Commons:Village pump

Shortcut: COM:VP

Community portal
introduction
Help desk Village pump
copyrightproposals
Administrators' noticeboard
vandalismuser problemsblocks and protections
↓ Skip to table of contents ↓       ↓ Skip to discussions ↓       ↓ Skip to the last discussion ↓
Welcome to the Village pump

This page is used for discussions of the operations, technical issues, and policies of Wikimedia Commons. Recent sections with no replies for 7 days and sections tagged with {{section resolved|1=--~~~~}} may be archived; for old discussions, see the archives.

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 probably pointless. One of Wikimedia Commons’ core principles is: "Only free content is allowed." This is a basic rule of the place, as inherent as the NPOV requirement on all Wikipedias.
  2. Have you read our 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


 

A village pump in Burkina Faso [add]
Centralized discussion
See also: Village pump/Proposals • Archive

Template: View • Discuss  • Edit • Watch


OldiesEdit

Input needed on category discussionsEdit

All interested people are invited and requested to comment on current category discussions. Discussions include proposed deletion, renaming, or reorganizing of categories, among other things. You can look at Category:Categories for discussion to see many of the categories being discussed.

There are some current discussions from January and December that each address multiple categories, in some cases dozens or more: if these proposals are accepted, some would result in changes to frequently-used categories, so why not let your thoughts be known?

There are also many discussions from the past several years that didn't get enough participation to determine consensus, so they're still open. Please consider lookng at these discussions regularly and participating on the ones where you have any interest. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:43, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

As I've said before, the CfD process is fundamentally broken, since you can have a lot of images in the categories on your watchlist, but unless you have the category itself on your watchlist, you will never receive a notification that any discussions that could affect categorization of those images are going on. This is what led to the "adolescent girls" category fiasco (which took many years to clean up) and other problematic outcomes... AnonMoos (talk) 18:45, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
@Xxxx: This is why I watch both the discussion pages and Category:Categories for discussion. Doing that shows me both new discussions and categories that are tagged for discussion (those aren't completely redundant because some discussions are for multiple categories). I do have to add each new month's discussion page to my watchlist. Maybe those options would help you. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:43, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
However good it would theoretically be if people on Commons undertook to follow your suggested course of action, it's quite clear empirically that under the current set-up, the great majority of them won't. Therefore the current CfD process is broken in a basic way. AnonMoos (talk) 01:36, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

February 10Edit

Czechia vs. Czech RepublicEdit

Our categories related to the Czech Republic seem to be a hodgepodge with respect to whether they use Czechia vs. Czech Republic in their names. I would normally think this is a no-brainer: we normally call things by their common English-language names if they have one, and as far as I know Czech Republic is by far the normal usage in English. But I'm aware that or its equivalents might not be by any means the majority usage in other languages, and this is a multilingual project. Still, it seems to me that this is a place where any uniform decision would be better than no uniform decision. As it is, no one can ever correctly guess any category names for this country without looking up the individual category. ~~- Jmabel ! talk 00:36, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I would say that in Polish Czechy is far more common than the official Republika Czeska. Anyway, en:Czech Republic#Etymology may give some hint – since May/July 2016 Czechia is the official short name of the state in English. Regarding category names on Commons, IMO Czech Republic should be used everywhere. --jdx Re: 01:58, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Czech Republic seems best, except there's an open discussion about historical categories at Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/12/Category:History of Czechia. --ghouston (talk) 02:04, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Regrettably, "Czech Republic" is quite unusable (or even absurd and ridiculous) for pre-1969 context (1848 in the Czech Republic, Comenius among "Educators from the Czech Republic" etc.). The word "Czechia" is maybe not very known among uneducated people but English language has no better word for this meaning – timeless and geographical name of the Czech country. "Czech lands" or "Czech Lands" can be an equivalent (especially in historical context) but generally we don't prefer such country names which emphasize some level of division of the country (except for United States, United Kingdom and Soviet Union which have no simple geographical names). The history-related categories were renamed urgently. However, as it seems, unification of the remained categories requires some time to wait until the irrational resistance weakens. --ŠJů (talk) 17:55, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure it is any less problematic to say that all of the Germans who lived in Bohemia were in "Czechia" than in the "Czech Republic".
There are many cases where we use anachronistic names. For example, Category:Old maps of Israel includes many maps that predate Zionism, let alone Israel. Category:Washington (state) in the 1860s refers to a geographical area that was not a state at that time. - Jmabel ! talk 20:33, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
We also have categories for former entities, such as Category:Maps of the British Mandate of Palestine. Wouldn't those be better than anachronistic names? Washington in the 1860s was Washington Territory. --ghouston (talk) 00:29, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
@Jmabel: The first thing is meaning of the terms, a second and different thing is how well-known is which subject or which term.
* Bohemia is only one part of Czechia, i.e. everybody who lived in Bohemia lived in Czechia but not everybody who lived in Czechia lived in Bohemia.
* Obviously no Czech Republic existed before 1969 (uneducated people didn't notice it even before 1993), but Czechia existed through centuries. E.g. who lived in Bohemia or in Moravia in 1880s, 1920s or 1950s, that lived in Czechia but surely not in the Czech Republic. Although the word Czechia is relatively modern (its Latin form appears in baroque period), Czechia as the area of Czech lands and Czech language is relatively immemorial subject, even though German language prevailed in some periods and areas. Formation of the Czech nation (including Moravians) and the unified state of two lands (under Premyslids) is dated to the 11th century, i.e. since that times, it is not an anachronism to apply retrospectively the term Czechia. German colonization of Sudeten areas of Bohemia and Moravia began in 12th century but it is considered as an internal colonization (supported by the Bohemian King and not disrupting the national identity of the country). Even though Czechia was at least bilingual for centuries, its determination as "primary Czech lands" is unquestionable. (The one-time secondary Czech lands as Lusatias and most of Silesia are commonly not count as parts of Czechia.)
Germany has not so definite meaning in relation to the period before 1871 but "Germany" is obviously more timeless and more universal name of the whole country than "Bundesrepublik Deutschland" or "Federal Republic of Germany". Israel is a bit different case, their state was not created mostly by any previous inhabitant nation of any previously existing country, there was any historic discontinuity. European national countries are relatively stable since medieval times, although empires, states, kingdoms and republics arise, perish, split or join. Czechoslovakia was comprised by two previously existing countries of Czechia and Slovakia. The federalization didn't create the countries, just as the dissolution of the federal "peel" of the two countries. Even the countries of Bohemia and Moravia (constituting parts of Czechia) are existing continuously, even though they have not their own self-governments currently. --ŠJů (talk) 20:31, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
My only strongly held conviction about this particular case is that any uniform decision would be better than no uniform decision. The current state of the categories is a mess. - Jmabel ! talk 00:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Generally, everybody can agree with it, but such an opinion doesn't solve the problem. "Czech Republic" is quite unsuitable and absurd for pre-1969 contexts. I mean that a complete shift to "Czechia" is the only possible solution, but the word has still some adversaries. Maybe, the situation need to grow mature for such a decision. --ŠJů (talk) 23:59, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

.kml pagesEdit

Someone could explain to me that they serve pages with .kml extension, such as File:India Jammu and Kashmir locator map.svg/overlay.kml. Thank you. --Metrónomo's truth of the day: "That was also done by the president" not an excuse. 17:12, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

And File:Geniesserpfad-karlsruher-grat.png/GPX? --Metrónomo's truth of the day: "That was also done by the president" not an excuse. 17:15, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
In the old days templates {{Map}} linked to /overlay.kml pages so they can be displayed in GoogleEarth. Two years ago User:André Costa (WMSE) removed those links from {{Map}} and it was broken since. Maybe someone will have time to fix it again. --Jarekt (talk) 18:08, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
the Kml overlay bit of {{Map}} was broken since it hooked into a deprecated Google service (per discussion page). /André Costa (WMSE) (talk) 18:17, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
No Google Map link was removed from {{location}}, but that is unrelated to KML handling. See for example File:Warsaw Ghetto Map - 1940-10-15a.png and go to the template below {{Map}} and click KML opens up in Google Earth (if you have it installed on your computer). That is what the removed link in {{Map}} was doing. --Jarekt (talk) 04:29, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
The {{Overlay}} template has a link for viewing an image as an overlay. At the same time, the "Google Maps" and "Bing" links in the template don't appear to work properly; those links cause Google Maps or Bing to display a map based on the user's current location (perhaps using geolocation of the user's IP address) instead of displaying a map based on the KML page. --Gazebo (talk) 09:52, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
When the link was introduced to {{Map}} it was possible to view the kml overlay on (at least Google Maps). Since they now require a user to have a specialist piece of software (Google Earth) installed I would classify it as broken. I forgot the discussion link which should be Template_talk:Map#Kml.2Foverlay. /André Costa (WMSE) (talk) 09:27, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Images incorrectly marked as "No Source"?Edit

