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


 

Turkey Beypazarı district Hırkatepe Village pump. [add]
Centralized discussion
See also: Village pump/Proposals • Archive

Template: View • Discuss  • Edit • Watch


OldiesEdit

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

Overview #2 of updates on Wikimedia movement strategy processEdit

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

As we mentioned last month, the Wikimedia movement is beginning a movement-wide strategy discussion, a process which will run throughout 2017. This movement strategy discussion will focus on the future of our movement: where we want to go together, and what we want to achieve.

Regular updates are being sent to the Wikimedia-l mailing list, and posted on Meta-Wiki. Each month, we are sending overviews of these updates 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 overview of the updates that have been sent since our message last month:

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, 19:43, 9 March 2017 (UTC) • Please help translate to your languageGet help

March 10Edit

Start of the 2017 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees electionsEdit

Please accept our apologies for cross-posting this message. This message is available for translation on Meta-Wiki.

Wikimedia-logo black.svg

On behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee, I am pleased to announce that self-nominations are being accepted for the 2017 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees Elections.

The Board of Trustees (Board) is the decision-making body that is ultimately responsible for the long-term sustainability of the Wikimedia Foundation, so we value wide input into its selection. More information about this role can be found on Meta-Wiki. Please read the letter from the Board of Trustees calling for candidates.

The candidacy submission phase will last from April 7 (00:00 UTC) to April 20 (23:59 UTC).

We will also be accepting questions to ask the candidates from April 7 to April 20. You can submit your questions on Meta-Wiki.

Once the questions submission period has ended on April 20, the Elections Committee will then collate the questions for the candidates to respond to beginning on April 21.

The goal of this process is to fill the three community-selected seats on the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. The election results will be used by the Board itself to select its new members.

The full schedule for the Board elections is as follows. All dates are inclusive, that is, from the beginning of the first day (UTC) to the end of the last.

  • April 7 (00:00 UTC) – April 20 (23:59 UTC) – Board nominations
  • April 7 – April 20 – Board candidates questions submission period
  • April 21 – April 30 – Board candidates answer questions
  • May 1 – May 14 – Board voting period
  • May 15–19 – Board vote checking
  • May 20 – Board result announcement goal

In addition to the Board elections, we will also soon be holding elections for the following roles:

  • Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC)
    • There are five positions being filled. More information about this election will be available on Meta-Wiki.
  • Funds Dissemination Committee Ombudsperson (Ombuds)
    • One position is being filled. More information about this election will be available on Meta-Wiki.

Please note that this year the Board of Trustees elections will be held before the FDC and Ombuds elections. Candidates who are not elected to the Board are explicitly permitted and encouraged to submit themselves as candidates to the FDC or Ombuds positions after the results of the Board elections are announced.

More information on this year's elections can be found on Meta-Wiki. Any questions related to the election can be posted on the election talk page on Meta-Wiki, or sent to the election committee's mailing list, board-elections(at)wikimedia.org.

On behalf of the Election Committee,
Katie Chan, Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee
Joe Sutherland, Community Advocate, Wikimedia Foundation

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee, 03:36, 7 April 2017 (UTC) • Please help translate to your languageGet help

Help to activate the Perform batch task tool (VisualFileChange)Edit

Hello everyone, I would like to know how to activate the Perform batch task tool (VisualFileChange) on the Commons platform? Thanks in advance. - Lucas.Belo (talk) 16:52, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Please, see Help:VisualFileChange.js. Ruslik (talk) 19:54, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
@Ruslik0: Thanks, but This page does not teach to enable the tool on the commons platform, at least this is not clear in this entry. -- Lucas.Belo (talk) 17:04, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
It does, please read the page linked by Ruslik again. Especially Step 1. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
It's all right now, just enter a Java code and the Perform batch task will appear as a commons tool. Thank you all -- Lucas.Belo (talk) 17:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

FoP on international bridgesEdit

For this new trambridge Category:Trambrücke Kehl/Straßburg there is some fun for the legal experts: There is no FOP in France but there is FOP in Germany. Am I correct that this bridge can only be fotografed from the German side? So File:Kehl-Straßburg brug 2017 4.jpg (from the French side) would be not OK?Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:43, 14 April 2017 (UTC) PS: The tramline will be inaugurated 29 april.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:43, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

