Open main menu
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Adding links

Probably this subject has been discussed before, but I don’t know when and where; sorry.
I tried to add links to the page Category:Keladi using the link “add links” at the left bottom. This results in the message “The page you wanted to link with is already attached to an item .... Items can only have one page per site attached. Please choose a different page to link with.”. The link is to the page Kedladi. So it is clear why this does not work. One solution is to give the Category and the Page different names such as Category:Bruges and Brugge. The other is to add lines such as [[en:Keladi]]. On the other hand I experienced that after adding such a line to a Category that does not have links, the option “Add links” does not show up any more. In the past I added only a few links because I could not use a simple copy-paste of the data on the Wikipedia page as the links were not visible any more. I hoped that a bot would add the rest. What would be the best procedure to add links in such a case as Category:Keladi? Wouter (talk) 13:03, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

That’s one practical result of the whole Wikidata adventure: What you used to do you cannot anymore, and what they are paid to enable is broken. Way to go! -- Tuválkin 15:22, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, we had a long discussion about it, and the accepted conclusion was that the wikidata model was broken and should be fixed. The conclusion has since been revised to "the wikidata model is broken and should be hacked up with templates to make it sort of work". --ghouston (talk) 23:04, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Calling UK photographers: the Wiki Loves Monuments contest starts on Monday 1st September

This is your chance to take part in our annual photography competition to improve Wikipedia. The encyclopaedia is visited by 500 million people every month, and needs your to help improve its photos.

Wiki Loves Monuments UK is aimed at the UK's listed buildings and ancient monuments, and starts on Monday 1st September. The contest is supported by the Royal Photographic Society, English Heritage, and Wikimedia UK.

We've got lots of pictures of Tower Bridge and Stonehenge, but there's so much more of the country's heritage to celebrate. There are tens of thousands of eligible sites, so check out the UK competition website (http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org.uk) and see what's nearby. As well as prizes for the best image, we have a special prize this year for the best image of a listed building on one of the 'At Risk' registers.

It doesn't matter when your photos are taken so long as they are uploaded during September 2014 UTC. If you took some stunning pictures back in April, or five years ago, you can still upload them.

Help us show off your local history! And if you don't have any photos of the UK, check here to see if there is a corresponding competition running in your country. This is an international effort.

MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Participating countries in 2014
MichaelMaggs, you forgot to mention that Wiki Loves Monuments is taking place in quite a few other countries too. Have fun! Multichill (talk) 14:31, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
See my last two sentences :) MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:41, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

This is a UK specific competition ("Calling UK photographers" is in the title), so is the village pump the best place for this? I would have thought a targeted geonotice would be more useful, and it avoids the temptation for us to see another 30+ announcements added here for all the other countries. If someone wants to start a discussion about the WLM programme and its competitions, or indeed to ask for help with them, that's more the sort of thing that the scope defined at the top of this page covers. -- (talk) 14:53, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes there will be an CentralNotice banner this year, that is my job. Romaine (talk) 20:52, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for getting the banner up. It seems odd to have this large Commons focused programme headlined as a Wikipedia competition. -- (talk) 05:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

There are probably good reasons for having September only as the period for uploading photos for the contest. But in general, there should be information about WLM much earlier than the last few days of August. People need to know about WLM during the summer. I realize that it doesn't matter so much in more southern parts of the world, where the autumn doesn't come as early or hardly at all like it does in Norway where I am. But at least here, September comes with more difficult light, more risk of bad weather, and for the few people who happen to know about WLM, a sudden hurry to take as many photos as they can during a fairly short period. Of course, people take photos earlier in the year as well, but if they don't know about the contest, it depends pretty much on good luck if they have happened to photograph buildings and monuments suited for WLM. Blue Elf (talk) 08:30, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Blue Elf, there is no international team this year so the organization and planning is messy and there is barely any coordination between the individual countries. Subject of this topic is a good example of the lack of coordination. It will come down to how well individual countries can organize and advertise the contest. Quality will differ a lot. Multichill (talk) 09:52, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Ouch, I'm sorry to hear this. I had expected coordination, particularly between chapters funding these programmes, to have improved since I sat in on meetings in 2012 and 2013. -- (talk) 10:01, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Fae, In your effort to drive home a point about how bad things are nowadays you have chosen wording that will mislead. The meetings you may have sat in on in 2012 did not result in a positive outcome for the UK (we did not take part in WLM in 2012). And in 2013 you were not involved in the UK organization. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:07, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Michael. I have said nothing about whether things are "bad nowadays", only that I have expected the programme to have improved, I also said nothing about the failure of the UK chapter to be involved in 2012; in fact my comment above was not even UK specific, that is your spin to turn this into a UK chapter issue. Please avoid putting words in my mouth or taking the opportunity to malign my character.
As the current Chairman of Wikimedia UK I expect you to get your facts straight when making public statements about a past Chairman. You are pontificating about meetings that you were not part of, as you were neither a trustee, nor on the board during the meetings I refer to. If you want to waste your time trawling through meeting minutes in order to prove my statement is correct, please knock yourself out, I have more useful ways to spend my time.
Thanks for your interest in what I have to say, however I would feel a lot happier if your charity would correctly and promptly respond to my DPA request, or my complaint about the misleading statements made to voting members of the UK charity during the recent AGM, which you appear incapable of showing sufficient leadership on to actually make the effort to pick up your phone to talk to me about man to man, rather than throwing away our charitable donated funds on eye-wateringly expensive lawyers, to "defend" the charity against simple questions of governance from someone who spent enormous amounts of time and energy setting it up before passing it to your trusted hands. -- (talk) 08:47, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
This has spun off-topic, so I will take it to your talk page. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:39, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

August 31

San Francisco?

 
San Francisco?

After a long pause, these last couple days were uploaded new CC-zero photos from Unsplash.com, now 180 185 in total. Identifying the location is often a challenge (because it is so po-mo and hip to withhold data about media you post, right?), but this one I think I can bet it is in San Francisco, California, U.S.A. Tell tale slopes and the track of the cable cars… No defenitive evidence, though. Anyone to confirm? -- Tuválkin 15:08, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

It sure is. You're looking down Moraga Street from the Moraga Steps (or possibly Grand View Park, but it seems less likely given the 46mm focal length) in the aptly named Sunset District. LX (talk, contribs) 17:00, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Great, LX, thank you! Can you check if the new categorization is accurate, please? -- Tuválkin 19:06, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Looks reasonable. LX (talk, contribs) 14:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Africa

Hello

We (a bunch of people) are launching a photographic contest to be held across the African continent in October and November. It is meant to become an annual contest, with a theme changing every year. This year theme is "Cuisine" :)
I opened a beginning of a page here Commons:Wiki Loves Africa and there is a meta page m:Wiki Loves Africa. I am looking for contributors who would like to get involved in the whole contest. Please join if you are interested ! Anthere (talk) 23:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I want to stress that, based on experience from past such “Wiki loves whatever” drives, if participants upload media that is unrelated to African cuisine (or even unrelated to Africa at all), that may be a reason to exclude said items from this year’s Commons:Wiki Loves Africa contest, but it is not a reason to have said items deleted from Commons — anything in scope is in scope. Otherwise, good luck with this initiative! -- Tuválkin 11:09, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Well said.... Anthere (talk)

September 01

WLM 2014 Participation from India

Hi, India is not participating in the 'Wiki Loves Monuments 2014'. Can I participate in the 'WLM 2014', from India this year? I asked previously here and today I uploaded this image and showing the 'No or incorrect country code indicated in the "Wiki Loves Monuments 2014" template! -- Biswarup Ganguly (talk) 05:02, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

@Biswarup Ganguly: that's right, it is only possible to contribute WLM photos from participating countries. You may upload your photos outside WLM, or save the photos for the case that India will take part next year. --A.Savin 10:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Shorter WLM: You may have photos you could donate right now, but you may want to upload them only later, at the same time as anyone else, causing a delay in availability of ssaid photo, contributing to a bottleneck surge of information that will more likely remain uncategorized, and risking your photo will be deleted under hasty DRs focusing on misguided WLM-scope criteria. -- Tuválkin 11:18, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

DataCheck

Because of some of the feedback on Multimedia Viewer, and as a possible methodology to improve our existing Machine-readable data and considering the likelihood of moving some stuff into actual Structured data, I have started a user script called User:TheDJ/datacheck.js. This is a VERY early version of the script, I have VERY little time to work on it, but the goals are thus:

  • To make visible to contributors what information is on a description page, that would not require a user to visit the file description page and read it from top to bottom.
  • To explore more of the restraints and possible improvement areas for our current Machine-readable data.
  • To make this a Gadget, first for Commons, but later for other wikis
  • Hopefully to use it to move the extracted data to Structured data at some point (a bit like how we have the "Add {{Information}}-template" gadget right now), for cases where that would be hard to do with bots.

There is a screenshot of the current output here. I would not suggest you install this tool just yet, because it surely will be a bit annoying right now, but I would love to hear some feedback, your ideas for how such a tool should look and be interacted with as an editor and possible collaborators on the tool. —TheDJ (Not WMF) (talkcontribs) 09:51, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Public domain for Germany - 18th century painting

I'm lost and confused trying to figure out the correct licensing tag for File:WP Ehrenstrahl - Karl XII.jpg, a painting made in the 18th century (related to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Maria_Ehrenstrahl article). I don't understand the different variations of the templates and the more I've tried to research the confused I am becoming. Can someone help me? Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 09:53, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, this is regarding a Swedish artist -- but I pulled the image down from a German article and that's where my confusion started. I know what to use for Sweden. Thanks anyway.--CaroleHenson (talk) 10:09, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Jmabel ! talk 16:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Puncturing device to hold tokens or documents in order

 
What’s that thing on the right?

What is the English name for this kind of puncturing/holding device to hold numbered tokens or documents in order? I added a red Category:Receipt hooks for it to the photo on the right, but better ideas are needed. -- Tuválkin 11:02, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

In Britain these are known as "bill hooks", and are sold as such. Slightly confusingly the word "billhook" is a type of pruning knife. See http://www.yourdictionary.com/billhook -- (talk) 11:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
en:Spindle (stationery) LX (talk, contribs) 15:04, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm with LX for what we'd call it in the States. Does anyone know if that is also understood in the UK? - Jmabel ! talk 16:41, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't think "spindle" is a common term in the UK for this item despite the film ; neither is "bill hook". I think "spike" is the most common usage, as in "his story was spiked", as in rejection of a journalist's copy. For our purposes, "spindle" is OK with an appropriate explanation. Rodhullandemu (talk) 17:06, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 
A British "bill hook" with a cork on top.
I've had one of these on my desk for the last 25 years (in London), I have never heard it being called a spindle (note how poorly sourced the en.wp article is). I think "spike" would be understood, as I have heard "spike this" being used as a phrase, even though a bill hook itself is not referred to in this American way. Mine is literally a spike, they are sometimes made with a curve at the top, I keep a cork on the dangerously pointy bit; a nod to health and safety. P.S. Rodhullandemu you may want to look up bill hooks in connection to the famous Two Ronnies 'Fork Handles' sketch. That's how British the term is.   -- (talk) 17:12, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I think I could probably recite the "Fork Handles" sketch verbatim, I've seen it so many times. But I think avoiding the confusion between "bill hooks" and "billhooks" would be wise. PS, that wasn't the original ending for the sketch. Rodhullandemu (talk) 17:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I often make in-jokes with my husband about how many forks? and sometimes we smile just stressing 'andles. I suspect this is a bit of a give-away for how old we are, the sort of age where you realize that you can name more actors that have passed away in films you remember seeing the first time around than living ones.   -- (talk) 17:39, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Guys, this has been as fascinating as inconclusive. I changed red Category:Receipt hooks to red Category:Bill spikes and tried (unsuccessfully) to add to it more images, based on your apports. F.W.I.W., no luck in searches for this using words in other languages. Seems that this item has been absent in our otherwise admirable offorts in uploading and/or categorizing/describing. -- Tuválkin 19:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
To be honest, for me these never had a name, it was just the thing you stuck the top copys too; ours was just a long nail hammered through a block of wood. Receipt spike, turns up a fair few appropriate ghits image wise.--KTo288 (talk) 21:38, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I know it as a 'prikker' in Dutch (a 'pricker' if you translate it litteraly) - Jcb (talk) 22:29, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

September 02

Lori dialect

 

Hi, This map is from the same source. The settlement Bakhtiari note! This section is disputed !

