Commons:Village pump

Shortcut: COM:VP

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

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

Please note


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

Purposes which do not meet the scope of this page


Search archives


 

Stone village pump in Rinnen village (pop. 380), Germany [add]
Centralized discussion
See also: Village pump/Proposals • Archive

Template: View • Discuss  • Edit • Watch


OldiesEdit

Review of initial updates on Wikimedia movement strategy processEdit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

February 16Edit

Overview #2 of updates on Wikimedia movement strategy processEdit

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

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

Regular updates are being sent to the Wikimedia-l mailing list, and posted on Meta-Wiki. Each month, we are sending overviews of these updates to this page as well. Sign up to receive future announcements and monthly highlights of strategy updates on your user talk page.

Here is a overview of the updates that have been sent since our message last month:

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

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, 19:43, 9 March 2017 (UTC) • Please help translate to your languageGet help

March 10Edit

File:Emma Frost by Nig PS.jpgEdit

Is that file acceptable ? I'm not sure and I don't want to launch a DR by mistake. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 15:54, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Looks OK to me, with CC-BY-3.0 on the source page. But if you tag it with {{LicenseReview}} it can get a more authoritative ‘stamp of approval‘ from an admin or image-reviewer.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 20:44, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
I disagree, the image is about a copyrighted comic book character. While the fan art author may have allowed the image to be used, he/she most likely does not have permission from the publisher to actually do so. MKFI (talk) 07:25, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
@MKFI: In that case, shouldn't we consider that any cosplay would also be a lack of respect of the copyright ? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 10:05, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I would say it is clear copyright infringement on the character Emma Frost. As COM:FANART states: "Re-drawing does not avoid copyright infringement". The usage of the X logo and costume make it clear this isn't just some pinup of a blonde woman (compare to official art e.g. [1], [2]). If this were put in a comic book or trading card, Marvel Comics would certainly sue for infringement. Animalparty (talk) 21:46, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

In addition, the image appears to be a collaboration, note the signatures include "B N S(?) 02 Dally" , and colors by Nig. A link to "orignal draw" on the source Deviant Art page (now a 404) further suggests this is a derivative work. Assuming even the original is freely licensed, wouldn't we need the permission from both penciler and colorist? Animalparty (talk) 21:54, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Definitely the penciler. The colorist, not necessarily -- colorization is rarely a copyrightable act in the U.S. Carl Lindberg (talk) 09:37, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
This gets into so many gray areas... hrm. Fan art is quite often derivative works (and not fair use). However, a particular piece of fan art is only derivative if it actually copies expression. Imagining and drawing a character from a book may not necessarily mean the drawing is derivative of the character -- they can be separate expressions of the same idea. On the other hand, making drawings of a comic book character -- which are drawings themselves -- will usually get into derivative work territory. For this one, I'm not completely sure. It's obviously of the character, given the costume. But given the original work links given, the general depiction of the woman doesn't seem derivative -- often characters are drawn in a particular way, and copying that particular style would definitely make it derivative (such as drawing a very recognizable Mickey Mouse in an original pose). This one, seems like there are many styles of drawing the woman out there, and unsure if this depiction is derivative of another, or a mostly original drawing of a woman with the character's costume added. If it's the latter, then there's a chance, though still a gray area -- even just the costume drawing may still be derivative. It is distinctive, and the risk of being derivative of a drawn character is much much higher than being derivative of a written description of a character. But... it sounds like this was a drawing by Ed Benes and Mariah Benes; here is a link to the black-and-white drawn version (and this seems to be another variant). A free license by someone adding colorization isn't very effective -- that may not be copyrightable at all, and since the original drawing was published elsewhere, there is no reason to believe the original artist allowed the license. So on the basis of that alone, it's a near-certain delete, without getting into any character derivative right issues. Carl Lindberg (talk) 09:37, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Any guideline for User Templates in CommonsEdit

As a referece to This Template used Here shows that its a possible use of advertisement for photoshoots or event shoots. Does this type of template allowed, or as an uploaded user, some relaxation can be offered. The doubts particularly on contact me area of the templates ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 10:48, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