That's a tricky one. To use a simpler example, let's say we stand in Germany and take a photo across the river to a building entirely in France. Under French FOP that would be a no-no, but under German FOP it would (probably) be ok. Which rule applies in that situation? What rule applies if we take a photo of a German building from France? Then we can model the bridge as two abutting buildings, one in each country. My intuition would be that, to prevent any worries, we should just apply the more restrictive one (aka kill it with fire). -mattbuck (Talk) 12:43, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
That's quite a good example of why Commons FOP policy is broken. Nobody really cares about no FoP in France, except for a few famous monuments. So apllying the most restrictive rule is just shooting oneself in the foot. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:52, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
The precedent we have used in the past is to accept the image if it's taken from a public place in a country (here, Germany) where FoP exists. The image copyright has come into effect in a place where German law applies, and the fact that the courts in France might locally apply restrictions should not prevent us from hosting the image. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:36, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Isn't we respecting country of origin copyrights law (France on case of building)? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:14, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
We don't have any community guidelines on this. We probably should, as the question comes up regularly. I can't find it just now but there was a previous discussion about taking pictures of embassy buildings. The community simply needs to make a decision based on what we think is right, as there is no definitive international rule of law that we have to follow. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:38, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
I think both countries laws (object and subject locations) should be considered. But aren't embassy buildings in most cases works of local architects? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:44, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
The issue there is that they invariably stand on land which is, under international law, considered to be subject to the law of the embassy's country. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:26, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Not even the ground. The Ecuadorean embassy in London (welknown for a famous resident) is only on one floor.Smiley.toerist (talk) 19:55, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
There was at least this case of South Korea (no FoP) taken from North Korea (FoP), closed as deleted, and later restored: Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2015-12#Panmunjom. Actually there are more: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Joint Security Area from North Korea.jpg. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:54, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Sounds like French laws apply. If I stand in Germany and use a rifle to kill somebody across the river in France, then I should be subject to French law. I'm not going to argue that the French half is unimportant/incidental when the intent is to photograph the entire bridge. Glrx (talk) 22:05, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Again, this is a very bad comparaison. Nobody is going to die when publishing pictures. You are free to shoot yourself in the foot, but don't complain if it hurts... Yann (talk) 23:49, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
or if a border patrol agent shoots and kills a teen in Mexico, you would expect Mexican law to prevail, except when it does not.[1] since we're telling the French to get stuffed, maybe we can tell Fried about the Air Force Memorial.[2] but then no reason to tell an american architect to get stuffed. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 00:36, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
The problem here is not simply which country's copyright applies (France or Germany), but what the Commons policy is in this situation. According to Commons policy (Commons:Licensing#Interaction of US and non-US copyright law): "Uploads of non-U.S. works are normally allowed only if the work is either in the public domain or covered by a valid free license in both the U.S. and the country of origin of the work." The original question is clearly answered at Commons:Freedom of panorama#Choice of law:

The question of what country's law applies in a freedom of panorama case is an unsettled issue. There are several potentially conflicting legal principles, any of which might be used to determine the applicable law (see en:Choice of law). The law used is likely to be one of the following: the country in which the object depicted is situated, the country from which the photograph was taken, or the country in which the photo is used (viewed/sold). Because of the international reach of Commons, ensuring compliance with the laws of all countries in which files are or might be reused is not realistic. Since the question of choice of law with regard to freedom of panorama cases is unsettled, current practice on Commons is to retain photos based on the more lenient of the country in which the object is situated and the country in which the photo is taken. For example, North Korea has a suitable freedom of panorama law, while South Korea's law, limited to non-commercial uses, is not sufficient for Commons. As a result of the practice of applying the more lenient law, we would generally retain photos taken from North Korea of buildings in South Korea (e.g., File:Joint Security Area from North Korea.jpg) as well as photos taken from South Korea of buildings in North Korea (e.g., File:070401 Panmunjeom3.jpg).

Now, as for photos of embassies, the land on which an embassy stands is not the territory of the embassy country. (See [3], [4], [5], [6]) Under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961), the land on which an embassy is located is "immune from search, requisition, attachment or execution." (Article 22 §3) Furthermore: "The premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of the receiving State may not enter them, except with the consent of the head of the mission." (Article 22 §1) So the land of the embassy is not officially sovereign territory of the embassy country, but is immune by treaty from entry by law enforcement agents of the host country. So, if the German embassy in Paris displayed a statue that is copyrighted by the author, France's copyright applies to taking photographs of the statue when displayed at the German embassy in Paris. France's copyright laws also apply to photographs of the embassy, whether taken from the street or from inside the embassy fence. AHeneen (talk) 04:18, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

