Commons:Village pump

Shortcut: COM:VP

Community portal
Help desk
Village pump
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


Old manual pump in Fetonte Place Crespino, province of Rovigo [add]
Centralized discussion
See also: Village pump/Proposals • Archive

Template: View • Discuss  • Edit • Watch


Picture of the Year 2015 ResultsEdit

The 2015 Picture of the Year. View all results »

Dear Wikimedians,

The tenth Picture of the Year competition (2015) has ended and we are pleased to announce the results:

In both rounds, people voted for their favorite media files.

  • In Round 1, there were 1322 candidate images.
  • In the second round, people voted for the 56 finalists (the R1 top 30 overall and top 2 in each category).

In the second round – the “three votes” was used – eligible users could vote for up to 3 finalists – each of these 3 votes counted equal.

There were 5822 people who voted in either round, and there were 1862 people who voted in both rounds.

  • In the first round, 3678 people cast over 175000 votes for all 1322 candidates.
  • In the second round, 4019 people cast 11570 votes for all 56 finalists.

We congratulate the winners of the contest and thank them for creating these beautiful media files and sharing them as freely licensed content:

  1. 658 people voted for the winner, File:Pluto-01 Stern 03 Pluto Color TXT.jpg.
  2. In second place, 617 people voted for File:Nasir-al molk -1.jpg.
  3. In third place, 582 people voted for File:Heavens Above Her.jpg.

Click here to view the top images »

We also sincerely thank to all voters for participating. We invite you to continue to participate in the Commons community by sharing your work.

the Picture of the Year committee

Possible altered picture of a mooseEdit

As stated here there are some doubts about a moose picture, namely this one. it is from NBII (US gov't, now closed), but an IP on itwiki pointed out that some details are odd. He pointed out the way the scratches of the tyres stop, for example, I am not sure about that, but as far as I can see the contrast of the moose looks too "neat" and its shadow is darker than the shadow of the tree in the background.

Is this picture "retouched" or maybe a fake? I mean we've been using it on many articles for years as if it were true, but maybe it is not.

Also, if some expert photograph can "prove" it is "retouched" , what should we do?--Alexmar983 (talk) 03:15, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