It is a borderline case but would still allow it. Ruslik (talk) 19:51, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
@Guillom: Any thoughts on making the credit template wording less promotional? More simply, linking to a statement about your photography work on your own website, where you are free to say whatever you want, would avoid any possible contention on-wiki. Thanks -- (talk) 09:56, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello. I appreciate the ping, ; thank you for making sure I'd see this discussion. I've never made any money from photography; indeed, over the past 12 years, I have instead poured thousands of euros and dollars into travel, conference fees, and hotel expenses to take photos for Commons. The wording was merely to avoid the (very real) expectation that some people have that I would just take photos for free for their benefit, whereas my priority was to take photos for the benefit of Commons. I have tweaked the language of the template since I sadly don't have time to do any photography any more and I have sold all my equipment. guillom 15:43, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
i don't see anything wrong with the template, any more than the hybrid license "advertisement" such as User:Fir0002/credits. if you want to get a consensus on "non-promotional" terms on reuse, go for it. but i think you will find you have an out of consensus view. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 02:46, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
This Template Looks good now, But as indicated User:Fir0002/credits template is still confusing If you require a less restrictive commercial license please email me to negotiate terms public will be confused on the wording and will be doubt if the image is free or still copyrighted, A standard guideline on such template is good for using as a reference guide- ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 16:48, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
@Captainofhope: It's perfectly legal to offer an image under multiple licenses... as long as it's offered under a license we allow, we can host the image. We don't 'have' to mention any license other than one that allows us to host the work, but it's not an uncommon practice and the community seems to generally think it's okay. - Reventtalk 11:48, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

March 15Edit

Stargate AtlantisEdit

  • I was looking for the location of this image. Someone pointed out that this is from the TV serie Stargate Atlantis. However I suspect this is a picture of a floating model used for the series. The wave size does not match the scale if this is really a bigg city. The floating object I estimate at 50 meters large. Even if this is a model I suspect there are copyrigth problems. I would still like to know more about it before it is probably deleted.Smiley.toerist (talk) 21:16, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
    • It appears to be computer-generated. This may actually be a concept shot for the series finale; I don't remember there being any land so close to the city in the show. Nicole Sharp (talk) 03:01, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
    • FWIW, I'd tend to agree with @Smiley.toerist: looks more like an actual scale model shot on a lake to me. Pretty sure we can't keep it either way. Stargate Atlantis was shot in and around Vancouver, so the hills in the background could potentially lead to the shooting location. But you'd probably have to ask a local to identify it, as there are many lakes with hills around them in this area. this location looks quite similar, for example (check it out in StreetView). --El Grafo (talk) 12:30, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
      • I am pretty sure this is not a real-life shot. Considering the amount of sunlight, I would expect building side-facades to be illuminated, but all we see is a silhouette. Additionally, if you follow the shade lines on the floor at the left, they do not converge at the center of the sun. --HyperGaruda (talk) 14:52, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
@Smiley.toerist: It's deleted. Searching the net showed it in multiple galleries of promotional wallpapers that were created for the show. - Reventtalk 01:10, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

RevertingEdit

Is there a way to revert all edits i made beginning from this till this. If so, please tell me how or just do revert it. --14:36, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't know an automatic way to do this. However there are "only" about 250 edits to revert, so list your last 500 edits, find the beginning and using middle mouse button ("open in new tab in my Firefox") click on "revert" link. Of course do not open 250 tabs at once – do it in batches of 20-30 tabs. IMO it should take less than an hour to revert all these changes. --jdx Re: 15:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
✓ Done Well, it took for me about 25 minutes to revert these changes. --jdx Re: 15:59, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you a lot and sorry for the inconveniences. --Arnd (talk) 23:12, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Help:VisualFileChange.js with "custom replace" also works. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 03:17, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
@Slowking4: I also thought about that, but it turned out it won't work. Poké95 02:23, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