Encyclopedia Iranica (BAḴTĪĀRĪ TRIBE): They are Twelver Shi'ites and speak a Lori dialect.

In this paper, the language of Lori. This is not a contradiction? Surely, this is a contradiction ! and this map The map that you see now. There is a big problem. Drawback is the Bakhtiari has introduced. Bakhtiari Lurs are part of the map to see their location. It also acknowledges the Encyclopedia Iranica (top). Iranian users to eliminate their personal tastes map to show the truth. The source of the displayed Peoples living in Iran is wrong. The correct version is, Thanks :)--Meysam (talk) 09:45, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I can´t say anything to that specific dispute you are describing as I have no middle-east or ethnolinguistic expertise. But perhaps a short explanation how I understand maps at Commons are helpful to you nontheless (all being my personal opinions without having any autority at all):
A map at Commons is "wrong" if it does not follow the source data it refers to or the original it is based upon. So, to be "right", a map must be true to its source, but not necessarily true to reality. Why is that? Because every map depicts reality as interpreted by the map-maker and therefore always reflects his (or his organization´s) point of view.
If two relevant sources differ in their view of reality, one way to solve this is to include both views in the map - e.g. "dot the line, avoid the pain" is a good map-maker´s rule for disputed borders. Alternatively, at Commons, simply provide two maps, each showing the view of their respective sources. Which one to use is the user´s decision, Commons´ role is just to give that choice, not to decide about the right view.
This makes it important that all maps´ description pages clearly state their source, preferably not only as the file source from where it was downloaded but whenever possible also the original source of the content. And it means that maps are almost never to be overwritten by a "correct" or "updated" version: Make (or ask nicely for) an additional one and leave the other one be. This avoids edit-wars as well, like in the picture above that enjoyed twelve (!) reverts over time.
Best regards, --Rudolph Buch (talk) 13:05, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Is it possible to map the source data is presented two different maps? Certainly not.University of Texas, the documents and information that show that half of the people living in the West of Iran speak Farsi? All references to the subject of the West and South-West Lori Language know. We can not confuse the map with the largest in-stock selection by the user, and we learn from them. User does not have sufficient information will be wrong! The map should either be corrected or removed. --Meysam (talk) 18:05, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
As I said: If you can´t reach agreement on one map, let there be two maps. --Rudolph Buch (talk) 20:22, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Commons doesn't want to get involved in these disputes! If you have problems with a map like this, make a new one and upload it separately!--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:54, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
You can use {{Disputed map}} on the file description page, so that anybody finding the map here will be warned it does not necessarily represent the truth. But we need maps representing false views. A Wikipedia article on a conflict would benefit from maps showing the major views and could link to a gallery showing also minority views. --LPfi (talk) 12:06, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I load a new map? And if it was deleted? This problem is easy to map the source and Iranica reverted to the version, and this map! It is easy! Commons should not released false information ;) --Meysam (talk) 19:06, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Don't overwrite an existing file, and it won't get deleted.
I don't care about what you think is false information. We've learned through hard experience that fighting over things like this is divisive and unproductive waste of time. Stop arguing about what is and isn't false information and upload a new map as a new file if you're concerned about it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

This is the truth! If you do not want the truth revealed. This fact will not change. Validity of Encyclopaedia disappears. They know their people better than you how. It does not matter if the truth be shown. I wanted to contribute to the validity of Encyclopaedia :) --Meysam (talk) 10:04, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Ability to organise category images by date

To see what new images are added to the Wikilove projects, it would be useful if we could list them by most recently added. ~ R.T.G 12:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Or use catscan2 on a specific category, I used it for recent uploads like in User:Martin H./CatScan with {{User:Martin H./CatScan|1=|2=|2t=|sort=|text=|bots=}} with 1=days, 2=category name, 2t=subcategory deapth, sort=upload for sorting by upload date, text=link text, bots=Ja or Nein for yes or no. --Martin H. (talk) 14:53, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't speak c+ unfortunately :P ~ R.T.G 15:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
What I mean by that is, I am not sure if I can understand it. I have translated the text, and I can see you are giving me the template to put somewhere to set those values, but I am not sure where it would go or how it would work.. ~ R.T.G 22:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
In case its of interest, the information is also available via the API (Not very human readable though. The last bit of the url controls the category) [1]. Bawolff (talk) 04:53, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Cirrus live for all users

Hi everyone. Per the message I left last week, we've gone ahead and enabled CirrusSearch for all users by default. Load looks fine, so I don't see us rolling back for performance issues like last time :) If you have any problems at all, please do let us know on IRC (^d and manybubbles), Bugzilla (MW Extensions -> CirrusSearch component) or on mw.org. Chad (WMF) (talk) 16:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Grants to improve your project

Apologies for English. Please help translate this message.

Greetings! The Individual Engagement Grants program is accepting proposals for funding new experiments from September 1st to 30th. Your idea could improve Wikimedia projects with a new tool or gadget, a better process to support community-building on your wiki, research on an important issue, or something else we haven't thought of yet. Whether you need $200 or $30,000 USD, Individual Engagement Grants can cover your own project development time in addition to hiring others to help you.

Why does this page look like it was designed for a MySpace profile or an eBay stall? What’s wrong with clean layout, which is acheived by skin defaults and simple wiki-text? Why developers’ and staff time/wages was given to work on this design instead of on tasks for which the WMF is actually mandated? When will this madness end, really? -- Tuválkin 19:05, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Please help categorize my images by mass moving them to Category:Krzeszów

So it seems that the Commonist with its usual mass error reproduction failed to categorize my images, putting them in Category:Media needing categories as of 1 September 2014 rather than Category:Krzeszów where I intended. I tried to fix this by mass moving them with Cat-a-lot, but get a weird error: "The following 200 pages were skipped, because the page was already in the category: File:Krzeszów june 2014 129.JPG File:Krzeszów june 2014 128.JPG etc." Either Cat-a-lot is borked today, or it cannot deal with the "Media needing categories". I have no idea how to recategorize my 340 images from that day other than manually, and I am not willing to waste one or two hours on that. Hopefully someone knows the right tool to use it to fix that mess. Heck, it might be easier for me to reupload them under a different name... which just would show how badly messed up (unfriendly) our recategorizing functionality is. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 05:52, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Category:Krzeszów is a disambiguation (hidden) category, and as such files tagged with it are still considered to be uncategorized. I suggest you go to there and use Cat-a-Lot to dissiminate its contents (340 files) into the proper category for each:
That will automaticly remove Category:Media needing categories as of 1 September 2014 from these filepages. (Speaking about user-friendliness: Your filenames aren’t.) Also, the idea that you would even consider re-uploading a batch of photos just because there’s something wrong with the categorization, causing mass duplication, is pretty terrifying. -- Tuválkin 07:03, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
@Tuvalkin: Can you recategorize those images to Category:Krzeszów, Lower Silesian Voivodeship then? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 07:25, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Sure,   done. These still need to be further categorized, though, not only dissiminated further down this category (I see a subcat Category:Churches in Krzeszów that seems to fit many of these photos) but also by adding more categories, such as Category:Religious art in Poland; I added the no-brainer Category:June 2014 in Poland, but you can do better — it will take more than 2 or 3 hours, though. -- Tuválkin 07:38, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
2-3 hours I don't have, unfortunately. I will add proper categories eventually, through sometimes it takes me months to fit this into my schedule. Thanks for helping! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:59, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Can you do the basic stuff? Turn File:Krzeszów june 2014 013.JPG uprigth? Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:20, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Eventually when I review them, yes. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:59, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Endless looping

When I start the recently created Category:Poprad-Tatry railway station (Tatra Electric Railways) I get the pictures but also a permanently turning circle (busy). Is there some script running wild in the background? I use a Firefox browser.Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:36, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Where is that "permanently turning circle"? Somewhere on the page? Somewhere in the browser UI? Your mouse pointer? In any case, I cannot reproduce with Firefox 31. Your browser's developer console (Network tab) might show where it's stuck loading. --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 13:38, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
My mouse pointer. I just tested it and it no longer occurs. case closed.Smiley.toerist (talk) 17:45, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
  This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. -- Tuválkin 18:56, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Photos from Verified page

Hi, I asked a famous actor to make some photos under CC-BY 3.0 and he accepted, he will write this license in photo description on his Verified Facebook page, Is it enough? --Ibrahim.ID 22:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

  • I think that should suffice. If FB accepted their evidence of who they are, I can't think why we should doubt it. - Jmabel ! talk 01:23, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

September 04

Kingdom of the Netherlands

I notice that Category:Aruba, Category:Curaçao and Category:Sint Maarten, Dutch Caribbean‎ aren't part of any country in Commons, since Category:Kingdom of the Netherlands isn't recognised as a country. However by "country", Commons seems to mean sovereign state, since Category:Puerto Rico, Category:Norfolk Island, Category:Hong Kong, Category:England etc., are considered part of other countries. Doesn't this mean that the Kingdom of the Netherlands should be considered a country in Commons, and Category:Netherlands should be considered a subnational entity? --ghouston (talk) 22:15, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Strictly following the legal situation (as I understand it) this might seem correct. But following common understanding I doubt that it would lead to desirable results if Category:Netherlands was moved to Category:Subnational regions in Europe and lots of subcategories were rearranged along that line. I´d fear a complete loss of usability for the sake of a little more of legal correctness. Before anyone starts on such a project, I´d like to be sure that all implications are understood and that it will be maintainable also in the long run without needing comprehensive expertise for netherlandish state law to handle it. --Rudolph Buch (talk) 14:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't think there'd be any problem finding the Netherlands, since Kingdom of the Netherlands would be listed under N in Category:Countries of Europe and Category:Countries of the Caribbean. However it would be like the UK, where you have a lot of categories "X in the UK" which only contain X in England, X in Wales, etc. The Kingdom of the Netherlands has a mililtary, foreign relations, and citizenship while the component countries don't. On the other hand, only the European part of the Netherlands is a full member of the EU. --ghouston (talk) 00:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, there are other alternatives. We could merge Category:Kingdom of the Netherlands and Category:Netherlands, call it Netherlands and say it's an abbreviation for Kingdom of the Netherlands. It would be less accurate, but would be mostly good enough for the purposes of a media repository. Alternatively, we could ask the Kingdom of the Netherlands to change its structure to something more convenient. --ghouston (talk) 23:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Merging the categories to Netherlands seems the best choice, other monarcies of Europe have similarly just Category:Spain or Category:Sweden. MKFI (talk) 06:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
But Spain and the Kingdom of Spain are the same thing, and likewise for Sweden. The Kingdom of the Netherlands is more like the UK, a federation of 4 countries, so by merging them it would be like not having a Commons category for England. It would be more convenient, it just means there'd be no equivalent Commons category for w:en:Netherlands, and there would be some inaccuracies such as adding the Kingdom of the Netherlands as a member of the EU. --ghouston (talk) 00:00, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Please have a look at d:Q55 and d:Q29999 and the connected articles. It's rather complicated, don't merge it. Multichill (talk) 19:34, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, there are separate entries in Wikipedia / Wikidata for the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Netherlands. I wouldn't call it complicated though. So back to my original query, we need to consider the Kingdom of the Netherlands a country, for Commons categorization purposes, and Netherlands a subnational entity? --ghouston (talk) 22:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
No, that's incorrect. The Netherlands is a country, not a subnational entity. The Kingdom of the Netherlands is sovereign, but not a country. Jcb (talk) 22:29, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Then perhaps my understanding of Category:Countries is incorrect. It's not actually a collection of soverign states, and such a category doesn't exist? And the category Category:Geography of the Kingdom of the Netherlands is therefore incorrectly categorised under Category:Geography by country? --ghouston (talk) 22:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I think it might work if we can also consider the Kingdom of the Netherlands to be a country. I don't see how it's any different to the United Kindgom. Then whenever the Kingdom of the Netherlands appears in a "by country" category, the equivalent categories of its component countries can be reduced to subcategories. --ghouston (talk) 23:10, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
A similar case would be Category:Kingdom of Denmark, in which Category:Denmark together with Category:Faroe Islands and Category:Greenland are sub categories. Category:Kingdom of Denmark is in Category:Kingdoms but is not categorised in any of the country categories of the categorisation tree. We could do the same for Kingdom of the Netherlands.--KTo288 (talk) 13:15, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