The assertions are vague. If there is proof then a deletion request is next, on the basis that the photographer's release may not be sufficient to include creative manipulation by others. -- (talk) 06:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Looks genuine to me. The tyre scratches stop if the car is standing still or the driver releases the break. The shadow from the moose is darker than that from the tree because the moose is a solid object whereas the leaves from the tree always let same light through and so the shadow is diffuse. --Magnus (talk) 07:47, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't think the tyres are a doubtful detail, I was just reporting it. I already though about the difference between the shadow of moose and tree (and the street light) and I was coming here to compare with the shadow of the edge of the road. I downloaded and enlarged the picture and I am not 100% sure yet. Also, the shadow of the ear on the body is darker compared to that of the shadow of the "female antler" (is it the correct name?) and I see like a vertical line created by two shades of brown of the fur above the ear that it's tangent to the border of the ear's shadow. In general I am not fully convinced by the position of the shadows compared to the legs. But I am not an expert so if you think it is ok, fine.--Alexmar983 (talk) 08:36, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
image with lines to investigate lighting situation
Instinctively, this looks totally wrong to me, but it's hard to tell why. The lighting of the moose looks different, making it pop out of the environment in a way that doesn't look natural to me. Its shadow looks weird as well. Trying to turn this subjective feeling into something more solid, I couldn't help but using part of my lunch break to further investigate.
I identified some fix-points on the moose from where I drew lines to the corresponding point of the shadow on the ground. With a very distant light source (the sun) and an even surface (the road directly around the moose is reasonably flat), they should all be parallel to each other. However, I found two sets of parallel lines at the front and rear end of the moose (green and red, solid lines), which seems to suggest that the shadow has been digitally altered.
Unfortunately, there are no such fix-points in the environment. But drawing another 2 lines at a 90° angle of the 2 groups of lines should give us the direction of the shadow of a an ideal pole-shaped moose (not as good as the proverbial spherical cow moose in a vacuum, but should be enough for our purposes ;-). Those are the dashed green and red lines. Picking the shadows of some actual pole-like structures in the environment, I drew some more lines along them (dashed blue). They are not totally parallel to each other due to changes in the terrain, but they have a mean angle that's pretty different from the dashed moose lines, which shouldn't be the case if they shared the same light source.
Does this methodology make sense? If so, I'd say this looks like an almost (but not totally) convincing montage. --El Grafo (talk) 11:03, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
To answer the question of what to do with it: I'd say copy this discussion (once it's ended) to the talk page, add {{Fact disputed}} to the file description page and be done with it. It's up to the re-users to decide whether or not they want to use an image that might be a montage. --El Grafo (talk) 11:12, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
that was also my original idea, I just wasn't sure about commons rules. i don't think it is a problem to keep it even if we prove it is "retouched"... but I would encourage to be informed so everyone can think twice before inserting it in the ns0...--Alexmar983 (talk) 14:38, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
any further comment?--Alexmar983 (talk) 10:09, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
@El Grafo: Your methodology looks sensible. But take a look at the surface of the road pavement at the top of the small elevation in the background. I see a slight convex bulge there, that would be expected as any road surface is not fashioned plainly flat but somewhat bulged or canted to make sure that rain water or molten snow could drain of. In that case, the moose is not at all walking on a flat surface, but it follows a "downhill" grade. As these animals are nearly as long as a standard street lane is broad, we have to consider the actual geometry of the surface and cannot simplify it to a flat plane when analysing the shadows. As those are quite short, the shot must have been taken around noon, with light casting a shadow of the moose's buttocks "uphill" and from its snout "downhill" on the curved road surface, and making a possibly wet or clean fur shine. Have you ever been in nordic countries? As far as I remember my holiday trips to northern Sweden in late summer years ago (actually beyond the polar circle, too), this lighting looks natural. I'd say that this is a genuine photograph. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 05:18, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't think it's fake, at least not obviously so. I agree that El Grafo's analysis is good, but I agree with Grand-Duc that we can't assume the road is flat enough to use the slight differences in the angles cast by the shadows to suggest any fakery. Besides, if someone was going to fake the shadow, it would be easier to assume a flat surface than it would be to assume a curved surface (or a light-source nearby). So I think what we're seeing is most likely the effect of the curved road surface. Most roads have a convex surface anyway, to assist with water runoff so it fits what I'd expect to see. I do agree that the lighting on the moose looks slightly out of place and the edge of the moose particularly around its legs looks a bit too sharp and defined for an animal with fur (perhaps its just very short around the legs). And the shadow behind its ear is almost black, rather than the deep blue shadow on the asphalt. Still all this is not enough to make me think it's clearly fake. Could be the processing used (both on the negative/slide and digitally, since it seems to be taken with film). If I had to say, I'm about 80% sure it's real, with a remaining 20% doubt. :-) Diliff (talk) 12:34, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

French law against FoP and commonsEdit

Dear editors,

We would like to express our dismay over the various measures that are being taken by French parliamentarians and that will seriously harm the Wikimedia projects and free knowledge in general.

It all began with fight for freedom of panorama in French Parliament last winter. Right-holders associations heavily mobilized against it, and got a lot of coverage. Initially this was intended to prevent FoP inclusion in the bill, and then to add to it a non-commercial clause, making it ineffective (we described all these steps on our dedicated website, in french: But this "fight" was just a tree hiding the forest.
With the Creation bill, two new measures are about to privatize the public domain:

  1. Very soon, it will not be legal anymore to upload pictures Castle of Chambord, Versailles, etc on Wikimedia Commons. You can find the explanation in this blog post (in french) :
  2. Perhaps even more importantly, search engines will be charged with a mandatory fee, which that puts on the same level all legal and illegal images and totally violates the creative commons licenses...

These two measures will be ratified by the French National Assembly. We did everything we could at Wikimedia France to try to stop this madness.
Your action is, in our view, the last remaining hope to create a political and media consciousness to prevent the Creation Bill from including these absurd and harmful measures.
Do you want to take action, here or on Wikipedia, to stop this?
We remain of course at your disposal to discuss it further.

Nathalie Martin and Emeric Vallespi, from Wikimedia France. ShreCk (talk) 11:14, 22 June 2016 (UTC).