commons poty bannerEdit

hey User:Fæ i see that POTY is now banner spamming all projects. [3] there is a consensus requirement. where is that? [4] what goes around comes around. maybe a little talk with the enthusiasts would be nice. rest assured i will now never participate in this solipsism, and preening. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 14:11, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I have nothing to do with POTY, too many things to follow. -- (talk) 14:32, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
This is the Commons village pump; Fæ's talkpage is located at User talk:Fæ. Like the annual fundraiser itself POTY has been advertised using ContralNotices for many years, therefore this "consensus requirement" (note the exact RFC closure statement) for new messages certainly doesn't apply. I would appreciate a less disrespectful attitude towards projects aiming to increase awareness of and participation on Commons – after all, this should be a goal we all share.    FDMS  4    15:24, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
According to meta:CentralNotice/Usage_guidelines#Approval "Standard Community Notices" receive automatic approval; I do not see how a standard practice for many years has been changed, as we followed the described process. As for whether you wish to participate, it's your choice (and we'll respect your choice), but please do not use these words such as "solipsism" or "preening" unless you are backed up. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 16:26, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
well, there is a consensus requirement that is now openly flouted. if admins cannot follow the central notice policy to "4. Be consensus-driven" [5] then maybe they need to be desysoped. what is the point of having policy if no one will follow it? but i see there is a global turnoff of all central notices. good. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 00:41, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
As you want de-sysop, please back up your argument --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 06:46, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
The CentralNotice for POTY 2016 had been approved by a CentralNotice admin 3 days ago, see m:CentralNotice/Request#Picture of the Year 2016, so I don't think there is anything to discuss about regarding the CentralNotice of POTY 2016. Poké95 07:25, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
read the link to meta CentralNotice/Usage guidelines about consensus. "Most banners will need some sort of consensus before hand. This can be achieved via the CentralNotice Request process. As part of this process the host communities should then be notified via the host wiki's community notice board (Village Pump, Cafe or equivalent) – or whatever is most suitable to efficiently reach most interested users - linking to the Central Notice request. Any request will be open for at a minimum of 7 days." one admin notifying the whole wide world with no discussion, is not a consensus process. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 12:49, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
m:CentralNotice/Usage guidelines is not a policy, it is, surprise, a guideline. Also it is good to know what "most" means: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/most. --jdx Re: 13:34, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
i see last year they went through the motions of providing notice here. no such luck this year. i.e. where is the notice on each and every wiki which is getting banner spammed? you understand that the summary process tends to undermine the credibility and authority of the admins? you cannot say a word about the fundraising banners if you will not show good behavior on your banners. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 16:46, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
You're free to feel whatever you want. We are not here to convince you anything. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 00:27, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment "Wikimedia Commons is a media file repository making available public domain and freely-licensed educational media content to everyone." And one user thinks an interactive poll among the Wikimedians to get a feedback on what they consider as the best and useful media here is spamming. See, this is a continuous process and it will give the photographers an idea on what the community is expected them. This poll includes images that are collected from other sites too; so this will help the content curators who frequently check other sites for potential media to upload here too. I can provide a lot more benefits this poll will give to Commons if the OP is interested to know. Jee 02:42, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
no - misuse of the central notifications without notice or consensus is spam. if it is so great, why not go through the motions? no, i am not interested; rest assured "content curators" are not interested either - they go to flickr after getting their items deleted here. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 11:40, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
If you have a problem with the way how the notification is handles, please discuss it in meta as it is off-topic here. I know very well what Flickr is. Where you see a place for content curators there? Jee 13:34, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

March 19Edit

Circular categories: Category:Sound - Category:Acoustics - Category:SoundEdit

How to solve this circular categorization? //  Gikü  said  done  Sunday, 19 March 2017 23:11 (UTC)

I'd suggest that by analogy with Light, the study of which is Optics, Sound is the thing and Acoustics its study. Therefore Sound should be a parent rather than a subcat of Acoustics. Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:30, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
We also have acoustics as the study of waves, and sound is only part of that. --ghouston (talk) 01:26, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Well, mechanical waves, and it depends how you define "sound" I suppose; considering vibration, sound, ultrasound and infrasound. --ghouston (talk) 01:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

March 20Edit

Tech News: 2017-12Edit

22:03, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

March 21Edit

QuickDeleteEdit

What do you all think about enabling the QuickDelete gadget for all registered editors? I think that having "Report copyright violation" in the side bar might help us get a few more Wikipedians (correctly) tagging copyright violations for deletion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Are you sure that newly created accounts will use it wisely? Ruslik (talk) 19:57, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
No, just let's not do this. Natuur12 (talk) 20:13, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Why not, Natuur12?
I think that the people most likely to notice it (and therefore have a chance of using it) are experienced editors from other projects, so I do think that it would most often be used appropriately. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:58, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Experienced users from other projects know how to turn on a gadget. There is absolutely no evidence that this would have a positive effect other than your speculation. One of the reasons why we can process copyright violations fast is because most off the tagging is done by experienced editors. A possible scenario is that enabeling the gadget will encourage editors unfamiliar with our policies to nominate files even more easely. Btw, is this WhatamIdoing the volunteer or WhatamIdoing the staffer speaking? Natuur12 (talk) 18:04, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
No, Unexperienced users can create mess with this tool. --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:13, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
@Natuur12: It is probably WhatamIdoing the voluneer speaking, since there is no "(WMF)" in the signature. Poké95 01:14, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps but I rather be sure since the staffer could be able to pull resources for a pilot while the volunteer likely can't. Natuur12 (talk) 01:16, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
[edit conflict] Yeah, her userpage says I provide services as an independent contractor to the Wikimedia Foundation, but this is my personal account. Edits, statements, or other contributions made from this account are my own, and may not reflect the views of the Foundation. Plus, after the kerfuffle a couple of years ago with the WMF staffer overriding community consensus with his personal account (the situation for which superprotect was imposed on us), WMF basically started requiring employees to use (WMF) accounts whenever they do anything while wearing the employee hat. Nyttend (talk) 01:19, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

