Open main menu

Shortcut: COM:VP

Community portal
introduction
Help deskVillage pump
copyrightproposalstechnical
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

Contents


March 23Edit

The upload script no longer takes the date given as the original photograph dateEdit

Kunstwerk metrostation Bizet 1992.jpg
I scan a lot of old slides. As far as I am able I fill in a date 'taken on'. I cannot always be precise but it is more usefull than the scan date. Before the upload script used the photograph date and I changed the date to the (in)precision needed. The file manager on my PC alway insist on a complete date, but most times I only use the month and year the slide was developed. (sometimes only the year is certain and on some slides there is no indication at all)

Why was this changed?Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:21, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

PS: i added a artwork catalog URL to Category:Art in MIVB stationSmiley.toerist (talk) 11:47, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

  • What "upload script" are you talking about? - Jmabel ! talk 16:50, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
I think he/she is talking about the UploadWizard. The wizard has changed so that the prepopulated datefield uses the date and time when the file was modified instead of the date and time the photograph was taken on. --Estormiz (talk) 14:08, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
@Smiley.toerist, Jmabel, Estormiz: That is a bad change. We rely on the "date" field to contain the date and time the photograph was taken. Is there a phabricator ticket for undoing that change?   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 16:17, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree it's a bad change, but I pretty much never go near the Upload Wizard, so I'm not the one to follow this up. - Jmabel ! talk 16:34, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
* Ensiapu 715 tunnusosa.svg Somebody please revert the UploadWizard script to the previous version. The current one forces an extra edit like this. I think it is devastating enough to make the whole community to crush. --トトト (talk) 03:05, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
I filed phab:T219357 (in general, if bugs are not reported on Phabricator, they won’t get onto the radar of developers).
  • Is it confirmed this everyone here is talking about the UploadWizard? (please let’s not talk about « the upload script », that’s like the less descriptive naming possible :-) ).
  • Since when is the problem happening?
  • @Smiley.toerist: Can you clarify what you mean by « used the photograph date » − is that an EXIF field or smth else?
Jean-Fred (talk) 09:33, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Harmful.gif It's been happening since ca March 22, I think? And no fix has been visible yet. An edit like this is still necessary. If somebody uploads a file via UploadWizard, it consumes another user's 5 - 10 minutes for correcting its date field. If the problem persists forever, it means the end of the commuity. --トトト (talk) 10:59, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

This makes me frequently "copy date" from the original to copy and remove the original from UploadWizard, and I don't know the purpose of this change either. --N509FZ Talk 前置,有座!Front engine with seats! 01:07, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

another reason to stop using upload wizard, use Pattypan instead. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 02:12, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Reading T219357, this could be a fantasy problem as nothing has been identified that would introduce the bug. It might help if someone added some screen shots and could reliably reproduce the claimed functionality. -- (talk) 09:42, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

This was already tracked at phab:T219331, and a fix has already been merged. Jean-Fred (talk) 14:11, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Bug confirmed. This picture was taken on 2019-03-01 and uploaded with the upload wizard. 2019-03-11 was the date of modification. -- Herby (Vienna) (talk) 19:09, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

ÖBB 2016-016 siebenbrunn-leopoldsdorf 2019-03-01.jpg
@Smiley.toerist: The fix for this should go out April 3rd. Kaldari (talk) 22:04, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Still there's no change as of 3 April.--N509FZ Talk 前置,有座!Front engine with seats! 14:49, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

And the fix has not yet been implemented after 3 April.--N509FZ Talk 前置,有座!Front engine with seats! 00:21, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Harmful.gif Did the wikimedia foundation intentionally change the UploadWizard script? If so, for what purposes? Is an edit like this necessary for ever ? --トトト (talk) 13:33, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

The problem is still not fixed today, 6 April! -- MJJR (talk) 21:35, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

It seemed that this bug has affected a wider range of users.--N509FZ Talk 前置,有座!Front engine with seats! 00:59, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Finally fixed (pending confirmation of other users)--N509FZ Talk 前置,有座!Front engine with seats! 15:13, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Help me on this image copyrights.Edit

I am trying to edit this page en:Megan Crosson

The Megan personally provided me an image to be inserted in her wiki page. this is the image https://www.flickr.com/photos/145866906@N04/46532630115/

also, Megan told me that this is his own photo (he own the rights and carry the appropriate license to issue on Wikipedia)

Can I insert that Photo in her Wiki article?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mubashar44 (talk • contribs) 12:19, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @Mubashar44: Signing your posts on talk pages is required by Commons:Signatures policy. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion).
@Marcus Cyron: Is this the same photo you deleted as File:Megan Crosson.jpg?   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 12:45, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
No. The image I've deletes was from a professional portrait fotoshoot, not from a game or training. Marcus Cyron (talk) 12:49, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
@Marcus Cyron: Thanks. However, I doubt that she took that photo of herself that she uploaded to Flickr.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 16:12, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
I would say no to that image, as to me that flickr account looks very suspicious - it's a single-purpose account, and several images have watermarks from different photographers. The best thing to do would have Ms Crosson use the OTRS method to confirm that she holds rights to the image. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:14, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Mattbuck, I agree in your conclusion that Megan Crosson should use OTRS and either assure that she is the copyright owner of the image in question or otherwise get in contact with the photographer who has to give permission then. But what is suspicious? It’s her own Flickr account – it may show, though, that she may not have an idea of potential copyright issues. Mubashar44, physical ownership of an image copy on paper or as file is not the same like being the owner of copyright. Only the latter is the one that matters for Commons. If Megan cannot assure that she is the owner, and also get no permission by the photographer it may be possible to upload the file to the English Wikipedia (i.e. not Commons) under fair use conditions, but you should ask there. — Speravir – 01:23, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Speravir, it's suspicious because we do not know that it is her flickr account. What it is an account with many photos of her culled from several different sources - you see these all the time for celebrities. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:58, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Mattbuck, but the TO wrote that she herself pointed her/him to this photo on Flickr!? So, this account must at least be operated with her consent, I think. — Speravir – 01:41, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Speravir fair point, but I'd still add that account to the banned list on the grounds of obvious copying of others' images. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:51, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
OK, fair enough. — Speravir – 22:07, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

"Category:Israel by year"Edit

Presently, Category:Israel by year have a lot of categories before 1948. This is IMO, absurd, as Israel did not exist before 1948. I suggest that we move all those between 1920 and 1948 to Category:British Mandate of Palestine by year, and those before 1920 to Category:Ottoman Syria by year.

Comments? Huldra (talk) 23:23, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

The same should apply to subcategories of Category:Palestine by year before 1988.--Shlomo (talk) 23:47, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Actually, I (mostly) agree! The question is when it comes to the pictures between 1948 and 1988; I think we must discuss that further. (Where should those pictures of the West Bank 1948–1967 go? And where should the pictures of the West Bank 1967–1988 go?) But those before 1948 should definitely go into the Category:British Mandate of Palestine by year, and the ones before 1920 into the Category:Ottoman Syria etc, just like those of Category:Israel by year, before 1948, Huldra (talk) 23:59, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Mind you, there's Category:Palestine by year and Category:Palestinian territories by year. --HyperGaruda (talk) 05:17, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
The Kingdom of Israel existed long before 1948.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 04:52, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
This is tricky, and I understand how in this case it is particularly loaded; on the other hand, we routinely use present-day country (and smaller administrative unit) names to refer to present territory rather than territory at the time of an image. For example, we have a bunch of "...in Washington (state)" categories for the period when Washington was either part of the Oregon Territory or was a territory (but not a state) in its own right. - Jmabel ! talk 08:09, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
On the other hand, we have Category:Königsberg in the 1920s which is categorized as a city in Germany, not in Russia… Also, we have categories like Category:Yugoslavia by year, Category:Czechoslovakia by year or Category:Soviet Union by year, which certainly do not refer to their present territory.--Shlomo (talk) 09:04, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Well, seeing categories like "Israel in the 1880s" is a bit absurd, IMO. It also looks as if it is mostly files relating to the Jewish community at the time. (In the 1880s about 5% of the population of present Israel/Palestine were Jewish.)
There is a name for those, namely en:Yishuv, and it actually has its Category:HaYishuv by decade. Perhaps all the Category:Israel by year before 1948 could go into the corresponding "HaYishuv by year"? Comments? Huldra (talk) 20:35, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
@Huldra: I'd have no problem with that. - Jmabel ! talk 21:46, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Ok, if I hear no objections, I will start moving the Ottoman "Category:Israel by year" files into the correct "HaYishuv_by_year" cat in a day or so. Then do the same for Category:British Mandate of Palestine by year, Huldra (talk) 21:04, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
I would think, though, that HaYishuv categories should be used only for things related to the Jewish community in the region, not to everything that happens to be in the region. A picture of an Ottoman government building in Jerusalem in 1905 or an Arab person in Hebron in 1939 certainly does not belong in a HaYishuv category. Does anyone disagree with that? - Jmabel ! talk 01:45, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
I absolutely agree. I just came across this (changing it from "Category:1929 in HaYishuv" to "Category:1929 in the British Mandate of Palestine"). The Nashashibi Family is one of the leading Palestinian families in Jerusalem, having that as part of "Category:1929 in HaYishuv" is absurd. We should probably go systematically through all those "Category:xxxx in HaYishuv" and see if it shouldn't be in the "greater" category, Huldra (talk) 20:48, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Ok, I need help here. Does anyone know how we can change Template:Haifayear? Please see Template talk:Haifayear, Huldra (talk) 21:40, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