I notice that @ShinePhantom: has tagged a number of images as having {{No source since}}. In some cases, I note that a source *has* been explicitly specified beyond the default "own work":-

It may legitimately be argued that the source is vague, incorrect or insufficient, but I'm not sure that these should be tagged as "no source". Are these correctly tagged or not? Ubcule (talk) 13:10, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I think the taggings are fine, this is indeed insufficient source information, so that the copyright situation of both files cannot be verified. We learnt from earlier discussions that older uploads (e.g. more than 3 years ago) should typically have a regular DR, but these two uploads are recent enough to use the tag. Jcb (talk) 13:18, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
It seems odd that there isn't an "insufficient source", "disputed source" or similar to distinguish such cases from "no source", though. "No source" says to me that there isn't any proper source given, period. Ubcule (talk) 19:56, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
You can legitimately convert them to deletion requests, then put the logical case as to why they are public domain. I agree that where logically the date and source are obvious (just not a hyperlink), the tag is unhelpful and literally incorrect. There is very little assessment required before using these tags, it is a generally good thing to challenge any you notice where there may be a case. -- (talk) 13:35, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
you should not be saying "missing essential source information" when you mean "contested source information". that is what DR is for. circumventing the deletion process tends to undermine the credibility of commons. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 00:46, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
@:; The option to convert them to DRs isn't necessarily appropriate . As you imply, this places the onus on the nominator to (a) know that the image is free *and* (b) to demonstrate this.
My point *wasn't* that I was sure these images were free nor even that the sources above were necessarily sufficient. It was simply concern whether tagging them as "no source" when this wasn't the case was a mis-characterisation that would see them subject to a lower standard of deletion- and chance of response- than they should have been.
(To some extent, this is much what @Slowking4: said above).
I agree there are cases we can reasonably treat as having no source, such as "own work" when it's obvious it isn't and that was likely chosen purely as the default option, but this isn't the case here. Ubcule (talk) 19:48, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
the problem being that habitual misuse of the tag tends to undermine the credibility of the "tag and delete 7 days later" process. there is not a "disputed source" tag because that be be honest. when you do not have an honest broker, then all deletion becomes biased. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 13:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
@Slowking4:; Just because someone hasn't given a good enough source doesn't mean they weren't making a good faith attempt to follow the rules. In at least one case above, I'm pretty sure that they were. Ubcule (talk) 13:50, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
makes no difference to the deletionist admin; AGF is for admins on this site; all others need to jump through hoops within seven days, ten years after upload. or have their items deleted. see also Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2016/10#Proposal_to_ban_Jcb_from_using_the_.27no_source.27_template_for_six_months Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 13:53, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - I am concerned about Jcb's comment above. Afaik, "No source" is obviously not the same as "Insufficient source information", thus using the tag when there is an insufficient source information is in fact wrong and I tend to describe such tagging as recklessness or cluelessness. However, I do want to agree with Fae that where an insufficient source information is provided, the image should be converted to DR. Our policy allow such nomination. Of course, a discussion with the uploader may be necessary to resolve the issue prior to nomination. Wikicology (talk) 06:56, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Links between Commons and Wikidata (and vice-versa)Edit

Here's an update of results of queries into linking patterns between Commons categories and galleries and Wikidata. (Data from a couple of weeks ago).

For comparison, a previous version was posted here at VP in December 2015; there are also some earlier historical versions, going back to September 2014.

Commons categories
(5,499,772)
Commons galleries
(113,395)
total linked
Wikidata articles
(~ 22,165,947)
~ 1,268,063 100,042 ~ 1,299,996
sitelinks:
437,882
P373:
~ 1,209,119
sitelinks:
96,839
P935:
92,865
sitelinks:
534,727
props:
~ 1,235,579
Wikidata categories
(2,870,035)
396,087 558 396,094
sitelinks:
387,768
P373:
355,205
sitelinks:
16
P935:
545
sitelinks:
387,786
props:
355,209
total linked 1,426,002 100,086 ~ 1,696,090 items / 1,523,993 pages
sitelinks:
825,656
P373:
1,326,176
sitelinks:
96,853
P935:
92,898
sitelinks:
922,499
props: ~ 1,590,788 items /
1,419,074 pages

The numbers are slightly crude -- "Wikidata articles" includes everything that isn't an item for a category, as does "Commons galleries", and in some cases I wasn't quite able to run the query I wanted (these are marked with the tildes ~). But I think they are not far off.

Compared to 2015, perhaps the most notable thing is that the number of categories that can be identified in some way with an article-like Wikidata item continues to rise -- now up to 1,268,063 from 992,272 (ie up 275,791 since December 2015).

From Wikipedia articles, these Commons categories are now all accessible via sidebar links (regardless of whether the two are connected by sitelinks or the Wikidata P373 property).

In the other direction, only sitelink connections cause Wikipedia articles to show up in the sidebars of Commons category pages. As a workaround, a Commons cat -> Wikidata lookup user-script exists ("wdcat.js"), which can automatically show a to link to the Reasonator tool, which summarises the information about an item on Wikidata including Wikipedia links, if a P373 pointing to the category exists on a Wikidata item. This can be enabled by adding the line importScript('User:Jheald/wdcat.js'); to your common.js on Commons. There is also the template {{On Wikidata}}, which can be added to the top of a category.

A rough breakdown of the P373 links includes 270,445 for people; 223,303 for "administrative territorial entities"; 112,725 for buildings; 48,159 for physical geographic features... etc.

I wrote in 2015, "Getting more of these Wikidata links into place should make it significantly easier for external programs to find the right Commons categories to put images into. The identifications should also become particularly valuable for Commons templates ... [once] Commons templates become able to systematically draw information from all Wikidata items."

This is now starting to become a reality, with template {{Authority control}} now drawing live data automatically from Wikidata, and instances of {{Creator}} templates now able to be generated automatically from a Wikidata item. Jheald (talk) 11:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Discussion (wikidata links)Edit

Jheald thank you for the update. I actually find those numbers quite interesting and 1.2M P373 properties is a great news. It would be great to see this tables with some links to the actual queries that produced the numbers. For example 16 sitelinks of category items pointing to commons galleries are clearly wrong and should be looked at, an already provided query would be helpful. I colorcoded part of your table to indicate: good, potentially problematic, and bad links, following two principles
  1. that in general category items should not have P373/P935 properties, which should be kept in article items and
  2. that there was never consensus about cross-namespace sitelinks between commons categories and wikidata article items, so at the moment it is very unpredictable if a sitelink from wikidata will lead to category or gallery on Commons. One potential issue I see is that as more templates on Commons rely on wikidata, some follow the sitelinks and some look for explicit q-code. The category pages relying on a sitelink might break when someone moves the category sitelink to newly created category item.
One sideeffect of 1.2M P373 properties is that some fraction of them is wrong and should be corrected either on Wikidata or on Commons. d:Wikidata:Database reports/Constraint violations/P373 lists many pages trip some validity test. It would be great if some members of Commons community are actively engaged in fixing reported errors, especially since many of them need to be fixed on Commons. --Jarekt (talk) 15:27, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Commons categories
(5,499,772)
Commons galleries
(113,395)
Wikidata articles
(~ 22,165,947)
sitelinks:
437,882
P373:
~ 1,209,119
sitelinks:
96,839
P935:
92,865
Wikidata categories
(2,870,035)
sitelinks:
387,768
P373:
355,205
sitelinks:
16
P935:
545