March 22Edit

Native English speakers: Copyright issues with cartoons from John F. KnottEdit

I asked this on the village pump copyright corner and got the advice the start deletion requests, but I think it would be useful, when a native English speakers looks at it:

See cat. John F. Knott. Most of the images there are uploaded from a Flickr account ofSMU Central University Libraries. On the Flickr pages for every file they claim, that there are no known copyright restrictions. But: John F. Knott died in 1963. For the US only cartoons from before 1923 should therefore be in public domain (and the now used license tag would be wrong); for most other countries it will last decades, before the images will be free. On the other hands it is possible to hand over copyrights in the US. How to find out, whether this is the case here? — Speravir – 00:18, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

There’s another possibility, that the cartoons were published without the notice, registration or renewals that US law required at the time. No idea whether or not that is actually the case here, just pointing out that publication before 1923 is not the only reason for a US copyright to have lapsed ahead of the now-usual 70 years pma.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 02:05, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
i'm not showing any hits for renewals at [13] (after 1978 online) don't know why you are second guessing SMU library. you realize there is a greater chance of an "FoP germany" getting taken down, than a "no known copyright"? Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 03:18, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Since the library's putting itself at risk of lawsuits if it publishes these images recklessly, and since copyright is a critical issue for us professional librarians (we're always dealing with it), we shouldn't question them without evidence for continued copyrightability, e.g. a lawsuit by Knott's heirs. Plus, if you donate physical items that you've created to academic archives, they'll typically require you to donate copyright as well (this way, they don't need to worry about getting permission to use them as they want), so if these images were still in copyright, it would be the exceptional case in which the library didn't have the right to release them under no-known-restrictions. Either way, I see no reason to question these images given what we know about them now. Nyttend (talk) 01:25, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

License adviceEdit

Can ro:Fișier:Orașe și ani.jpg be moved at Commons using {{PD-Text}}?Ionutzmovie (talk) 00:32, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

@Ionutzmovie: The image depicts a literary work, so it is not {{PD-text}}. For that image to be moved to Commons, the copyright of the book depicted must have expired in its source country and the US. Who's the author of the book, and when did they died? When is the book published? Thanks, Poké95 03:32, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
@Pokéfan95: with all due respect, you are wrong. This is not the body of the work in question, it's the cover. Nothing here should rise to the level of being copyrightable: it's simple typography on negligible content. But I'd probably use {{PD-ineligible}} rather than {{PD-text}}. - Jmabel ! talk 06:03, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Oh, thanks for correcting me. I didn't knew that cover pages with no copyrightable elements are not themselves copyrightable. Poké95 09:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

March 24Edit

Quick template transclusion and backlinks counterEdit

Hey guys. Currently we have link of "Transclusion count" on Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Navbox but I just wrote a tool to provide the functionality much faster and easier that you can test it on this link (the (count) link) near the "Go" button. I wanted to ask from the community if you guys like to enable this new tool as a gadget or a default enabled script and possibly remove the old tool afterward? Thanks −ebrahimtalk 09:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support although I would keep the old tool for a while. --Jarekt (talk) 11:41, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Are fake logos out of scope if they are in use?Edit

The following DRs indicate that fake logos are out of scope because they give false information about logo that do not exist and are not "realistically useful for an educational purpose":