August 26

Uncategorized categories

Hi, does anyone know a way to update Special:Uncategorizedcategories more frequent than once every three or four days? (The page itself isn´t editable and the explanation at Special:SpecialPages not really helpful.) Or is this a question of server load and does not run more often for good reasons? --Rudolph Buch (talk) 21:21, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

  • I think precisely the latter. - Jmabel ! talk 01:20, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Like many special pages, the way it finds out which pages is somewhat complicated for the servers to do, so it is done on separate servers, at regular intervals, instead of on-demand on the main servers. I don't think that's likely to change (At most someone could create an alternative tool on tool labs that's updated more often [2]. The sql query itself takes about 2 minutes to run) However what we can do is change the special page, so that the moment a previously uncategorized category becomes categorized, it is marked as struck out on the list. [I should note, that pages which should be categorized but had some snafu with job queue and aren't really in the right category will still show up as uncategorized until null edit]. Bawolff (talk) 03:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
It´s not an important issue, so please don´t spend effort on it. My thought was just that it isn´t the best user experience when most points of a maintenance list are already taken care of and nothing indicates which entries still need attention and which don´t - especially as Special:Uncategorizedcategories is listed somehow prominently at the Community portal main page. But I agree that this is a very low priority fix. --Rudolph Buch (talk) 14:40, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Reporting Right to be Forgotten notices to commons

Hi all,

I recently made a post on here about some notices that the Wikimedia Foundation received from google notifying us that they had removed certain links from view when you search for specific phrases. In that notice I linked to the pages in question and to the page on the WMF wiki where we had posted the notices. This was done in line with what we usually do when we receive and carry out a DMCA takedown notice. The notice was removed, along with a block threat, because of an apparent belief I/we were attempting to cause a Streisand effect. The goal of posting that message was to alert users to the take downs, not to try and cause some problem but so that the pages could be looked at by the community if they so desired and take any action that they felt warranted (or no action). For example another volunteer just poked me about an image in question because the user who uploaded it had uploaded 2 images tagged as 'self' made but with two different names (making it likely at least one was a copyvio).

I'm happy not to post if Commons doesn't think it necessary, doesn't find it helpful or finds it harmful. However now that the original notice was removed from the VP I am opening a separate discussion to work with the Commons community to find the best process. I'm open to other options but right now I see a couple:

  • Post a generic message which links to the pages in question and links to the notices on WMFwiki.
  • Post a generic message which links to the notices on WMFwiki (which are, purposely, not searchable at the moment) but does not link to the pages so as to make it less likely to cause a Streisand effect.
  • Post nothing here.

Obviously other options could be there that I'm not seeing as well. Jalexander--WMF 03:20, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jalexander, I agree with the removal of the notice and as I mentioned against it, I was concerned that we might be causing personal distress even though the photograph was not of a person. I spent around 10 minutes looking at the material and trying to understand the background and failed to understand how drawing attention to the RTBF in this case helped the aims of this project by adding to the educational value of the media in question. As far as I could ascertain in a few minutes there was no public person involved and the media has no exceptional educational value (and unlike a DMCA notice action, it remains on Commons for reuse unaffected). As your notice gave no special indication of why this case was exceptional, it was fair of the admin removing the notice to conclude that the action here was to deliberately cause a Streisand Effect as part of a public campaign to demonstrate how RTBF actions may be ineffective.
Based on what I have seen of the WMF's stance on this in other discussions, the WMF appears keen to gain a reputation, or for its employees to gain a reputation, by publicly challenging RTBF. Fair enough, if you believe this is why the Foundation exists, good for you. However there has been no mandate from the Commons community that you are representing the interests of our project by using it for this political purpose, as opposed for example, to using the Wikimedia blog to do the same thing.
Based on your message above, I agree with some key points you have made and would rephrase them as:
  • Where Commons is hosting RTBF related media, we should avoid causing any harm or distress to private individuals.
  • Courtesy deletion may be appropriate, particularly where a RTBF is from a private individual, and this should be considered before publicly drawing attention to media files. Courtesy deletion has no firm scope on Commons, however there are norms established based on many past successful and appropriate deletions and it is fair to presume that many RTBF requests have a context that this would be an ethical response.
  • Where a RTBF is from a highly public person or company, and there is no credible claim of harm or distress to an individual, whether a subject or photographer, it may be appropriate to discuss that against any related media on this project. Some examples may add to the educational value of this project as a result.
I suggest that the WMF (or a volunteer interested in taking this on) considers writing up a brief and plain English proposal for the Commons community to discuss, so that we can establish our policy on when we take care to avoid the Streisand Effect for RTBF actions (which happen off-wiki at the current time) and where creating public notices and discussion for some media can be fairly claimed to add to the educational aims of this project without causing unnecessary harm or distress. -- (talk) 07:13, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I share Fae's view that advocacy for/against RTBF isn't part of Commons mission. The WMF should use their own web pages for such if they wish. I also agree that deliberately causing a Streisland effect [should someone do so] in order to somehow ridicule the RTBF system is morally dubious, to say the least. Recent cases where images became so notorious they could no longer be deleted is not how I would wish WMF to fight censorship or stupid government decisions. Commons primary purpose is simply to host free educational media, not a tool with which to demonstrate how uncensored we are [no matter how important some feel that to be]. There are real people behind these requests. -- Colin (talk) 07:44, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I concur with Colin. In particular I disagree with the notion that this is comparable to DMCA notices. For one, a DMCA notice concerns the removal of image material from this (community-built) site as opposed to an action by a third party, so there is a significantly higher interest of the Commons community. Second, a DMCA notice by design implies that the material concerned is removed. However, if Google removes a link to page X, that doesn't remove page X. Prominently linking to page X afterwards is a deliberate attempt to raise awareness of that page (whereas with posting a DMCA notice, you merely point out that something has been removed), effectively punishing the person for exercising a right granted to them under EU law. I wholeheartedly disagree with the ECJ's decision, but fighting it at the expense of individual citizens is a bad idea. (I'm not saying that's anybody's intention, but it's the effect.) — Pajz (talk) 13:38, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
@Jalexander-WMF:, can you pass this message up to WMF Legal and the WMF Board.
The opposition to the so-called Right to be Forgotten by the WMF, the WMF Board and individual board members is well-known and well-established. I asked questions of the WMF Board for an answer at Wikimania, but they are still unanswered. People who lodge a request with Google are in essence making a complaint about themselves and how they are portrayed on WMF projects. This requires us to afford them the same courtesy and respect that our projects were expected to afford Jimmy Wales.
That Google has notified the WMF of the requests is one thing. For the WMF to publish the requests is another thing entirely. The WMF does not know upon what basis those requests were made. For all the WMF knows, there could be security and safety concerns at play. The other issue with the publication of these requests is that the media is likely to pick up on them, and that will create a Streisand effect for the individuals concerned. This in itself is not acceptable behaviour by the organisation, but it is the obvious end game for the WMF -- To have these notices publicised as much and as widely as possible. Please do not involve the good name of Wikimedia Commons in this dubious campaign.
In this round of notices we are faced with two different issues. The first notice is that the person obviously wants to exercise a right to vanish. It is also obvious that they may not be aware of how to go about it. We do not make a point of publicising such requests to the media. The second notice obviously sees the person wanting their name to be removed from a photo. Yes it's a little harder to do due to licencing issues but it can still be done.
People will use their real names on our projects all the time, sometimes without knowing the consequences. People should not be punished for doing so, and what the WMF is doing is no better than doxing and making it harder on the people who wish to vanish from our projects and whom may not be familiar that vanishing is possible and how to go about it.
The WMF should rethink its actions, especially as it pertains to being kind and respectful towards people who have issues with how they are portrayed on our projects, even when they have portrayed themselves. russavia (talk) 17:19, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
If Google thinks it is worth passing this information to WMF then WMF shouldn't be withholding it from us. They are indeed free to keep a page of results, and that action is appreciated. It is however true that Commons should not treat material any differently based on whether Google indexes it or not, which is a private company's decision (or ought to be), and specially categorizing it or featuring it here for example would be the beginning of treating it differently. If someone at WMF or a generic user cobbles together a montage of Commons photos banned from Google and uploads that to illustrate, say, the range of material censored, then I strongly support we retain that file. Wnt (talk) 12:24, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Login unification and what should follow

Hello!

Some time ago, the logins on all Wikimedia projects have been unified, making the user name and password the same. The different project sides now remember the users when there has been one login at any of them in the same browser.

I suggest that as the users are now unified, there should be one user page per language as default. It may or may not be reasonable to create diverging user pages, but the default should be that, if there is no user page defined & the user starts to make edits, they should be redirected to the Commons user page instead of showing a link in red colour. With this modification, not only the user login but also the information about the user will be unified.

I go even one step further and propose to unify also the contributions page to one, with the additional field of "Project". When viewing the contributions page in a project, the default filter should be equal to that project; i.e. if user XY opens their contribution page in Wiktionary, say, they would see only the changes made by themselve in this project.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sae1962 (talk • contribs) 09:56, 4 September 2014‎ (UTC)
Hello Sae1962. Thank you for the suggestion. This is something that some of us have been trying to promote for a while now. Can I invite you and anyone else who is interested to look at meta:UserWiki (proposed by me) and meta:Global-Wiki (proposed by RicordiSamoa), whoich both attempt to address this very important issue. With Global Wiki, each users home userpage would act as a default userpage on every content-wiki unless the user chooses to create a specific local page. With UserWiki, all user accounts would be centralized so you would have one userpage, one user talkpage, one watchlist (separated by project), one contributions page (separated by project) but all contributions would still be credited locally in each project. Please feel free to add your comments, support or opposition to the meta pages. Green Giant (talk) 10:42, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Not all users are unified on all projects. The WMF probably needs to redirect some resources from unwanted pet projects and get to work on mw:SUL finalisation before anything like this can go ahead. It was supposed to be done in May. As in May last year. But I guess other things were more important. :-( LX (talk, contribs) 17:05, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Is that hint of sarcasm I detect? Yes, May 2013 seems like an eternity ago, but I am assured that at least some efforts are being made towards this goal but individually. Green Giant (talk) 18:04, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Spring 2015 is being aimed for, roughly, at this time. There's a few changes to things like renaming that have been put in place (with local bureaucrats shortly losing the ability to rename, and Global Renaming now existing via Meta). Engineering is supposed to be finished by the end of September to allow testing and planning to proceed, and all indications are it's pretty much on target right now. The biggest issue is likely to be trying to get people voluntarily renamed and pages moved without too much trouble (and db lag). Nick (talk) 18:55, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the updates. Yes, the 14 months of not even getting started after the intended finish does seem like a long time, but it's good to see this is finally getting some work done. LX (talk, contribs) 20:20, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Of note, is that in that time CentralAuth had to be rewritten first, on which the SUL work is rather dependent. —TheDJ (Not WMF) (talkcontribs) 10:25, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

September 05

Is this real?

 
CGI or RL?

While many of the CC-zero photos from Unsplash we have are a mystery in terms of location, as the “minimalist” site and often the original sources pride themselves of serving “mood”-only photography and whithhold details about each image, this one poses an additional challenge: Is this real? Or is it a rendered image? Or heavily/lightly doctored from a less “perfect” real photo original? It is a fantastic shot, to be sure, and if it is not direct photography great effort was put in make it realistic. What’s your opinion? -- Tuválkin 11:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Google Translate says "Vista up to a pentagonal kortŝafto with multetaĝaj balconies of raw concrete where it grows decorative pendplantoj." Which is about what it looks like. Wnt (talk) 12:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
(interspersed reply) That’s the description I wrote myself, as the uploader. Don’t read too much into it. -- Tuválkin 12:39, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Is there a reason why concrete balconies on a damp foggy day wouldn't look like this? Wnt (talk) 12:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
I’m not sure. The whole thing is eerie — an apparently well maintained parking silo (?) with no visible signage, nothing but these freakishly long hanging vines? They look great to me but wouldn’t these be trimmed off by any typical manager or janitor? I cannot see any obvious cloning or rendering artifacts, but still. I hope it is real and that someone can readily identify the location! -- Tuválkin 12:45, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
I guess this is in Manila, Philippines (based on Googling the photographer's name). Lupo 13:57, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Process to request removal/deletion of material?