Hi User:Jarekt. The queries can be found here. I couldn't get Autolist to work any more (WDQ retirement ?), so this time the table was all put together with WDQS SPARQL queries. (And in some cases, a calculator). Jheald (talk) 15:45, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Here's a query specifically for the category item -> gallery sitelinks : tinyurl.com/hxyvek4
If you do remove a sitelink, please add a P935 (at least for the moment, even though you've coloured that box in orange), so the information is not lost.
It's possible that for some of these category item <-> category sitelinks are blocked by existing article item <-> category sitelinks. I don't necessarily see the latter as a bad thing, so let's hold off from removing any, at least for the moment. Jheald (talk) 16:06, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Jheald, Thanks for tinyurl.com/hxyvek4, I cleared the 16 by moving them to properties (of category or article items) and replacing the sitelinks with links to categories. Although I colored all properties if category items as orange, They are OK (in my book) if category item does not have a matching article item. The 545 P935 properties in Wikidata category items should be checked if they are duplicated in article items and possibly removed. that would clear up many "Unique value" violations in d:Wikidata:Database_reports/Constraint_violations/P935. --Jarekt (talk) 17:21, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Okay, so first a correction: I think I wrote above that if both a sitelink and a P373 were present, then a Wikipedia would show a sidebar link to both the category and the gallery. It seems this is not generally correct, and also different wikis do different things. As far as I can see (except perhaps when specifically over-ridden)
I thought there were at least some projects that tried to link to both, but maybe not. If only Dutch wiki is linking to them, is anybody visiting Commons gallery pages at all? Jheald (talk) 18:12, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Turning to P935 ("Commons gallery"), I had thought the original point of that was for Wikipedia category pages to be able to show a link to a Commons gallery as well as a Commons category. But (i) they don't seem to; and (ii) if only 545 have ever been added, then maybe nobody cares.
I don't really understand why P935 (and P373) shouldn't be allowed to exist on both category- and article-type items. It used to be that for P373, there was a separate uniqueness report for use on article items and use on category items. I don't see why that couldn't be resumed. It is certainly a useful report -- for example here's a report for P373 non-uniqueness for category items as a WDQS query: tinyurl.com/z4c767y. Unfortunately I can't get the corresponding query for non-cats to complete in the time tinyurl.com/z48xjhl. Jheald (talk) 18:41, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
But here's a query that captures most of the article items that are the worst offenders: tinyurl.com/hjyamg2 (I can't get the central SELECT below '4' without it timing out). Jheald (talk) 18:54, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
And some of the classes corresponding to the above query: where 4 or more article-items are linking to the same Commonscat, here is the class of at least one of them: anyurl.com/zdzeg44. Jheald (talk) 19:09, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
There's clearly a thing about multiple sub-taxons all linking to the same Commons category. (Also multiple bits of German law). Removing these non-unique P373s will make a visible difference on Wikipedia pages, which will no longer show this link in the sidebar. But is that an issue? Jheald (talk) 20:15, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
The most controversial thing, of course, in your colouring is the question of Commons categories sitelinking to Wikipedia articles -- which seems to always have been what a majority on Commons have preferred, because that way the Wikipedia articles appear as direct sidebar links. At least 20,000 of these block Category <-> Category links (tinyurl.com/h8n364q -- it can find 20,000; any more and it times out), which is a bit more than shown in the table, though there may be some double-counting where multiple category items have P373s to the same category on Commons.
The question is, does this matter? Compared to Dec 2015, Commons category <-> Wiki article sitelinks are overwhelmingly the dominant sort of sitelinks that people have been bothered to add, up almost 200,000 while cat <-> cat sitelinks are only up about 40,000.
Indeed the number of new Commons cat <-> Wiki article sitelinks is a substantial chunk of the total increase in the number of Commons cats we can identify with Wiki articles in any way, because they include 60,000 new links that only have this sort of sitelink and no P373. As for the other 140,000 I am not able to tell whether these were links that a P373 already existed for, and somebody has added a sitelink; or whether the sitelink and the P373 were added at the same time; or whether a new sitelink was added first, and then the P373 was added later by somebody else scanning for new sitelinks. Jheald (talk) 20:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Jheald, I wrote this reply yesterday but somehow did not save it:
  • That is interesting about "In other projects" links from Wikipedias to Commons. You are right only Dutch wiki shows link to a gallery and everybody else links to Category. That means that P935 properties might be mostly unused by most wikipedias. In a way, in the most of the cases that is a better option.
  • Your point about "only 545 [P935s that] have ever been added", is incorrect. 545 were added to category items where they should go only if there is no article item linked through category's main topic (P301). However there are still 92,865 P935s added to article items. Apparently someone cares deeply about them.
  • I do not have a strong opinion about duplicate copies of P935 / P373 and other properties at article and category items, except that I prefer to have them in a single place so that if someone corrects it in one place than it is correct as oppose to having the same data stored in multiple locations which slowly gets out of synch. For example, I lately deleted some 2 photo gallery which was not updated since 2006, the sitelink was automatically removed but P935 have to be removed by hand. I am afraid that if I remove one by hand but miss the other one than someone might restore the deleted one years latter based on the other copy. So to summarize, having a single copy of data on Wikidata helps with maintenance.
  • Wow 501 items linked to Category:Melolonthinae through P373, like d:Q14869209 for example. They were added recently by User:Jeblad (bot). I am clearing those up.
  • As for "the most controversial thing" or Commons cat <-> Wiki article sitelinks. In my opinion is, as long as they are accompanied by P373 they can and should be ignored. I am afraid that if your pages rely on them then they might break if or when someone moves the sitelink to category item. They are inherently unstable as they might be removed and they are unpredictable as you have 4:1 chance of hitting category as oppose to gallery page on commons if you follow them. With P935 / P373 properties you know exactly where the link is pointing. But if you do not use them than they can not hurt you.
--Jarekt (talk) 12:44, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi Jarekt! I think it may actually have been me that added most of those P935s to article items :-) Compare 6 December 2015 with 29 November 2015 immediately below. But I agree, I do think that they are useful: a P935 is a bit easier to check than grabbing the sitelink then filtering the string to exclude categories.
Regarding the Commons cat <-> Wiki article sitelinks: I think there may have originally been a notion (if we think about things like eg Multichill's 2013 roadmap) that eventually every Commons category would have an item on Wikidata, and therefore it was going to be important to make sure that sitelinks were kept strictly aligned. But I think that is no longer the case, and nobody is seriously contemplating an item on Wikidata for every Commons cat. I do, on the other hand, think that there is a need to make structured data possible for categories -- for example, to allow internationalisation of category names in the same way that Wikidata items have multilingual labels (something that it seems was highlighted in the application for the recent grant); also perhaps to record what categories aim to cover, eg to move the contents of the "category contains" template I suggest below into structured data. And there may be all sorts of other things that might turn out to be useful for categories -- eg what kinds of ways to sort the images may make sense. So I expect that there will be structured data for categories. But rather than storing that on Wikidata, I'd expect the structured data to be in Commons's own wikibase, more directly attached to the page. This also helps because the roles of categories can be slightly different on Commons vs Wikipedias, so a category page here should not necessarily be presumed to have the same name as the category on Wikipedia in that language (or the label on Wikidata). Having the data page for it stored here (rather than on Wikidata) allows it to keep its own name; and also avoids any difficulty of preserving synchronisation with Wikidata -- if categories are renamed, merged or redirected the data page on Commons will automatically follow. So I think that (potential) rationale for requiring strict cat <-> cat linking should now be considered dead.
Which leaves the question of templates, and the question of how much we lose by always having to explicitly specify a Q-number in a template to draw data from, rather than being able to draw it implicitly from the linked page. I can see the argument; but in reality I think we lose rather little -- principally because there is very little information on the Wikidata category items to draw from. Instead, as per Multichill's diagram, one would usually be relying on the category to have a P301 "category's main topic" set -- but at the moment there are only 200,000 with P373s that do (query: tinyurl.com/zqdn4jg ). And the more steps you put into the chain, the more risk of things not quite being right. (Some of those P301s may never have been checked by humans; and others may rely on how different languages interpret the category and the item, because category approximation between different wikipedias can be even more rough-and-ready that some of the article approximations in a single item -- which might mean that the P301 ended up being more true in some languages than others). It's hard to tell exactly how good all the approximations are, but one interesting point of data is that there are currently 7000 category items where their "main topic" has a P373 pointing to a different Commons cat that the category item itself. (count: tinyurl.com/zftg7p9 list: tinyurl.com/zly3t78; to be compared with 180,000 where the round-trip does work: tinyurl.com/hlflurk). Now in some cases that is because one of these three links is clearly wrong. But in many cases it is because the linking properties have identified something, the relevance of which one can understand, but which is a bit more or a bit less specific than the original, and along the way precision has been lost.
So perhaps it may not be such a bad thing that, the way things are at the moment, templates on categories have to identify a specific wiki item to draw from, rather than trusting in sitelinks and category -> topic matching.
And perhaps the costs aren't so great, if it is links of the Commonscat <-> article item type that are the ones that Commons users seem to prefer to make. Jheald (talk) 19:37, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Structured data on Commons is being discussed at Commons:Structured data. I agree that the current system of using q-codes by Commons templates works mostly fine. I have however a few concerns mostly related to long term maintenance. I have seen cases of people deleting wikidata items without knowing that they are used, breaking our templates. The fact that the same data (Commonscat <-> article item link) is stored at two locations creates problems when 2 copies are out of synch. Just like 7000 category items whose P373 are out of synch with P373s of the matching article items. Q-codes actually work in cases where sitelinks do not, for example if the page sitelinked is a template than the template can't access its properties when it is being transcluded, but can when a Q-code is used. So at the moment I create category items only if there are other categories sitelinked in the item, and I try not to rely on sitelinks when accessing properties from commons categories. I also agree with an issue that relying on too many correctly set inter-item links is often not rebust. For example in taxonomy items you rely on long chain of properly set parent taxon (P171) properties to create taxonomy template. But than edits like this can break the chain and leave all lower rank organisms with a broken taxonomy template. --Jarekt (talk) 21:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Other categories: "Category contains"Edit

The increase in Wikidata <-> Commons category links with P373 is something really good.