However, I am somewhat surprised by the result of this DR: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Coats of arms of Taiwan. In my opinion, if the logos are fake they are inherently of no educational value. Whether they are in use is merely an indication of whether they are educational, and usually is a very good indication. Should we still consider that whether they are in use outweighs the fact that they are inherently non-educational? --Wcam (talk) 18:09, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, If these are fake, they should be replaced, and then deleted. But yes, we don't delete files in use unless they are copyright violations. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:26, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
COM:INUSE: "A media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose, as is a file in use for some operational reason such as within a template or the like. Such a file is not liable to deletion simply because it may be of poor quality: if it is in use, that is enough." I didn't see those fake logos but I suppose technically the true reason of their deletion is not "Not educationally useful" but another one: vandalism. And if they are vandalism, even if they are in used, they should be deleted according to the deletion policy. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 00:37, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
As I see it, these aren't logos per se (they probably should be renamed, COM:RENAME#3) but basically graphical representations that call to mind the actual logos. Aside from the filenames, there's no reason to consider them logos; the descriptions are merely "[charactername] in a circle", which can't possibly be wrong unless the wrong character has been used. Analogy: imagine that File:Logo-GOP.png weren't in the public domain, so it was hosted at en:wp under a fair-use justification. Would it be vandalism to create a red rectangle with the letters "GOP" superimposed on it in red, and then to use it whenever we wanted to have an image associated with the US Republican Party? Would it be nominated for deletion on the grounds of "fake logo"? I don't think so, and I don't think we should treat these images differently. My only objection here is the claim that the originals, zh:File:Np logo.png and zh:File:Emblem of People First Party.svg, are nonfree images that require fair-use rationales — unless ROC copyright law has an extremely low threshold of originality, neither a simple orange oval nor a red square is copyrightable, and superimposing the simple name of an organisation on top of one of those shapes doesn't make it copyrightable. Barring a T-of-O issue, these should be considered {{PD-shape}} and moved to Commons. That done, the "call to mind" files can be replaced with the logos they're supposed to evoke, and once they're unused, it will be reasonable to renominate them with rationales such as "not useful, since file A is now on Commons", plus a link to this discussion if you think it would help. Nyttend (talk) 01:13, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
zh:File:Np logo.png and zh:File:Emblem of People First Party.svg are not eligible for PD because of COM:TOO#China (PRC). ||| In case you got me wrong, I want to clarify that "fake logos" in the sentence "I didn't see those fake logos but I suppose technically the true reason of their deletion is [...] vandalism" refers to File:Frente Nacional del Trabajo Chile 1985.png, File:Partido Nacional Chile 1970.png, File:ESPE-LOGO.jpg, File:Windows 8.1 logo.png, which were deleted before I could have a look at them.--Tomchen1989 (talk) 03:33, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
So we're in the business of enforcing Communist law on ROC images now? Are we also enforcing North Korean copyright law on stuff from South Korea? Nyttend (talk) 10:52, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Nyttend - An image equivalent to File:Republicanlogo.svg was claimed to be copyrighted/fair-use on English Wikipedia in 2012, which was why File:America Symbol.svg was created as a non-official quasi-equivalent which could be used incidentally / decoratively. So your hypothetical is not in fact hypothetical at all... AnonMoos (talk) 23:19, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
By the way I actually happen to be the creator and/or retoucher of those Taiwanese parties' "fake" logos. I made them or helped to edit them because some Taiwanese editors were so keen to put logo in front of every occurrence of a party name on zh-wiki but most of the logos are fair-used and cannot be used repeatedly. These "fake" logos on Commons could serve as kind of a compromise and they could use them to represent these parties on zh-wiki. However I definitely don't suggest anyone do so, since these "fake" logos are not accurate to represent a party. Nevertheless these "fake" logos are still largely used on zh-wiki and also in some en-wiki articles. Some Taiwanese editors might find these "fake" logos inaccurate or ugly or something and started creating a new set of replacement: zh:Template:KMT/logo2, zh:Template:DPP/logo2, which are not bad at all, may be better than the "fake" logos. Meanwhile, some Chinese editors keep opposing the "fake" logos and trying to delete them on Commons, which appears to be the most efficient and laziest way to stop any current use and prevent any future use. I don't see the legitimacy of such deletion. In a nutshell, to make my opinion very clear:↵
Commons:Deletion policy#Out of scope can be either 1 or 2:
1. Not educationally useful
1.-1 A media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose.
2. Self-promotion or vandalism/attack
Analyses:
  • File:Partido Nacional Chile 1970.png and other fake logos are 2, thus deleted on Commons (even if they are in use on wiki, thus 1.-1, thus not 1)
  • These "fake" Taiwanese party logos are in use on zh-wiki, thus 1.-1, thus not 1; and they are not 2 too, kept on Commons
    • If an editor (such as User:Wcam) wants to prevent "fake" Taiwanese party logos from being used in the articles on zh-wiki, try seeking a consensus on zh-wiki. However:
      • Even if such prohibition exists and "fake" Taiwanese party logos are not in use in articles on zh-wiki, I see they are currently used in userboxes and projects on zh-wiki to illustrate editors' political view and other stuffs (I see no likelihood to prohibit such userbox usage), they have educational usefulness, so still kept on Commons↵
--Tomchen1989 (talk) 03:33, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Wcam -- you do know that there are many hundreds of deliberately fake soccer club/team logo images on Commons for exactly the same reason (real logos would be copyrighted, and so couldn't be used for incidental/decorative purposes in Wikipedia articles)? See Category:Association football flag icons (formerly called Category:Fantasy football flags and Category:Fake flags), also Template:Fake sports logo, etc. They're not all going to be deleted... AnonMoos (talk) 23:00, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

March 25Edit

Chinese variant translations should not be disabledEdit

It's almost the same post as the one here: User talk:MtDu#Chinese variant translations should not be disabled. I re-post it here because User:MtDu didn't respond and I'm not sure it's him who's responsible for the new translation technique so I'm here seeking opinions from more editors and admins:

I'm the creator or major editor and Chinese Simplified (zh-hans) + Traditional (zh-hant) translator for several license templates, including {{MIT}}. I've just found that when User:MtDu converted autotranslate Templates to "ext.translate" ones, {{MIT}} for example, the Chinese variant translations were deleted or ruined somehow.