There may be another way to approach the subject. In the the discussions the subject is treated as one indivisible object, ether being in one country our the other. The border is in the middle of the river so there is a French and German part of the bridge. If the bridge is fotographed from the German side such as in File:Kehl-Straßburg brug 2017 1.jpg only the German part of the bridge is visible, with maybe a minimalis French part in the background. Depending on the viewpoint some pictures wil always be accepted.Smiley.toerist (talk) 08:48, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Rejoice! For we are freeEdit

Today this Sunday 2017 in the year of our Lord is a special day. For we are finally free. No longer shackled by licensing fees. We can all rejoice as MP3 is patent free. You may take this afternoon to re-transcode your music collection back to MP3. — Dispenser (talk) 04:32, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

\o/ Yann (talk) 05:51, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Can I get a Hallelujah? Dispenser (talk) 14:49, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Hallelujah. But we have to thin about how to create a automated copyvio detection, we will likely get a number of copyvios. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:00, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Sidebar "Countries of Europe"Edit

It is fine to have this new bar re. countries of Europe. But I have some remarks about it: Isle of Man is not a country on its own, i.e. state, but depends on the United Kingdom esp. re. foreign politics. On the other hand, I missed Vatican City (an independent state) and San Marino.Reykholt (talk) 06:50, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Monaco, San Marino, Vatican City are officialy independant states, but in practice they have all strong institutional agreements with the surrounding country. By the way in the sport world, Wales and Scotland are independant countries.Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:37, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Categories being deletedEdit

Special:Contributions/Black_Morgan shows that this user has emptied out categories such as Category:Illustrations by Arthur Rackham and Category:Arthur Rackham's illustrations of Wagner's operas and Category:Alberich, dumping everything into Category:Arthur Rackham, even where it contains works of multiple artists. Someone up for talking to this user and trying to get these categories back in order?--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:39, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be more effective to first contact/notify (User talk:Black Morgan) the culprit directly? --Túrelio (talk) 08:51, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
No. If you don't care, fine, but the best I could tonight was dump it in someone else's hands.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:23, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
if you do not care enough to actually collaborate, then no i do not either. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 16:23, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Catholicpedia?Edit

Some days ago, Wieralee moved all the categories below Category:Mass (liturgy) to categories named Category:Holy masses in.... Although I can acknowledge that "holy mass" is the formal? term used by the Roman Catholic Church, I can't see any single reason for following the specific jargon of an organization instead or a neutral term. Category:Masses (liturgy) in..., Category:Roman Catholic massess in... and even Category:Masses in... are perfectly valid terms and follow not only the consensus for years, but a neutral poitt of view. Opinions? --Discasto talk 16:10, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion, the categories were correct the first time. "Holy" is a point of view statement, what is holy to one religion might be anathema to another. There is no reason to put pointy terms into the category names. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • @Discasto: it was on the list of requested moves: look here. Two weeks are considered as adequate time for possible objections. Six weeks had passed and there was no objections, so the procedure had to be fullfilled. Wieralee (talk) 17:09, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
@Wieralee: No, it isn't. It clearly states (bold is mine) that "If the proposal is clearly or potentially controversial or requires a broader discussion, you can transfer the discussion to Commons:Categories for discussion (replacing this template with {{tl:cfd}})". If you're not able to acknowledge that this is a controversial movement, maybe you should stop renaming categories. Anyway, I'm goint to revert your movement and list the category for discussion. Feel free to argument the movement there. --Discasto talk 19:59, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm of the mind that if nobody objects in six weeks of a proposition being live, the chances are it isn't going to be a contested or controversial decision. As for the term "Holy", I don't think we have any requirement for neutrality on Commons, especially when the organisation themselves use a term. Not religious myself, but the Holy/anathema distinction is fake if the roman catholic church calls them "Holy" and nobody calls them "anathema". Like most religion, whether they are in fact "holy" is unworthy of debate since one might just as well try to compare the customs of two African tribes for "correctness". I'd advise against any reversion of this move before a CfD has been fully argued, that's just begging the question and wasting resources. Rodhullandemu (talk) 20:25, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • @Discasto: This category has gone through a complete Commons procedure: everyone could express their opposition, but no one did. Everyone could mark this proposal as controversial, but no one did. So the category has been moved.
"You can transfer the discussion" means the opportunity, not necessity (you have to, you must)... I'm not involved in this subject personally: I'm completely indifferent about what the final name of this category is. It wasn't my request, you should talk with ŠJů who has proposed this movement. I only saw the movement request without any oppose.
If you disagree with this, why did not you raise your objection at the appointed time? If there was at least one vote of objection, I would never have moved this category :( Wieralee (talk) 20:38, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
I didn't disagree just because the renaming, being "controversial" (see above) wasn't were it should be, in Commons:Categories for discussion. Controversial renaming should be in the proper place because people usually doesn't review non controversial renamings. Pretty easy to understand. Again, if you've not able to see that this is a potentially controversial renaming, maybe you shouldn't dare to carry out category movements. --Discasto talk 20:42, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
What indication should we expect that a move might be controversial? Somebody objecting to a proposed move? Or somebody coming along six weeks later after the move? Sorry, we are not expected to be pyschics here. The reason we list proposed moves for two weeks is precisely so that they can be tagged as controversial, and if you come along later, I'm afraid you really have nothing to complain about. Rodhullandemu (talk) 20:51, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