On the other hand, while the number of categories we can identify with article-like Wikidata items is up 275,000 that compares with an increase in the total number of Commons categories from 4,587,397 to 5,499,772 over the same period -- up 912,375. So even now only 23% of Commons categories can be identified with Wikidata article item.

Are we doing well or not? It's hard to tell. One issue is the (unknown) number of complex intersection categories here -- for which for the most part there aren't, and probably it never makes sense for there to be, a corresponding item on Wikidata. At the moment it's hard to identify these categories, or describe them in a machine interpretable way.

So I wonder if it would make sense to start rolling out something that would try to store a description of what such an intersection category is trying to capture. As a proof of concept, I've created an experimental template {{Category contains}}, that can store a specification for the category in terms of Wikidata items and properties represented in their SPARQL query form. The template also produces a strapline, that could be shown at the top of the category:

The above strapline was generated by the specification wdt:P31?/wdt:P279* wd:Q146, which translates as "cat" (Q146); all subclasses of cat, and sub-sub-classes etc (P279*); and all instances of any such subclasses (P31). It's safe to say that Wikidata doesn't (yet) know as much about cats as Commons, but this is the kind of thing that might be placed on the Commons category c:Category:Cats c:Category:Felis silvestris catus.

Four test examples of the template, as it might be used, can be found on:

If such templates started to be placed systematically on Commons categories, I can see at least three possible uses becoming possible through these machine-interpretable specifications becoming more available. One is querying, to show what Wikidata knows about items it thinks would be related to the category or its subcategories; another is auto-categorisation, which I think this could help; and another is better bot-identification of anomalies and/or apparent missing information between what's in Wikidata and the contents of the category structure. Taking each of these in turn:

Querying

As introduced already with the query link in the strapline above, given a machine-interpretable specification we can use the Wikidata SPARQL query service (WDQS) to see what items in Wikidata appear to match that specification, and some of what Wikidata knows about them. In particular, do they have principal images associated with them (Wikidata property P18), and Commons categories (Wikidata property P373). The WDQS service also lets us see the images in an image-grid format (click on the "Edit on query.Wikidata.org" link at the very bottom left of the screen; then the blue "Run" button that will appear about half-way down on the left; and then the "Image grid" in the drop-down menu released by the "Display" icon that appears on the right at the same level as the "Run" button.

For geographical items, like the hits for the queries in the Bedfordshire categories above, one can also see all the items (that Wikidata knows coordinates for) plotted on a map -- re-run the query as above, but this time choose the "Map" option in the "Display" drop-down list. Each dot on the map can be clicked on to show a summary of what was in the row of the query (including the preferred image, if there is one); the query has also been written to plot the dots in different colours, according to whether the items have images or not. (Each set can be turned on or off via a drop-down menu released by the "layer" icon at the top right of the map).

Yes, there are still some things that are a bit clunky. It would be nice to be able to switch views without having to go back into the query editor. It would be nice if the image links went to eg Media Viewer, from where one could get to the File information page, rather than going to the image at complete full size from which there is no way back. It would be nice if the names of the Commons categories were links, that could be clicked. The last two issues could to some extent be worked around by adjustments to the query. But the WDQS output display has been improving so quickly, by such leaps and bounds, that with luck before too long all these nit-picks may have been fixed at source. At any rate, this current query should give a taste of what is possible.
Categorisation help

One of the difficulties with the category system is knowing just what categories it might make sense to add for images of a particular thing. (Or to know what categories one might place a new category for that thing into).

Having machine-interpretable specifications for the categories could help here. If an item's properties were quite well-populated on Wikidata, one might be able to ask a tool to start at quite a high-level category, and then see what sub-categories in that category's category tree the item could fit into.

Recursively, at each stage the tool could retrieve the sub-categories of categories currently considered viable (ignoring categories it had already seen, to avoid loops), retrieve their machine-readable specifications, then for each one ask the WDQS service whether the item would meet that specification. (SPARQL has a special query command for this, ASK { ... } , which is usually very very quick, because it doesn't have to create a list, just come up with a single true / false response.)

The tool could then return as suggestions all sub-categories for which the item complied with their specification, that had no deeper sub-categories that the item could be percolated further down into.

Anomalies and missing data

It's quite hard for tools to extract information from the category tree at the moment -- eg what Commons thinks are all the interesting locations in a particular county -- because as you down a category tree, the sorts of things you're seeing can suddenly swerve off in quite different directions. For example a category descent that appears to be about more and more specific locations can suddenly swerve off into information about residents of a particular place, then works they have created, then things somewhat tangentially related to some of those works, etc, etc.

Having the machine-interpretable specification on categories should help to much better identify what is likely to be in them; and so how far they are likely eg still to be about the locations, rather than something else -- potentially making it much easier to see e.g. if Wikidata can match the suggestion conveyed by the fact of a preferred picture of an object appearing in a particular category here.

Wikidata limitations

At the moment, Wikidata searches can produce a lot of good hits. But they also typically miss a lot of good matches too, because the extent to which particular properties have been populated can be quite patchy.

So for example, the 'cat' search above misses a lot of what is in the Commons subcategories (even discounting the ones that take a left swerve), because either relevant items don't exist, or (perhaps more often the case) because one of the links in the chain that would be needed to make it satisfy the search is missing, because one of the properties on one of the items in that chain hasn't yet been filled in.

To see an example of that, here is a recent search I ran to see which U.S. civil war battles Wikidata knew we had maps for on Commons: tinyurl.com/h99hyr7. One can see that data coverage for the geographic coordinates is pretty good; for dates about 50/50; probably a lot have commons categories that are missing; while as for maps, only one has been linked. One also doesn't know how many battles may be missing completely, because they haven't been marked as "part of" (P361) "the U.S. civil war" (Q8676).

Similarly, the Grade I houses in Bedfordshire search is a pretty good match for the contents of the Commons category (give or take some items that one could argue about whether or not they were houses or not). But the Grade I churches search is a lot less complete compared to the category -- in this case, because the churches ideally ought to have a statement to say which parishes they are in, the parishes which counties they are in, and that way they would be identifiable as churches in Bedfordshire. But for most of the churches that is not yet in place. (And for those that are returned, they mostly just take a short-cut saying they are in Bedfordshire, rather than which parish).

So what Wikidata can return at the moment for a search related to a category here may well be pretty incomplete. But it's a wiki -- it can be edited, facts can be added, it can be improved. And even if results corresponding to one of our 'complex categories' are still quite patchy at the moment, I hope that what does get returned can still be interesting enough, that it may be worth putting a template like that at the top of categories, to machine-describe what's primarily in them, and see what Wikidata can say so far about those things. Jheald (talk) 11:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Images from FukushimaEdit

Hi, I came accross File:223.6.2 13偵:瓦礫等の除去・調整(福島県浪江町)② 東日本大震災における災害派遣活動 1.jpg in Category:Type 00 Personal protective equipment, but

  1. these do not seem to be military, but civilians;
  2. I don't see any evidence of a free license, but I don't read Japanese. Anyway a license review is needed for the whole set uploaded on Commons.
What do you think? Regards, Yann (talk) 19:45, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
This is the entire folder[1]. Appears to be partly military related.
User:Takot what is the copyright of materials generated by the Japanese military? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
The account belongs to the Japan_Ground_Self-Defense_Force. So User:Yann appears to be okay to me. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:45, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for raising a question and inviting me to this discussion. It strongly suggests it is a work of Japanese Ground Self Defence Force, however, this Picasa Web Album account is not verified as an official account of them. Plus, while the Japanese Government is paying efforts to deploy a CC-compatible license (Government Standard Terms of Service), I cannot say the government works are immediately PD or any free license, as of today. --Takot (talk) 08:37, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
User:Ks aka 98 told me that this Picasa account is linked from the JGSDF official website and thus the photo mentioned is available under CC-BY equivalent condition. I'll give you more details later. --Takot (talk) 08:51, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
According to this JGSDF official website (the domain itself is verified as .go.jp domains are exclusive to the Japanese government), the account in question is indeed their account. The contents are available at CC-BY equivalent, noting that 「それらの写真は全て、出典元(例:陸上自衛隊HPより引用)を明記していただければ、商用・非商用を問わず、インターネット・出版物等に使用していただくことができます。」("those photos are avilable both for commercial and non-commercial purposes on the internet or publications as long as the proper credit is clearly stated (e.g. cited from JGSDF website)") --Takot (talk) 10:54, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Some remarks: the source URL was broken, but I fixed it. This should be done for the whole set. We need {{licensereview}}, one way or another. Could we use the Web archive to do that? At the very least, we need to add more information that there is now. May be a template explaining all this. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:43, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. Creating template to explain it would be a solution. You mean "Web archive" as web.archive.org? --Takot (talk) 02:07, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Recategorising categories.Edit