The two variants of Chinese Mandarin language, zh-hans (sometimes represented by zh-cn since China "cn" is the largest region using zh-hans) and zh-hant (sometimes represented by zh-tw for the similar reason) are always in need, there are many difference between the two and people who use one as their first writing system usually cannot write by hand (and some could have difficulty to read) the characters in another system, it's also possible to have more variants zh-cn zh-hk zh-mo zh-my zh-sg zh-tw. Chinese Wikipedia implements zh-hans, zh-hant and 5 other variants - only omits zh-my.

zh-hans, zh-hant and other variants do exist in language settings of Wikimedia Commons. But now {{MIT}} and other templates using ext.translate cannot use those variants. Wikimedia Commons users (or Chinese Wikipedia users) choosing to use one variant may be forced to view the page (it's also possible to view Commons page from local Wikipedia e.g. from the link zh.wikipedia.org/zh-tw/File:1107@692@Hang_Hau_North.jpg) in another language variant. That's not very nice. Back to the time where {{MIT}} used autotranslate, we don't have this problem.

Please restore what they were or find a way to solve the problem. Please also enlighten me which translation technique I should use if I want to translate a template into both zh-hans and zh-hant in the future. Thank you. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 00:23, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry I can't help, but I find it interesting that the various script variant communities on Chinese language Wikipedia seem to get along better than the Brazilians and Portuguese on Portuguese language Wikipedia -- and way more so than the speakers of various versions of Belarussian and Serbo-Croatian! AnonMoos (talk) 16:08, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Uploaded derivativesEdit

This was originally placed at COM:AN, but since it's not a particularly administrative topic, I've moved it here. Nyttend (talk) 01:02, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Samples of derivatives
Colour
Colour  
BnW
BnW  
Colour
Colour  
BnW
BnW  
Colour
Colour  
BnW
BnW  
Colour
Colour  
BnW
BnW  
Natural
Natural  
Sunset-like filter
Sunset-like filter  

I understand that black-and-white images or high-contrasted images or x-ray-like images or thermal images are very well in COM:Scope of Commons and we do not impose uploaders to only upload the natural unfiltered original image. However, I noticed that Akshatha Inamdar (talk · contribs) has uploaded various derivatives of their own works. In good faith I would assume that they were uploaded as part of Wiki Loves Monuments challenge and to get a good chance of winning through artistic derivatives. But the quantity of such uploads is vast and I see no use in keeping just the plain b&w version or high-polarized-or-whatever version when the original simple one is available. Sample gallery included. Thoughts any? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:58, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Technically incorrect imageEdit

On the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabal_minor, the image, Sabal minor3.jpg (hfttps://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sabal_minor3.jpg) is not correct. The plant, Sabal minor, has all stems originating from ground level and the plant in the image, Sabal minor3.jpg, clearly does not. Additionally, the image is from Japan and the species does not natively occur outside the southeastern United States. There is another image in the Commons, Sabal minor.jpg (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sabal_minor.jpg) that is technically accurate.