Process to request removal/deletion of material?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Password-Anon (talk • contribs) 02:58, 6 September 2014‎ (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests? -- Asclepias (talk) 03:57, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata links to Commons (state of play)

I've posted a summary of the state of Wikidata links to Commons, over at

d:Wikidata:Project chat#Links to Commons - state of play

There are also more more detailed pages at

d:Wikidata:WikiProject Structured Data for Commons/Phase 1 progress/Statistics
d:Wikidata:WikiProject Structured Data for Commons/Phase 1 progress/Links

Perhaps unsurprisingly, one thing that stands out is how many mainspace-like Wikidata items link to Categories here: almost 100,000. (However, to put this into perspective, there are also almost 640,000 mainspace-like items which identify Commons categories, but do not have direct sitelinks to them). There are also some mainspace items that link to Files, Templates, Creator templates and Institution templates here.

Unfortunately such cross-namespace links go against the way Wikidata is set up, cf Commons:Wikidata/Commons-Wikidata sitelinks. Each Wikidata item can only link to a single target on each sister project. To get round this it has evolved a parallel system of article-like items linking to articles, and category-like items linking to categories. This is a pain for us, as most commonly we would like to see Wikipedia articles linking to Commons categories, and vice-versa. However as templates and other software increasingly come to rely on this pattern, it is essential that the category-to-category and article-to-article rule is observed, if the structure is to remain stable, predictable and traversable.

There are things coming up that should make conforming with this rule less of a problem. Firstly, there is work going on so that the interwiki link sidebars on Wikipedia articles should soon include a section "in other projects" that should link each article (and category) to both a Commons gallery and a Commons category, if they are identified on the article's Wikidata item using Wikidata properties Commons category (P373) and Commons gallery (P935) respectively. There is currently a discussion open at VPP to confirm whether this is indeed something that we would like.

Secondly, we could develop templates to put at the top of categories here on Commons to automatically draw from Wikidata to label the subject of the category in multiple languages, and present any Wikipedia article that is available, in either the current language, or in all languages. This would require Wikidata "Phase 2" to be activated for Commons (i.e. the ability for templates here to draw from the immediately corresponding item on Wikidata), which User:Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) has said she is now happy to activate whenever we choose to ask for it. And of course, it would also require such templates to be written. As a start, it would be useful to identify what templates on Commons already offer this sort of functionality 'by hand' -- and in particular, whether there are templates that offer specialised versions of the functionality for specialised situations, that we should be careful to recognise.

One other thing that struck me was how comparatively few Commons pages, Help pages, Template pages and Module pages appear to be linked to corresponding pages on other projects (compared to the stats for the total number of such pages). It might be worth having a drive to identify and interwiki more such pages that ought to be linked. -- Jheald (talk) 09:53, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Mamkhor-Garg Gotra

MAMKHOR IS VILLAGE OF GARG GOTRAS -- 13:23, 6 September 2014 Sumeet shukla1100

Is this relevant to something on Commons that you want to see changed? -- AnonMoos (talk) 13:53, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
This appears to be a Wikipedia edit by someone who hasn't understood that this isn't Wikipedia. Compare the sentence to their user page at en:User:Sumeet shukla1100. Green Giant (talk) 02:22, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Green Giant (talk) 02:22, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to remove images that contain material that promotes hatred of religion and/or women?

Is there already a policy in place? Please delete the "BurnSiduri" image it represents hatred of both religion and women and must be against the TOS for this website I hope. -- 03:41, 6 September 2014 User:StopReligiousHate

That's not generally possible, since at a minimum, educationally-relevant historic hatemongering images can have a valid function in terms of Commons' purpose and scope. However, gratuitous and pointless modern hatemongering without discernible value should certainly be discouraged (we could start with Latuff). Anyway, you haven't fully specified what you're objecting to... AnonMoos (talk) 04:19, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
The image was deleted this morning as a copyright violation, a good reason for speedy deletion.
With respect to the general title of this thread, I would be against keeping modern images on Commons, or encouraging their upload, where they have a pre-existing context of use for trolling or use in an apparent hate campaign unless there were highly credible and demonstrable grounds for educational value, such as reuse on other Wikimedia projects. Commons does host images that can be very distressing, including images that were used against minorities of all types and religions, however these normally have a strong and documented historic context, such as wartime propaganda. More experienced Commons contributors take a great deal of care to ensure these difficult images have neutral and appropriate context on the image pages. Complaints about images of this type should always be treated seriously and sympathetically.
Even when a "difficult" image is conventionally within scope, there is no issue with a complainant raising a deletion request in order to challenge and test the rationale for hosting the image on this project. I encourage anyone with concern of this type to use the "Nominate for deletion" option which can be found in the list of tools in the standard left hand navigation bar. -- (talk) 06:54, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
That sounds nice in the abstract, but some pointless modern hatemongering images seem to have their vocal defenders, especially when it comes to hatemongering against Jews -- there are anti-Jewish images on Commons which would probably be zapped instantaneously if they were antagonistic against any other racial, ethnic, and/or religious grouping. To start with, I've pointed out several times that the presence of the side-curls in File:Cry-wolf.png makes absolutely zero sense in the context of any political point Latuff is allegedly making -- and in fact doesn't appear to make too much sense as anything other than Latuff indulging himself in his bigoted contempt for Judaism as a religion -- but there's zero chance that that image would be deleted if I were to nominate it for deletion... AnonMoos (talk) 11:54, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm aware of your example, having touched past discussions about this image. I am aware of hateful images of racism and incredibly disturbing images of atrocities that we include and while I understand their educational value, frankly I never want to look at them again myself. Our mission includes having examples of sometimes disgusting or disturbing images, because illustrating these topics is included in our mission to provide education in these difficult areas.
If you feel we are hosting too many of the Latuff images, or that you can put a case that the educational rationale is flawed, then you should consider raising a DR even if we have had others previously. So long as DRs are not being raised so often that they become a burden on our community, it should be a good thing to revisit and test how our shared mission (and subsidiary policies) needs to be balanced against ethical behaviour along with ensuring that Commons overall is demonstrably balanced and neutral in approach, even if individual images can never be. -- (talk) 05:18, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for trying to be the voice of reason, but any long-term observer of Commons with a good memory would have to conclude that the "fix is in" with respect to Latuff. I don't have any particular interest in kicking the hornet's nest right now.. AnonMoos (talk) 15:27, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

The David Condrey saga

  • Please see Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#The David Condrey saga--Coin945 (talk) 12:30, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Summarizing quickly, because the section title is hardly revealing: long discussion about someone who was blocked, and about penis pictures "Some of these... used in articles of various Wikipedias and for example images from Gray's Anatomy..." but also apparently some "...poor quality stock photos demonstrably lifted directly off the web..." - Jmabel ! talk 15:57, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Google Maps question

Charleston, South Carolina has one of the country's largest National Register districts. I've been methodically going through the files in "Buildings in Charleston, South Carolina" and adding tags for both the location of the buildings themselves as well as the location from which the photos were snapped. Over a couple of months, I've made it through all the streets starting with A to F. But, when I click on the "see this and other nearby locations" link on any image's file, none of the buildings show up on the Google Map. There are a few random images from around the peninsula of Charleston that have blue pins in the map, but as far as I can tell, they are totally random images. I have checked them, and I can't identify anything about those images that is triggering their inclusion in the Google Map results that isn't also present on the building photos I've been working on. Am I missing something? Is there a special tag that I need to use so that the overlay program picks up the images that I'm supplying GPS data for?ProfReader (talk) 18:14, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

(Just love it when they say «the country».) -- Tuválkin 08:14, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Which other countries have a South Carolina? -- AnonMoos (talk) 20:30, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
That's not the question, is it? How many countries have a Chubut, a Sakha, a Hejaz? Only one each, and yet you never come a cross an uncontextualized mention of «the country» when refering to those. You know what the question is. Better try and fix it, instead of getting all testy when, once in a million times this happens, someone actually complains. -- Tuválkin 15:38, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
The use isn't "uncontextualized" when it appears in the exact same sentence that refers to a uniquely named city in that same country.ProfReader (talk) 12:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
If you don’t state the country, it is yes uncontextualized. If anyone said «Erdenet, Orkhon has one of the country's largest…» etc., it would be weird and everybody — even people who can readily identify the named toponyms (also unique) — would go «Hmm, we need to name the country here…» Exceptionalism is an ugly thing and should have no place in an international platform such as Commons. -- Tuválkin 07:25, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
If it were instead «Charleston, South Carolina has one of its country's largest National Register districts», it would still be formally bad, for needlessly omitting context, but at least would not be offensive. -- Tuválkin 07:29, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
It's offensive only to the class of people who are lined up, waiting for reasons to be offended. I might agree with you if my use were part of a Wikipedia article, but it wasn't. You're confusing a non-encyclopedia chat area of general conversation using conversational style with the underlying on-line encyclopedia. Besides, no one, in any country (exceptional or not), scrubs their writing for every instance of general references to common nouns which refer to national objects. As intelligent readers, people read not individual words, but whole passages, to develop context and meaning. People in Thailand surely say things like, "The flag is flown over the palace only when the king is in residence." They don't regularly say to one another, "The Thai flag is flown over Chitralada Palace only when King Bhumibol Adulyadej (Rama IX) is in residence." And, when the reference to the "flag" or "king" or "palace" is used in an article about Thailand being read by non-Thais, only the most purposefully blind could miss its meaning and find offense.ProfReader
Besides, you are simply wrong that you "never come across" other nations referred to in an "uncontextualized" way. How will you explain away this (totally acceptable and understandable) reference in an article about Cairo: "The French occupation was short-lived as British and Ottoman forces, including a sizable Albanian contingent, recaptured the country in 1801"? And here is a quote from the article about the Forbidden City in Beijing: "The Hall of Supreme Harmony has 10, the only building in the country to be permitted this in Imperial times." And here is a line from the entry on the Trans-Siberian railway: "In the late 19th century, the development of Siberia was hampered by poor transport links within the region, as well as with the rest of the country." And here's a reference from an entry about the Grand Post Office located in Istanbul, Turkey: "The museum informs visitors about the history of communication and telecommunication services in the country that officially began on October 23, 1840." Hmm. Apparently every country is exceptional! (talk) 13:48, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
@ProfReader: For some reason, only camera locations are shown, not object locations. Apart from that, it seems to take quite a while until the database for geocoded files is updated (see also: Commons talk:GeoCommons#Replication lag). Does anybody know who to ping about this? --El Grafo (talk) 15:58, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for confirming that it isn't just me. I was sort of expecting that the system would be updated every few hours but maybe once a week, tops. However, the images aren't showing up after nearly three months. Yikes! Oh well. Back to waiting.ProfReader (talk) 12:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Looks like there's something wrong with the database updates. User:Para has been notified, that's all we can do atm, I guess … --El Grafo (talk) 21:04, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
@ProfReader: Seems like it's been fixed. I've observed an increase of geocoded images in my area, so it seems like it's working. --El Grafo (talk) 18:42, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for whatever it was that broke the logjam. In Charleston, there are still a few that aren't showing up, but there are many more than there were a few days ago for sure.ProfReader (talk)

August 30

{{YouTube CC-BY}} and Category:Videos available on YouTube

Hi all, I've just uploaded some screenshots from YouTube videos. I've used {{YouTube CC-BY}} and, as result, the images have been categorized within Category:Videos available on YouTube. However, they're not videos, but images. Would be a way to get them categorized properly? Best regards --Discasto talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis 19:22, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