I need to recategorise a number of categories. Is there a tool, like HotCat, that can assist with that? Andy Mabbett (talk) 23:56, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

HotCat works on categories. Do you mean like Cat-a-lot? It has an option to allow moving subcategories as well as files (see preferences in the Cat-a-lot window). --ghouston (talk) 00:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Cat-a-lot should make quick work of it as Ghouston says. Help:Gadget-Cat-a-lot is the documentation page for the gadget. lNeverCry 04:47, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Thank you, both. Yes, I meant cat-a-Lot, and I wasn't aware of that option under preferences. It's done the job. Andy Mabbett (talk) 13:11, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

February 15Edit

Files not deleted following a delete decisionEdit

I was thinking of nominating File:Howe.jpg for deletion as a probable copyright violation. When I click on the link I get the message "Consider reading the deletion debate –Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Peterandfrankie– that links to this page." That discussion concluded with Deleted, yet this file and two of the others discussed have not been deleted. Was this an oversight or a error? Should I renominate this page? Verbcatcher (talk) 05:50, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. I deleted the file, because it was reuploaded after it was deleted in the deletion request. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 05:56, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. The same issue appears to also apply to File:Spcstaff1957.jpg and File:Spcreport1931.jpg, from the same discussion. Verbcatcher (talk) 06:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
There were more images re-uploaded by a suspected sockpuppet of the original uploader under different names. I deleted them all. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 06:10, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Besides sock reuploads, files with simple names like File:Howe.jpg are often uploaded by good editors months or years after deletions of unrelated versions. I've seen some really common file names with half a dozen different uploaders and images over a period of several years. Face-wink.svg lNeverCry 08:19, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Updating large videosEdit

This video File:Pneumonia.webm

Was updated with this version File:Pneumonia-2.webm

Because the file is 216 MB it was not possible from what I understand to upload the second file as a new version of the first.

Wondering if we should delete the first and move the second to its place? We still want to save the translated subtitles as those are not changed. And we want the second version to replace all the uses of the first version without a bot going around and removing those. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:33, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

@Doc James: This is confusing to me. File:Pneumonia.webm is in slightly smaller dimensions (1,812 × 1,018 pixels versus 1,919 × 1,080 pixels) but is also three seconds longer and actually a slightly larger file. These two videos are not identical in terms of content. Why do both of these exist in the first place? Neither is above 216MB by a sizeable enough margin. —Justin (koavf)TCM 07:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
@Doc James: Also, in case you weren't aware, the subtitles are saved in SubRip format as a completely separate file in the TimedText namespace: TimedText:Pneumonia.webm.en.srt, TimedText:Pneumonia.webm.es.srt, TimedText:Pneumonia.webm.de.srt, TimedText:Pneumonia.webm.zh.srt, etc. Overwriting or deleting File:Pneumonia.webm will still leave those subtitles intact. I actually don't know what happens if you move the original file though--does anyone know if MediaWiki is smart enough to move all associated subtitles as well? —Justin (koavf)TCM 07:51, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I have asked the creators to comment. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:57, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
@Koavf: I know. It's not T122038TheDJ (talkcontribs) 12:04, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello @Doc James: and @Koavf:! A few things have changed in this video. Most importantly, Pneumonia.webm has a factual inaccuracy in it, specifically, we were not clear that mycoplasma are technically bacteria, so we have changed the audio and visuals to reflect this. We also have changed our encoder, switching to VP9 instead of VP8, which has drastically reduced the file size of the video from 216 MB to 162 MB. We've also made minor adjustments to the video resolution as you pointed out. Normally, I would update the video by uploading a new copy of the file directly to the original file. However, Wikimedia has a 100 MB file size limit. You can overcome this limit when uploading new videos, but I have found no way to work around this limit for existing videos. Finally, I can easily migrate old subtitles to the Pneumonia-2.web video manually once we've resolved the issue of removing Pneumonia.webm. OsmoseIt (talk) 16:36, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Other eyes neededEdit

Hi,

I was ready to put a {{NoUploads}} on Category:Donald De Lue and sending all files to DR when I had a doubt, can maybe some of these file be indeed free? At least for the works in France (like Spirit of American Youth Rising from the Waves in Colleville-sur-Mer) where there is no FoP, the deletion is almost certain but what about works in USA? There is FoP there but not sure if it applied for such artworks (and not sure if it's true for both 3D statue and 2D-like relief). As there is maybe a lot of different cases, I'd like some other point of view before starting a RfD.

Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 09:56, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

According to Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#United_States, FoP in the US is for architecture only - artworks like statues are not covered by this. --El Grafo (talk) 14:52, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
What happens when sculpture and architecture are combined, like at Category:United States Court House and Post Office Building, Philadelphia? Kaldari (talk) 07:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Those particular sculptures almost certainly are not copyrighted, but if they were the issue would be whether the photograph emphasizes the copyrighted sculpture (in which case it would not be OK) or the inclusion of the sculpture is de minimis (in which case it is OK). For example, you can certainly photograph a building that happens to have some small bas reliefs. - Jmabel ! talk 16:23, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
for US public art, you should be checking SIRIS, i.e. [2]; public buildings from the 30s & 40s tend to be PD WPA, or PD US no notice. need a second license for the sculpture. also user:smallbones can speak to philly. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 00:43, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
See Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US about the copyright of publicly displayed sculptures in the US. Before 1978 if they were displayed in a public setting (not a closed gallery) and they don't have a visible copyright mark they are in the public domain. Freedom of panorama then is irrelevant. The SIRIS website mentioned above notes the writing on and around the sculpture, so should be checked to see if there is a copyright mark and also for the date of display. All my photos of public sculpture involve a close examination for a copyright mark and checking the date of display. Any blanket ban of De Lue's American work is totally uncalled for. Smallbones (talk) 03:05, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Merging categoriesEdit

Hello.I suggest merging Category:Framed images and Category:Images with intentional borders.Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 12:19, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Those aren't the same thing though. Framed images is for pictures of things with frames - paintings, etc. Intentional borders means the image itself has a border. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
@Mattbuck: You're saying Category:Framed images could alternatively be caled "Images with physical frames" ? - Themightyquill (talk) 16:29, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Those seem to me different kinds of category, The latter (which appears to have a lot of content that doesn’t belong) is more like a maintenance category, pretty much saying “Do not crop these images.” As I understand its purpose, “borders“ in this name refers to margins, and the “intentional” implies that they could be perceived as accidental, as if someone had merely neglected to trim them. OTOH the former category is simply descriptive and yes, “physical frames” is apt, while we have Graphic frames for the kind that are part of the artwork. That’s my take on them anyway; I have no knowledge of their history or background.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 21:02, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Review of initial updates on Wikimedia movement strategy processEdit

Note: Apologies for cross-posting and sending in English. Message is available for translation on Meta-Wiki.

The Wikimedia movement is beginning a movement-wide strategy discussion, a process which will run throughout 2017. For 15 years, Wikimedians have worked together to build the largest free knowledge resource in human history. During this time, we've grown from a small group of editors to a diverse network of editors, developers, affiliates, readers, donors, and partners. Today, we are more than a group of websites. We are a movement rooted in values and a powerful vision: all knowledge for all people. As a movement, we have an opportunity to decide where we go from here.

This movement strategy discussion will focus on the future of our movement: where we want to go together, and what we want to achieve. We hope to design an inclusive process that makes space for everyone: editors, community leaders, affiliates, developers, readers, donors, technology platforms, institutional partners, and people we have yet to reach. There will be multiple ways to participate including on-wiki, in private spaces, and in-person meetings. You are warmly invited to join and make your voice heard.

The immediate goal is to have a strategic direction by Wikimania 2017 to help frame a discussion on how we work together toward that strategic direction.

Regular updates are being sent to the Wikimedia-l mailing list, and posted on Meta-Wiki. Beginning with this message, monthly reviews of these updates will be sent to this page as well. Sign up to receive future announcements and monthly highlights of strategy updates on your user talk page.