The main reason for the rename request was the change from singular to plural. A secondary correction was a change from a non-standard (unpreferred) format (dissambiguation brackets in the middle of the category name) to more standard one (commonly used unambiguous adjective). Generally, for items from any specific field we prefer a common terms and nomenclature of the field - including religous terms and titles as Holy Cross, True Cross, Virgin Mary or Our Lady etc. No need to start endless discussions each time. --ŠJů (talk) 20:57, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

@Discasto: for absolutely non-controversial renames, rename command should be proposed directly instead of {{move}} proposal. A {{move}} proposal is at least two weeks displayed in the Requested moves. If somebody is concerned in category naming, he need to periodically monitor all these proposal pages and categories. This proposal was a routine correction which requires not a broader discussion. --ŠJů (talk) 21:10, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it requires a broad discussion, as I've mentioned (and I'm not the only one) it makes no sense to use Catholic terminology for something that anyone not being Catholic does not understand. "Mass" is the term broadly used by any English-speaking person, but not "Holy Mass". It's pretty obvious. The point here is that, from a methodological point of view, the request hasn't been warned in any of the categories inheriting from the root category. That's the reason why nobody has noticed. The categories have been there for years and some discussion won't be useless. I'll take care of the renaming and movement if a consensus is finally reached. Feel free to provide your arguments here: Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/04/Category:Mass (liturgy) by country. Best regards --Discasto talk 21:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Request for commentEdit

Hi For the flag of Algeria, there are problems. Could you help us to reach a consensus ? We are in the presence of contributors of circumstances, who are in hibernation for months and then all come back at the same time when a discussion is revived by one of them. I take the initiative to argue but they just come to oppose without arguments. It can not go on. --Panam2014 (talk) 16:39, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

65.000 uploads originating from Facebook.Edit

Hi all,

On User:Basvb/FBMD I have published lists of all 65.000 files which contain FBMD in their exif-data. This is an indication that they were uploaded to Facebook previously and downloaded from there. See this previous discussion. Some of these files are truly free, either because the Facebook uploader is the same person as the Commons uploader; because the files were accompanied by an explicit permission statement; because the files are in the public domain; or because we received permission via OTRS. However taking that into account we are left with thousands of simple copyright violations. Most often portraits from notable persons taken from their Facebook without evidence of permission. If anybody is interested in going to (parts) of these lists that is highly appreciated. Greetings, Basvb (talk) 18:00, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi,
For most of these files, we should ask for the original file, not a copy from Facebook. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Why does everyone use the same botched query? FBMD* matches FBM and results in 1,887 false positives in your report. You can see a much improved query User talk:Dispenser#Facebook FBMD Reports. And group/sort them by uploader rather than filename. Finally, Bureau of Land Management seems to be using Facebook to store and organize their photos. —Dispenser (talk) 13:25, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
I simply forked the older query, so that's why there is the same regex error (found it weird but didn't think to much on the *). Thank you for showing your query with some additional improvements. Working from an onwiki list was a bit easier to me than working from quarry. Putting both the users and date before the filenames in the table was another improvement which could still be made. One question on your query. Why exclude FlickR images? Aren't those potential (unintentionally) FlickR-washed images? There seem to be quite a few (larger) collections between those images that are ok. Thanks for your suggestions. Basvb (talk) 14:46, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Seemed like an easy way to exclude the Bureau of Land Management photos and any other large group we copy off Flickr. Certainly easier for SQL newbies to understand than shoving the data into a temporary table, creating another temporary table of the users >100 photos, then querying both tables. Dispenser (talk) 15:56, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Category:Gare de Haren (Belgique)Edit