@Huldra: I replied there.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 22:15, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, well, I was looking for someone who actually dares to edit that template....the text of it terrifies me! Huldra (talk) 22:44, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

March 31Edit

Not getting into Google EarthEdit

When I look in File:Albert E- and Emily Wilson House 2012-09 jeh.jpg and other files and click to view on Google Earth, I get a page saying "Toolforge" and "No Webservice". OSM works okay. What's broken? Fixed soon? Jim.henderson (talk) 03:46, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

No.
Maintained by Para, who has not been active on any project since 2017.
Most tools will permanently break within 2 years of their creator vanishing from the projects. Once broken, most tools will never be repaired.
This is one of the reasons that going through the slow process of proposals and consultation with the Wikimedia Commons community for system changes remains critical, yet is constantly skipped and excused for new development, because "breaking stuff" is still considered a rewardable behaviour in Silicon Valley, and hence the WMF. Volunteer created tools do not make it on the radar.
-- (talk) 04:29, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Try clicking on the coordinates, there's a different style of link to Google Earth in geohack, e.g. at [1]. Maybe that still works? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 06:27, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Commons NewFiles, another Para project, also no longer works. Is there a replacement somewhere? --Morn (talk) 14:07, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
It all suggests to me it will only be fixed after a delay of months if ever, so the templates ought to stop showing the option until the part that has stopped working is repaired, replaced, whatever. Jim.henderson (talk) 12:41, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

New logo templateEdit

Hello.

I am would like to create a new template which in the mold of {{depicted person}}, {{depicted place}} and {{label}}. This template would be invoked like this:

  • {{logo|Q3146488}}

And the output would be this:

  • Firmenzeichen: InterActiveCorp (if uselang=de)
  • Logo: IAC (if uselang=en)
  • Logotipo: IAC (if uselang=es)
  • etc.

The problem is that Template:Logo is already used.

What does the community think I should do? Should I hijack the existing template, or create a new one? If a new one, what should I use for the name? Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs)`

{{entity}}? Ruslik (talk) 08:13, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
It seems {{Logo}} is only used once and incorrectly in VT logo1.png (OK, actually a not existing template is called there), cf. search all: hastemplate:"logo". So you probably would not cause any harm. But note this Ivrit named template: {{לוגו}}, it’s another redirect (search: all: hastemplate:"לוגו"). — Speravir – 22:56, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Magog? — Speravir – 18:43, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Related question, is there a field in the "Summary" template to hold {{depicted person}}? RAN (talk) 16:46, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Category:Eva RinaldiEdit

Hi.I think all images in this category and subcategories are not useful (Out of project scope), In addition, the person has no article or data ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 12:59, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

There are a lot of very usable photos of celebrities in Category:Photographs by Eva Rinaldi and sub-categories … --El Grafo (talk) 14:01, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
I hope someone reviews photos in these categories ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 14:51, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
What are your specific objections? There are amazing photos of art exhibits and of celebrities, I am not aware that you need a Wikipedia article to have a photo of yourself here at Wiki Commons. You are allowed to have Wiki Commons host a photo of you for your user page ... and you are expected to have a photo of yourself for your Wikidata entry.

Pixabay user "WikimediaImages"Edit

Is this something WMF Legal should be dealing with? And if so could a natural English speaker write them? On Pixabay there is a user named WikimediaImages. Under this account as of today 5818 images have been uploaded. My concern is that Pixabay does not license anymore under CC0, but a proprietary “Pixabay license”.
Have these over 5000 images to be checked which license they have in Commons?
BTW I noticed this with this potential circulus vitiosus case: File:504KingAtPortland.JPG points to a Pixabay ressource, but the uploading account is “WikimediaImages”. @Alexis Jazz: Why did you set the cat Files from Pixabay without Pixabay template? It is clearly not given as source, but as another version.
— Speravir – 22:31, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

@Speravir: That Pixabay user needs to be blacklisted. Every one of their photos I checked has been licensed here as PD or CC-Zero, and then was copyfraudulently given a Pixabay License 9 January 2019. https://pixabay.com/photos/andrea-velasco-actress-chile-women-876130/ was a copyvio uploaded here as File:Andrea Velasco Actriz.jpg 03:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC), deleted here 00:53, 14 January 2015 (UTC), and yet mysteriously uploaded there 7 months later, "Aug. 13, 2015". Something is rotten there.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 23:45, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
So, you think the same like me, Jeff, it seems. But how did you find this image? It was deleted here 4 years ago … From the name in Pixabay (but actriz versus actress)? — Speravir – 00:01, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
@Speravir: I looked from Pixabay's end using URL https://pixabay.com/images/search/user:wikimediaimages/ and did reverse image searches with Tineye. There are many ways to skin a cat, so I'm told.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 00:08, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Ah, Tineye. I noticed myself just an hour ago or so, that the show (sometimes?) also images already deleted in the linked source. — Speravir – 00:17, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
It seems like all the uploads from that user are from 2017 or earlier, before the Pixbay license change? --ghouston (talk) 03:11, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
If we can believe the sorting from latest then yes. But the general question is whether CC0 and PD images can be alternatively set to a proprietary license. — Speravir – 18:41, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't think you can issue a valid license unless you are either the copyright holder or have a right to sublicensing. CC-0 places works in the public domain, so there's no valid copyright if the work is unmodified. CC-0 also offers a fallback license, but it's "non sublicensable". I don't see that WikimediaImages has done anything wrong, uploading CC-0 files to a CC-0 website, but the relicensing doesn't seem valid. --ghouston (talk) 03:34, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

April 05Edit

Category with endpointEdit

Hello Wikimedia. I made a small mistake and created a category with endpoint is there a way to eliminate this category, there are another without endpoint. :( Mário NET (talk) 00:42, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

@Mário NET: Sure, just tag it {{G7}}.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 01:06, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
ok, I will made these suggestion. Mário NET (talk) 01:24, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

PDFEdit

Constitutión p01.jpg

Hi, lacking every experience with uploading PDF I need some help. I have a copy of the current Cuban constitution, it consists of 16 pages of the size approx. 28 × 38 cm. It might be of interest to get it into Wikimedia? Wikisource has the text but doesn't have any picture. -- sarang사랑 08:42, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

@Sarang How does it relate to https://walterlippmann.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/draft-cuban-constitution-2018.docx.pdf?   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 10:50, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
It is an official document of the Cuban government, with the complete text in Spanish language. Your link shows an English translation. -- sarang사랑 11:02, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
By the way, rendering of PDFs currently offered for default Wikimedia user is currently abysmal. See category_talk:PDF_files #MediaWiki_improvements (and also phab:T38597). Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:17, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Sarang, you can upload the PDF here and then "transcribe" it at the Spanish Wikisource, if it's a scan of some official edition. But why does the text need pictures? Nemo 12:46, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I do not know how to generate a PDF document that can then be browsed through; and I have not the equipment to scan papers of that size. I just have the document of which I think Wikimedia should have it - but I do not know how to manage the transfer to the encyclopedia. Help or ideas are welcome! May be that for some money I can get it digitalized, and somebody else will bind it to PDF? -- sarang사랑 15:32, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
@Sarang: If you can scan the document and upload the images, either here or some other place, someone else can create a PDF file. You can take the pictures either with flatbed scanner or a good camera. If you use a camera, be sure that the papers are flat. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:40, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Yann, I did not believe that copies with a camera are as good as with a flatbed scanner - but I can give it a try, with high resolution, a tripod and good light. When I have uploaded them, I'll ask there again.
Does somebody know, which is the best license? -- sarang사랑 16:20, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
s:en:Help:Official_texts#General_license recommends {{PD-EdictGov}}. From {{PD-Cuba}} it looks like there is no limitation to copyright for laws, is there? Nemo 16:28, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
@Sarang: It is tricky, but it can be done. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:40, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
@Sarang: do you have access to a smaller scanner that could capture ‘tiles’ of A4 size or thereabouts? Those would be fairly easy to splice together in an image editor, and given the high resolution & consistency of illumination would almost certainly be easier to get a reasonably presentable result than with photography.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 23:30, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Commons Video ConvertEdit

Please help I can't upload on Commons Video Converter, it says "internal server error". Blackedhaze (talk) 18:02, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

In german: Commons:Forum#Video_geht_nicht_zum_Hochladen. --Nightflyer (talk) 18:52, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

iNaturalist mass uploads to Commons?Edit

iNaturalist is a website where people " Explore and share your observations from the natural world". On Wikidata people have been linking up taxon items to iNaturalist on a quite massive scale using iNaturalist taxon ID (P3151) (over half a million links). Quite a few of the images on iNaturalist are available under a free license. They also have a quality control system in place for the identifications where the highest level is "research grade". When it's research grade it has a date, location, species is identified, etc. (check one of the research grade observations for details). So decent quality images, free license and excellent metadata. Just browse through these examples. I'm considering setting up a bot to upload these photos to Commons. Do you think that's a good plan? Would this be appreciated? Multichill (talk) 20:06, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