Here is a review of the updates that have been sent so far:

More information about the movement strategy is available on the Meta-Wiki 2017 Wikimedia movement strategy portal.

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, 20:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC) • Please help translate to your languageGet help

February 16Edit

George Eastman HouseEdit

Looks like George Eastman House has a new website: It is way classier but it aint yuge, because try as you might neither button «browse our collection» nor «advanced search» yields anything remotely close to the wealth of material the previous version of the site, clunky and fugly as it was, did. All links to previous resources are now, “obviously”, lost and pointing redirected to a limp http://www.geh.org/GEM404.html — sad!

A couple years ago I uploaded from GEH all photos by/from Charles Chusseau-Flaviens that pertain Portugal (resulting that Category:Photographs of Portugal by Charles Chusseau-Flaviens‎ includes 845 files and its parent Category:Charles Chusseau-Flaviens‎ has only 28…) and I did add 2 source urls for each image. They look like this:

  • http://www.geh.org/ar/chus/portugal/m(some number)_ful.html
  • http://www.geh.org/ar/strip09/m(some number).jpg

It is possible to mend this case of linkrot by adding http://web.archive.org/web/*/ right before each of these urls. Even for those which were not archived the result isn’t any worse. Anyone against? Any better ideas? -- Tuválkin 02:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

For linking to archived versions of pages at the Internet Archive, it could be useful to use https://web.archive.org/web/*/ which uses HTTPS and as such would provide more privacy and security for users than an HTTP link.
It appears that a number of the photos have a 12-digit number (identified as "(some number)" above) in the URL. For a photo that has such a number, it may be possible to link to a "search results" page with just an entry for the photo by dividing the 12-digit number into three groups of four digits separated by periods, and to append the number to the http://collections.eastman.org/search/ URL. For example, in the case of File:1er_de_l’an_au_Palais_de_Belém.jpg, there is the source URL http://www.geh.org/ar/chus/portugal/m197501114485_ful.html, and for linking to the "search results" page, http://collections.eastman.org/search/1975.0111.4485 appears to work. For File:BarbarosHayreddin-class1910s.jpg, which has the source URL http://www.geh.org/ar/chus/turkey/m197501115220_ful.html#topofimage the URL for the "search results" page would be http://collections.eastman.org/search/1975.0111.5220. --Gazebo (talk) 09:39, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
For the photos in the Category:Photographs of Portugal by Charles Chusseau-Flaviens‎, it might be possible to do a search and replace operation (such as with VisualFileChange) by using regexps and replacement strings. For the first variety of source URL, the regexp would be /http://www\.geh\.org/ar/chus/([a-z])+/m([0-9]{4})([0-9]{4})([0-9]{4})_ful\.html(#[a-z]+)?/ and the replacement string would be http://collections.eastman.org/search/$2.$3.$4. For the second variety of source URL, the regexp would be http://www\.geh\.org/ar/strip[0-9]{2}/m([0-9]{4})([0-9]{4})([0-9]{4})\.jpg and the replacement string would be http://collections.eastman.org/search/$1.$2.$3. --Gazebo (talk) 10:41, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Loading percentageEdit

Hello.Why is there no "uploading percentage" such as YouTube?Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 08:00, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Where exactly (=link) is your "there"? Asking as there are many ways to upload stuff. --Malyacko (talk) 12:02, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
@Malyacko:During uploading to YouTube, loading and processing percentages show.I'm talking about the normal way --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 12:13, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
There is when you upload with Google Chrome, but not when you use Firefox, at least that's my experience with the "experienced" upload interface. Blue Elf (talk) 13:13, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
The "normal way" (linked from the sidebar) is Special:UploadWizard, not Special:Upload. --Malyacko (talk) 13:28, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
There is a progress bar when using the default interface at Special:UploadWizard. Matma Rex (talk) 17:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Public domain images of the Oroville dam crisisEdit

Hi!

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.

Have a good day, Letartean (talk) 15:28, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

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)

Please note my (currently unanswered) query, above, about #California Highway Patrol images. Andy Mabbett (talk) 23:36, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Images from Tweeter are quite uncertain, but I don't see any issue with images from the California Department of Water Resources website. A lot of images from there would be useful on Wikimedia. Any one with a bot? @:? Regards, Yann (talk) 16:29, 17 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)

Date nav box on Category:1999-01-15Edit

There is a problem with the date nav box on this page: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:1999-01-15

Try going to the previous day and see where it takes you.

Jasonanaggie (talk) 22:16, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Looks like Category:1999-01-14 incorrectly claimed that it's June. I think this should fix it: [3]. Matma Rex (talk) 22:34, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Nice work; I tried to hunt down the error but I figured it was a problem with the nav box template. Thanks! Jasonanaggie (talk) 02:43, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

February 17Edit

Cut-off date for {{PD-old}}Edit

At COM:VPC we have had a discussion to try to reach a consensus about how old an image has to be before we assume PD if the PMA+70 rule applies and we don't know when the author has died. After several users stated their opinions and arguments, I have extracted a proposed compromise from the discussion, to see if we can find each other somewhere in the middle, see Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Proposed_conclusion. Not many users have responded to that proposed compromise. Of the users who responded, some find the compromise acceptable, some don't. Currently there is not yet a consensus. More input from different users would be appreciated. Jcb (talk) 12:10, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Is just that all my drawings were deleted withoug any concensusEdit

Hello I'm Vicond.In the past an User posted to me a deletion request of basically all my uploads of images See:. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Vicond%27s_uploads Subsequently, an Administrator deleted withoug any consensus, of the community all my work.For me It's was very absurd.Speaking about the matter of the images I'ts represent a lot of drawings MADE BY MOUSE,that I'm absolutely sure that could be posted in the category with the same name.

In other side I draw a lot of drawings that are intimate linked with the customers and tippical culture of my comunity.I wonder: I'ts not represent any condition of educative way in any case??

I know It's was very time ago but on that time the possibilities to communicate with the commons admin was very limited. So, I wonder if any human person here can help me to resolv this inconvenient. Can I resque my drawings??Meaby making a kind of selection?

Thank you very mutch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vicond (talk • contribs) 16:03, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

  • As an admin, I can still see these. I looked at four, more or less at random. I don't see any reason these would be any more in scope than any other art by a non-notable artist. There's nothing to stop you from posting these elsewhere on the Internet, and if you've lost the originals I'd be glad to help with a temporary undelete so you can recover them, but I don't see any reason for these to be on Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 16:38, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Frist of all:Thak you very mutch by your amability.Sadly and in adiction I have to say that I loose the works...Even the four that you see is corresponding to others uploads made by others users made more recently.In fact if you go to the pages of the files, you can note that the names of the pages is not correspondig with the names of the primary files, like one kind of redirecting. In any way I will be gratefull to recover this works or at least the most part of them, if you believe is possible that. I promisess to be more careful when I made my uploads in the future.Honestly:I thinked that could served in an educative way like expression of the culture of my country. Thank you very mutch aggain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vicond (talk • contribs) 16:03, 17 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vicond (talk • contribs) 17:12, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm also an administrator and have reviewed the deleted materials which were not educational. In fact, the remaining images in your gallery also seem to have no educational purpose. Commons is not here to be your filing cabinet or scrap book, sorry! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:10, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
it's true, commons is not flickr, and artists and institutions should be using the latter. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 23:35, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Google Cultural Institute sync?Edit

Back in 2012 a big batch of Google Art images were uploaded. Google Art was renamed to Google Cultural Institute and more content has been added. I noticed some more recent pictures, but I don't think anyone recently did a batch upload to add the missing images here. Am I right or did I miss a big upload? Can someone sync the public domain paintings to Commons? Multichill (talk) 17:14, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

@Multichill: Downloading from Google is a complex task, with all those obfuscation and encryption Google uses. Searching the web about it, almost all the solutions I see are:
  • Solutions that once worked before Google obfuscated the images, but no longer works after that.
  • Use some programs to resize the browser to some insanely large size then take a screenshot.
  • Search on Commons (maybe we should be proud of this)
  • Use a site (which I already forgot). The method was mainly, AFAICT, reverse-engineered image url and de-obfuscation, with the image concatenated in user's browser.
A year ago I had a script that could download this, using headless browsers to fetch the images and imagemagick to concatenate them. However, with Google redesigning some parts of the site, and Ubuntu Trusty being deprecated on Tool Labs, the script no longer works and needs a complete rewrite/overhaul. I'll try to get it done during March/April due to the headless browser requiring Firefox 53 (currently alpha). --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 01:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Do not crop templateEdit

The scale is important on en:Portable Antiquities Scheme

Do - or could - we have a template, say {{Do not crop}}, to warn when an image like the above is used on an article where cropping (say, to remove the scale) would be detrimental to its purpose?