There is indeed an apparent contradiction between the introductory text of that template, which mentions "screenshot or video", and the fact that it automatically categorizes all the files in a category for videos. There is a choice from a number of solutions, depending on your opinion about the situation:
1. If you think that is is not a good idea, or that there is no really important reason, to use that particular template variant with still images, then you can avoid it and just use the ordinary Cc-by 3.0 template, and categorize the files in the "category:Still images from videos" or another proper category. IMO, it's not the particular "YouTube" variant of the CC-by 3.0 template that is important, it's the presence in the description page of the link to the source where the license is declared.
2. If you think that it is important that that same template be used both for videos and for stills extracted from videos available on YouTube, but you think that they should not be categorized in the same category, then you can request a modification to the protected template, to either:
2.1. remove the category from the template, and let users categorize each file manually in the proper videos category or still images category; or
2.2. insert in the template an optional parameter for avoiding the default video category, and let users categorize manually only the still images; or
2.3. insert in the template a required parameter, requiring users to choose between two category options, one for videos, one for still images.
3. If you think that it is important that that same template be used both for videos and for stills extracted from videos available on YouTube, but you think that it is not really a problem if the category for videos includes also files that are not videos but that are images extracted from videos, you can decide to ignore the apparent contradiction.
4. If you think that the particular template variant should be used with videos only and should never be used for still images, you can request a modification to the introductory text of the protected template to remove the words "screenshot or". Optionally, if you think it can be useful, you can also create another template variant for still images extracted from videos available on YouTube.
-- Asclepias (talk) 21:06, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Asclepias, you've done a very good summary of all the available options :-)

I don't have a strong opinion on the subject. That was the reason to ask for opinions from the community. I only have two statements: (1) using templates is useful, as it may include license information and proper category. Therefore, I'd prefer to use a template for dealing with uploads from Youtube. (2) Almost anybody uses the parameters in the templates. Therefore, I'd opt to have two templates, one for videos and other for screenshots. I can take care of them, if nobody says otherwise. Best regards --Discasto talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis 21:56, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Erm … nobody bothered to have a look at the category itself? There is an ongoing CFD …    FDMS  4    22:04, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

My fault. I didn't notice it. However, they're discussing a totally different issue. My concern is mainly about the availability of images in a category that categorizes videos. --Discasto talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis 22:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

September 03

The section headings of New York City need langswitches

The section headings of New York City need langswitches. It looks unwieldy with so many languages, so langswitches will make it look neater. But I'm not sure which names correspond to which languages? Also having langswitches allows me to add more languages, such as Chinese and Japanese. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

To answer the question about the language correlation: English, German, Polish, French, Italian (unless equivalent to French, see Generale), Spanish, Dutch, Russian. I'm not 100% sure, but I think that's what they are. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 11:06, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Most of them appear to be in the order suggested by Julian, with some overlaps such as Sport. However, the views section also has Esperanto between Spanish and Dutch. Green Giant (talk) 12:00, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. Anyway I am beginning to langswitch some of these so other languages such as Chinese and Japanese may be added. I think Commons does a great job with the European languages but it would help to make more efforts to accommodate the CJKV Asian languages (Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese), Thai, Hindi-Urdu, Arabic, etc. Also paying attention to common immigrant languages in New York City would be very beneficial! WhisperToMe (talk) 12:57, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
You have to add anchors for all headings and languages in order not to require links to use LangSwitch too … My suggestion: Keep titles English-only.    FDMS  4   
Better to add those anchors. Not sure they are needed, but it would not be fair to the non-English speaking world to have the page only in a language they did not understand - and not let them add the headings that would make it understandable. It looks a lot cleaner with the langswitch elements. Not sure why https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/New_York_City#Спорт does not work but https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/New_York_City#Sport does (for me). Delphi234 (talk) 21:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
How do you add the anchors? WhisperToMe (talk) 23:13, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
@Delphi234: a) Users who don't understand basic English cannot use categories (and will never be able to do so), which I consider an essential part of the database. b) I guess your interface language is English? Or is it just because English is the default in the LangSwitches …
@WhisperToMe: There is a template for that: {{Anchor}}.    FDMS  4    23:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
What about creating redirects from categories in other languages? Would that serve any purpose? But this is a page, not a category.

== {{langswitch
|en=Views
|es=Vistas
|fr=Vues
|ru=Виды
|it=Vedute
|de=Ansichten
|pl=Widoki
|eo=Vidaĵoj
|nl=Zienen}} ==

{{Anchor|Views}}
{{Anchor|Vistas}}
{{Anchor|Vues}}
{{Anchor|Виды}}
{{Anchor|Vedute}}
{{Anchor|Ansichten}}
{{Anchor|Widoki}}
{{Anchor|Vidaĵoj}}
{{Anchor|Zienen}}

and so on. Delphi234 (talk) 23:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
If it makes a difference whether or not the anchors are inside the header == rather like that: == {{anchor|Views|Vistas|Vues|Виды|Vedute|Ansichten|Widoki|Vidaĵoj|Zienen}} {{langswitch|en=Views |es=Vistas|fr=Vues|ru=Виды|it=Vedute|de=Ansichten|pl=Widoki|eo=Vidaĵoj|nl=Zienen}} ==   FDMS  4    23:35, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
My recollection is that putting anything in a section header, including a link or an anchor is problematic. But it is trivial to try something out and see if it works. You can even put the anchor above the section heading if that works better. I have never tried placing multiple anchors inside the same template, but "The template can be used to create up to ten anchors with a single call." Delphi234 (talk) 02:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Ten years of Wikipedia in Asturian language

Oviedo, September 8, 2014

Next September 12 and 13, the Asturian Wikipedia community of users will celebrate with the support of Wikimedia España Chapter the tenth anniversary of Uiquipedia, the free encyclopedia in Asturian. The events will take place in Auditorio Príncipe Felipe (Plaza La Gesta, Oviedo).

The first article in Asturian was «Zazaki», a minority language spoken in Turkey. That first edit was in July 26, 2004. Ten years later, more than 800 000 edits have been made on almost 20 000 articles, and numbers are growing every day with the work of tens of volunteers. And it doesn’t stop there: other Wikimedia projects in Asturian have been developed, such as Wikicionary, Wikisource and Wikiquote. Managed by Wikimedia Foundation, all of them make part of a global movement that started in 2001 when Wikipedia started with the goal of delivering freely all human knowledge.

To commemorate this date, Uiquipedia and Wikimedia España are carrying out two days of celebration events so that the projects in Asturian are better known. Literature, poetry music and traditions in Asturian will be present. It’s free and everybody is welcome. In addition, Wikimedia España will have its annual General Assembly in Oviedo.

B25es (talk) 14:59, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

What should I work on?

Hi, Commons!

I've been playing with the idea of working on gadgets, tools, and bots that might be useful to the Commons community. I already hacked together a description editor which will undergo improvements in the future, and I have a few wishlist items in my brain, but I'm interested to hear what you all wish were more automated, faster to do, or what have you.

Add some suggestions below and I'll consider a few to work on in the next few months.

Thanks! --MarkTraceur (talk) 17:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Things that are actually needed and useful (unlike, say, a typography refresh), from the top of my head:
  • A text search option limited to a given category and its subcategories downto a given depth (FastCCI does this but it is clunky, mutilates results into squares, and nominally focus on “quality” images);
  • Automated, transparent multi-language category names.
-- Tuválkin 07:11, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
It would be great to have some help automating aspects of the Commons:Photo challenge. Submitting entries isn't too hard but voting is very clunky and prone to mistakes. So if the voting page could be created automatically and the UI improved that would be wonderful. Also working out the final results is currently an offline task done by me and it would be great if there were some way of running a job online. Validation for both entries and voters/votes would be required too. If you are interested, you can contact me for more details. -- Colin (talk) 10:16, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
The ability to sort categories of images by their date added. I am not sure how difficult that is or how much used it would be but there is a project going on for a month or two about adding new photos and it would be handy to list them by date added, to know which ones are new and you haven't seen. Surely would be used by all. ~ R.T.G 01:25, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
@RTG: Would it make sense to instead limit Special:NewFiles by category? I think it should be possible to do that via the API, but I also suspect it would need to be a new extension - quite a bit of work involved in getting it deployed :) but I'll add it to my list. --MarkTraceur (talk) 14:44, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Inspired by RTG's suggestion the above, how about an ability to sort a category by the date in which the files were created, would create a timeline, so for example for a building we can see it change over the years and seasons.--KTo288 (talk) 13:23, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
However, though the value of that contribution is obvious, make sure you aren't wasting your time with that or any programming project by posting here and getting a response wether the work will be appreciated, and best of luck with it thank you o/ ~ R.T.G 17:10, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
There was recently a request for a bot to maintain categories that can be determined from machine-readable metadata. (The original request was specifically related to video, but there are similar categories for photos, such as Category:Taken with Nikon Coolpix 995.) It sounds like structured data might eventually solve this problem, but not soon, so a bot might be useful for the near term. --Ppelleti (talk) 18:31, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

One interesting problem would be to create abuse filter that warns or blocks edits that break infobox templates (like {{Information}} or {{Artwork}}) or that break/remove license templates without replacing them with other license templates. For example and edit that replaces {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} with {{cc-by-sa-3.0} or someone breaking {{Information}} template by adding {{En}} to description field in {{Information}} template without closing it with final "}}". An alternative would be a bot that automatically reverts such edit. Files that lack infobox or license templates can be found with the help of Category:Empty tag templates and files that lost their license end up in Category:Media without a license: needs history check but it would be nice to prevent such edits or at least warn people about them at the time of saving the page. --Jarekt (talk) 18:12, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

@MarkTraceur: For some time I've been wishing for a bot that monitors Commons:Deletion requests and Category:Candidates for speedy deletion and 1) notifies uploaders that are not active on Commmons regularly at their home wiki and 2) posts a warning message to the talk page of Wikipedia articles etc. the file is being used in. Background: People who don't visit Commons often apart from file uploads often get frustrated when files are deleted, claiming they were not notified that something was wrong with the file. Usually they were notified on their talk page at Commons, but simply didn't notice because they didn't visit Commons after the upload. --El Grafo (talk) 10:19, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

+1 to this idea, especially to notify the talk pages of pages on local projects of any DR, speedy deletion nomination, and also {{No permission}}-type request. People who watch these pages are probably interested in media used on them getting deleted and might decide to save them locally under fair use or similar; IMHO home-wiki notification of the uploader has less priority. darkweasel94 12:15, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree with that. Additionally, we have a lot of old images that are being uploaded without appropriate information about author or date of creation. Often they could be kept because of age if we only knew more about their origin, but nobody is willing to do the required research. Notifications on article (or main namespace) talk pages could draw more attention to cases like that and potentially save many PD-old files from being deleted. By the way: Some time ago, there was a bot that did this over at de.wp, but for some reason it stopped working. --El Grafo (talk) 13:14, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
+1 --Jarekt (talk) 12:32, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Tenth anniversary of Wikimedia Commons on September 7

Hi all,

ten years ago this Sunday, Wikimedia Commons went online. We've sent out a press release to draw some attention to this occasion, and also published a separate blog post by Lila which goes a bit more into the project's history (such as the very first photograph uploaded to Commons).

Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 07:44, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Tilman for noticing this. I think we deserve some attention at the occasion of the anniversary.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:12, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Congratulations everyone! --99of9 (talk) 04:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Happy birthday Commons, you finally reached the big One Zero! Green Giant (talk) 04:50, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
I guess I missed the party, didn't notice this, the milestone I'm most keenly anticipating is the 25 million files mark, are we getting ready to welcome that?--KTo288 (talk) 18:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Using <switch>

Anyone know why the drop down box for language selection either does not appear at all or does not appear for certain languages? The image File:Blood Compatibility.svg has translations for 14 languages, but only three show in the drop down box. The image File:Plasma donation compatibility path.svg has 8, but no drop down appears at all. You can, though, get to all of the languages by using |lang=xx where the image is used, or by including the language in the URL, like this: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?lang=mr&title=File%3ABlood_Compatibility.svg (mr and hi use the same symbols). The languages that are not showing up are the ones that share a translation with another language. My impression is that these are supposed to be able to used by including a comma separated list, but in practice only a space separated list works. Delphi234 (talk) 20:35, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Spec does say comma separated:
The [systemLanguage] attribute value is a comma-separated list of language names as defined in BCP 47 [BCP47].

Section 5.8.5 SVG spec

The reason that MW doesn't show the languages in the drop down is that its looking for comma separated languages, but see's just spaces instead. librsvg seems to support both which is why both work via lang parameter. After uploading a new version of File:Plasma donation compatibility path.svg using comma separated list for systemLanguage, it works as expected.