What is the best way to go about getting this changed? Norm Shea (talk) 19:10, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Can you identify the species? Ruslik (talk) 19:26, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure that is the issue. The image Sabal minor3.jpg (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sabal_minor3.jpg) shouldn't be used on the Sabal minor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabal_minor) page as a visual identification of the plant. Should I just edit the page and use the other image, Sabal minor.jpg (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sabal_minor.jpg)?
Norm Shea (talk) 19:49, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
This is not totally different from a discussion we had earlier this month. If there is general agreement that the image is not Sabal minor it can, at least, be renamed to indicate this (File:Unidentified Sabal?) and wikipedia editors may make the change themselves. - Themightyquill (talk) 23:14, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
How would it be best to try and acheive a "general agreement that the image is not "Sabal minor"? How do you get people to weigh in on something like that?
But, in the meantime, since there is an image in Wikimedia Commons that is Sabal minor (verified by the USDA Plant database and public), can I just edit the page to use that image or is that something that is handled at a higher level?
Norm Shea (talk) 23:42, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Oh, yes, please be bold at wikipedia and make the change. I imagine starting this discussion at the village pump is your best chance to get general agreement that it's not Sabal minor. Your edit at wikipedia may also help gain input from others on the matter. - Themightyquill (talk) 00:09, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
@Norm Shea: See {{Fact disputed}}. - Reventtalk 01:15, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @Norm Shea: The best place to gain consensus on English Wikipedia is to ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants. Knowledgeable editors there can aid in identification, and help select the most accurate and most encyclopedic image(s) from Category:Sabal minor for inclusion. Note that even if File:Sabal minor.jpg is accurately identified, it's a fairly poor quality image (low resolution, blurry), and probably should not be used if better images can be found. Animalparty (talk) 03:14, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The disputed file is in use also on other Wikipedias.
  • In German Wikipedia I can read, that usually the trunk is subsurface, but sometimes it gets visible as short, erect trunk – a case we have here. There are three other images in the same category, where it looks that way: File:Gardenology.org-IMG 0529 hunt07mar.jpg, File:Gardenology.org-IMG 2114 hunt0903.jpg and File:Gardenology.org-IMG 2122 hunt0903.jpg. The main point here is they all belong to a series, and the labels have been photographed, as well, where the exemplars clearly are denominated as Sabal minor, cf. e.g. File:Gardenology.org-IMG 0530 hunt07mar.jpg.
  • On the other hand on the disputed file we see particularly a label, too, and it seems to me, that there is another species denominated. It would be great, if we could get some Japanese users to tell us, what the Japanese part tells us.

— Speravir – 00:54, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

March 26Edit

Rare diseasesEdit

Hello.Do you have advice on increasing rare disease pictures such as this?Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 12:25, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

SVG containing JS: How is it detected?Edit

I’m having an issue with uploading a SVG file which contains JavaScript/ECMA-Script. I’ve disabled the JS by commenting out everything containing scripting (script elements and elements with event handler attributes; this is totally fine as it’s the same as if someone had NoScript not disabled), but MediaWiki still complains about it. I’d like to keep the JS in commented-out form though, so others can reenable it if they really want to. So, what do I need to change so MW won’t complain about the (now technicaly scriptless) file containing scripting?

The file also contains data-* attributes (which will be explictly allowed in SVG2, and are fine in the W3C validator). Is this enough to make MW complain? I’d rather want to keep those, as changing them would mean a lot of refactoring and would make the W3C validator mark it as invalid. --Nenntmichruhigip (talk) 14:23, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

If you do <!-- <script type="text/ecmascript">...</script> --> then I bet it won't work. You might try <!-- script type="text/ecmascript" -->...<!-- /script--> -- AnonMoos (talk) 15:57, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
If you are after inspecting the actual code, it's probably in MediaWiki's includes/upload/UploadBase.php. --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 16:09, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
I’m usually doing <!--script><![CDATA[ code() ]]></script-->, but have now also tried <!--script--><!--[CDATA[ code() ]]--><!--/script--> and putting A behind the first character of onclick=, without success.
The link to the checking code is what I hope to get here, but I don’t see anything which matches my SVG there.
I’ve put the file to User:nenntmichruhigip/temporary (prefixed with a comment obviously not beeing part of the file) if someone wants to see what I’m missing. --Nenntmichruhigip (talk) 17:09, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
I know very little about the MW code base, but what I've seen often relies on pattern matching strings rather than using DOM parsing. In other words, if MW sees "<script" anywhere (even inside an XML comment), it might reject the file. It may also reject the file if it sees "(?:ecma|java)script" anywhere. Your file would have to defeat the string matches rather than just disabling the XML.
I thought I tried validating an SVG file with data-* attributes and it failed. If you provide a file with a DTD, the validator will use that DTD, and if data-* attributes are not in the SVG 1.1 DTD (they won't be because DTDs don't have wild attributes), then it will fail the file. I used the direct input option to test your file at validator.w3.org, and the data attributes were errors. If you leave out the DTD and feed the file to the validator via a text box, then it will verify as plain XML (not as SVG!). However, if you then upload that SVG file to Commons and try {{Valid SVG}}, the file will fail. The validator accesses the file from Commons, and Commons serves the file with an SVG MIME type. The validator now knows that the file is SVG (rather than a generic non-DTD XML) and validates it against an SVG 1.1 + XHTML + MathML 3.0 (with RDF and Inkscape extensions) schema, finds the data-* attributes in the SVG (valid in HTML 5 but not SVG 1.1), and fails verification. IIRC, the validator does not have an option to select that verification from the web interface; it only happens for served files with an appropriate MIME type. You can use entities to extend the SVG 1.1 DTD, but that gets ugly fast.
Glrx (talk) 19:26, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know about the validation error. I read this somewhere and indeed tested it before I added the DTD (which wasn’t added by the export script I used…). I’ll find something to resolve this (propably just changing them to classes) :-) --Nenntmichruhigip (talk) 15:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi, So that file is not failing the SVG javascript tests, but the old-IE mime type detection tests/general generic blacklist (It is being detected that some older browsers may autodetect the mime type as a html file) [e.g. The warning you are getting is mediawiki:uploadscripted as opposed to one of the other upload warnings. The check for JS in svgs usually give a more specific warning]. Basically to get around this, change the <script... tags to < script (e.g. Add a space between the < and the script in the commented out script tags). And make sure that there are no type attributes, and no href attributes that use the javascript url protocol. Bawolff (talk) 03:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
I am indeed getting MediaWiki:uploadscripted (I wasn’t aware there are different ones). So you’re suggesting <!--< script ty pe="application/ecmascript"> and </ script>-->? I’ll give it a try once I changed the data attributes to something valid. If that doen’t work and no other option is mentioned here, I’ll try completly removing the JS and putting the non-JS-free source in a user aubpage. --Nenntmichruhigip (talk)