@ShreCk: If you mean the Château de Chambord, could you please explain what is the issue with this building, which is certainly old enough to be in Public Domain?
Here on Commons, as far as I know, only copyright issues are relevant for the question if something may be uploaded, but not things like personal property etc.. That is, even if France would (for whatever reason) prohibit all photographs of any certain object in public place, this would not mean that its pictures are subject to deletion from Commons. --A.Savin 15:53, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
I highly recommend everyone not living in France (which is 99% of the population) take billions of pictures of buildings in France while they are visiting and just say F u to France's silly prohibition. Delphi234 (talk) 17:18, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
OK, still I would like to know what is the point of the WM-FR blog post, as I neither know French nor trust Google Translate. But really, our Commons policies are mostly about copyright, partially about personality rights, but, for example, the German Hausrecht has never been relevant (I hope I didn't miss something). --A.Savin 00:43, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
@ShreCk: After reading a translation of the blog post, I remain unsure how this can be enforced. If a photographer (or their friend/bot acting on their behalf outside of France) pseudonymously uploads their photographs of buildings on Commons or Flickr, exactly who would be liable for damages, who would be the claimant and which court would hear a case? -- (talk) 18:07, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
It seems like this should really be in the realm of trademarks, not copyright (the monument authorities are not really objecting to somebody taking a photograph which is sold to a publisher and printed in a book offered for sale, but rather to somebody such as a beer company using a depiction of the monument as a brand logo). If the law does apply to copyright instead of trademarks, then it's written very poorly... AnonMoos (talk) 02:25, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

If you could say one thing to a non-Commons-regular at Wikimania, what would it be?Edit

Asking this for the obvious reason. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:18, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

  • The reason isn't so obvious. Are you talking about making a formal presentation, or what you'll bring up in casual conversation? - Jmabel ! talk 14:05, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Something called "User digests", where a report on various communities is presented to the conference. (Also, if anyone here at Wikimania is up for helping write or present it, please contact me - only found out about it this morning, and am frantically preparing something. =) )
      • @Adam Cuerden: I'm here at Wikimania, but I've left my programme in my room. When is/was this? Josve05a (talk) 14:01, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
        • Afraid it just finished. It was... okay, I guess. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:58, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Well for future reference, by far the most important thing that anyone can say is that Commons exists. If anyone is thinking of uploading an image, ask yourself, could this be used on another wiki or outside of wikipedia? Does it have a license that lets anyone use it, or does it require fair use? If not, it is a royal pain to upload it locally instead of to commons, as it will just need to be tagged for being moved to commons, which can take years to do. All new accounts are SUL accounts and work on Commons. Delphi234 (talk) 21:46, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Accessing Wikidata from CommonsEdit

Implementation of Interwiki links from Commons categories to Wikipedia articles follows a sitelink from commons category to wikidata category item and than follows Property category's main topic (P301) to wikidata article item. Interwiki links to wikipedia articles are merged with default interwiki links to wikipedia categories (if present)

There is a lively discussion about accessing Wikidata from Commons on d:Wikidata:Project_chat#Accessing_Wikidata_from_Commons, please join. --Jarekt (talk) 15:22, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Interwiki links from Commons categories to Wikipedia articlesEdit

During above discussion I was advised on how to solve a long standing problem of having interwiki (aka. interlanguage) links from Commons categories to Wikipedia articles, which are based on Wikidata. Please follow the graphics on the right. The approach was coded as Module:Interwiki and new template {{Interwiki from wikidata}}, which when added to categories which are linked from wikidata category items, will ad proper interwiki links. Old style "local" interwiki links could be removed. See examples.--Jarekt (talk) 03:32, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