Someone created a French category and moved the files from :Category:Haren train station. It is not conform the naming conventions of Belgian train stations. Can the category be removed?Smiley.toerist (talk) 22:00, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

April 17Edit

fontsEdit

  • I noticed that Wikimedia Commons does not seem to have any font files. If possible, I would suggest allowing uploads to Commons of free open-source font files. This will allow a centralized way for MediaWiki installations to utilize custom fonts with CSS by importing them from Commons (like we already do with images and videos). This is particularly useful to be able to display characters not in the Unicode standard on wikis (such as Klingon letters). Nicole Sharp (talk) 12:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
    • In which format do you think they should be uploaded? Ruslik (talk) 20:06, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
      • I haven't tried myself, so I don't know what file formats are supported here for uploads. But I would think to take the same approach as with images, i.e. any file format should be fine, as long as the licenses for the fonts are free and open-source for public redistribution. As open-source, they should be able to be converted into any format. Ubuntu Fonts and Google Fonts might be good places to start. Nicole Sharp (talk) 20:50, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Nicole Sharp -- The http://openfontlibrary.org/ site exists as a site for freely-licensed downloadable fonts, so we would be going into competition with them. Wikimedia Commons doesn't currently have downloadable fonts, but it does have fonts installed for rendering by RSVG of vector SVG files to PNG rasters. Fonts used to render text on web pages have to be in the highly-specific WOFF format... AnonMoos (talk) 23:10, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
For using downloadable fonts with CSS, we have the ULS mediawiki extension. Bawolff (talk) 01:37, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
User:Nicole Sharp is 100% right that we should offer fonts. Since those are open repositories, we can mirror one another and expand upon them--that's a good thing. By your thinking, we are in "competition" with Flickr which allows free media and YouTube which allows free video. —Justin (koavf)TCM 23:47, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Flickr and Youtube are not special-purpose repositories of freely-licensed / reusable files, so I completely fail to see what purpose your attempted analogy serves. I'm not saying that the fact that Open Font Library exists means that we shouldn't expand into fonts, but it would be courteous to inform that site if we plan to do so, since they probably have a lot of specialized expertise to offer, if asked nicely... Another thing to think about is that Open Font Library accepts ZIP file uploads, since font files are often distributed together with associated licensing, documentation, sample image, etc. files. (In this respect, a font is more like a software package than a single media file.) What would be the Wikimedia Commons equivalent of this (since ZIP files are unlikely to be allowed to be uploaded here)? By the way, the vision of uploading fonts here which would be immediately available to render Wikipedia article text is unlikely to be realized, since that would be a kind of security hole. -- AnonMoos (talk) 01:08, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Help requested in finding good quality images of Illicit Trafficking of Cultural Property for exhibition at UNESCO HQEdit

Dear all

I'm currently in the process of sourcing photographs for an exhibition at UNESCO HQ in Paris. The Exhibition covers many kinds of cultural heritage, I have managed to source images for most of the subjects we aim to cover except Illicit Trafficking of Cultural Property. If anyone could suggest any images that would illustrate the following themes, one image for each of the themes I would be very grateful, it would be very helpful if the images chosen were overall geographically diverse.

  • Illicit trafficking in cultural property and the financing of terrorism
  • The looting of archaeological sites
  • Role and importance of documentation (importance of inventories)
  • Importance of specialized police and customs units (for example, the Guardia Civil or the Carabinieri)
  • Engaging with the art market (collectors, auction houses) regarding due-diligence practices and provenance check
  • What can the general public do to stop illicit trafficking (role of awareness-raising and education)
  • Online sales of cultural goods and the role and duty of Internet Service Providers

Many thanks

--John Cummings (talk) 17:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

The only possibly-relevant photo I know of offhand is File:Pesne Girl.jpg (an old B&W photo of a painting considered lost after having been confiscated by Nazis)... AnonMoos (talk) 23:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-16Edit

19:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

April 18Edit

Can we use a bot to categorize uncategorized "FOP in Foo" discussions?Edit

See what I mean here. Manually, this is thousands of pages. But the code is simple. Ex. search for text "in South Korea" , check if appropriate category (ex Category:South Korean FOP cases in this case) is present, if not, append. PS. I just went through 50 or so Korean FOP cases, there were just 2 false positives, and miscategorizing a few discussion pages shouldn't hurt anyone - on the other hand, having those pages categorized would make it easier to have discussion on the affect of FOP laws on free media, etc. Currently I'd estimate 50-90% of FOP deletions are not properly categorized. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 08:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Error with geo-coordinatedEdit

I wanted to know why some of my own images with geo-coordinated don't appear on maps. This file appears (1), but this other, in the same city, doesn't (2).