  • @Multichill: You can do it? great! I'm favorable at 200%! this will be very much appreciated! I sometimes already do it manually for some images, but a bot would be the luxury! Please do it. Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:15, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • This can be valuable, as long as some important caveats are taken into consideration. Like any user-generated site (Flickr, etc), the image quality, data reliability, and level of confidence in species ID can vary wildly. I've used and examined iNaturalist a little bit, and while "Research grade" is an important filter for data quality, it only takes two high school students 'agreeing' on the wrong species to make an observation Research grade, which will persist until someone else (presumably more knowledgeable), suggests a correct (or at least more probable) ID, which will then remove the "Research grade" status until a new consensus is established. There are also many small-sized, low-quality, and/or blurry images that may be identifiable and thus even research grade but out of COM:SCOPE as not realistically useful for educational purposes (see e.g. this observation or a blurry photo of a blue jay that's recognizable to birders, and thus useful to iNaturalist as establishing an organism at a place and time, but that as an image would never realistically be used to illustrate anything else). The scope of iNaturalist (i.e. recording any natural history observation, with or without a photograph) is quite different from that of Commons, which is not intended to be a database of biodiversity. Thus I think some amount of discretion and restraint should be urged over purely blind mass transfer, at the risk of importing large amounts of poor-quality images among the good ones, even if 'good' images are still the majority (just as caution and discretion is urged when using Flickr2Commons).
Also, have you considered contacting any of the admins at iNaturalist? A head's up might help prevent snags down the road. And logistically, for mass imports to Commons a bot should automatically add a {{LicenseReview}} and confirmation at the time of upload, similar to FlickreviewR 2 bot (perhaps Template:Inaturalist, which I just learned existed, could be modified/co-opted). Tangentially, I believe Research grade observations and their metadata are eventually imported into Global Biodiversity Information Facility, where they can be used by other researchers, e.g. this rattlesnake observation is represented at this GBIF occurrence, but that's probably of more interest to Wikidata than Commons. --Animalparty (talk) 23:13, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • A follow up: Some consideration to the number of existing files on Commons might also be prudent. For instance, Category:Sturnus vulgaris already contains over 350 files in the top level category alone. On iNaturalist there are over 800 Research grade observations of that species with free licenses. Even putting aside questions of educational use (e.g. these 17 small files vs this single closeup image), it could be asked do we need more images of Sturnus vulgaris, or those likely to end up in Category:Sturnus vulgaris (low resolution)? Certainly, high-quality images that currently lack representation on Commons should be prioritized. --Animalparty (talk) 23:33, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • +1: we already have about 1k random snapshots of feral pigeons in the main Category alone – do we really need another 11k? I'd prefer a cherry-picking kind of approach to this. --El Grafo (talk) 15:11, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
@El Grafo: Yikes! Looks like we need to get the Sporty Thievz involved! (seriously though, is there a warning template we can put on very crowded categories saying something like "Whoa! We have a lot of this subject. Think hard before uploading more and/or try to illustrate aspects not yet documented."?) --Animalparty (talk) 18:59, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • And another logistic/legal issue: within a given observation, users can apply separate licenses for observations, photographs, and sound files within. If you have an iNaturalist account you can see this in Account settings. For example, this handsome beetle has {{CC-0}} for the observation (as indicated on the lower right of the screen), yet the photograph itself is {{CC-BY-4.0}}, which is not readily apparent from the main observation page. I'm assuming, but not positive, that "observation" here refers to the (optional) descriptive text and comments, and/or the other non-photographic data (date, time, location, etc. although the question could be raised if such data is even copyrightable). When observations present different licenses, seemless and faithful License compliance might be challenging. --Animalparty (talk) 00:23, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Another point to consider: while the ability to import geographic coordinates would certainly add to the value of images, the accuracy of the coordinates vary, and it would be helpful to include that in metadata. In many cases the accuracy is within a few meters (common when using the smart phone app or in-camera GPS sensors), but in other cases the resolution is several kilometers: coordinates of threatened/endangered species are automatically obscured and placed randomly within a range of ~20-30 km, and individual users have the ability to obscure locations even for common species (see e.g. [2]). As a result, one can find plenty of apparent "misplaced" observations (e.g. salamanders in the ocean). Users can also manually indicate the uncertainty in their location by drawing a circle on the map. I know I've done this when all I know is that I took a photo somewhere within a national park or along a trail, and draw a radius of uncertainty encompassing several dozen kilometers. I note that {{Location}} includes an optional precision field: anyone know how widely that field is used? --Animalparty (talk) 22:25, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Most of the images we've imported from Geograph Britain and Ireland now have precision (set to 1, 10, 100, or 1000), which would account for about 15% of the files that use {{Location}}. --bjh21 (talk) 11:43, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • At least in past iNaturalist used Flickr as image storage and I used site that way. It'll be reasonable if bot will check for possible duplicates from Flickr already copied to Commons. In my particular case iNaturalist was secondary project and all photos were uploaded on Commons. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:42, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  • There are some details to take care of, as evidenced above, but in general this is a good idea: we have a good collaboration with iNaturalist, but they don't give as much prominence to copyleft material, so it's a global good to surface it on Commons. All the better if the classification system, to match photos to categories and data about species, can be created and maintained without redundant work via Wikidata. Is it easy to start with species which don't have (high resolution) photos on Commons? Does iNaturalist convert the uploaded images in any way, so that they would stop being bit-identical to the same photos uploaded to Flickr as EugeneZelenko mentioned? Nemo 16:14, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback, much appreciated. I'll see how I can incorporate it. My general approach to Wiki projects is that our on limited resource is community time so I always try to optimize on that. We have two models when it comes to third party websites:
  • Pull: Hey, found a nice image to illustrate something, let's upload it to Commons. Amount of time spend per image is relatively high, but the usage of these images is also very high
  • Push: Hey, I found a nice collection of images, let's put them all on Commons so it's easy to use them. The amount of time spend per image uploading is minimal (just writing some robot). Community time is spend on curating the images (mainly categorization) and in the longer run hopefully by illustrating things
I really don't care about spending disk space on 1000 photos on one particular bird species, I do care about community team being wasted because you have to wade through these 1000 photos. So in this case we should probably see if we can find a middle ground. Let's assume structured data on Commons is live with the depicts. That means it's easy to count per species here how many photos we have. We can probably think of a couple more criteria either on our side or on iNaturalist that would influence if and what photos get uploaded. Multichill (talk) 20:40, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
@Multichill: I agree with the sentiments expressed by others. It would be wonderful to import photos from iNaturalist, just not all of them :) There is a huge range in image quality, including images that are so tiny or blurry that they are barely recognizable. For example, here's a research grade image of a Common Hoopoe. It's a great image for verifying a sighting, but it's a terrible image for illustrating the bird (if you can even tell that it's a bird). What would be really nice is a Tool Forge interface that lets you search images on iNaturalist and choose good ones to import (along with the metadata). Also, I'm sure you already know this, but iNaturalist has a nice API for accessing observations. For example, here's an API call to see all research grade observations of Common Hoopoe with a Wikimedia-preferred license. Kaldari (talk) 02:38, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
@Kaldari: that is making the pull model easier. I don't do pull, I only do push. That doesn't mean it's not a good idea, but probably someone else should probably work on that. Best to add it as yet another source to existing tools.
Their API looks nice. I wonder how many of these do have an image on iNaturalist. Multichill (talk) 10:22, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

April 06Edit

pixnio aka public-domain-imageEdit

I think uploads from https://pixnio.com/ (formerly http://www.public-domain-image.com) should be discouraged in the future. Pixnio is similar to maxpixel in that they pull photos from the net and try to trick you into paying them by putting donation links beside images. Fortunately, Pixnio seems to try preserving author/source information (only in textual forms, without actual weblinks), but accuracy is questionable. Here are two identical images: File:Tuomikirkko building the dome of Helsinki.jpg "by Andrew McMillan" and File:Tuomikirkko the dome of Helsinki.jpg "by Mark Kelley". You may also check my recent contribs to see the pictures of Walruses that I had to dig up their real sources online, overwrite them with better versions, and review licences. I've tried checking dozens more in Category:Public-domain-image.com but I couldn't find their non-Pixnio sources.--Roy17 (talk) 11:31, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Another pair: File:Looking towards central Helsinki from espoo.jpg vs File:Looking towards central Helsinki.jpg.--Roy17 (talk) 16:40, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Well, it is always be possible that Public-domain-image/Pixnio is the original source. Especially for heavily used images your are quite often lost in finding the real source … which may also meanwhile dead. — Speravir – 18:47, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Per the 2013 discussion here and the comments in the public-domain-image category, the compiler seems to have done a reliable job in checking that the sources they were harvesting images from were definitely public domain. To date, despite many source checks, duplicate removals, image upgrades and so forth, this collection remains quite reliably public domain material.
There is no intention to mass import from Pixnio, and (as the uploader from 6 years ago) I agree that we should avoid mass importing from any 'aggregation' websites rather than importing directly from original archives wherever this is possible. This includes more institutional sites like Europeana, where in almost every case it should be possible to take original images and verify the metadata we use at the original publication source.
The rationale is different for collections where there the original source has been removed from the internet, or is disputed. Those should be handled on a case by case basis. -- (talk) 10:35, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Do we have list of scam sites? I had a conversation with Simon from Pixabay in 2017 and one reason they changed their licence was the creation of clone websites that scraped images from Pixabay and had the "pay for a coffee" icon which went to the clone site owners, not the photographers. Majora has found one in this DR. It would be useful if Commoners were warned away from them. -- Colin (talk) 11:36, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

April 07Edit

Files reviewed by the uploaderEdit

Was it allowed that human reviewers review their own uploads/transfers before say 2008? I just saw dozens of such Flickr files.--Roy17 (talk) 17:05, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