That's the Wikidata model that forbits cross-namespace site-links, so that you need to create category items on Wikidata for any Commons category where you want interwiki links (a tedious thing to do manually). There's a discussion at wikidata:Wikidata:Requests for comment/Category commons P373 and "Other sites", about whether cross-namespace site-links should be tolerated instead, but it hasn't reached any conclusion. --ghouston (talk) 04:31, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for reminding me, I forgot about that discussion. My take from it was lets wait on arbitrary access and than see what can be done. The arbitrary access is here, and it is time to figure out what is the chosen model of linking commons and wikidata. Commons categories need to be able to detect which Wikidata item has all the relevant properties. The current discussion on Wikidata started with me asking about ways a page on Commons can detect what items lists them in some specific property. That capability would allow us to connect to wikidata items without a need for a separate wikidata item for each commons category that needs it. However users with much more Wikidata experience argue that items for categories is the way which is more compatible with current way Wikidata and tools that were build around it works. I am fine with either way. In the first scenario I would never use the sitelinks and I would not care if they are cross-namespace or not. The second scenario would require many new items for commons categories to be created, hopefully by bots. Either way can be made to work with {{Interwiki from wikidata}} template, so we can take interwiki links to be displayed on Commons category pages, out of this discussion. --Jarekt (talk) 12:06, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
So we would need to add that template to every single category here? It sounds like a shot-term hack and not a long-term fix. (And no, my bot (the interlanguage-removal task) is incompatible with this) --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 12:28, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Zhuyifei1999, All local interwikis will eventually need to be replaced by Wikidata based, as we no longer have bots updating existing local links the way we did before Wikidata made them obsolete. Your interwiki removal task is still needed. However the task assumes sitelinks between commons categories and Wikidata articles, which is controversial and might not continue. The problem is that Wikidata article items with sitelinks to commons categories (we need some acronym for this term) will loose those sitelinks the moment someone creates a matching category item for wikipedia category, so they are and always will be unstable. {{Interwiki from wikidata}} template would only be added to categories with category-items on wikidata, in order to restore the customary interwiki links. --Jarekt (talk) 13:51, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, but Wikidata article items with sitelinks to commons categories would me the majorityminority if outcome of the RfC is held. About my bot task, it's running otherwise, as cross-namespace links (in the case of Wikidata article items with sitelinks to commons categories) are ignored, and only those consistent with the RfC are removed. If {{Interwiki from wikidata}} is implemented, more complications would exist: the bot could not determine which interlanguage links are fetched from wikidata and which are local (the same ones are removed, but {{Interwiki from wikidata}} will always override the local ones). Besides, what if Wikidata article *and* category items with sitelinks to commons categories *and* galleries *and* creator templates *and* etc (multi2multi items) are finally implemented as the long-term solution/fix? All these template usages shall be removed? (the reason I term it as a short-term hack) --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 15:35, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Zhuyifei1999 I do not think there was any consensus reached in RfC. I do not think Wikibase software allows adding sitelinks to multiple pages (one-to-many scenario). As for {{Interwiki from wikidata}}, if we going to use it than I would only use it for pages linked to category items, and I would remove interwiki from the page first. --Jarekt (talk) 23:51, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
I will use {{Interwiki from wikidata}}, as on Category:Barton Appler Bean, since it's superior to what I was doing previously (adding a single en: interwiki link). --ghouston (talk) 01:42, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
That category still lacks the "Wikidata item" link in the Tools menu, because I'm still reluctant to create cross-namespace sitelinks on Wikidata, or new "category" Wikidata items. --ghouston (talk) 01:46, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
@Jarekt: Oh sorry I meant d:Wikidata:Requests_for_comment/Commons_links. I thought the link above pointed to it, but apparently it's another RfC. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 06:53, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Zhuyifei1999, That RFC also did not reached consensus, that I can detect. And it seems like almost all of the proposed solutions are being implemented by different parties. We need one solution. May-be we need to revisit this RFC, and have another vote. --Jarekt (talk) 13:03, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
It is my understanding that wikidata can only accommodate 99% of interwiki links and there will always be a need for local links for special cases. Delphi234 (talk) 21:54, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Adding a photo on behalf of someone elseEdit

I have been approached and potentially paid to help someone upload a photo on Commons to be used on a page. She is the copyright holder but not well versed in Wikipedia and asked for my help. I believe it'd basically be released as "own work" although it would not be done by me but the person in question. I believe there is a process in place to validate such copyright releases? I am not well versed in Commons and hopefully someone can help guide me so it gets done appropriately by the rules. MPJ-DK (talk) 23:14, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