--HVL talk 15:55, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

ファイル‐ノート:Suzuka-river Ise-rw.jpgEdit

Please, transfer ja:ファイル‐ノート:Suzuka-river Ise-rw.jpg to Commons. Thank You for help. --Kusurija (talk) 19:51, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@Kusurija: I found a neat tool that can help: https://tools.wmflabs.org/commonshelper/ WhisperToMe (talk) 22:17, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
@WhisperToMe:I tried it, but it does not work for me... --Kusurija (talk) 10:20, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
@Kusurija: is there an error message you received? Remember that you have to authorize it in OAuth first before you use it (the page gives a link to the authorization page) WhisperToMe (talk) 21:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
@WhisperToMe: It is OK now. Thank You. --Kusurija (talk) 21:14, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Template for a category merge?Edit

I started Category:Dr. Carlos d'Assumpção Park not realizing that Category:Parque Dr. Carlos d'Assumpção already existed. Is there a particular template I could use to ask for a merging of the two categories?

Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 22:16, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Uncontroversial category moves/merges can be requested at User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands. It's also usually really easy to do something like this yourself with VisualFileChange to edit all occurrences of one category name to the other, then change the one you are moving away from to a {{Cat redirect}}. And I'm sure there are plenty of other ways to do this. - Jmabel ! talk 01:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Notification of DMCA takedown demand - Rainbow Falls HiloEdit

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

Affected file(s):

To discuss this DMCA takedown, please go to COM:DMCA#Rainbow Falls Hilo Thank you! Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 23:08, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

  • If that has merit, then all the contributions of AlaskaDave~commonswiki (talk · contribs) should be reexamined. I see that several have been nominated for deletion, but why not all? - Jmabel ! talk 01:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  • @Jmabel: I had looked at them all... some where already tagged for speedy, and I marked more. A number of them, however, have EXIF info from a specific camera and cellphone, and were taken in Hawaii over a short period... I did not find any indication those were copyvios. I suspect the editor uploaded some vacation photos, and then added a few more 'better' ones from the web. - Reventtalk 11:51, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

April 19Edit

New filters for Recent Changes - Beta deployment schedule for your wikiEdit

Hello!

Sorry to write in English. Please help translate to your language! Please also inform everyone about this change.

The Collaboration team is going to launch a new Beta feature on your wiki, New filters for edit review. This deployment would happen on April 24 (hour to be precised). This new feature will be listed with all other Beta features.

What it this new feature?

This feature improves Special:RecentChanges and Special:RecentChangesLinked by adding new useful features that will ease vandalism tracking and support of newcomers:

  • Filtering - filter recent changes with easy-to-use and powerful filters combinations.
  • Highlighting - add a colored background to the different changes you are monitoring, to quickly identify the ones that matter to you.

Some wikis have also access to Quality and Intent Filters, user predictions based on ORES that identify real vandalism or good faith intent contributions that need assistance. A separate process has to be performed to have access to those predictions that will make Quality and Intent filters working.

What will happen?

When the deployment will be done, users who want to try the new filters will be able to do so by activating them in their Beta preferences. Other users who don't want to try the new filters will have nothing to do. They will see no changes in the Recent Changes page.

How to prepare this change?

You can discover the purpose of this project by visiting the quick tour help page. Also, please check the documentation (and help to translate it).

For an early trial, the new filters are available on mediawiki.org's Beta features.

What will happen next? At the moment, we are deploying the New filters on all wikis? Then, our focus will be to look at what changes will be needed to spread the new filtering interface to other review pages, especially Watchlist. We're also exploring how to incorporate the tools we didn't include in the new interface in this round, like the Tag Filters, time-frame selector and Namespace filter (File, Categories...).

You can ping me if you have questions. You can also check the FAQ.

