a federation of 4 countries, so by merging them it would be like not having a Commons category for England. It would be more convenient, it just means there'd be no equivalent Commons category for w:en:Netherlands, and there would be some inaccuracies such as adding the Kingdom of the Netherlands as a member of the EU. --ghouston (talk) 00:00, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Please have a look at d:Q55 and d:Q29999 and the connected articles. It's rather complicated, don't merge it. Multichill (talk) 19:34, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, there are separate entries in Wikipedia / Wikidata for the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Netherlands. I wouldn't call it complicated though. So back to my original query, we need to consider the Kingdom of the Netherlands a country, for Commons categorization purposes, and Netherlands a subnational entity? --ghouston (talk) 22:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
No, that's incorrect. The Netherlands is a country, not a subnational entity. The Kingdom of the Netherlands is sovereign, but not a country. Jcb (talk) 22:29, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Then perhaps my understanding of Category:Countries is incorrect. It's not actually a collection of soverign states, and such a category doesn't exist? And the category Category:Geography of the Kingdom of the Netherlands is therefore incorrectly categorised under Category:Geography by country? --ghouston (talk) 22:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I think it might work if we can also consider the Kingdom of the Netherlands to be a country. I don't see how it's any different to the United Kindgom. Then whenever the Kingdom of the Netherlands appears in a "by country" category, the equivalent categories of its component countries can be reduced to subcategories. --ghouston (talk) 23:10, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

August 26Edit

404 errorsEdit

In the process of renaming files to improve titles, four of them somehow became unviewable, in which the image doesn't display and when clicking the image a 404 error message appears stating "The resource could not be found". Seeking advice on how to fix these files. The files are:

Northamerica1000 (talk) 21:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
No idea about the technical error (other than the idea that the guys who are paid to keep the engines running smoothly for us are instead busy creating crap nobody wants and then comploting to get us silenced). Concerning the filename changes you did, however, please note that COM:Renaming clearly says that file renaming should not be used to achieve filenames which are «a bit better», which is the case of things like
  • Hamburgers and fries at a restaurant in Brandon, Florida.jpg ← BrandonChicagoMaxwellsBurgersFries.jpg
  • Pizza (7).jpg ← Pizza 7.jpg
While camel case is one of the examples given in our file renaming policy about what not to change, just adding brackets to a meaningless number qualifying an over generic word reminds me of Mr. Simon Jerk who went to great bureaucratic troubles to have his name officially changed to Mr. Peter Jerk… The 404 is unfortunate, but these filenames would have been probably better left alone. -- Tuválkin 06:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Reported: bug:70079 --Steinsplitter (talk) 06:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I think that's bugzilla:70079, since "bug" is the Buginese Wikipedia. --Ppelleti (talk) 07:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Moved a bit back and forth now the main image is connected to the proper page (done for first two) but the thumbnailer has not catched up. The failed/improper moves have to be investigated though. --10:32, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
The images linked atop are all loading at this time. Northamerica1000 (talk) 05:04, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

August 27Edit

Encyclopedic useless huge files of poor quality?Edit

Just found this Category:Encyclopedic useless huge files of poor quality. It was created in April and includes a dozen-and-half photos in PNG format (all taken in Marburg, Germany, under which this category is, solely, categorized). While photos in PNG is enough to bring my fangs out, too, maybe 5 months is enough and this content should be taken care of (re-uploaded as JPGs, maybe) and/or the category should be renamed to a tamer, yet more helpful, epithet — such as Category:PNG photos of Marburg (to be made a hidden category, while needed). -- Tuválkin 05:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, renaming the category seems like a good idea. They don't seem to be of "poor quality" to me (i. e. they're not out of focus, or anything like that). They seem to be in scope, therefore not "useless". And they're not really huge, either; we have plenty of JPEGs that are just as large. --Ppelleti (talk) 07:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
The images should be categorized meanfully. PNG is not a very good idea if used with photos, but they are not useless. -- Smial (talk) 09:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done -- (talk) 10:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I put them in other (roughly matching) sub-categories of Category:Marburg, Germany as well, so they are not only in hidden categories. --Sebari (talk) 13:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Help needed with South Korean city montagesEdit

Hi all we need to fix our montages of South Korean cities, because there is no FoP in South Korea for modern buildings, most of the montages include at least one component wish is non free, a request was made at Commons:Graphic_Lab/Photography_workshop#New_photo_montages_of_Seoul_needed, if they cannot be fixed the only thing to do is to delete them, even if this means disruption of all the projects they are used on. Commons:Deletion requests/South Korean motages with non free content. Thanks, I'd try to fix this myself, but I'm useless with this kind of thing.--KTo288 (talk) 14:04, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

two questions about CommonsHelperEdit

I have two questions regarding the CommonsHelper tool:

1. The tool requires OAuth permissions to transfer images directly to Commons. I've granted it permission, but it would often ask for permission again, especially when I use a different computer. Are the permissions not permanent?