See COM:OTRS. That can be avoided if the copyright holder uploads it herself, assuming it hasn't been published elsewhere. --ghouston (talk) 00:10, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Do make sure to credit her as author rather than saying it is your own work. And, after she sends email as described at COM:OTRS, remember to tag the image page with {{OTRS pending}} so that no one hastily starts a deletion process. - Jmabel ! talk 14:04, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

June 24Edit

POTD in an other wikiEdit

Hello, We would like in kabwiki to show the POTD of Commons in the Main Page of the wiki. Can someone tell me how to link to it. Thank you.(Notify me please). -- issimo 15 !? 14:33, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Issimo 15, you might want to read this first. Face-smile.svg Lotje (talk) 16:34, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, but I can't find an answer to my question in that page. -- issimo 15 !? 16:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
You can not link to it, you need to set the POTD templates yourself and update it on the daily basis.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:14, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

June 25Edit

Brexit flagsEdit

What's next?

Now that the British have decided that they will leave the EU, it's just a matter of time before Great Britain will break up. As you know, the Union Jack is made up of the flags of England, Scotland and Ireland. The only question I have is whether Scotland will leave first, or whether Ireland will? Logically, the Union Jack should be altered by taking out either the Scottish or Irish flag, depending on who will move first. Would somebody with the right graphics skills would want to have a go creating the two possible permutations of the Union Jack, and add that to the adjacent graphic? Schwede66 19:21, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

This is needless speculation Oxyman (talk) 19:55, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Isn't original research also banned on Commons?? 22:49, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Oxyman. It isn't up to us to decide what flags people will use in the future. We also don't know if/when the UK (not Great Britain, which is an island, not a country) will break up. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:04, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Schwede66 -- a number of speculative flags of the UK minus Scotland were uploaded here in advance of the 2014 referendum... AnonMoos (talk) 02:28, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Classifying music bandsEdit

Mmk music band in Strasbourg I.jpg
I heard nice music during a street music festival in Strasbourg. I am not used to classifying and describing music bands. I found the website. (there are two other pictures: xx II and xx III)Smiley.toerist (talk) 23:24, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

June 26Edit

Do-Not-Ask ListEdit

A Flickr user tells me Commons has a do-not-ask list of photographers not to ask for pictures. Is there such a thing, and does anyone know where it's located? --Rrburke (talk) 11:08, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

There is a list of accounts where automatic upload is blacklisted based on past problems. The current process is set so that only administrators can add Flickr IDs to the list. See Commons:Questionable Flickr images and an associated live report as a source of practical examples at Faebot/Flickrstreams of concern. -- (talk) 11:15, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Different user may also have perosnal lists of flickr photographer which they have asked to relicense their images (and possibly failed), but nothing is listed on a "official" public list, that I am aware of. Josve05a (talk) 11:17, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

19th century anonymous work of art in a French museumEdit

Greetings. I wonder what is the policy for a 19th-century anonymous work of art in a French museum? I suspect that if the caption has the following "© Musée d’Aquitaine, Bordeaŭ" it means that it is not in the public domain. Just wanted to make sure. Thanks. --Caballero//Historiador 16:10, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Published in 1825, it is public domain everywhere. The museum has no copyright claim on copies. -- (talk) 16:42, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Agreed... it is inconceivable that the author of a document published in 1825 has not been dead for 70 years. Storkk (talk) 12:44, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

June 27Edit

Sharpening on resized versionsEdit

Hi. This one might need an experienced Commons photographer's input. I am having issues with some high-quality images and uploading to the Commons. When uploading, the full-resolution JPEGs look great, but the thumbnail versions all look *horribly* over-sharpened.

I'm wondering why this might be, and what can be done. All I have found out so far is that MediaWiki does provide sharpening to JPEGs, and that the issue is marginally less so (but still fairly severe) when a slightly lower resolution is uploaded at first.

I understand that the average slightly blurry JPEG might need these sharpening, but when it's already pin sharp - by virtue of a good camera and perfect focus - it is making images look horrible. This is an issue for a photographer trying to provide hundreds of images, but worried about the prospect of looking bad when the average person is going to see a photo that looks over-processed.