  • I seem to remember it was, but I'm sure someone else can be more definitive. - Jmabel ! talk 17:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
    @Roy17, Jmabel: If you are talking about license review that rule came into effect on February 21, 2012 per COM:LR#Instructions for reviewers. In 2008 it was allowed for uploaders to review their own uploads (however ill advised that may be). --Majora (talk) 20:50, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

April 08Edit

Commons:Photo challenge February resultsEdit

Lakes: EntriesVotesScores
Rank 1 2 3
Image Schröcken Körbersee 003 2009 09 08.jpg Okama crater lake, Mt. Zao, Tohoku region, Japan (north facing view).jpg Sunset over Houghton Lake, Michigan.jpg
Title The Körbersee with view to the Großer Widderstein Okama crater lake on Mt. Zao in the Tohoku region of Japan
has a circumference of 1,000 m and a depth of 27 m. The
acidic water-filled crater is called "Okama" because it resembles
a traditional Japanese cooking pot of the same name.
Sunset over Houghton Lake, Michigan.
Author F. Riedelio OKJaguar JoannaPoe
Score 16 14 12
Rotational symmetry: EntriesVotesScores
Rank 1 2 3
Image Water surface hit by water drop.jpg CARE International – friendship and love.jpg Weingarten Basilika Kuppel 1080038-PSD.jpg
Title Water surface hit by water drop CARE International – friendship and love Dome of the monastery basilica St. Martin in Weingarten
Author Jsalatas AntanO Ermell
Score 17 15 12

Congratulations to F. Riedelio, OKJaguar, JoannaPoe, Jsalatas, AntanO and Ermell. --Jarekt (talk) 01:07, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Is it just me or someone confused rotational symmetry for radial symmetry? -- Tuválkin 03:06, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Read-only mode for up to 30 minutes on 11 AprilEdit

10:56, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Strange loading of this imageEdit

I have not found any copyright reference in this image upload. To make the mention that the author is unknown only makes the reference worse. I'm crazy to use an image of this beetle in the article I made in Portuguese, but I do not think that this is in the policies of Wikipedia. Recently I was here to offer a drawing that was not approved by copyright. This move in my article is because, now, the great media of my country is presenting this species to everyone. Whoever did the loading not know how to put it. Mário NET (talk) 15:25, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Photographer is not unknowable, and the photograph is available at higher resolution at https://g1.globo.com/sp/bauru-marilia/noticia/2019/04/03/besouro-venenoso-que-pica-e-encontrado-no-interior-de-sp.ghtml with the attribution to Antonio Sforcin Amaral. Their Flickr collections are all rights reserved. -- (talk) 15:34, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes. According to one of the major media in my country, the photo is by Antonio Sforcin Amaral / Personal Archive. Mário NET (talk) 15
43, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Photography advice wanted on WikivoyageEdit

Wikivoyage (the travel guide) has a short article on voy:Wildlife photography. If anyone's interested in the subject and wants to provide travel-related advice, then please feel free to Wikivoyage:Plunge forward and expand the article. (No need to directly cite sources in their articles – the focus is on good advice, written fairly.) There are probably several photography-related articles that would be easy to improve. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:30, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: Not much I can add there, just noting that our best wildlife photographers are probably best reached through Commons talk:Featured picture candidates. Also: how can it be that Category:Wildlife photography does not exist under Category:Photography by genre (or anywhere else)? --El Grafo (talk) 08:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

old bot tasks that might have caused troubleEdit

File:TRAW-railcar-entrace.jpg led me to find out some problematic old bot tasks. As in this case, uploaders uploaded some own works, hence putting a self template, but also put flickr as its source and/or let it pass flickrreview. User:Nilfanion's User:NilfaBot was fixing flickr licenses. It removed the flickrreview template (because it detected a self template I guess?). Many years later, the file was tagged for flickrreview again, and ended up in Category:Flickr images not found.

I believe there must be some files that were wrongfully deleted for this reason, because I have seen admins getting rid of flickr maintenance categories with VFC. They would not look at the files carefully.--Roy17 (talk) 19:40, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Corrupt fileEdit

Can anyone see what is wrong at File:Strategic Insight Session 1 China The Rising Star (46811736244).jpg? It uploaded as corrupt using Flickr2Commons. It looks fine at the source, and a copy I downloaded to my machine, but the later is also corrupt when uploaded using the upload wizzard. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:31, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: Your second upload appears correctly for me. Probably just a cached thumbnail? BMacZero (talk) 23:24, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you; yes, it seems to have been a caching issue. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:58, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Where is the problem? Perhaps someone purged thumbnails already, but I don’t notice any anomaly. Surely doesn’t Pigsonthewing bother the pump with problems of locally cached JPEGs? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:00, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
There was a period where I was getting LOTS of partially uploaded images which after investigation boiled down to unexplained WMF server errors, but I am not seeing this happening this year. If F2C is giving this error systematically at levels, say, above 0.1% of uploads, then it may be worth raising a ticket for. Error levels much lower than that will be too hard to find examples to diagnose, such as times when WMF servers had known operational problems. -- (talk) 10:55, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

April 09Edit

Category:Oostende train station (tram)(Old)Edit

Is this a correct name for a category? (Double paranthesis) I want to split up the old tram station. The new station was built in 1990 about the same time as the 'SNCV' to 'De Lijn' compagnie change.Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:43, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Two parenthesized words or phrases is unusual but some times it could be the best choice. In the case at hand, multiple possible replacements come to mind, though, and none of them with this feature. -- Tuválkin 21:31, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I suggest "Oostende train station (tram, pre-1990)", or if you know the construction date of the original tram station, something like "Oostende train station (tram, 1925-1990)". --ghouston (talk) 00:41, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
For your information: the new tram station, next to Oostende train station, has just been demolished. A new tram station will shortly be built. JoJan (talk) 15:29, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Published crop of a larger unpublished photoEdit

How do we handle when only a crop of a larger photo is published in say 1920, thus in the public domain? Do we consider the larger photo also published? For instance File:Louis Julius Freudenberg I (1894-1918) and Ada Augusta Freudenberg (1885-1957) in a black shawl and Clara Freudenberg (1889-1959) holding a writing box, circa 1915-1917 possibly at 22 Hopkins Avenue, Jersey City.jpg is the larger photo and here is the crop that was published in 1918. This is a general question meant to pertain to all cropped images. In this specific case the larger photo would be public domain because the photographer died more than 70 years ago. RAN (talk) 15:30, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Probably the larger photo remains unpublished if only a part of it is published. Ruslik (talk) 18:46, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
I would tend to agree that the larger photo would not be considered published. If a chapter is published well before the entire book, that wouldn't affect the publication date of the book. GMGtalk 20:21, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
I would agree that the larger image wouldn't be considered published. But in general there might be some gray area depending on the extent of material outside the crop. I previously brought up the question here, without much definitive conclusions. Another example is seen in the file history of this painting. --Animalparty (talk) 18:15, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

A new procedure for incomplete uploadsEdit

Since phab:T190988 seems to be unresolvable in the near future, I propose that Commons should develop a new procedure for this.

  1. Create a new template akin to {{No permission since}}.
  2. Create a new maintenance category.
  3. Create a new message template, which includes detailed instruction on how to overwrite a file.
  4. Incorporate this in the Quick Delete gadget.
  • When an incomplete file is found, tag it and leave a message on the uploader's talk page.
  • After 30 days, if the file is in use (quite unlikely) or could be somehow useful (being largely intact and depicting someone/some place notable), crop and keep; otherwise delete.

Hopefully this will give new users sufficient time and guidance to retry their incomplete uploads and at the same time ease congestion on DR and CSD.--Roy17 (talk) 20:39, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support: I like this idea. -- Tuválkin 21:32, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I agree. Gestumblindi (talk) 23:46, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 03:29, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good proposal. 4nn1l2 (talk) 14:25, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Yann (talk) 15:29, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Blue Elf (talk) 17:02, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, though #4 would be the hardest part, I guess. — Speravir – 23:32, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Vulphere 14:34, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @Roy17: This should really be on COM:VPP, though.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 17:12, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
    • I think so, but a pointer here would always be welcomed, also for the other proposals. — Speravir – 23:32, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Well, I don't see any likely opposition to this proposal... Gestumblindi (talk) 21:51, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Detail Karlsruhe stationEdit

Stroomonderbreker bediening in Karlsruhe Hauptbahnhof.jpg
How do I classify this overhead current break installation? Smiley.toerist (talk) 22:55, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
@Bahnmoeller: Maybe you are able to help? Gestumblindi (talk) 23:45, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