2. I get an error message when trying to transfer certain images, such as this one. The page only says "Warning: ERROR" and nothing else. How do I resolve this?

Thanks! --Ixfd64 (talk) 22:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

  1. Right, OAuth permissions are usually temporary AFAIK, just like we have to repeatedly log in if we don't check "Keep me logged in"
  2. Using some tools I saw a connection to https://tools.wmflabs.org/magnustools/oauth_uploader.php?rand=0.4(Redacted) with response: {"error":"Warning","data":[],"res":{"upload":{"result":"Warning","warnings":{"was-deleted":"Pawnee_Buttes.jpg"},"filekey":"(redacted)2.jpg","sessionkey":"(redacted)2.jpg"}}}. It likely means that the file of the same name was deleted previously. You can check "Ignore warnings" to bypass that warning. @Magnus Manske: any solutions? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 09:00, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I assume we're referring to toollabs:commonshelper. Agree with Zhuyifei1999 for #1. OAuth logs you out frequently unless you check "Keep me logged in". For problem #2, just check the box for "Ignore warnings (overwrite existing images)". -FASTILY 03:09, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

National sport(s) teamEdit

Hello everybody, please forgive my basic level of english, but that's why I'm here: in the Category:National sports teams by country, I can read otherwise "National sports teams of (name of the country)"‎ or "National sport teams of (name of the country)"‎. I may have created some of those a few months ago by copying existing categories, but before creating new ones, I'd like to know what's correct. Regards, --El Funcionario (talk) 23:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

  • I believe both are correct in UK English, but in the U.S. "sports" is the only one we normally use in this context (we'd never say a "sport team"). - Jmabel ! talk 00:58, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the answer, I will correct all this within the next few days. --El Funcionario (talk) 17:19, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

August 28Edit

The future of skinsEdit

If not already, please participate in this RfC and share it at any sister projects you can think of (in any language). Thanks! --Gryllida 13:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Im not sure how that rfc is relavent to the average commons contributor. At most it might be of interest for people who create user scripts. Bawolff (talk) 16:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Need to upload duplicate image to keep reference consistency.Edit

This image File:TSOM D216 Page decoration.png appears in a book on Wikisource - The Story of Mexico on two pages, 216 and 265 (the numbers refer to the DjVu numbers), and I used one image to save myself work time. Upload rejects it (naturally), but I would like to upload the duplicate for the sake of consistency and for other editors who would think the image is missing. How could I overcome this block? — Ineuw talk 15:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

why not just make the one image be a redirect to the other. (For reference its possible to overcome by using special:upload and selecting ignore all warnings, but i really think a file redirect is a better choice). Bawolff (talk) 16:16, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. It never occurred to me.— Ineuw talk 17:03, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

File:American Indian USC2000 PHS.svgEdit

Came across this... what happened here? Uploaded as "Native American" -- obviously wrong. Somebody changed the description to "Africaans"[sic], but left the file-name. Source-links not really conclusive... (move this to correct board if posted in wrong place) Seb az86556 (talk) 19:19, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Mmmh … It was the original uploader who changed "Native American" to "Africaans", just one minute after upload [4], so I would assume that the former just was a mistake (note that file renaming wasn't possible in 2006). On the other hand, File:Afrikaans USC2000 PHS.svg (by the same user) looks very different. Unfortunately, User:Martin Kozák doesn't seem to be very active any more, but you could try writing him a Wikimail … --El Grafo (talk) 20:45, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I'll mark it as disputed for now... I can't seem to get much out of the census-data website. Maybe we'll find more soon. Seb az86556 (talk) 02:34, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Maybe it could help to check for archived old versions of the source websites at archive.org? --El Grafo (talk) 13:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
It was never identified as "Native American". -- Asclepias (talk) 01:29, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Join the Media Viewer ConsultationEdit

Media Viewer's new 'minimal design'.

Greetings!

We would like to invite you to participate in a global consultation about Media Viewer.

Please take a moment to join the discussion and add your suggestions for improvement. The goal of this consultation is to review the current status of this project and identify any critical issues that still need to be addressed. The consultation will remain open until September 7th, and will help us plan our next steps, based on your feedback.

To learn more about planned development tasks for Media Viewer, visit this improvements page, where our team will post regular progress updates.