If the on-site sharpening is causing this, is there a way to force an upload without sharpening to the resized issues? Or any other workaround, like uploading a specific resolution? Looking for a solution. KaisaL (talk) 01:55, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware there's no way to override the thumbnail generation process. You could try creating a PNG version, possible at lower sizes, and see if the result looks any better. There's an old related past ticket on thumbnail sharpening at phab:T26857, but if you have several examples to illustrate the problem, it would be worth raising a new ticket in Phabricator for investigation. -- (talk) 06:06, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
I suggest bringing the question to @Adam Cuerden:, whose attention to detail has earned him an astonishing degree of expertise in this matter. Rama (talk) 09:14, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
PNG does solve the issue - albeit at the compromise of double the file size - but any other input or solutions are welcome. Worried PNG sharpening could be introduced which would bring this problem back. KaisaL (talk) 09:49, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
What we really need is a default sharpening that can be overridden on the file page; I think the sharpening applied to JPEGs is generally better than the lack that PNGs get, but defaults will never cover all cases. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:11, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
@Adam Cuerden: The problem I have is that the JPEG sharpening just decimated the image that was uploaded. PNG is the only option, and the thumbnails look great (because they don't need work, they're professionally shot), but now I'm worrying someone will come through and just convert to JPEG (probably badly) and destroy the work that has been done. It's possibly the images may have to be withdrawn from upload because it's too much of a risk to reputations that they might be tampered with by editors that don't understand the issue. (Also, the lack of metadata on PNG isn't ideal either.) KaisaL (talk) 10:14, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
@Adam Cuerden:, Suggestion: It might seem over the top, but given this is a known issue and certain images are seemingly better as PNG, could a template of some sort to indicate an image is to be left as PNG be an option? Obviously on the licensing side the images can be freely converted, but in terms of on the Commons, such a notice might indicate that due to sharpening problems it's in that format here. A sort of "This image is provided at PNG due to a known issue with sharpening, and the author has requested it be left in this format". Thoughts? I think this is a fringe issue to many but for professional photographers it could easily put them off contributing. KaisaL (talk) 10:19, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
@Adam Cuerden:, me again. One more thought, this comes from Commons:File types: "PNG is good for practically anything except digital camera photographs, including scanned images (though with a caveat – see the note on sharpening below), print-quality photographs, and low color depth images." Given the images are high resolution, and count as print quality, is that justification for the images to be in PNG as a preferred format and thus nobody should convert them? KaisaL (talk) 10:22, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
You can also just explain this in the image descriptions. Having a special template for it does not make the point any less valid, in fact anyone later with doubts will probably make more effort to talk to you before changing anything, just because your note looks personal rather than a mass change via some bot. -- (talk) 10:25, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
@KaisaL: Well, remember that defaults on sharpening can be changed at any time: You don't want a situation where the defaults change, and your PNGs now don't look right (indeed, a colourspace bug (I think at least partially browser-side) has been affecting PNG thumbnails when viewed in Firefox at the moment). And not sharpening will cause problems with a different class of images, particularly older ones and engravings. So this isn't a one-size-fits-all situation, and the solution isn't to treat it as such. =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:28, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
@Adam Cuerden: Perhaps, but in the immediate the issue is that there's a lot of photos to be provided that need to be uploaded. So in the short-term I'm looking for a solution, but sharpening options definitely should be introduced. Even if it's just a no sharpen option for advanced users that regenerates thumbnails? KaisaL (talk) 10:31, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
For the time being I will request the images be left in the PNG format, but a 'no sharpen' option would be the obvious solution. To avoid misuse it could perhaps be restricted to more advanced upload tools. Perhaps this could be proposed to the relevant developers? KaisaL (talk) 10:51, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
What about using/uploading TIFF images? As long as DNG is not supported on Commons, you'll have an EXIF compliant format in that way that should bypass the JPEG thumbnailing issue... Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 14:49, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
@KaisaL: You probably want some sharpening on thumbnails: the thumbnailer, without sharpening, tends to add a slight blur to the image, which is also a problem. I tend to think the JPEG over-sharpening is better than the PNG blurriness, but neither is ideal. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:07, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
@Adam Cuerden: I disagree on the images in question (as did three or so people privately shown comparisons), because when the images are shot professionally, pin sharp and high resolution and full of colour and dynamic range, no sharpening is needed. PNG thumbnails look perfect, not blurred. I think that's exactly why advanced options should be available for professional users (and to encourage any silent professionals that may have been put off by the effects of processing on their work) to decide what's best for their images. If you're capable of taking professional photos, you tend to prepare them perfectly before upload. No sharpen should be an option, perhaps a lower level of sharpening too. KaisaL (talk) 21:57, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Admittedly, I'm mainly comparing older photography, like Dorothea Lange, which has some degree of film grain that limits the sharpness despite being, on the whole, very sharp; it may be that black and white sharpens less successfully, or the like. We should experiment, but, aye, we need to have the ability to tweak. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:32, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
@KaisaL, Adam Cuerden: Let's put up a Phabricator feature request. Would you like to write it, or shall I? Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
@Adam Cuerden: I added one last night, here it is if you'd like to contribute: Link KaisaL (talk) 10:11, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
@Grand-Duc:: Just for reference, TIFF files are also sharpened [unless lossless option specified, then they are treated like pngs] (Tiff files are sharpened using a different program than jpegs if the tiff file is big. Both programs use the same sharpening settings, so should look roughly the same, but its possible you might get slightly different results than the jpegs. Bawolff (talk) 18:59, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
I’ve also observed this over-sharpening earlier. But depending on the image the mechanism can go wrong the other direction, cf. file Schloss Charlottenhof Park Sanssouci Potsdam.jpg in different preview sizes (as far I as know default or often used sizes here and in several Wikipedias):
(Seems it has been a caching issue.)
And with PNG you can fall into another trap: They are sometimes displayed too light or too dark in preview, see e.g. image Marianne von Preußen.png (see also old file versions and confer preview with pure image view in your browser). For greyscale images there is a Phabricator ticket: phab:T106516, but this image was in its first version not uploaded in greyscale: Coignet-AqueducDeLaVannes.png. (Since you have already have been here: FYI @Bawolff.) — Speravir_Talk – 18:51, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Wow that's a rather stunning example of tdifferences. However, I think this is due to caching of old versions of files from some point in the past where sharpening was messed up. After purging the file, the images look much better to me. Bawolff (talk) 20:33, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, you are right. Stunning to me is now, that I already had tried to purge several times in past, but nothing changed there. — Speravir (Talk) – 21:03, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
I think it's important to note that while a brilliant photograph, it's only uploaded at just over 1,000 pixels so wouldn't really count as high resolution. Images uploaded at 4,000px and such can look horrendous in the lower resolution versions more commonly viewed. KaisaL (talk) 13:24, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-26Edit