All the best, Trizek (WMF) (talk) 10:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

PS: if this message is not at the right place, please move it and ping me. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trizek (WMF) (talk • contribs)

The deployment will happen at 14:00 UTC. Trizek (WMF) (talk) 12:32, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Papal seminary Sri LankaEdit

Papal seminary Kandy Francis Sint Xavier´s chapel.jpg
Does this building stil exist? I suspect the postcard is pre WW I (standard Post Card backside). I cant find any relevant Sri Lankan category. The place Ampitiya, close to Kandy mentioned in en:Papal Seminary I didnt find in the Commons, or any catholic buildings in Kandy. Is the UK licence template good for Sri Lanka colonial time?Smiley.toerist (talk) 17:43, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Today there is Monte Fano, Sylvester's Monastery in Ampitiya, but don't know if that is the same building. The website of the Sylvestro Benedictine Monks Sri Lanka has a long history section, though … Then there is the Kandy diocese with the St. Anthony’s Cathedral located in Kandy (→ en:Roman Catholic Diocese of Kandy). --El Grafo (talk) 07:52, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Wait, I think I've got it: It's part of today's "National Seminary", which lies to the north-east of the Montefano Monastery [13]. Here's a recent indoor-shot of the building. --El Grafo (talk) 08:23, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
I modified the en:Papal Seminary article with the mention of the National Seminary. What is this ´Lady of Landa´ thing in the name. A local saint?Smiley.toerist (talk) 08:43, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

April 20Edit

Preparing for 3D models on CommonsEdit

Hello Commons,

In 2015 one of the most popular ideas for the Community Wishlist Survey was about enabling the sharing of 3D models on Commons. There's technical work underway to make this happen with the STL file format.

The Multimedia team would like to get your input on two specific questions.

How might the Commons community respond to concerns over the uploading of 3D files?

Specifically around how this new file format might involve new issues (such as patent, copyright, and uploading of weapon designs) that weren't as relevant before for 2D files. For instance, if someone uploaded the 3D model of a potentially patented work how would the community respond? What can the community do in advance to discuss and prepare for the possibility of these things happening?

As examples, here are a few areas that might require community discussion and guidance: What happens when users upload 3D files for objects that are patented? Although Commons policies are now generally only concerned with copyright restrictions, patents on 3D objects could introduce risks and restrictions for other users who want to print these files and even for the online hosting of the files. Conversely, if a user is uploading a 3D file that they may later want to patent, should they be warned that such disclosures might make it more difficult for them acquire such a patent in the future? Should there be guidance on how users who print 3D objects should properly provide creative commons attribution for the copyrighted elements of the design? Should there be specific restrictions or notices with respect to the uploading of files that can be used as weapons, especially those that may be restricted (e.g. gun or knife designs)?

Where would it be best to make contributors aware of the policy around items of this nature?

We've been doing some research, and have a few ideas. For example, the community may wish to ensure there's a reminder of policy during the upload process and again on the file page itself. Where else might the community want to look to be prepared before the feature is enabled? Should guidance linked from the Editors' index, such as the Commons:Licensing, the Commons:How_to_detect_copyright_violations, and the Commons: non-copyright restrictions be updated as well?

If you have a some time to think about this and provide feedback it would be greatly appreciated. If you aware of other Commons contributors that might have some thoughts, please include them in this conversation as well. Thank you and the team appreciates your time. CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 18:15, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I want to thank everyone responsible for making this happen: 3D models is one of the big lacunas here on Commons. —Justin (koavf)TCM 23:53, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
On the issue of copyright, 3D designs, and 3D printing, one of the more useful guides may be "3 Steps for Licensing Your 3D Printed Stuff" from Michael Weinberg of Public Knowledge. The guide's focus is on US copyright law and the circumstances under which a 3D object (such as a decorative sculpture) or a 3D design can be licensed on copyright grounds (such as by applying a Creative Commons license to a digital 3D model file.) Among other things, the guide talks about the aspect of US copyright wherein not all 3D objects are copyrightable, i.e. if a 3D object is of a functional nature and is not meant to be artistic. (The Commons guideline on derivative works has a section about this subject.) At the same time, a digital 3D design for a functional object may be copyrightable even when the object itself is not. The guide also touches on patenting 3D objects, but recommends consulting with a lawyer due to the complexity involved. --Gazebo (talk) 04:11, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
I think guidance from foundation legal team might be useful in regards to patented objects. --Jarekt (talk) 15:22, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Not formal legal advice, but my impression is that patents are primarly concerned with usability, not appearance. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:00, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Per the recent opinion regarding Mavrix vs livejournal, I'm actually of the opinion that wmf legal should not answer a request regarding patented objects. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 19:24, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
I think you have to actually make a product, or carry out a patented process, to violate a patent. Providing a blueprint for it doesn't seem like enough. w:Patent infringement. --ghouston (talk) 23:11, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't think we should touch patents at all. Patents are a hairy mess, and while many copyright violations can be easily found and removed by volunteers, patent violations are not nearly as obvious or easy to figure out.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:18, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