Thanks for helping improve the viewing experience on Wikimedia sites. :) Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 22:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Off topic but, whatever. I wish more WMF developer time and resources would go towards maintenance and improving the reliability of the core MediaWiki platform (as well as upgrades to the WMF servers) instead of goofy pet projects like Media Viewer. A number of medium size companies (including the one I work for) are interested in adopting the MediaWiki software into their infrastructure, but are somewhat hesitant to do so given questions related to reliability/maintainability, sparse documentation, and a lack of a dedicated support team :/ -FASTILY 03:27, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
What sort of reliability/maintainability concerns do they have? (I'm just curious, feedback from third parties is somewhat rare). Unfortunately WMF has decided to mostly not care about non-wikimedia users (And also has a tendency to hire most of the volunteers who partially cared), resulting in not a lot of love for third party users. However, the marks are starting mw:Groups/Proposals/Wiki_Co-op with the stated goal of fostering communication between external groups wanting to use mediawiki and mediawiki developers. Bawolff (talk) 16:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • The one week window for feedback is insufficient. In most of Europe it is holiday season, in my case I am still recovering from the impact of a Bank Holiday and my time is squeezed due to a booked holiday of my own in early September (timed to fit in with the normal academic year). Holidays/vacations are likely to exclude a lot of people who are either not around right now, or are unlikely to have much volunteer time. -- (talk) 05:19, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

August 29Edit

Remove a linkEdit

Could someone remove a link from hundreds of page ? Fastily deleted the template Catscan gallery but forgot to remove the link. Pyb (talk) 07:48, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

First, I am again really disappointed by the poor quality of Fastily's processing deletion requests. I wonder how long do we have to tolerate it. An admin who deletes a widely used template should take care of the remaining usages, instead of waiting until someone requests it on AN. Second, unfortunately, there seems to be no possibility to perform a VFC custom replace on the link list, it is hardly possible to remove all this by hand, so the only way is a bot. I hope anyone of our bot owners is reading this. Thanks --A.Savin 08:48, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Thx for your help. I found a solution with AWB. Pyb (talk) 09:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

New template:ISOdateEdit

I just deployed a new version of template:ISOdate which is now 100% based on Module:Date. The template:ISOdate is used by {{Information}} and several dozen other templates to localize (translate to users language) the dates. This latest release only changes how the dates are parsed since the template:Date (used by template:ISOdate), which is responsible for the actual localization was rewritten to use Module:Date on the beginning of the summer. I did a lot of detail testing of the new template, but there are always issues with big changes like this. Please report them here, at Template talk:ISOdate, or at my talk page. --Jarekt (talk) 12:39, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Google Maps questionEdit

Charleston, South Carolina has one of the country's largest National Register districts. I've been methodically going through the files in "Buildings in Charleston, South Carolina" and adding tags for both the location of the buildings themselves as well as the location from which the photos were snapped. Over a couple of months, I've made it through all the streets starting with A to F. But, when I click on the "see this and other nearby locations" link on any image's file, none of the buildings show up on the Google Map. There are a few random images from around the peninsula of Charleston that have blue pins in the map, but as far as I can tell, they are totally random images. I have checked them, and I can't identify anything about those images that is triggering their inclusion in the Google Map results that isn't also present on the building photos I've been working on. Am I missing something? Is there a special tag that I need to use so that the overlay program picks up the images that I'm supplying GPS data for?ProfReader (talk) 18:14, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

(Just love it when they say «the country».) -- Tuválkin 08:14, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Which other countries have a South Carolina? -- AnonMoos (talk) 20:30, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

August 30Edit

Millions of PD images from Internet ArchiveEdit

See here Does anyone have tools for uploading them here? —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:56, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

@Koavf: Compare Commons:British Library/Mechanical Curator collection, a very similar upload to Flickr last year of a million images from a set of books scanned for the British Library. The two projects are very similar.
The Mechanical Curator project pages above list suggests how Flickr2Commons bot can be used to upload images book by book.
However, before we start that, it would probably be good to start thinking about creating similar ingestion templates, source templates, category pages, project pages etc to those used for the Mechanical Curator collection, to keep track of what IA images we've uploaded, and to appropriately credit them etc.
Can I suggest Commons:Internet Archive/Book Images collection, and Commons talk:Internet Archive/Book Images collection as a good place to start organising to pull this together ?
I've just emailed Kalev Leetaru to see if there are any lists released yet as to what they've uploaded, that we could put up similar to Commons:British Library/Mechanical Curator collection/Synoptic index and Commons:British Library/Mechanical Curator collection/Full list of books
One difference was that the BL collection was a single batch release, whereas the IA collection is likely to grow with time. Does anyone know if there are already any good subject-based lists as to what is in the IA book collection ? Jheald (talk) 11:14, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Librarian congress imagesEdit

Hello, there's a lot of CC-By-SA images of the World Libraries Congress (Lyon, France) on FlickR: could anyone download them on Commons? Best

Lori dialectEdit

For this picture

Hi, This map is from the same source. The settlement Bakhtiari note! This section is disputed !