15:42, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

June 28Edit

Seeking for reconfirmation of OTRS ticketEdit

Moved to Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:22, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Transferring Wikimania 2016 videos to Commons?Edit

Apparently, there is quite a lot of videos of Wikimania 2016 presentations available on Youtube, see here. That's great, but I think these should be here at Commons, too. It looks as if they aren't uploaded to Commons yet, I can't find them in Category:Wikimania 2016 videos. As it should be, most of these are uploaded on Youtube under a CC-BY license, so transfer to Commons shouldn't be a problem license-wise. Apparently (maybe per accident?), some of them use the standard Youtube license, which isn't compatible with Commons, maybe that can be corrected? Ironically, for example the video including a talk about Licenses, open policies isn't using a CC license... Well, I'm not experienced in such transfers, maybe someone has the skills and tools to easily transfer the CC-BY licensed videos from Youtube to Commons? And about the licensing question... not sure who to ping, I'll try some of the organisers: User:Iopensa, User:Yiyi...? Gestumblindi (talk) 20:23, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

You can use toollabs:video2commons to transfer the video. Regards. --Thibaut120094 (talk) 20:37, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi Thibaut120094, we are working for this transfer, but it takes time. For the licence, it was just an accident: videos will be uploaded with CC licence, on YouTube and on Wikimedia Commons. --Yiyi (Dimmi!) 18:10, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