April 21Edit

Lua version of {{Creator}} is now liveEdit

I just switched {{Creator}} template to new code written in Lua: Module:Creator. Please report any problems at Template talk:Creator or at Module talk:Creator. --Jarekt (talk) 15:05, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Thx Clin Pyb (talk) 07:59, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

April 22Edit

HelpEdit

Hi As I am redesigning the main page of a local Wikipedia I wanted to add the picture if the Day and the media of the day of Commons to the local Wikipedia. How can it be done is there any codes or something so it can be directly linked to the local version of Wikipedia --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 01:58, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Template:Potd and Template:Motd should work. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 02:17, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

@Slowking4: will it work in a local Wikipedia project? If I copy paste it there --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 02:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

no, but you can create a local template that transcludes the template on commons. i.e. w:Template:POTD. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 11:09, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Template transclusions are not currently cross-site. You will have to make a bot to do automated updates. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 11:26, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
@Tiven2240: You can get POTD locally, it just needs to be trough wikidata instead of commons. POTD is replicated to wikidata with an bot in the item d:Q14334596. Unlike commons, you can get the data from wikidata to your local wikipedia project, in this case with {{#property:P18|from=Q14334596}}.--Snaevar (talk) 14:22, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Category disambiguationEdit

I have started a guideline on disambiguation at Commons:Category disambiguation. To try and reduce the amount of conflict this causes with the views of Auntof6, Foroa, Blackcat and Nilfanion I am proposing that this becomes a proper guideline rather than an essay. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:24, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

April 23Edit

Wiki Loves Pride featured picture driveEdit

Men kissing in IKEA.jpg

Comments and feedback on the planned international LGBT+ Wiki Loves Pride featured picture drive are welcome on the meta discussion page, see link. The drive will be promoted on 31 different language Wikipedias.

The drive encourages high quality photographs from Pride events and other LGBT+ cultural related images to be released to Commons. The goal is to see a jump in the numbers of LGBT+ cultural related photographs nominated for Featured Picture status on all Wikimedia projects.

Help is needed to prepare a banner in your language! See banner translations.

Thank you! -- (talk) 12:43, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Imagen Jardin des Plantes (3189983467).jpgEdit

Señalo que en esta imagen, en Commons, tanto en alemán como en francés se indica que se trata de la zona de monos de la Ménagerie, pero esto debe estar equivocado, ya que lo que se observan allí son tigres. Es por ello que al agregar la descripción en español de esta imagen en Commons, indiqué precisamente eso, que se trata lo que en francés se llama Fauverie (albergue de fieras, o albergue de grandes carnívoros), y que probablemente se encuentre del lado de la zona de jaulas, del edificio que se muestra en Commons en la siguiente imagen Fauverie - Jardin des Plantes de Paris.jpg. Me parece importante corroborar lo que señalo in situ, lo cual puede hacerse a través de los wikipedistas que se encuentren en París.

Por otra parte, reafirmo mi posición por el uso que a esta imagen se le da en la Wikipedia en francés, en el artículo que se titula : Ménagerie du jardin des plantes. Allí, en la sección que lleva por título Grande fauverie, se ha insertado la imagen Jardin des Plantes (3189983467).jpg, y el respectivo pie de imagen indica : La fauverie côté cages en 2009 lorsque des tigres étaient encore présentés.

--Juan C Anselmi (talk) 13:13, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Astronomy expertise needed to correctly identify a fileEdit

File:M31 galaxy.jpg says M31 (the Andromeda Galaxy) and galaxy in its title and is categorized as a galaxy. On the other hand, it says M13 (a globular cluster) in the description, and it looks more like a cluster than the galaxy. I wasn't sure if it might be just focussing on the core of the galaxy. Pinging @Mikeben4420: (the creator) to get his input. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Auntof6, it is definitely Messier 13. Compare the positioning of surrounding stars in this clearer photograph. I'll take care of the renaming and such. Huntster (t @ c) 18:10, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
@Huntster: Thanks! --Auntof6 (talk) 18:52, 23 April 2017 (UTC)