April 10Edit

Bulk upload for J. Paul Getty Museum's Open Content Program?Edit

Is there a project in the works, or any users working to import more images from the J. Paul Getty Museum Open Content Program? It supposedly has over 100,000 pieces of public domain art ("Open content images are digital surrogates of works of art that are in the Getty's collections and in the public domain, for which we hold all rights, or for which we are not aware of any rights restrictions"). Many of the Open content images are available in very high resolution files, often exceeding 10 MB (example 1, example 2). While there are currently over 2,600 files in Category:Google Art Project works in The J. Paul Getty Museum, there are only some 750 files in Category:Files from the Getty's Open Content Program (i.e. only 750 files using {{Getty Center}}), suggesting there are many more high quality images to be imported. Thus, a guided, semi-automated bulk process seems ideal, to allow for appropriate categorizing, etc. Commons:J. Paul Getty Museum doesn't seem very active nor have much info on current status. While each Getty Open content images I've seen has great meta data, I'm not knowledgeable enough about the API of the Getty website to assess workflow feasibility (manually, it takes a few extra steps to download highest resolution images, including stating your intended use), but hopefully some more code-savvy users could look into it. Cheers, --Animalparty (talk) 05:42, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I have spent a lot of time on the categories of these files, and I have imported a few. Yes, bot-upload might be useful, but beware of not importing duplicates. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:24, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Preferable way to do that would be getting the object/work metadata into Wikidata and then upload the images via Commons compatible image available at URL (P4765) I'd say. The upload would be automatic. And with queryable metadata that would ease categorization of the files. --Marsupium (talk) 20:17, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
@Marsupium: I know even less about bulk uploading of data to Wikidata. Are you saying that Commons compatible image available at URL (P4765) will automatically upload the image from the URL to Commons? I think that property, while intended to be temporary, is somewhat superfluous: if a good image is identified, I think it should simply be uploaded rather than adding a virtual Post-it note saying "an image is out there, it's right here, look at it." --Animalparty (talk) 22:10, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
@Animalparty: Yes, Multichill's BotMultichillT uploads them automatically, but I forgot: “It only uploads images of paintings that are in the public domain due to age”. Don't know whats the portion of those? But that process would probably only work for a part of the images. So perhaps just ignore my comment, idk. --Marsupium (talk) 22:23, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
example upload
@Animalparty: with Commons compatible image available at URL (P4765) it became possible for me to break a quite complicated workflow into two much easier parts:
  1. Import available data for a painting to Wikidata and add an image suggestion
  2. Upload the suggestion to Commons and add the image to the Wikidata item
I can only do the upload if I'm confident that the image is actually covered by {{PD-art}}. For that I currently use two options:
  1. Painting by a known painter who died before 1923
  2. Painting by anonymous painter created before 1850
It usually takes a while before all the data is available on Wikidata so that my bot can confirm the PD-art and upload. Take the example on the right: The suggestion was added in February 2018, the inception was added a couple of days ago and that triggered the robot to do the upload. The approach seems to be quite succesful, my robot uploaded thousands of files.
Anyway, back to the Getty. Back in 2016 I uploaded the (missing or all?) paintings to get d:Wikidata:WikiProject sum of all paintings/Collection/J. Paul Getty Museum illustrated. I used User:Multichill/J. Paul Getty Museum for that upload and I kept the original upload robot. I recall why I didn't upload all image: The copyright status is a bit blurry: No known restrictions so you have to figure out a real copyright tag for each image. Quite easy for the paintings, but might be harder for other domains. What copyright tag should be added to this image? I'm not sure if their current release wording is enough. Would be better if they just switched to {{cc-zero}} like the MET and Cleveland Museum of Art.
From a technical perspective it's easy. Just loop over the 65.000 objects and for each object, upload one or multiple images. Of course standard duplicate checking should be done so don't use Pattypan! If people are interested in this, I could probably dust off the bot. Multichill (talk) 10:04, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Can the bot be tweaked to recognize the blanket declaration of "no known copyright restrictions" of {{Getty Center}}? It's similar to the widely used {{Flickr-no known copyright restrictions}} or {{SIA-no known copyright restrictions}}. It's not as precise, but isn't it good enough? (more bots or even humans can always add more specific templates as they become apparent). For the case of this 1st-century mask, the original sculpture is public domain. The photograph of the sculpture has been declared as no known copyrights by the rights holding institution. Also, although apparently automated, the gap between February 2018 and April 2019 doesn't seem like the most efficient way to get things done. But still, thanks for all you've done so far. --Animalparty (talk) 19:06, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
@Multichill: Yes, Getty license is fine for Commons. There are much more than paintings there, so enlarging the automatic upload would be great. For works other than 2D (paintings and photographs), there is {{self|Getty Research Institute-no known copyright restrictions|PD-old-100-expired}}. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:44, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Black hole imageEdit

Hello! Is this image compatible with Commons? -Theklan (talk) 13:31, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, see Template:PD-USGov-NSF. -- (talk) 13:56, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
RLY? I am sure that it is copyrighted. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:04, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) @, Theklan: No, this was not created by the NSF, they are just displaying it on their website. Read this. Credit needs to go to the Event Horizon Telescope collaboration [3], I don't know the copyright status of their material. --El Grafo (talk) 14:05, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
We have figured out. The image was published here which is cc-by-3.0. I have uploaded it. -Theklan (talk) 14:07, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Looks almost good, see my comments at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Black hole - Messier 87.jpg --El Grafo (talk) 14:18, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I uploaded the larger images (JPEG and TIFF) from the ESO website. Additionally, the larger JPEG version includes a free license (CC-BY-4.0) in the EXIF data. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:00, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

April 11Edit

Temporary rail lines for major construction projectsEdit

Looking Northeast on Virginia St from 4th Ave showing regrade work using a steam shovel, Seattle, Washington, October 1909 (LEE 121).jpeg

Do we have a category for temporary rail lines, as used for major construction projects? I wanted to add such a category to File:Looking Northeast on Virginia St from 4th Ave showing regrade work using a steam shovel, Seattle, Washington, October 1909 (LEE 121).jpeg. I looked at images in Category:Construction of the Panama Canal, hoping to find something relevant, but none of the images there seem to have any category along these lines, even though many depict similar rail lines. Not even anything relevant on File:202a-Shifting track by hand.jpg! - Jmabel ! talk 17:47, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Jmabel The German word for this kind of railway is Feldbahn for which surprisingly an English WP article exists: en:Feldbahn. I found images for this kind of railway sorted into Narrow gauge railways in Germany or subcategories. Actually it seems to me, this could be further classified, but what is the English equivalent for “Feldbahn”? “Light railway” like in en:War Department Light Railways? — Speravir – 00:03, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
@Speravir: English has "light rail" and "light railway", but neither implies this temporary aspect (which seems to me to be independent of whether the system is light or heavy rail).
I've got almost no time to look further at this before probably Monday evening, but thanks for that lead, might be useful.
I guess what I'm most wondering is: does Commons have a category specifically related to rail being temporary? Seems we should. - Jmabel ! talk 05:01, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Category:Construction railways seems very appropriate to me. English isn't my first language but afaik Feldbahn and light railway are meant to describe the same concept (LEO confirms) at least in a technical sense. But Feldbahnen on the continent usually didn't provide public passenger service. In british english I also often stumble across the term tramway for lightly built narrow gauge lines mostly running alongside rural roads: en:Croesor Tramway, en:Glyn Valley Tramway. -- Herby (Vienna) (talk) 20:18, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Category:Construction railways looks like what I wanted.
A tramway is even "lighter" than what we call light rail. Tram = streetcar = trolley. - Jmabel ! talk 02:02, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Herbert, das passt anscheinend sehr gut zum fraglichen Bild, aber doch nicht jede Feldbahn dient(e) der Konstruktion. Was ist mit den Bahnen in Tagebauen, in Torfstichen, mit Trümmerbahnen (ist wohl eher Dekonstruktion ;-)) oder den Halligbahnen? — Speravir – 22:31, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Ping @Herbert. — Speravir – 22:41, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Es gibt passende Kategorien Mining railways und Trümmerbahn sowie für Waldbahnen Logging railways by country. Eine Kategorie Halligbahn gibt es ab sofort! Ich hoffe, die Kategorien passen, ob es außerhalb Deutschlands derartige Bahnen gibt, ist mir allerdings nicht bekannt. Zu den anderen Themen vermisse ich sinnvolle Kategorien. Torfbahnen sind peat railways, dazu haben wir Dutzende Aufnahmen aus aller Welt, aber keine sinnvolle Kategorie, die sind – wie auch die meisten sonstigen Feldbahnen – durchwegs als Schmalspurbahnen in Land oder bei diversen Industriekat. eingeordnet (wenn überhaupt). Maches ist auch bei light rail gelandet, das ist aber das urbane Nahverkehrsmittel Stadtbahn. Der Begriff dürfte im englischen vermutlich auch einen Wandel vollzogen haben. Es gibt also noch viel zu tun... -- Herby (Vienna) (talk) 15:32, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

April 12Edit

Wikimedia Foundation Medium-Term Plan feedback requestEdit

Please help translate to your language

The Wikimedia Foundation has published a Medium-Term Plan proposal covering the next 3–5 years. We want your feedback! Please leave all comments and questions, in any language, on the talk page, by April 20. Thank you! Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 17:35, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
I have given some feedback on Meta as requested. Because the "plan" is full of undefined jargon and weirdly loaded with management-speak, I had nothing positive to say. Sorry, I am sure that a lot of paid time has been invested in this, but it does not do the job. -- (talk) 12:43, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

April 13Edit

Category:Albtal-Verkehrs-Gesellschaft by numerEdit

I renamed the category to Albtal-Verkehrs-Gesellschaft by number. However the underlying categories dont automaticaly follow and Cat-a-lot does not work with moving categories. Can somebody help? I question the need for categories for individual trams. The same effect can be reached bij sorting the file bij number.Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:10, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

@Smiley.toerist: I think CommonsDelinker can do this. I've asked for it to do so. --bjh21 (talk) 14:30, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Bjh21, it’s rather Special:Diff/345602590/345781154 or shorter Special:Diff/345781154. — Speravir – 22:34, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

New Wikimedia OTRS release generator now live on CommonsEdit

Selected steps of the release generator

Hi all,

You may have heard of the Wikimedia OTRS release generator (aka relgen) that I developed three years ago – a tool designed to make it easy for copyright holders and Wikimedians assisting them to generate release texts that can be sent to the OTRS permissions team. The release generator living on Tool Forge as a tool separate from Commons itself brought along some design limitations, which is why we have now re-released the release generator as a script-based interface that can be used right here on Commons, at Commons:Wikimedia OTRS release generator.