Interest in testing the Timeless skinEdit

Hi, I've been working on a new responsive skin somewhat based on Winter (though a lot of that has yet to be implemented), Timeless:

Timeless MediaWiki Skin.png

  • I have a labs wiki where you can test it out easily without logging in, though there is admittedly not a whole lot of content directly on it (but it does have instantCommons enabled): https://timeless-skin.wmflabs.org/wiki/Main_Page
  • To see what it might look/act like in production, there is a copy of the Simple English Wikipedia on the Beta Cluster, where Timeless has already been deployed: https://simple.wikipedia.beta.wmflabs.org/wiki/Main_Page - you can create an account, set your skin to timeless, and go through some of the things you might do here, and maybe get a feel for the skin.

My question for you all is thus: would you be interested in trying this out as an available skin on Commons? And, because it's still very much in development, would you be interested in working with me to help develop it into a product that might help to address address problems faced specifically by your project? (For instance, the focus of Commons is media, and one of the planned features for Timeless is a dark mode. Would this be something you would be interested in order to place more focus on the media itself, as opposed to the surrounding chrome?) I would love your feedback - I have a grant proposal on meta to continue development work on Timeless with proper funding, and if it might be able to solve problems you all face in practice, that would be great. So please, feel free to read through that and let me know what you think.

In the meantime, would you like to test out Timeless, have it available as a skin for use on your project, receiving updates as I continue to work on it? Note that any deployment to Commons or other wikis would make it available as an option, and it will not be replacing the default unless there is specific consensus to do so down the road.

Thanks! -— Isarra 23:22, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

+1 too that please. Paladox (talk) 15:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikimedia Movement Strategy process discussion has startedEdit

Hello! Wikimedia Movement Strategy process discussion has started, I invite everyone to discuss what will the world, the movement and Wikimedia Commons in it be like in 15 years with our efforts. The big question of the discussion till April 15 is "What do we want to build or achieve together over the next 15 years?" — share your thoughts!
Yours sincerely, --Base (WMF) (talk) — a Meta-Wiki Strategy Coordinator — 02:01, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Oversight bansEdit

For wider visibility.. Commons:Village_pump/Proposals#Oversight_bans. Please discuss there. - Reventtalk 02:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-13Edit

14:46, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Authorization to upload via emailEdit

I have some friends that are willing to authorize to publish bird photographs unexisting at Commons, of their authorship, under a proper license, but they do not have an account at Flickr and they do not want to take the work of doing by themselves, delegating that to me. They just want to send an email to me attaching the picture and saying "by mean of this email I authorize to publish this picture at Wikimedia Commons under the license CCBA....etc etc" Is that acceptable? How I document that procedure during the uploading? Many thanks for the help. --Hector Bottai (talk) 15:19, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Hector Please read COM:OTRS, especially the part about email template ask your friends to modify that permission to say something like I hereby affirm that I [friend's name] am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of files uploaded by Hector Bottai, which list my name as the photographer, and I have legal authority to release the copyright of that work. ... and than send it to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. You can also upload them all to some category like Category:Bird photographs by Judy Gallagher and than ask your friend to give permission to all the files in that category which were uploaded by you. Ping me if you have any question about OTRS. Keep in mind that we have quite a backlog of the emails waiting for reply by few OTRS volunteers, so most emails wait about 50 days for an answer (oldest unanswered email is 62 days old). --Jarekt (talk) 16:30, 27 March 2017 (UTC)