If so, the crop tool should not allow an image marked with the template to be overwritten. Andy Mabbett (talk) 17:25, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

It may be good idea but someone will need to make a change to MediaWiki:Gadget-CropTool.js. Ruslik (talk) 19:29, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Preempt by creating a cropped version as a new file. -- (talk) 10:05, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't think that would stop well meaning but uninformed individuals; and in some cases there are multiple possible ways to crop. Andy Mabbett (talk) 19:24, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
See the “Merging categories“ thread above (under Feb. 15); I think that’s what Images with intentional borders is supposed to do when populated by {{Border is intentional}}, which last I take to mean more or less the same thing as {{Do not crop}}. It might be easier to exclude the category from CropTool than to make it look for a template.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 17:50, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
No, it is not the same as (though it is comparable to) 'Border is intentional'. Andy Mabbett (talk) 19:24, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

February 18Edit

All geolocated images which I have uploaded displayed on a mapEdit

Hi there, I have made tons of pics all over the world and uploaded them here. I would like to see an wiki-integrated map with a layer of my locations. What do I have to do? Thanks and bye --Mattes (talk) 12:55, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, put all your images in one category (mine is Category:Images by Andy Mabbett). Andy Mabbett (talk) 20:23, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
✓ Done Category:Work by Mattes --Mattes (talk) 08:52, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Category problemEdit

I recently came across Category:CL, meant for images of a Korean K-pop singer. However the category is mostly filled with images of cathedrals, castles, canal locks and such, uploaded from Panoramio. Only 7 out of 354 actually belong there. Could this be fixed, and if so how? --Auric (talk) 16:53, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

  • I think most of that miscategorizations comes from CL (or rather CyL) standing for Castille-Leon, a region of Spain. Before deleting, better move them to Category:Castilla y León. -- Tuválkin 01:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
✓ Done. -- Tuválkin 10:14, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Improving PD-art templatesEdit

Instead of {{PD-art-70}} and {{PD-art-100}}, we could have a template that looks like, say, {{PD-art-year|1920}}, and which works out the necessary text to display, changing it as the years roll on.

In other words, {{PD-art-year|1917}} would display like {{PD-art-70}} this year, but from 1 January 2018, would display like {{PD-art-100}}. Andy Mabbett (talk) 20:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

We allready have {{PD-old-auto}}, like {{PD-old-auto|deathyear=1935}}. Maybe a good idea to create the same or similar for PD-art. --JuTa 20:51, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
you could just do {{PD-art|PD-old-auto|deathyear=1935}} Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 23:31, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Intersection categoriesEdit

I'm working on some categories; see, for example, Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/02/Category:Taken with Canon EOS 60D and Canon EF 100mm F2.8L Macro IS USM. It looks like it's a straightforward intersection of Category:Taken with Canon EOS 60D and Category:Taken with Canon EF 100mm F2.8L Macro IS USM. This should be doable with the Help:FastCCI tool, but it just hangs. Trying it on the command line, I think it's broken?

 $ wscat -c 'wss://fastcci.wmflabs.org/?c1=11297552&c2=19631121&d1=15&d2=15&s=200&a=and'
 connected (press CTRL+C to quit)
 < QUEUED 0
 < COMPUTE_START
 disconnected

There are, for Canon alone, about fifty camera models and sixty lens models. The combinatorial blowup here is potentially over three thousand, and that doesn't even include filters. Is FastCCI broken? Should there be three thousand intersecting categories instead of two sets of fifty and sixty? I don't think intersections are warranted here, but I feel like I'm missing something. COM:CAT#Principles says that intersection categories are sometimes reasonable, but I don't think they make sense here, especially if we have tools which can perform the intersection. --grendel|khan 21:45, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't know about FastCCI, but a search query can give the intersection: incategory:"Taken with Canon EOS 60D" incategory:"Taken with Canon EF 100mm F2.8L Macro IS USM". Creating the thousands of intersection categories doesn't sound like a great idea. Next somebody will want Category:Taken with Canon EOS 60D and Canon EF 100mm F2.8L Macro IS USM on 2017-02-19. --ghouston (talk) 03:59, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Also, once you choose a particular set of intersections, you make it harder to do different intersections. E.g., incategory:"Taken with Canon EOS 60D" incategory:"CC-Zero". There's also a good chance that a lot of this intersection work will be undone when Structured data is implemented. --ghouston (talk) 04:11, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you; that search query is extremely helpful! (It's even worse than you think; there's intersection categories for all manner of equipment; see Category:Taken with Canon EOS 60D and Canon EF 100mm F2.8 Macro USM + Raynox DCR-250, for example.) One thing that worries me is that policy (COM:CAT) is mostly silent on this. ("A category can combine two (or more) different criteria; such categories are called "compound categories" or "intersection categories"."--there's no guidelines for when it is or isn't appropriate to do this sort of thing.) Is this the right place to seek a firmer policy, or at least to push for a flatter categorization for the camera-equipment categories? --grendel|khan 08:37, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

IAEA imagesEdit

Hi, I came accross IAEA Flickr stream, which contains many useful free images. Could someone with a bot upload them? Independently some files were imported, but are not in Category:Files from IAEA Flickr stream. Could someone with a bot add them there? Thanks, Yann (talk) 22:10, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Those are NC, so you might want to have a word with the UNESCO Wikimedian in Residence, User:John Cummings. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 23:41, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Hmmm, well I have no idea how to do it with a bot... You might want to try using Flickr2Commons to find and upload any Wikipedia compatible license images. It looks like the Flickr account uses a mix of different licenses and Flickr2Commons will filter out the ones that aren't compatible with Wikimedia Commons.... --John Cummings (talk) 21:10, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Flickr2Commons detects about 12,000 images with a free license among a total of 18,000+ images. But then it crashes on Chrome+Win7 on a 8 GB RAM machine... :/ Regards, Yann (talk) 21:50, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

February 19Edit

Recruiting photographersEdit

How do we recruit photographers online and/or offline? So far, Wikipedians demand more free photos as they are challenging the use of copyrighted photos. If more photographers are recruited, they can let us share some of their own photos of things and people, living and deceased. Thoughts? --George Ho (talk) 09:52, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I searched for an image of w:Jill Saward at Flickr but found none except photos of the singer with the same name. I don't live in the UK. Nevertheless, I found Twitter webpage and official website of her husband (widower), Gavin Drake. I don't know what to appropriately say to him, given that Saward died last month. I don't feel comfortable taking advantage of a grieving widower just for an image of Saward. If contacting him is not a good choice, how else can I convince any photographer to contribute to Commons? --George Ho (talk) 19:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

One possibility is to look at the history page of the Wikipedia article and look for the people that have contributed to the article. In particular when they contribute also to Commons, you can ask them. Possibly they have ideas how to obtain the desired photos. Success. Wouter (talk) 19:30, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
@Espresso Addict, Philip Cross, Aircorn, Stephen, Marchjuly: Your thoughts about this? --George Ho (talk) 20:01, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Also pinging Jayron32. --George Ho (talk) 20:03, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Firstly, please don't use "free" and "copyrighted" as if they were opposites. They are not. We have lots of free content here that is protected by copyright.
Secondly, we already have File:Jill 080627b.jpg, for which the uploader claims to have sent in permission evidence via e-mail.
As for the subject heading, if all you want are free media, then you don't necessarily need to recruit photographers to Commons – you "only" need to convince them to publish their content under a free license. Creative Commons does a lot of work on that. LX (talk, contribs) 23:56, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
@LX: Oh... the Saward photo is still pending. Hmm... I didn't know that. That case aside, I have another case of obtaining a permission to use a photo of w:A. A. Gill. I contacted some photographers about the Commons. I provided them links to contribute to Wikimedia Commons, like a Welcome page and COM:Flickr files. I did imply permission to use their photos, but I also said that they can upload their photos to Commons themselves. I've not yet received a response from them. Well, I did receive one email saying that this photo is not his work but someone else's. I replied and still am awaiting another response. --George Ho (talk) 01:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
we have a desperate need for photos. why don't you submit an idea lab for small grants for photo stringers of living people at premieres and book festivals? Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 04:15, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
@Slowking4: I am not sure which "idea lab" you refer to. Can you clarify? Commons:Picture requests looks messy and requires a lot of cleanup. --George Ho (talk) 04:36, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
it is the on ramp to grants - here you go meta:Grants:IdeaLab/Inspire - Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 12:04, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
@Slowking4: Reading IdeaLab, that requires a lot of resources and effort. What happens if I just bring up the idea and then not contribute afterwards? --George Ho (talk) 20:09, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
idealab is where you pitch ideas - the probability of implementation goes up as the quality of the planning goes up. - it will take resources to stipend photographers. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 20:33, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
@Slowking4: I created meta:Grants:IdeaLab/In memoria and commemorations, but it's more about images of people who became recently deceased and ones who are now deceased. When shall I create an idea about recruiting photographers in general? --George Ho (talk) 22:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I refer people to en:WP:A picture of you (if I'm asking for a picture of them) or en:Wikipedia:Images from social media (if I'm asking them to donate pictures they've taken themselves, and then posted to sites like Twitter or Facebook. Note that the pages are on Wikipedia, because that's the brand that most people recognise, and that they are written in plain language, with (I hope) no Wikipedia jargon. Andy Mabbett (talk) 15:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
i have also started m:Grants:IdeaLab/images of living people. we will see if we can pry loose some expense money. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 17:16, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

February 20Edit

European Space Agency release its content under a CC BY-SA 3.0 IGO licenseEdit

[4]

If someone could import them en masse with a bot or something, that would be great.