What are the new features and improvements?

Support for multi-files releases: Previously, only one file could be specified for each release – now an unlimited number of files can be released with a single email; the release generator will automatically identify each file and add file links to the release text.
File existence checks: The release generator will now check if all files specified actually exist on Commons at the time their filenames are entered, in order to ensure OTRS volunteers do not waste their time on releases of misspelled or nonexistent files.
Automatic queue selection: As previously, the release generator not only supports releases of files already uploaded to Commons, but also files to be attached to the release email – now the latter will go to the photosubmissions queue rather than permissions-commons.
MediaWiki design user interface: Bootstrap 3 is great, but MediaWiki's own OOUI design is an even better fit for Wikimedia-related tools – that's why the entire release generator is now based on the familiar set of graphical interface elements from MediaWiki.

What features will be implemented in future updates?

Automatic OTRS pending file tagging: The new release generator is capable of automatically tagging files for which release have been generated as OTRS pending – this feature will be enabled after consultation with the community regarding any potential privacy concerns.
Internationalisation support: We already have a suitable approach in mind for the translation of the release generator, that approach will be implemented in the near future once OTRS pending tagging has been implemented.

How does this affect me?

For the foreseeable future, the old release generator will remain available on Tool Forge. In order to allow copyright holders to benefit from the new features and improvements listed above, from now on please direct copyright holders to the release generator page here on Commons rather than Tool Forge – or just use the shorthand: enwp.org/c:COM:relgen

Where can I give feedback?

Feedback is welcome as a reply to this post – or on the release generator talk page.


Thanks!     FDMS  4    17:07, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

TarqumiyahEdit

There is a picture on ar.wp, here: https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/ملف:Tarqumiyahh.jpg which I would love to see in https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Tarqumiyah ...but I dont know if the license is ok. Does anyone know? Huldra (talk) 23:07, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

It is claimed that the image is in public domain. However it is not clear why. Ruslik (talk) 19:40, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. I wount use it for now, then, as ar.wp has a reputation of not taking copyright too seriously... Huldra (talk) 23:19, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

April 15Edit

Category:Files moved to Commons requiring reviewEdit

Hi, This is an old backlog. It would be good if some work is done to check the oldest files. It doesn't seem to be a huge number of files (at least compared to files tagged on the English Wikipedia to be moved here). It is a simple talk which doesn't need any special permission. So if you want to boost your edit count, go!... ;o) Regards, Yann (talk) 08:42, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Internet Archive book page imagesEdit

Is there a quick and easy way to bulk download/upload multiple images from books scanned in the Internet Archive that aren't uploaded to Flickr? My standard procedure tends to be zoom in, right click, and save a page one by one, then crop or edit as needed. But for instance with books like this one with nearly 300 pages of photographs, there has to be an easier work-around. Any tips appreciated, thanks. --Animalparty (talk) 18:01, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Just go to the full list of files or directly download the "SINGLE PAGE ORIGINAL JP2" archive, no? Nemo 19:58, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, the zip archive might be the best option, but it gives a bunch of JP2 files, which are functionally useless to me unless converted into a viewable/editable format like jpeg. Looking for a good free batch converter. --Animalparty (talk) 23:29, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Depicts statements coming this weekEdit

The Structured Data on Commons team plans to release support for depicts statements this week, on Thursday, 18 April. The community's testing over the past several weeks helped identify and fix issues before launch, and the development team spent time setting up extensive internal testing to make sure the release goes as well as possible.

This release is very simple, with only the most basic depicts statements available. There is a significant amount of technological change happening with this project, and this release contains a lot of background change that the team needs to make sure works fine live on Commons before adding further support. More parts to depicts statements, and other statements, will be released within the next few weeks.

A page for depicts has been set up at Commons:Depicts. As I can't actually write instructive Commons policy or guidelines, I encourage those who have tried out simple depicts tagging add a few lines to the page suggesting proper use of the tool. I also encourage the use to be conservative at first, as we wait for more advanced features within the coming month or two as additional statement support goes live.

I'll keep the community updated as the plans progress throughout the week, the team will know better within the next day or two if things are definitely okay to proceed with release. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 21:33, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Depicts coming tomorrow, 18 AprilEdit

The development team is going ahead with deployment tomorrow, 18 April, between 15:00 and 16:00 UTC. Some community members are working on developing early guidance on using the feature at Commons:Depicts, and I've added some initial information about searching depicts items when they're live. I'll start a new post tomorrow to announce when everything is turned on and is working as expected, shortly after deployment. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 18:26, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

The deployment is delayed for a few hours, due to a bug completely unrelated to SDC (T221368, in case you're curious). We'll resume the release when the bug gets resolved. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 15:18, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Depicts rescheduled for Tuesday, 23 AprilEdit

Unfortunately the bug blocking the release was not resolved in time to release depicts today. Releases are not done on Fridays, so the team has rescheduled for Tuesday, 23 April from 15:00-16:00 UTC. I'll continue to keep the community posted as release approaches. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 20:45, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the updates Keegan (WMF). Watching this closely so as to see if we could make the Depicts statements a mandatory parameter in our Wiki Loves Earth competition for Sri Lanka. Best wishes, Rehman 02:14, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
@Keegan (WMF): Is this going ahead today? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:41, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
The process of releasing depicts will begin within an hour or so. I have a separate post to make here when it's been live for a few minutes and we're sure everything is working properly. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 14:28, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Working for me. I made a topical addition. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:37, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
working for me as well. Abzeronow (talk) 15:47, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

April 16Edit

Copyright correct?Edit

Moved to Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Copyright correct? —-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 15:11, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

"Export to Wikimedia Commons" from en.Wikipedia - licence problemEdit

I am looking at this file on en.WP. I'd like it to be on Commons. There is the "Export to Wikimedia Commons" link at the top. So I click it and I get "The file cannot be imported, because it is not marked with one of the required licences." The file is marked as PD-Australia and looking at the meta-data it all seems consistent with public domain in Australia. So why can't I put it onto Commons? I understand that certain free use file can't be moved to Commons, but why can't a public domain file be moved to Commons? What am I missing here? Kerry Raymond (talk) 06:38, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I have had the same issue. Just change the license to {{PD-old-100}}, and you are fine. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:52, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Hey Kerry. That PD-Australia template ensures it is PD in Australia, but not necessarily in the USA. If it was pre-1946, you can add an additional template: {{PD-1996|country=Australia}}. Anything in the gap between 1946 and 1955 may not be hostable, and should be thought through. --99of9 (talk) 06:57, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
At least, that's what I think should eventually appear on the Commons page. I don't know much about the transfer bots. Here's an example of how I did it in the SLNSW upload template: File:SLNSW 479506 3 Parliamentary Refreshment Room SH 557.jpg --99of9 (talk) 06:58, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
In this particular case, it's sufficient old to be PD in the USA too, so I shall proceed as suggested. But I don't think this should be necessary. As a consequence of various trade agreements, the USA respects Australian copyright law in relation to Australian images (and vice versa), so my understanding is that PD-Australia is always valid on Commons. If I upload direct to Commons, there is no problem with adding anything licensed as PD-Australia so why is there an issue exporting from en.WP? Or to put it the other way, shouldn't PD-Australia be in the list of "required licences"? 07:10, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
It's quite possible for works to be public domain in one country but copyrighted in others. Each country generally applies its own law regarding expiry, even for foreign works. It works both ways, in Australia we can treat photos taken before 1955 as public domain, regardless of where they originate. --ghouston (talk) 07:41, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I am well aware of that copyright varies between countries. Here on Commons, PD-Australia refers specifically to works of Australian origin, and not foreign works. That is, I can label a 1950 photo of the Sydney Harbour Bridge as PD-Australia (because you must have been in Australian when you took it) but not a 1950 photo of the Golden Gate Bridge (because it is not of Australian orgin -- you could not have photographed the Golden Gate Bridge from Australia). Because of our international trade agreements, Australia respects the copyright of the USA (and many other countries) in relation to works that originate in their countries (and vice versa). This is why PD-Australia photos are allowed on Commons even though many of them are later than the USA's public domain cut-off (the USA respects Australian copyright determination for images of Australian origin). And why Mickey Mouse remains under copyright in Australia despite being pre-1955 because it is of USA origin and Australia has agreed to respect USA copyright. Kerry Raymond (talk) 01:42, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
@Kerry Raymond: I'm not sure your answer takes into account the URAA Commons:URAA-restored_copyrights. This is why w:Category:PD-Australia_images_with_URAA-restored_copyright are eligible for deletion on en-wiki. But obviously your particular image is ok. --99of9 (talk) 01:52, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
This is was also discussed at m:Topic:Uxzzzcemwhrycr05.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 02:12, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: That link doesn't show anything. --99of9 (talk) 06:12, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
@99of9: I know, that's why I changed "is" to "was".   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 18:50, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
See w:Rule of the shorter term; many nations treat copyright from foreign nations as PD if they're PD in their home nation, but many nations don't worry about that.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:12, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
As it is pre-1924, it should be {{PD-US-expired}}. If the author's death is known, the best is to use {{PD-old-100-expired}} or {{PD-old-70-expired}}. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:45, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
@Kerry Raymond: Regardless of copyright issues, if you add "PD-Australia" to mw:Extension:FileImporter/Data/en.wikipedia#Good, you will be able to export such files to Commons from the English Wikipedia. 4nn1l2 (talk) 20:20, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Kerry, JFYI, you forgot to add {{Now Commons}} into the description in enwiki, and to adjust the links in Commons. — Speravir – 22:20, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
I didn't forget. The instructions in the import file tool simply don't tell you what to do. There is an instruction about removing templates that propose moving to Commons and adding a template that it has been moved to Commons, but don't tell you what the names of those templates are (something of an omission if you want someone to do something). You mention here "adjust the links in Commons" (which wasn't mentioned in the tool) but again, never having done this before, I have no idea what this is asking me to do. Which links? If there is more to it than than click the button "Export to ..." button, the instructions need to be a lot more explicit. Kerry Raymond (talk) 02:03, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Aha, I see you already fixed the links, which is why I couldn't see any links that needed fixing. I think we really ought to get the Import tool to fix the links (it knows which wiki the import is coming from so it knows where to link back to). While I know how to manually cross-link between wikis, a lot of people don't. Kerry Raymond (talk) 02:11, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
In general you are right, but for the author I used a Creator template which we cannot expect from the tool I think. Ping @Johanna Strodt (WMDE): Johanna, the tool is the File exporter, here from Enwiki to Commons. The description contained some internal English wiki links which should have been converted, and then there either a recommendation should be given to manually add the template {{Now Commons}} (which in dewiki is {{NowCommons}}, but a redirect exists there, see in general d:Q5611625) or this template should be added automatically. — Speravir – 00:40, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