Encyclopedia Iranica (BAḴTĪĀRĪ TRIBE): They are Twelver Shi'ites and speak a Lori dialect.

In this paper, the language of Lori. This is not a contradiction? Surely, this is a contradiction ! and this map The map that you see now. There is a big problem. Drawback is the Bakhtiari has introduced. Bakhtiari Lurs are part of the map to see their location. It also acknowledges the Encyclopedia Iranica (top). Iranian users to eliminate their personal tastes map to show the truth. The source of the displayed Peoples living in Iran is wrong. The correct version is, Thanks :)--Meysam (talk) 09:45, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I can´t say anything to that specific dispute you are describing as I have no middle-east or ethnolinguistic expertise. But perhaps a short explanation how I understand maps at Commons are helpful to you nontheless (all being my personal opinions without having any autority at all):
A map at Commons is "wrong" if it does not follow the source data it refers to or the original it is based upon. So, to be "right", a map must be true to its source, but not necessarily true to reality. Why is that? Because every map depicts reality as interpreted by the map-maker and therefore always reflects his (or his organization´s) point of view.
If two relevant sources differ in their view of reality, one way to solve this is to include both views in the map - e.g. "dot the line, avoid the pain" is a good map-maker´s rule for disputed borders. Alternatively, at Commons, simply provide two maps, each showing the view of their respective sources. Which one to use is the user´s decision, Commons´ role is just to give that choice, not to decide about the right view.
This makes it important that all maps´ description pages clearly state their source, preferably not only as the file source from where it was downloaded but whenever possible also the original source of the content. And it means that maps are almost never to be overwritten by a "correct" or "updated" version: Make (or ask nicely for) an additional one and leave the other one be. This avoids edit-wars as well, like in the picture above that enjoyed twelve (!) reverts over time.
Best regards, --Rudolph Buch (talk) 13:05, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Is it possible to map the source data is presented two different maps? Certainly not.University of Texas, the documents and information that show that half of the people living in the West of Iran speak Farsi? All references to the subject of the West and South-West Lori Language know. We can not confuse the map with the largest in-stock selection by the user, and we learn from them. User does not have sufficient information will be wrong! The map should either be corrected or removed. --Meysam (talk) 18:05, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
As I said: If you can´t reach agreement on one map, let there be two maps. --Rudolph Buch (talk) 20:22, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Commons doesn't want to get involved in these disputes! If you have problems with a map like this, make a new one and upload it separately!--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:54, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Calling UK photographers: the Wiki Loves Monuments contest starts on Monday 1st SeptemberEdit

This is your chance to take part in our annual photography competition to improve Wikipedia. The encyclopaedia is visited by 500 million people every month, and needs your to help improve its photos.

Wiki Loves Monuments UK is aimed at the UK's listed buildings and ancient monuments, and starts on Monday 1st September. The contest is supported by the Royal Photographic Society, English Heritage, and Wikimedia UK.

We've got lots of pictures of Tower Bridge and Stonehenge, but there's so much more of the country's heritage to celebrate. There are tens of thousands of eligible sites, so check out the UK competition website (http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org.uk) and see what's nearby. As well as prizes for the best image, we have a special prize this year for the best image of a listed building on one of the 'At Risk' registers.

It doesn't matter when your photos are taken so long as they are uploaded during September 2014 UTC. If you took some stunning pictures back in April, or five years ago, you can still upload them.

Help us show off your local history! And if you don't have any photos of the UK, check here to see if there is a corresponding competition running in your country. This is an international effort.

MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Participating countries in 2014
MichaelMaggs, you forgot to mention that Wiki Loves Monuments is taking place in quite a few other countries too. Have fun! Multichill (talk) 14:31, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
See my last two sentences :) MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:41, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

This is a UK specific competition ("Calling UK photographers" is in the title), so is the village pump the best place for this? I would have thought a targeted geonotice would be more useful, and it avoids the temptation for us to see another 30+ announcements added here for all the other countries. If someone wants to start a discussion about the WLM programme and its competitions, or indeed to ask for help with them, that's more the sort of thing that the scope defined at the top of this page covers. -- (talk) 14:53, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes there will be an CentralNotice banner this year, that is my job. Romaine (talk) 20:52, 30 August 2014 (UTC)