Regards. --Thibaut120094 (talk) 14:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Wow! We should also review deleted files from ESA. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:35, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
@: FYI. Andy Mabbett (talk) 16:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
This is incredible news!! It seems from the announcement, however, that we can't automatically regard their content as CC BY-SA as we can automatically regard NASA content as PD. It's just a statement of intent to apply the license a lot more broadly. Am I reading that right? If so, hopefully they will retrospectively apply it to most of their online archives soon, if they haven't already.
Addendum: I found their use policy, which confirms that the CC BY-SA license only applies "where explicitly so stated". So it looks like this is an announcement that they plan to explicitly state it in a lot more places in the near future. I can't wait! A2soup (talk) 04:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Absolutely fantastic, but as has been suggested, this should only be taken as moving forward under specific circumstances. It only applies, for now, to material produced in whole by ESA, and not to anything created under partnership with industry or other agencies. So, we'll still have to exercise caution when uploading, but things are about to get a whole lot easier. Very exciting, as I especially hope this opens up even more of the Rosetta archive. Huntster (t @ c) 08:41, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-08Edit

19:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Removal of out of scope mass announcementsEdit

I would like to propose that mass announcements and posts which are posted across many projects but have no obvious connection for Wikimedia Commons, or raise no issues for the Wikimedia Commons project, can be removed from the Village pump, and any contributor that takes action to do this may do so with a presumption of good faith from the wider Community. As stated at the top of this noticeboard, it "is used for discussions of the operations, technical issues, and policies of Wikimedia Commons", so posts which are simple blanket mass announcements and raise nothing of obvious interest about the operation, technical issues or policies of Wikimedia Commons should not be here, while those that meet the scope should be kept for discussion. For notices of wide general interest to the entire Wikimedia Community, CentralNotice has the best impact, and using that procedure for mass communication helps to keep this noticeboard in scope. Thanks -- (talk) 20:02, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

If you're referring to "Tech News: 2017-08" directly above, then I would prefer that they keep posting it here. There are some other announcements which are less relevant to Commons, but also less frequent... AnonMoos (talk) 01:04, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
How about replacing post like that one, which are at best tangential, with a link to the master post on meta? By the way you can subscribe and have copies on your talk page, if you really want transcluded copies. -- (talk) 02:18, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Edit summaries or the Hovercards/Page Previews beta feature are available on Wikimedia Commons. How did you get to "no obvious connection"? --Malyacko (talk) 13:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

If there's a specific regular post that is cluttering this page, then we can debate removing it. Otherwise this just seems like rule creep. The scope quoted above has remained unchanged since the page was created and I doubt that a whole lot of thought went into it. It used to also say "Other discussions are welcome here until pages are created to hold them" and now we have some other pages which are listed. There is more variety here than that "scope" implies. Including, for example, discussions about new websites containing free images, or noting legal and political threats/opening of free content. Even notices of wide community impact (such as WMF) may warrant discussion among Commons regulars, something that the central notice does not provide. Surely this should be a page where people can post whatever they, in good faith, feel the community might like to discuss (that doesn't have a dedicated forum) without having to read 101 rules or run the risk of someone rudely dismissing their edit. I'd rather this page supported good-faith-inclusionism than some kind of unilateral "good-faith" removalism. -- Colin (talk) 13:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

+1. Yann (talk) 14:10, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Symbol keep vote.svg Agree with Colin --Jarekt (talk) 17:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
+1 --El Grafo (talk) 10:40, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

really dislikes the tech news has advocated several times to get rid of tech news on this page. See also discussions at Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2016/02#Tech_News:_2016-07 and Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2016/11#Tech_News:_2016-44. I'll note that this page can be unsubscribed from the delivery list by simply removing it from m:Global message delivery/Targets/Tech ambassadors. Matma Rex (talk) 16:50, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Please don't make statements about what is in my head, unless you have mind reading powers. I do not dislike tech news, and I find it interesting to check over, which I can do by following it on meta and anything tech and more urgent I tend to find out about from announcements on Wikitech-l. Movement wide newsletters and announcements posted by bots are not a good fit, as frustratingly to ask questions you have to go to yet another forum off Wikimedia Commons. If someone who contributed to the tech newsletter were to customize the post, or even just introduce it to point out anything of interest for Commons contributors, that would be great and would indicate some human interest rather than automatons relentlessly delivering box-ticking of the Comms plan. -- (talk) 17:06, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
yeah, some projects have such self regard, that they like broadcasting on noticeboards. some others narrow cast on user talk after opt in. i prefer the latter; it is more considerate. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 17:13, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

February 21Edit

WikiProject WomenEdit

Hi, I created this project. Your contributions, opinions, suggestions, and critics are welcome. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

You left out Annie Besant's name in the caption. Not too sure why you chose her, since her main life's work was Theosophy, and she held a number of extremely bizarre (and sometimes repulsive) beliefs in connection with it... AnonMoos (talk) 14:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I don't understand what you want to say by "Annie Besant's name in the caption". The objective is to help the creation and promotion of images of women, by women and for women, irrespective of their origin, opinions, etc. And she also was a women's rights activist, although she is better known for her work on theosophy. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Dude, her name ain't in the caption. It says "British women's rights activist, writer and orator", but does not include her name. To see some of the dark side of the swirling vortex of strange occultism that was Theosophy, start with en:Root race. Would you really include a photo of en:Ilse Koch on your page? (Not that I'm comparing Besant and Koch...) AnonMoos (talk) 15:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
dude, go change the caption. not sure why you want to sea lion a project with anti-theosophy ideology. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 17:10, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
If I were to edit the caption, it would basically be impossible for me not to change it to be a lot less evasively blandly flattering than it is now. And if she were just a follower or believer in theosophy, it might not be so relevant -- but she was in fact its main founder, and so basically a cult leader... AnonMoos (talk) 22:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

What does it mean?Edit

This message is followed by a table with metadata in every file page.

"This file contains additional information, probably added from the digital camera or scanner used to create or digitize it.

If the file has been modified from its original state, some details may not fully reflect the modified file."

What does the second sentence mean? Please explain it.--維基小霸王 (talk) 16:57, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

This refers to en:Exif data. Image editing programs can remove or modify that data. For instance, en:Exif#Problems has an example where the embedded thumbnail may not be updated when an image is modified, so the thumbnail will show an outdated version of the image. clpo13(talk) 17:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

February 22Edit

The first video uploaded to YouTubeEdit

Hello.Is there a benefit of being here?See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Me at the zoo.webm.Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 13:16, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Cropping an image to remove possible non-de minimis image of a fictional character?Edit

Please see this deletion request discussion: Commons:Deletion requests/File:ShimajiroDisplayChina.jpg - A user is arguing that the image should be deleted because there is a cardboard cutout of a copyrighted character but I proposed cropping it out so what is left is de minimis (it is a display of Shimajiro-themed merchandise in China) - the character originates from Japan WhisperToMe (talk) 15:33, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Babel box is too wideEdit

en
en

I have noticed that the box displaying the language abilities of users is too wide, as a result of which there is a distinct white edge (empty space) on the right.

The width of the box is 250px, but I think this should be 242. The examples on the right will hopefully show you the difference.

The width appears to be defined by class="mw-babel-wrapper".

I don't know if this issue can be resolved locally, but perhaps a developer or somebody with editing rights can look into it. ErikvanB (talk) 20:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I've often noticed little things like this. The only answer is usually to design your own, as you've done above, or as I've done on my user page. I've also seen a lot of messy pages where the user doesn't seem to worry about it. These are the people whose pictures and posters on their walls at home are all crooked and uneven... Face-wink.svg lNeverCry 21:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Ha! Ha! Thanks. ;-) ErikvanB (talk) 22:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

February 23Edit