April 17Edit

«Don't disturb Wikipedia. Thanks.» Srsly?Edit

When clicking on {{GeoGroup}} from this cat page (and from a few others like it, too), I got just now this error message — «Don't disturb Wikipedia. Thanks.» in big bold letters on an otherwise empty, unformatted page. I appreciate that not all functions can be running at all times and I'm always partial to the informal, the witty, the geekish — but this just feels obnoxious. -- Tuválkin 04:37, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

It seems some tool borked. Yann (talk) 16:21, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Tools are expected to get borked, but does the warning that it occurred need to be dickish about it? -- Tuválkin 23:08, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
This is disappointing. It's been like this for nearly two weeks, and obviously they are aware of the problem. osm4wiki is a very useful tool in the work I do, so when it doesn't work it's unhelpful to have to keep a list of backlog checks to do. As a volunteer myself I understand that activities are somewhat by choice, but I do believe in customer service. An eta or at least some indication that the issue is under consideration would be more considerate. Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:17, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

April 18Edit

candid photos of a living person; friend or colleagueEdit

I am not clear about copyright issues for uploading photos of living people into Commons. I want to upload to Commons photos (non-commercial) of people in BLP pages I am writing. The photos are candid spontaneous shots taken of the person by either a friend or a colleague. Does the subject or the photographer (who took the photo on behalf of the subject) own the copyright? If either of them owns the copyright can they transfer that to me? How? The Upload Wizard doesn’t seem to allow a path for this transfer. I understand that whoever has the copyright can upload to Commons but some of these folks are not interested in registering for Wikipedia or Commons and they want me to upload. I don’t see a path in Upload Wizard for me to do this. What is the procedure? --BrucePL (talk) 18:04, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

@BrucePL: Hi,
All content on Commons should be under a free license, which allows any use, including commercial.
The photographer owns the copyright, unless a contract saying otherwise is signed.
All content should have educational purpose, broadly understood, which means that ordinary images of non notable people are usually not OK.
For sending a permission, please see COM:OTRS. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:13, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
You only asked about copyright copyright issues, but in addition to Yann see also Commons:Photographs of identifiable people. — Speravir – 00:07, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

April 19Edit

An image used falsely as a flag of a groupEdit

This image File:Shiism arabic blue.PNG used as a flag for a group and there is no source whatsoever that says this is their flag. What should I do? I can't remove it from all of wikipedia the image description caption doesn't say that it's the flag of Ahrar Al-Najran group (which is a tribal alliance) but it is used in multiple articles as if it's the flag of Ahrar Al-Najran with no single source. Thanks --SharabSalam (talk) 02:19, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

@SharabSalam: As far as Commons knows it's just an Arabic word. Claims on Wikipedia have to be challenged on Wikipedia, Commons has no control over how images are used there. --ghouston (talk) 02:26, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
It is an own work and its accuracy is disputed I have nominated it for deletion. The translation is Shia which is a POV. There is no single source that says this is the flag of Ahrar Al-Najran. Thanks SharabSalam (talk) 02:30, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
That's not how deletion works here. Of course it is public domain/own. It is plain text. Please read COM:Deletion policy. If you want to fight over POV please do it on the other projects. I've closed your DR as kept. Don't import problems from other projects here please. --Majora (talk) 02:35, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Alright, sorry for that. I have a question how can I delete them from all of the projects? I can definitely remove it from English Wikipedia.--SharabSalam (talk) 02:43, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
If you want to discuss it you can use the talk pages of the articles they are used on. The tab to switch to the talk page is found near the top of every page or if using mobile there should be a button all the way at the bottom of the page that should take you to the talk page. They are also prefixed with the word Talk:. So searching for Talk:Article will take you directly there. --Majora (talk) 02:49, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Majora mentioned "plain text". Files that contain nothing educational other than raw text are out of our project scope. --HyperGaruda (talk) 18:49, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
This image can be used on en:Arabic or any other article regarding the Arabic language just as File:Arabic albayancalligraphy.svg is used in such a manner. Seems plainly educational to me. The fact that it is used in dozens and dozens of articles, rightly so or not, indicates significance enough to be here. Lets not purposefully muddy the waters here please. --Majora (talk) 20:19, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your helpful comments. I noticed later that the image is not only used as a flag for Ahrar al-Najran but also for many groups that are identified as Shia. This is like writing "Protestant" in an image and using it as a flag for groups that are identified as Protestant Christians these groups don't have their own flags or their flags are unknown. I don't think that the flag would be helpful. However, many editors have used the image/flag to make it easier for readers to see the sectarian conflict although IMO most of the time the reason of conflicts in the middle East are not sectarian. I have removed the flag that was attached to Ahrar al-Najran group because 1-there was no source 2- no sectarian conflict implying that would be not a NPOV. I will also remove the flag where the implication that a group is Shia is biased. Again thank you all for your help.--SharabSalam (talk) 22:41, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
The image was created as a quick fix to include an emblem or pseudo-emblem for Shi`ite militias in infoboxes and such where an official emblem or flag was not known. See use in the infobox of the en:Sectarian_violence_in_Iraq_(2006–08) article, for example. Obviously it is not the official flag of anything, and should not be presented as such.... AnonMoos (talk) 08:58, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

April 21Edit

File:Fisheries Building, Alaska-Yukon-Pacific-Exposition, Seattle, Washington, 1909 (AYP 845).jpgEdit

What (if anything) should we do with the filename of something like this? The postcard must predate the exposition. This building was originally intended to be the Fisheries Building, but ended up being used as the European Building (a different Fisheries Building was built behind the U.S. Government Building). - Jmabel ! talk 17:10, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Similar but not identical situation for File:Music Pavilion, Alaska-Yukon-Pacific-Exposition, Seattle, Washington, 1909 (AYP 938).jpg: they simply misidentified the building. This was the Auditorium. The Music Pavilion was a different structure entirely, didn't even have exterior walls, just a colonnade of columns. - Jmabel ! talk 19:24, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
If the actual building on the exposition was not this one then COM:FR#FR3 (error in filename) I guess. And for the second the same criterion for a different reason. — Speravir – 00:28, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
@Speravir: Seems reasonable. So you wouldn't give any weight to the misleading title of the published postcard itself? - Jmabel ! talk 01:04, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Just to be clear (on the first one): that was what the original plan for the Exposition intended this building to be (as can be seen on several early advance maps of the grounds), but it was repurposed well before it opened. - Jmabel ! talk 01:05, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Me, without knowing the fact would not rename at all. In light of what (not) happened a renaming and, also important, description amending would be appropriate. What about something like File:Fisheries Building proposition, Alaska-Yukon-Pacific-Exposition, Seattle, Washington, 1909 (AYP 845).jpg or similar? — Speravir – 01:17, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
By "proposition" do you mean "proposal"? The thing is, the building got built with exactly that exterior; it just ended up with a different interior and purpose than originally planned. - Jmabel ! talk 03:21, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Uumm, yes. But I misread, it was not built at the exhibition (European building → a building somewhere in Europe :-S). Apparently this is wrong, so it get’s more difficult. If my suggestion is not enough for you (you still could thoroughly write about the issue in the description) what about File:European Building as Fisheries Building proposal, Alaska-Yukon-Pacific-Exposition, Seattle, Washington, 1909 (AYP 845).jpg? — Speravir – 23:07, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
If we want to go roughly that way, I would word it as File:Building proposed as Fisheries Building, built (with same exterior) as European Building, Alaska-Yukon-Pacific-Exposition, Seattle, Washington, 1909 (AYP 845).jpg. - Jmabel ! talk 00:12, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Do what you think is the best, you can rename yourself … :-) — Speravir – 00:39, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