June 30Edit


Commons:Photo_challenge is a very popular monthly photo challenge developed and run single-handily by user:Colin for last 3 years. I noticed that user:Colin did not show up to monthly new theme discussion, so I dug a bit deeper and noticed at Special:Contributions/Colin that he asked to be blocked indefinitely and wants to be unblocked after a solution regarding Fae has been found. I an not familiar with what is the problem but it might have something to do with this. In case "solution regarding Fae" is not found by tomorrow, we will have a problem, as that is a time to count votes and announce winners of May challenges, close June challenge and create voting pages, and choose and create pages for July challenge. I will work on this, but need help:

  1. I need opinions on Commons_talk:Photo_challenge#July_themes discussion, or I will have to pick them myself, which I do not want to do.
  2. Does anybody knows how voting pages were created and vote counting done. I am sure it was not done by hand.

--Jarekt (talk) 15:21, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

What images are realistically educational?Edit

Hi, I'm the BYU library's coordinator of Wikipedia initiatives. I've been looking through our content collection trying to identify public domain images that would be useful to upload to the commons. I'm not sure that all of them fall under "realistically useful for an educational purpose." For example, I found some images of unidentified BYU students participating in athletic activities that are in the public domain: They could possibly be useful for showing what athletics at BYU looked like? Should I only upload photos that I plan to use on a Wikipedia page, or are photos like this generally useful? Thanks, Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:12, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

There doesn't have to be a plan for using images or other media in Wikipedia articles. That's just one possible educational use. BYU athletics is definitely within Commons project scope. If you're considering uploading anything, just ask yourself if it could reasonably be used for any educational purpose you could think of. Could someone study it, or use it to illustrate an article on a website, or use it in a book or presentation, etc? I would think that BYU would have a lot of material well within educational scope for Commons. Another question to ask yourself pertains to quantity and quality. In regard to the BYU athletics images you link above, quality images showing athletes participating on teams or in other sports would definitely be within our project scope. Just do your best to be reasonably selective. I do the same when I transfer images from Flickr. If I find 100 images of buildings and churches in Nizhny Novgorod, Russia, that are free and can be transferred to Commons, I try to pick out the best quality images from that 100. I'll usually end up with 60 or 70 because I've weeded out images with bad lighting, sub-par exposure, tilt, distracting people, etc. Trust your own judgment and you'll probably be fine. You could start by uploading a batch of images and then coming back here for opinions on quality and educational value if you'd like. INeverCry 17:32, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice! I'll try to find the best images for the commons. :-) Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 18:14, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
@Rachel Helps (BYU): If it turns out that you have thousands of images that could be transferred to Commons from the BYU library, you may want to talk to User:Fæ, who is highly experienced in working with collections and facilitating the transfer process, which could otherwise be very time consuming or difficult. INeverCry 18:35, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Prizes for LGBT+ themed Featured PicturesEdit

Brighton Pride 2013 (9431939102).jpg
Brighton Pride photograph uploaded as part of the LGBT Free Media Collective campaign.
m:Grants:Project/Rapid/LGBT/Wiki Loves Pride Featured Picture drive 2016

A grant request has been proposed above for a fund of prizes for successful new Featured Pictures candidates on LGBT+ topics. The envisaged prize fund for Wikimedia Commons will be $300 over two prizes, with three more $100 prizes set aside for Featured Picture candidates on different language Wikipedias, these projects having different criteria and definitions to Commons. This is a first-past-the-post competition which will run until the prizes have gone, or the start of 2017. Please add your name to the meta page if you like the idea of encouraging more Featured Picture Candidates with prizes, or comment on the associated talk page. If you haven't been active with the Wikimedia-LGBT+ user group in the past, this would be a good time to join in :-).

Candidate photographs need to have a unambiguous LGBT+ related theme (i.e. clear to any viewer looking at the photograph without having to read a text explanation), with those running the prize awards process not making an assessment about whether it should become a Featured Picture, apart from helping a photographer by highlighting if a candidate photograph does not appear to meet the basic criteria to be a FP candidate.

Any feedback or improvements to the text of the proposal on meta are welcome, including how the process is best governed. If you would like to help with the small assessment panel, or would enjoy being a wiki-helper for interested photographers who may find the process challenging, drop a note on the meta discussion page or email me privately.

Thanks -- (talk) 19:35, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

July 01Edit

Read in another language