As an aside, the current way things work on mediawiki is that the drop down won't appear for some languages if the SVG file is really big (> 256 kb), and the first time a lang switch for that language appears in the file is towards the end of it. That does not seem to be the case for this file, but just mentioning it in case that issue is ever encountered in the future. Bawolff (talk) 01:57, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

And the image no longer renders correctly in Google Chrome, but it does in Firefox and IE. Chrome insists on space delimited languages. Firefox and IE insist on commas. Hopefully Chrome will fix that someday. In the meantime I can just use a space for testing, and a comma when uploading. Delphi234 (talk) 02:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
[Edit conflict] Hmm, I couldn't get chrome to do anything different with either version of that file (maybe my chrome is too old. Or maybe I was messing with the language settings wrong). Anyways, seems like chrome is in the wrong here based on what the W3C spec says. Bawolff (talk) 03:06, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. The browser is going to render the default language, for testing I change systemLanguage="pa" to systemLanguage="en", for example, or systemLanguage="hi, mr" to systemLanguage="en, hi, mr". The browser uses the first language it finds that it is looking for and ignores any duplicates. Delphi234 (talk) 04:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. It is a Chrome bug. Commas are the correct delimiter. Delphi234 (talk) 16:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Change in user renaming process

-- User:Keegan (WMF) (talk) 16:23, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Censorship facilitation - Hard to find a complete list of a user's uploads

It used to be easy to find a list of a user's uploads. I'm trying to figure out why there are only 47 files in https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:NSA_ANT - what has been deleted and if any of it censored.

Special:ListFiles doesn't Special:Contributions doesn't.

Some files that I uploaded don't appear on my watchlist; it seems they've been deleted from commons and deleted from my watchlist. Some don't appear on my watchlist, but are still up, like File:Nsa-ant-waterwitch.jpg --Elvey (talk) 21:00, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Are you looking for the upload log? That shows deleted files as well, while Special:ListFiles and Special:Contributions don't. darkweasel94 21:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Deletion does not change watch statuses, and you can watch any page whether existing or not. See the red links on Special:EditWatchlist.    FDMS  4    21:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Note that normal edits are removed from Special:Contributions after being deleted, so uploads aren't unique in that regard. Bawolff (talk) 01:58, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Since when, and more importantly, where's the community discussion supporting the change?--Elvey (talk) 07:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Elvey Since at least 2003 possibly earlier (I'm not familiar with pre-phase 3 software, so I can't say what things looked like earlier). (proof + [3]). I'm not sure why you expect a discussion for something that has literally been that way since the beginning of time. Bawolff (talk) 00:23, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Elvey, I assume you were talking about the files you uploaded with the names "File:Nsa-ant-<code name>.jpg"? As far as I can determine, while some of these were not deleted, the ones that were deleted were deleted with the rationale "Exact or scaled-down duplicate". Given that these files were in Category:NSA_ANT and we know the ANT catalog has 48 pages (one more than the currently 47 files in the category), I think the files you uploaded were correctly deleted as duplicates, except for File:Nsa-ant-typhon-hx.jpg. I'm not an admin, so I can't see the file, but going by the name that was presumably page 42 "TYPHON HX" from the ANT catalog. That page currently does not appear in Category:NSA_ANT, so I think you can legitimately ask that File:Nsa-ant-typhon-hx.jpg be undeleted over at Commons:Undeletion requests. —RP88 (talk) 02:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Getting slightly off the original topic, it seems like it would be nice if the "Exact or scaled-down duplicate" message would include the name of the existing file which it was believed to be an exact or scaled-down duplicate of. Or maybe even replace the duplicate file with a redirect to the original file, rather than completely deleting it? --Ppelleti (talk) 05:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Responding to my own comment, sometimes the "Exact or scaled-down duplicate" message does include the name of the other file; I wonder why it didn't in the case of Elvey's files? --Ppelleti (talk) 05:57, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, good catch. Odd. But Denniss does a rogue stuff.--Elvey (talk) 08:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, RP88! Yes and no. I knew why the bulk of them were deleted, but was concerned that the deletion was overzealous, and you've confirmed I was right. If a passing admin could please undelete File:Nsa-ant-typhon-hx.jpg, I'd appreciate it. Otherwise, I'll head to Commons:Undeletion requests.--Elvey
File:Nsa-ant-typhon-hx.jpg undeleted. Yann (talk) 08:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks!--Elvey (talk) 08:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks again! I appreciate the help. I think one of the missing pages is on FOXACID; I don't have the ANT catalog page, but I did just upload File:NSA_ANT_FOXACID.jpg.
However, my concern - It used to be easy to find a list of a user's uploads, and it's been getting harder and harder - still needs to be addressed. Again:
At the very top right of any page is "Uploads", and near the top of the page that clicking "Uploads" brings up, it says, "This special page shows all uploaded files that have not been deleted; for those see Special:Log." But that's false. It was true; I had that link added myself, because it used to be easy to find a list of a user's uploads, and it had been getting harder. To no avail. Why is Special:Log broken? How is a user supposed to figure out that Special:Log/upload/Elvey is the place to go? MediaWiki_talk:Listfiles-summary#Deleted_Uploads - I posted here asking for a fix to the latest breakage. --Elvey (talk) 07:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC) (updated)
How do you feel Special:Log is broken? Special:Log has a number of types of log entries including uploads. But if you only want a specific person's log, than you have to fill out the text box at the top. Its always been this way. Bawolff (talk) 00:27, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

September 09

fault .gif thumbnails

Hi

I'm not sure where to ask this question, is there a way of fixing the thumbnails for these .gif files? Once you've clicked through to the main file it works fine but the thumbnails have not been generated.

Thanks --Mrjohncummings (talk) 04:22, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

There's a limit on the maximum pixel count that a lossless image can have and still have thumbnails be generated from it on Commons. The limit has been changed from time to time, but is usually around 25,000,000. File:Cigarette sales per Capita in the United States, 1970 - 2012.gif has 1,280 x 737 x 43 pixels, or 40,564,480... -- AnonMoos (talk) 14:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure this is bugzilla:47409 --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 15:17, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
The thingy that makes smaller versions of images is limited to 400 MB of ram. In cases like these (error code 137 if you try and download the thumbnail), it went over the ram limit. (There is also a hard megapixel limit where it won't even try, currently set to way too high apparently). It can be worked around by uploading a smaller version of the image. Bawolff (talk) 00:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Unless someone can prove an official change, we need to undo the change to the MediaWiki logo at File:MediaWiki-smaller-logo.png. • SbmeirowTalk • 19:07, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

  Done. --Túrelio (talk) 19:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Backup KML files

I put the question on OCTRS but got no response, as this is not directly a lcence or permission issue. I tested and .kml files are stil not accepted.

I researched a lot vicinal Belgian railway lines, drew the lines in My maps on Google maps and linked them via Google Maps in articles. examples in:

nl:Buurtspoorwegen van de provincie Brabant#Geëlektrificeerde lijnen rond Brussel.

The underlying format KML files in My Maps are my ownership. (Google does not allow to make them community property) They can be used on any underlying maps, for example Openstreetmap. Unfortunately this format cannot be imported in the Commons. The danger is if I die, My Maps in Google Maps wil be lost for the wikimedia community. I have zipped all the kml files. Can I send this file to OTRS as backup? Of course I give my permission to use these files under a opensource licence.Smiley.toerist (Overleg) 22:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Wich email adres can I use? (permissions-commons-at-wikimedia.org is probably not a good adres)Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:27, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

OTRS is definitely not the right place to store (non-confidential) files just for the sake of storing them. Maybe ask Openstreetmap. Or upload your files to OneDrive and share them from there.    FDMS  4    17:44, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Since kml is just an xml text file you could simply copy the kml contents into a user subpage. MKFI (talk) 07:23, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
For the purpose of experimentation I have done this at:

User talk:Smiley.toerist/test area kml files

Is this usable and can this be update with a tool in the Commons? Smiley.toerist (talk) 07:27, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Chinese?

I am trying to add translations to File:Decoder Example.svg, and I copied the two flavors of Chinese, from File:1 bit Decoder 2-to-4 line.svg and File:1 bit Decoder 2-to-4 line zh hant.svg, but can not get zh-Hans to work. When I choose it I only get the default, but simplified Chinese shows up in the drop down box. I started by using zh-CN and zh-TW, but that not work, for either of them. zh works. I have been using zh on other diagrams, but is that supposed to be Simplified Chinese or Traditional Chinese? I have been using Traditional. Delphi234 (talk) 20:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Due to librsvg not following the SVG specification, things don't really work right when you have multiple language codes that are both subtags of the same base language in the same switch (e.g. having zh-Hant and zh-Hans together). Which is really unfortunate. See also [4]. Bawolff (talk) 02:23, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. So for now the answer is that only one zh flavor can be included using <switch> and the others need to be placed into a separate file. The drop-down box is picking up the additional languages, but rendering does not. Delphi234 (talk) 21:45, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

September 06

plant galleries - overview or strictly botanic

Hello,

I am one of those people who still think that galleries are a good idea on commons - ideally well-linked galleries providing an overview of a topic - that in case of a plant should be acceptable and comprehensible to both botanists and non-botanists.

I now had an experience that was quite frustrating to me, as the overview gallery "Rosa" - one of the galleries I had put a lot of effort into - was moved to the lemma Roses in cultivation (a lemma not really fitting the overview idea of the gallery) and Rosa was changed into a species gallery (moved from the lemma "Rosa species"). When I asked MPF for his reasons for the move, he stated that he wanted "to bring it line with other taxon classifications galleries with a taxobox", that the overview gallery is not "a scientific taxon gallery with listing of the species, so does not have a taxobox, nor belong at the scientific genus name, but have (per Commons language policy) a vernacular language title (default language, English)."

He further told me that "Computer robots are far less versatile, and this is where the problem lies: organisations like the Encyclopedia of Life (EoL) harvest many of their photos robotically from Commons, and they do so by detecting the Taxonavigation and using that to direct the images to the correct EoL taxon page. But they only want natural biological taxa, and don't want to be cluttered up with thousands of pics of plant cultivars (or domesticated animals) as these are not biological taxa. On Commons, having multiple galleries to cover different aspects of a topic is no problem at all, so separate galleries for the biological taxa under the scientific name (and with taxonavigation), and for cultivars and other wider aspects (without taxonavigation), is very sensible."

I now wanted to ask what the general opinion is, as apparently my idea of overview galleries (which beside the species would also includes pictures and links of the plant in art, in cultivation, in floristry, as ingredient or whatever other aspects are available on commons) doesn't fit with this bot(any)-centric view. At the moment I'm unsure if and how I should continue with the maintenance of plant galleries, as the galleries I'm creating are made for humans and not for bots. I can understand that galleries with a picture of each species in a genus are important for bots - but is it necessary to tailor the main gallery of a plant (and Rosa is viewed about 80 times a day) for them? For Rosa, that means that the main gallery only covers one aspect of a vast topic, suppressing all other facets - and there are other agricultural and gardening plants that would have the same problem.

If I understand MPF's explanation correctly, the taxonavigation is apparently linked to the bots and therefore can't be used as navigation tool in "non-scientific galleries" (or "non-bot-compatible galleries"). Do we have to create a second taxo-navigation-template that can be used for readers?

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the issue - or it is a problem that was already discussed and decided - in either case, I'd really like some advice/opinions...