April 22Edit

Deletion requests/All uploads by IstkartEdit

Unfortunately all my files (historical maps) were deleted. I noticed the notifications too late. I didn't break Wikipedia's rules. I don't really understand how someone who is not an expert in cartography, history and geography can assess the quality of my maps. Maps have been used in some Wikipedia articles and this speaks to their quality. They are not flash images, but are compiled in a GIS application and saved in svg format. It's a shame that Wikipedia unsales of my years of labor. Of course, I won't share my files with Wikipedia anymore. Istkart User
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Istkart (talk • contribs) 18:04, 22 April 2019‎ (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment See Commons:Deletion requests/All uploads by Istkart. Looking through the few examples I agree with deletion request: the svg files look like screen dumps with many uncomprehensible maps, graphs, plots and lines. The files in that form did not seem usable on Wikipadia projects. Although, it is unfortunate that the issues were detected after 7000+ uploads and 11k edits over 7 years. One possible issue is that the user never engaged in any discussions on any talk pages, or any previous deletion requests of his files. --Jarekt (talk) 18:19, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Similar case An even worse example of a mass-deletion of maps are of the files created by WeatherBot~commonswiki, today only a few maps remain (Mobile 📱), but daily weather maps are not only clearly in scope but extremely useful, all they lacked was good categorisation but if we would have a bot for mass-uploading weather maps we could actually benefit a lot of meteorologic projects and meteorologic content on other Wikimedia websites.
Well, these cases aren't that similar, but it's a tragedy nonetheless. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 02:54, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

April 23Edit

Depicts statements are live on file pagesEdit

The ability to add structured "depicts" statements to file pages is live on Commons. When viewing a file page, the first major change you'll see is the introduction of a tab for accessing structured data for a file.

Captions, while part of the structured data project, remain editable and searchable on the file information page as wikitext.

Once you've accessed the structured data tab, you'll see the ability to edit depicts statements and the ability to mark a statement as prominent.

More than one item can be marked as prominent.

More information about depicts is being developed at Commons:Depicts, including advice for how to use depicts as well as searching for statements. Feedback about the release - questions, comments, bugs found, design concerns, etc. - can be posted at the Structured Data on Commons talk page. The team will do a review of initial feedback and findings after depicts is launched on Commons to triage, develop, and deploy fixes.

A few things to note:

  • It may take awhile for structured data and depicts statements to show up on every file, particularly if it's a file you've loaded recently, as Commons has a very large cache and it takes time to refresh.
  • The same goes for search, it'll take some time to populate the search index.
  • Adding/editing statements is not currently available through the mobile skin.
  • Adding/editing statements may be slow on some files at first.
  • UploadWizard functionality is not enabled yet.

To repeat something I wrote in the pre-release announcement, for emphasis:

This release is very simple, with only the most basic depicts statements available. There is a significant amount of technological change happening with this project, and this release contains a lot of background change that the team needs to make sure works fine live on Commons before adding further support. More parts to depicts statements, and other statements, will be released within the next few weeks.

Thanks to all the community for the help in planning, designing, and testing these new features over the past couple of years. I look forward to reading what everyone has to say. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 15:55, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Where are these data stored? Are they only accessible via this JavaScript interface? —Justin (koavf)TCM 16:06, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
@Koavf: the data is stored in Wikibase, installed on Commons. The concepts are pulled from Wikidata, but the information lives locally. As for the second question, Wikibase MediaInfo is available through an API. I'll see about getting some more human-digestible documentation for that. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 16:24, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
@Keegan (WMF): Is there any way to make this directly editable in the wiki? That will make it much faster and much more likely that editors will do it. —Justin (koavf)TCM 16:41, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
There are not plans on the roadmap to add direct statement editing without javascript. Once other features are in place, I anticipate a number of volunteer-built tools being developed to help people add structured statements outside of the file page utilizing the API. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 16:54, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
@Keegan (WMF): Does that mean that there is no way to browse these statements in an interface like Wikidata? Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:10, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
@Bluerasberry: Do you mean « an interface like Wikidata » (so, looking like the stock Wikidata site) ; or « in other interfaces, like Wikidata allows (meaning, Reasonator or other frontends)? Jean-Fred (talk) 18:16, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Jean-Fred's clarifying questions are helpful - if it is the later, will there be other interfaces for browsing like tools that pull from Wikidata provide, the answer is that I anticipate people building such things, yes. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 18:26, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
@Keegan (WMF), Jean-Frédéric: I meant like the stock Wikidata site. I expected that if there is another Wikibase installation, then probably we would interact with it in the normal way. I am not deep enough in the development of this to understand why anyone might expect otherwise. Is it obvious to you that I am missing some particular insight about this? Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:31, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
@Bluerasberry: you can visit the structured data tab of any file page to interact with Wikibase in the stock manner. It's not going to be available for people with javascript completely disabled, which is what Koavf was initially asking about. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 19:48, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
We need admins to do this, for today's and upcoming featured images, which are protected from editing by we mere mortals. (And we should make sure that the criteria for future featured images include good depicts statements). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:18, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @Keegan (WMF): Can the caption(s) be moved away from the File information tab and onto the Structured data tab, please? -- Tuválkin 17:16, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
    Agree with Tuvalkin (believe it or not). Additionally, I would like to know if it makes any sense in adding these statements to one's own uploads manually (which is obviously not to manage for someone with thousands of uploads), or will a bot do this according to each file's categories. If latter is the case, the changes should be made only "bot-marked", to avoid extreme spamming of watchlists. --A.Savin 17:51, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Captions is intended to be the only part of structured data in the file information tab, and there are not plans to change that. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 18:26, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

@Keegan (WMF): Now that this is live, any idea how long before WDQS SPARQL queries will be possible? It would be useful to be able to analyse how the property is being used, and identify apparent anomalous or suboptimal usages. Jheald (talk) 13:57, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I do not know what the plans are with Wikidata's Query Service, I suggest asking the maintainers. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 16:42, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
@Smalyshev (WMF), Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE): Any updates that you can give on this? Jheald (talk) 09:20, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

What are plans for qualifiers support? They are useful even for depicts statements. For example: sex/activity of animal(s), part (leaves, flower, seed, bark, etc) of plant, architectural element of building/structure, etc. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 17:33, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Qualifiers and deeper statement support is on the way. I do not have the timeframes yet as they're still being worked out, but it's "soon". Things have to be cleaned up from the initial release first. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 17:46, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Building an ersatz scanning tableEdit

This blog post may be of interest: "Building an ersatz scanning table". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:25, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Cute! (Extra points for the electric typewriter used as dead weight!) -- Tuválkin 09:52, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
    That's no typewriter; that's a BBC Micro! --bjh21 (talk) 11:37, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

April 24Edit

"December 10"Edit

Why does the top of this page still says "December 10" on April 24th (twenty-fourth)? What caused this error? And could it be fixed? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 02:48, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

  • It should read "March 23" instead, apparently (I didn’t check, though). I fixed it. -- Tuválkin 03:08, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
@Donald Trung, Tuvalkin: This is because the addition of daily headers functionality of @Hazard-Bot is incompatible with @ArchiverBot, ArchiverBot screwed up indentation, and not enough opinions have been rendered at Commons talk:Village pump#Removing daily headers.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 18:07, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
BTW as written in the thread linked by Jeff we do not need the ArchiverBot here. The archiving can be done by the SpBot, the adjustment is easy. — Speravir – 01:59, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
@Speravir: So we would have to start closing discussions here? How would SpBot deal with the daily headers?   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 02:39, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Here in VP we could close because of the discussion on the meta page. I answered there. In addition Tuvalkin fixed the date. — Speravir – 03:02, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Immunofluorescence imagesEdit

I'm trying to upload an immunofluorescence image of cells that I created, but I keep getting this message: "We could not determine whether this file is suitable for Wikimedia Commons. Please only upload photos that you took yourself with your camera, or see what else is acceptable. See the guide to make sure the file is acceptable and learn how to upload it on Wikimedia Commons." How do I upload my original "art" file? Turiya1952 (talk) 23:53, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

@Turiya1952: Are you using the default Upload Wizard or another method at Commons:Upload? Both will walk you through all the steps. It sounds like you may have left a field blank. --Animalparty (talk) 03:50, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
@Animalparty: Yes I was using the default upload wizard, and I filled out all the fields. I ended up hitting the "retry upload button", and it worked out, but I'm not sure why it got pinged in the first place. Turiya1952 (talk) 11:00, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

April 25Edit

https://pixnio.com/fr/Edit

Hello.

I've discoverd this website : [4]. It contains ONLY image under P.D. With a bot, it's possible to upload it on WikiCommons.

--ComputerHotline (talk) 10:01, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Possible, but against their rules:

You are not allowed to use images from this site to create similar website, be aware that not all text (image file names, titles, tags, description) are in public domain.

You are not allowed to mass download any content from this site using any automated technique: robots, spiders, applications, programs…

--El Grafo (talk) 11:37, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Given that we respect the new pixabay license (compare {{pixabay}}), we should also respect this. --El Grafo (talk) 11:40, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
The other problem with mass uploads from such sites is that there is usually very little with which to properly describe or categorise the image: just a few random tags that would end up being very high-level categories. Better to just upload content you feel you can identify and find a use for on Wiki. Also beware that some of these sites are scams: they've stolen the images from another "free images" website and created their own website purely to redirect your donations to themselves. That's the main reason the sites disallow scraping content. For the site owner, while each image is free, the database of images is of value to them, and if you just upload that database to Commons, you have deprived them of that value. -- Colin (talk) 13:15, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I don't think Commons is similar to this website, or Pixabay for that matter, so I don't think that restriction should apply. But I agree with Colin about categories and scams. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:55, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

April 26Edit