Best wishes, --Anna reg (talk) 23:19, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

IMO, “galeries” (that is, “article” pages, as opposed to ranks and files of media thumbnails from category pages) have no place whatsoever in Commons. If you want to create (and mantain) an image gallery about a given subject, botanical or not, do it in Wikipedia (in the language or languages of your choice). I suppose this is not the answer you needed, but it is one of the three only things I have to say about mainspace pages in Commons. -- Tuválkin 01:25, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
I can't speak for other languages but galleries tend to have only a limited role on English Wikipedia articles. Instead it is suggested that generally galleries are more appropriate on Commons. Green Giant (talk) 02:13, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
As someone who has moved galleries from en and other language wikipedias to here, I disagree with User:Tuvalkin, I treat galleries as thematic photo articles.--KTo288 (talk) 09:00, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The main problem with galleries is that they are often not maintained. So thanks for your work maintaining galleries! But the taxo tree only makes sense if all the nodes in the tree are unique and are about a taxonomic identity. To me it certainly makes sense to have a species page and a separate page dealing with other aspects not related to that taxonomic entity. To start with the scientific separation of different plants and animals into separate species often does not correspond to general historic and current divisions used by people. Eg there are lots of different animals that are known as rats which don't fall within the genus rattus. So (without knowing the specifics about roses), I would expect an overview of all things relating to "rose" would not be part of the taxonomic tree. I would expect there to be {{See also|...}} links between the taxo tree rose page and the rose overview page though. So strictly botanic galleries in the taxo tree, other galleries "see-also" linked, but not in the tree. --Tony Wills (talk) 10:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Your rattus comparison is not true for the plant cultivars I'm talking about - the cultivars do belong into the Rosa genus as they are hybrids of Rosa species (even though in some cases the border between species and cultivar is a bit bleary). The same is true for Tulipa and all its cultivars or Narcissus, Dahlia, Hosta, Iris, Lilium, Paeonia, Camellia, Clematis, Malus, and many more... (those galleries handle the cultivar/species problem differently - in some cases not mentioning them at all, some providing the see also-link, in some cases with a few selected cultivar pictures and a link to the main cultivar gallery the method I prefer, as it shows you what to expect - and images are more important on commons than text).
I think my main problem is that I can't understand how other aspects of a plant - that naturally have to be categorised in that plant category - should not be related to the biology of the plant. I am no botanist, but if I look up a spice, fruit or cultivar, I'm interested in it's biology. The content of the gallery now called Roses in cultivation is not so different than the article Rose on the English wikipedia (where the wild species were also delegated to a subpage, as there are simply to many to list them all in an overview).
Best wishes, --Anna reg (talk) 23:37, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
If the overview just included species, varieties and cultivars then, to me, it would be appropriate as part of the taxo tree as all the specimens are genetically part of that species. But other sections don't really fit, eg rose gardens, compass roses. But I am wondering where we place genetic engineered plants/animals with cross species genes, sort of gets the taxo trees into a knot (even 'simple' cross breeding of camels with lamas puts a kink in things). --Tony Wills (talk) 03:06, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
There's no reason why a gallery can only have one unique category if it rightly belongs to more than one branch of the tree. Its used rather more with regards categorisation of categories themselves rather than galleries, but for many plants and animals we categorise one based on taxa their biological aspect, and second based on their use, as food, how they are used, and on the basis of what products we derive from them e.g. fibers. I think of categorisation as not simply a tree, but as more like a vine with multiple stems, and some categories as being where nodes from one or more stems intersect. So for your roses example, for me I'd keep the bot readable categories for bots, and add human categories for humans, so e.g. link it back into category gardens by way of category:ornamental plants.--KTo288 (talk) 09:00, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
I thought we were talking about the Taxonavigation tree which uses templates, rather than categories. --Tony Wills (talk) 22:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I could imagine changing the overview style to the sections species, cultivars, possibly plant parts, and see also (plant in cultivation, plant in art, plant as aliment, etc. with only one picture and a link for those topics) - that would still mean that there are other pictures than the species pictures in the taxo-gallery, which MPF's opinion is a problem for bots. As I said, I'd really like to find a solution I can work with in the future, as I'd really prefer if the genus and cultivar pages are better connected in future - and not worse. The other option I see (if it really is necessary to have all species in the main taxo-gallery instead of subpages called 'xxx species'), would be to create overview galleries under the vernacular names, but that sounds like a really bad idea to me, as it would be quite confusing. --Anna reg (talk) 11:23, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been rather busy the last few days so only had minimal time for Commons editing. I guess the most important point to make is that there is no limit to the number of galleries; it is not an "either/or" of overview or strictly botanic, it can very easily be both. For naming galleries, the strictly botanic should take the botanical name, while the overview is probably usually best at the English name, as that's the general Commons naming proceedure standard, and is what most Commons users expect. Although the overview gallery that I renamed from Rosa I called "Roses in cultivation", I'd have no objection to its being moved to just "Roses". Of some of the other cited examples, the Malus gallery contains several sections which cover just the cultivated forms of one species alone; in line with their head category Category:Apples, these would be better split out to a new gallery titled Apples; that is after all, where the vast majority of people are likely to look for it (I'll work on this over the next day or two). I agree that related overview and botanical galleries should certainly be cross-linked, best with the {{Main|Xxxxx}} or {{See also|Xxxxx}} linking format depending on context.
To @Tony Wills:, yes I agree that things like genetic engineered organisms and animal hybrids don't fall into taxonomic categories and galleries. Taxon categories with taxonavigation should only contain taxa as defined by the ICBN and ICZN; non-taxa like cultivars (which come under the purview of the ICNCP), engineered organisms, animal hybrids, etc., are best given separate galleries, without taxonavigation. An odd cultivar appearing here and there on a taxon gallery does not matter, but swamping a taxon gallery with mostly cultivar pics should be avoided.
Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 13:22, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

September 07

Photos and video from unmanned aerial vehicles

I find it unlikely that we only have five files in Category:Photos and video from unmanned aerial vehicles. Do we have others, miscategorised or uncatgeorised? Andy Mabbett (talk) 11:59, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I've found some more with a search not in category, but there appear to be quite a few more in Category:Aerial views of the domain of Versailles which I've added as a subcat. There probably are a lot more somewhere out there. Green Giant (talk) 12:42, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Surely Category:Satellite pictures should be included as a sub cat? -- Tuválkin 13:30, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Please don't, satellites are spacecraft not aerial vehicles (aircraft). --El Grafo (talk) 22:22, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Good point. -- Tuválkin 13:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Echo and watchlist

Special:Notifications & Special:Watchlist substantially overlap in functionality, except the former also contains extra (some non-public) events and doesn't provide with passive usage options (means to turn off web-nagging or email-nagging and to just keep visiting the page whenever I'm free), while the latter doesn't provide with options of active web-nagging notifications (but already provides email interface). Partly, in my personal view, the Echo/Notifications project was driven by low usability of watchlist; [5] comes to mind. It's also perhaps worth noting that Echo users aren't exposed to Special:Notifications unless thy have JavaScript disabled — in which case it's their only means of reading the notifications.

I'd like to get this done:

  1. Merge these two pages into one.
  2. To remedy large inflow of information, introduce multiple levels of importance of the web-nagging notifications (red for mentions, orange for thanks, blue for new watchlist items, etc and configurable in your settings).

Thoughts on both, please? --Gryllida 02:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the idea was that Echo was supposed to be to notify you of things directed specifically at you (Thanks, edits to your talk, pings, etc) where watchlist is more about things you're interested in, but aren't directed squarely at you (ie Page edits to pages on your watchlist). Having such information distinct does kind of make sense - echo in theory should be a low traffic place [whether that's true in practise is debatable] where things needing more immediate attention are found (Since they are directed to you personally), compared to a watchlist which is more a RecentChanges for things you care about. Watchlist might have thousands of pages on it, and if there are more recent edits then you care to keep up with on your watchlist, that's ok or even expected, but if you can't keep up with your notifications, that is perhaps more of a bad thing. This distinction seems to totally get muddled with flow however... Bawolff (talk) 02:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
You're right, it's probably just a Flow problem. It is the thing that appears in both watchlist and notifications in the first place. --Gryllida 22:31, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't think that Notifications and Watchlist "substantially overlap in functionality". Notifications tells you when a link to your username was added to any page (not just a page on your watchlist). Edits to pages on your watchlist are not shown in your notifications unless there was a link to your username in the edit summary. In any case, any "merger" would probably have to be the result of developers working on Wikimedia software in general, not something that can be done on Commons only. AnonMoos (talk) 10:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Special:Notifications is exposed to anyone who middle-clicks the notification icon at the top of the page, not only to people who have javascript switched off. I think that Special:Notifications is for pages which need urgent attention whereas Special:Watchlist is for pages which do not need as urgent attention. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:13, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks I didn't notice that. Gryllida 22:31, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
And via notification icon > All notification …    FDMS  4    14:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
They I think plan to remove it but I'm not sure (this discussion). --Gryllida 22:31, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I define "overlap in functionality" as some items (replies in Flow, for instance) being capable of appearing on both watchlist and in echo notifications. This is confusing, which is a problem. It occurred to me, thanks to a message above, that it's probably a Flow problem. --Gryllida 22:31, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't really think the Commons village pump is a good forum for this, as none of this is Commons-specific, but I do think there is a point here: currently, there is a separate preference for email notification upon a watchlist event. If the watchlist were integrated into the notification system, there could be an additional event "Notify me when a page on my watchlist is changed", and an additional notification type "show on watchlist". That way, users could do interesting things like showing pings only on their watchlist or getting a red notification button upon all watchlist events, and the preferences for when to get an email would all be in the "notifications" section of Special:Preferences. I'm just brainstorming here, I've no idea how feasible (or even desirable) that is, but if any developer reads this, perhaps they'll like this idea. I don't think Special:Watchlist and Special:Notifications should be merged, but they could be changed so that both can display events currently shown on only one of them and the user can choose what to display where. darkweasel94 15:13, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Hook watchlist into Echo and be done here? Perhaps it's moderately good if we remove the means to email watchlist items from outside Notifications. Then we'd have to have 2 hooks: watchlist minor change and watchlist major change. Besides, the two pages (watchlist and notifications) would contain even more common content, and I'd realise that I'd've already read some of these things by the time I visit a second page of these two. --Gryllida 22:31, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Frankly, Notifications has been the one among all officially sponsored “gadgets” that has been useful and non-disruptive for me. I’d love if it were left alone in terms of any big changes — «Merge these two pages into one» seems to be an especially bad idea. -- Tuválkin 13:21, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

VisualEditor available on Internet Explorer 11

VisualEditor will become available to users of Microsoft Internet Explorer 11 during today's regular software update. Support for some earlier versions of Internet Explorer is being worked on. If you encounter problems with VisualEditor on Internet Explorer, please contact the Editing team by leaving a message at VisualEditor/Feedback on Mediawiki.org. Happy editing, Elitre (WMF) 07:29, 11 September 2014 (UTC).

PS. Please subscribe to the global monthly newsletter to receive further news about VisualEditor.

WMF’s VE and MSIE. Yep, those two has a lot in common, when you think about it… -- Tuválkin 13:13, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Category:<artist>

Hello, include images of artworks by artist A in the category artists A? Some sort as other sort so, what applies? Thank you. Regards --Jean11 (talk) 15:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

  • In general, work by a particular artist belongs either directly in the category for that artist or in a subcategory. Subcategories might be as broad as "Work by Artist A" and as narrow as a single work, or even occasionally more narrow (e.g. reproductions of a particular work such as Category:Early replicas of Mona Lisa, or the display of a very prominent work in a location where it only temporarily resided, such as Category:Mona Lisa at the National Gallery of Art. -- Jmabel ! talk 15:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello Jmabel, thank you for your answer. I had read a little bit here also, I will now proceed as you have written. Regards --Jean11 (talk) 16:31, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Jmabel ! talk 23:12, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

September 12

Proposal to disable StockPhoto gadget

I propose to disable the by default enabled StockPhoto gadget, which relies on the same information as MMV for it's licensing. This gadget has been enabled for years, but even initially there were questions about the legal situation. It has not been worked on significantly for the years since Magnus, Krinkle and Diebuche stopped improving it. Since there are still over 690000 files without any Commons:Machine-readable data, i propose we clean that up, before we try to encourage people to use material from our website. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 08:07, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

690000 out of 22698513 is 3% or one in 33 files have this problem. This should of course be improved, but disabling the gadget is too much.
I've learned several people how to use this to properly reuse files. They would be lost without it (no, they don't login). What I am interested in is usage statistics. How many people are actually using it? How many different images? How many images without proper metadata are actually opened in the gadget?
My assumption is that the quality of these 690000 files is well below our average quality. You see the same with our uncategorized files. Good quality images and good quality metadata seem to go hand in hand. Multichill (talk) 09:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Ah, I have always wondered where these icons come from. I think TheDJ raises a good point, and this should be improved or disabled. I'd like to add a few things to the "improve" list -- but now that I know where to go, I'll make those points at Help talk:Gadget-Stockphoto. -Pete F (talk) 19:18, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Duplicate content warning is broken

I'm trying to find an image of the Mk. VIIIB radar which I found on the IWM. I suspect Fae already uploaded it, but as always all attempts to find the file have failed. To put that in perspective, searching for "village pump" with all options turned on also fails.

Anyhoo, I uploaded the image myself and received this error:

There is <a href="#">another file</a> already on the site with the same content.

Not useful! Can someone get that link working properly? And while they're at it, maybe make the text itself have the file name in it?

Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:22, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Drop your file to FileAnalyzer or use Special:Upload to see the existing file. As for the broken message, this is bug 70639. -- Rillke(q?) 12:13, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Which template?

I checked the license of File:Wire Loop Game.jpg and confirmed it is fine. However, while I see a lot of Flickr related templates, I do not recall which one I use in this situation.--Sphilbrick (talk) 14:19, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

  Done?    FDMS  4    15:09, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't think so. I vaguely recall seeing some images with a template, stating that reviewer X has reviewed the license at Flickr, and confirmed it is OK. I believe there is also a bot that does this, but I thought there was a template for a manual review.--Sphilbrick (talk) 15:52, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
It is the template on the page and that FDMS4 parametered as OK. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:52, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
For example {{FlickreviewR}} is similar, but to be used if the license is not the right one. There must be one to use when it is OK. --Sphilbrick (talk) 15:55, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
See Commons:License_review#Instructions_for_reviewers, please use User:Rillke/LicenseReview.js for manual reviews, the other script seems outdated. For Flickr images it's best to wait for the Bot because it also has some extra functions like uploading the highest res version. --Denniss (talk) 17:29, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
@Denniss: What is outdated about ZooFari's script?    FDMS  4    18:46, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
OK, I'll wait for the bot.--Sphilbrick (talk) 19:04, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Never mind, I see that the bot has not been by. It hadn't when I first asked. I was concerned about th eopen OTRS template, so I'll just remove it.--Sphilbrick (talk) 19:06, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Zoofari's script was last updated 2011 so it may lack some of the functions available in Rillke's script. --Denniss (talk) 19:21, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

New user limitations

I'm doing some training in a few days, and have been asked to cover more about Commons than I usually do for newbies (who I generally teach only to edit Wikipedia, in the first session). What limits are newly signed-up users likely to encounter? Can they upload and categorise images on day one? Is there a wait period for new accounts? (If this is documented somewhere, please feel free to point me at it). Andy Mabbett (talk) 23:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

In simple terms, actions that new users with a new account of less than four days can't perform are listed at Commons:Autoconfirmed users. More technically, it would be the difference between the rights of "users" and "autoconfirmed users" on Special:ListGroupRights. -- Asclepias (talk) 00:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
And not to forget Special:AbuseFilter/110, which I ridiculously cannot view it but I think new users cannot upload more than 8 images at one time. -- Rillke(q?) 21:29, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, both. Andy Mabbett (talk) 12:39, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

September 10

Licensed-PD-Art

If GFDL is used in {{Licensed-PD-Art}} then the files end up in Category:License migration candidates. Perhaps someone know how to fix the template so that license migration is possible. I tried to copy and modify some of the code from {{Self}} but id did not work for me. Thank you. --MGA73 (talk) 05:48, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Encouraging pro photographers to contribute

I've just been reading our well-written obituary to Jorge Royan, a pro photographer and commons contributor, who "donated hundreds of beautiful photos to Wikimedia Commons so that, in his own words, they won’t stay lost in his computer when he’s no longer around and serve a greater purpose other than just as a curiosity to his grandchildren".

It had me wondering if we have a page or project dedicated to encouraging individual professional photographers to contribute. I often speak to such people, and they usually express concerns about losing money, or people mistakenly thinking that all of their pictures are freely reusable. It would be good to have a FAQ or other document which specifically addresses their concerns, and perhaps has some examples of good contributions from pros. I'd be willing to help put a page together. Andy Mabbett (talk) 11:53, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

As an amateur sport photographer, I met a lot of sport photographers. During the 2014 Rugby World Cup, I've talk with a sport (pro) photographer. She tried to upload a photo on Wikipedia. But each time, her photo was deleted. So, we probably need to improve our documentation ;) Pyb (talk) 14:05, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

CC 4.0 side issue

We put barriers in the way of pro photogs that causes images to be deleted if they don't provide OTRS confirmation they have the copyright to the image being offered. Regardless, CC 4.0 probably killed any chance we had of convincing pro photogs of the validity of creative commons licensing. Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Can you elaborate on the 4.0 issue, or point to somewhere that does? The Wikipedia article makes it sound like 4.0 just tightened up the legalese for international jurisdictions, without changing the intent. --Ppelleti (talk) 04:23, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Ppelleti, I don't remember where the discussion took place, but as I recall (and someone correct me if I'm mistaken) the interpretation of the wording of 4.0 meant that professionals could not contribute lower resolution images freely and retain non-free copyright on higher resolution versions...that releasing one resolution under Creative Commons meant that all resolutions would fall under the same license. This raised a lot of concerns amongst those who contributed like this, and rightfully so. I think it was a huge mistake on the part of the CC team, insofar as it relates to our mission on Commmons. Huntster (t @ c) 05:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
There's https://wiki.creativecommons.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions#Can_I_apply_a_CC_license_to_low-resolution_copies_of_a_licensed_work_and_reserve_more_rights_in_high-resolution_copies.3F and also some discussion at Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2014/06#Could_someone_please_post_a_summary_of_this.3F - I was under the impression [IANAL] that it wasn't so much a cc 4.0 issue as much as the issue just generally being ambiguous. Bawolff (talk) 01:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Image generation broken

For each of our images (e.g., File:Old Pier, Salen, Isle of Mull.jpg) one can ask MediaWiki to generate an image of any size. This is used for the preview image on the image-description-page as well as the "other sizes" options. What may be little-known is that the "1280px" in that URL is actually a parameter to the resizing code and can be anything you like. See User talk:Dschwen#Image viewing tool for FP for details. But when playing with this again today, I find it is broken for large sizes. For example 5727px works but 5728px fails. For another image 3435px works but 3437px fails. Has something in the software changed to impose limits? I was hoping someone (e.g. Dschwen) might be able to generate a template that does the maths to scale any image to a given megapixels, thus making it easy to offer an image sized for review which still having the option to upload an original-sized version. Who would know more about this? -- Colin (talk) 12:51, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

@Colin: If you just want to build a URL you will be better off with using Special:Redirect. Of course someone still has to do the math, if a fixed width or height is not acceptable. I don't think this can be done in a template though, as it would require an API call to get the image dimensions. --Dschwen (talk) 19:30, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
This isn't a new limit, just doesn't come up very often in terms of result image size. There is a limit that image scaling can only take at most 400 MB of RAM (If that's exceeded, it generates error code 137 [137 = 128+9. 9 = SIGKILL]). In order to scale an image, generally the image scaling program needs enough ram to have the result image fully decompressed in RAM, sometimes have the source image fully decompressed (Whether or not that's needed depends on the image format. non-progressive JPEG only needs about as much of the source loaded as the size of the result [AFAIK], and PNG (when using VIPS) generally do not need source loaded), plus some general overhead. The bigger the resulting thumbnail, the more memory it will use. Bawolff (talk) 14:08, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Bawolff, thanks for the info, but something has changed because the examples I gave on Dschen's talk page all used to work when I wrote that message. And the File:Old Pier, Salen, Isle of Mull.jpg is only an 8MB JPG (and 110MB uncompressed) so shouldn't hit the 400MB limit. So I wonder if some coding change has meant less efficient use of memory or perhaps higher than 8-bit colour for some intermediate stage. It is becoming more important to be able to deal with and specify large JPGs at less than 100% resolution because 100% detail is seldom flattering and often too much. On Dschen's talk page, I indicated it would be wonderful if the image description page offered more choices for reduced-size versions: relative (25%, 50%, 75%) and megapixel (2MP, 4MP, 8MP, 16MP, 24MP, 36MP). The current size options max out at 0.7MP, the size of a small monitor bought 10 years ago. Whereas many of us are viewing on screens 2, 3 or 4 times that width/height. -- Colin (talk) 11:31, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any recent changes to the relavent config. I believe image magick is compiled to use 16 bit colour internally (Q16 option), but its always been that way. There's plans to update the OS on those servers soon-ish, but I don't think that has happened yet. Bawolff (talk) 00:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

usage of KML script

I have copied and pasted two kml scripts in a personal test area. (User talk:Smiley.toerist/test area kml files)

  • How can these underlying kml files used in google maps links in Wikipedia articles be activated and maintained?
  • Can the google map link in the scripts be replaced with a more general script wherby the reader has the choice to activate other background maps such as Openstreetmaps. The same as used for Geocoordinates?Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:35, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Something like that exists on en.wp: en:Template:Attached KML. You have to upload the files locally though. And I don;t know if any projects besides en.wp support this. --Dschwen (talk) 20:18, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Looks like I would have to adapt the kml script to deploy on other background maps than google maps. (xmlns= ....) It looks wastefull to apply the template to only one language wp, as it can be used in any wp. Smiley.toerist (talk) 14:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

September 15

Custom license marker

Hi. I noticed that {{Custom license marker}} is on many files but what is it good for? Anyone know? --MGA73 (talk) 05:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Yup, I've often wondered too. Some knowledgeable person ought to prepare documentation explaining its purpose. — Cheers, JackLee talk 18:02, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Same as above. Pinging Saibo who created the template, on the unlikely chance he still visits from time to time. Huntster (t @ c) 03:13, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

bot work request

Hi, I need some categorizing work to be done by a bot. Whom and where can I ask for? Thanks sarang사랑 12:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Bots/Work requests. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:22, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Thanks Sarang

Flickr geotag request

File:Birds (3167198086).jpg was originally posted on Flickr with a cc-by-sa-2.0 license, but without any location data. I posted a request to the photographer asking for location data, which he has provided with geotags, but he at the same time changed the license to © all rights reserved. I've added Flickr-change-of-license tag to the pic, BUT . . . this license change also means I can no longer use the Flinfo tool to extract the geotags from Flickr. I can't find any other way for downloading the geotags from the Flickr file. Can anyone help, please? Thanks! - MPF (talk) 20:34, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. On that file page on Flickr I see a link to a map: https://www.flickr.com/map/?fLat=57.933034&fLon=34.276313&zl=13&everyone_nearby=1 – are these numbers (57.933034 and 34.276313) not the latitude and longitude that can be put verbatim into {{Location dec}}? darkweasel94 20:52, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that is the right location, thanks. For whatever reason, I don't have that link appearing in my browser - the map opens as an internal pop-up without the latitude and longitude figures visible.
  This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. MPF (talk) 21:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

September 16

Media Viewer Consultation Results

 
Screenshot of the Media Viewer's new design prototype

Thanks to all contributors who participated in the recent Media Viewer Consultation!

The Wikimedia Foundation's Multimedia team appreciates the many constructive suggestions to improve the viewing experience for readers and casual editors on Wikimedia projects. We reviewed about 130 community suggestions and prioritized a number of important development tasks for the next release of this feature. Those prioritized tasks have now been added to the improvements list on the consultation page.

We have already started development on the most critical ('must-have') improvements suggested by the community and validated through user testing (see research findings and design prototype). We plan to complete all “must have” improvements by the end of October and deploy them incrementally, starting this week. See the multimedia team's improvements plan and development planning site for details.

As we release these improvements, we will post regular updates on the Media Viewer talk page. We invite you to review these improvements and share your feedback there.

The foundation is also launching a file metadata cleanup drive to add machine-readable attributions and licenses on files lack them. This will lay the groundwork for the structured data partnership with the Wikidata team, to enable better search and re-use of media in our projects and many other features. We encourage everyone to join these efforts.

This community consultation was very productive for us and we look forward to more collaborations in the future. Thanks again to all our gracious contributors! Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 01:08, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

@Fabrice Florin (WMF): Where exactly have people asked for the removal of metadata in your consultation? I found one comment opposing this change and none in favour of it, and I don't think removing features is a good way to improve the popularity of a product … If you want more people to go to filedesc pages, remove the MV, but if you want to improve the media viewing experience, don't remove features from your viewing product.    FDMS  4    01:55, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
@FDMS4: If people want the metadata, they should come to the file page on Commons. MV should not be a replacement for visits to Commons. That is a message the Multimedia team have had loud and clear from a lot of the community, not least at Wikimania. That's why MV will be much more focussed as a different way principally to view the information on the Wikipedia page, with a big blue "More details" button that will bring people straight to Commons. For Commons, the simplification of MV, and reduction of metadata provided, is a good thing. As well as giving users a simpler, more focussed initial experience. Jheald (talk) 07:31, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
@Jheald: Thanks for jumping in. Totally agree. I think we should revisit a more comprehensive expanded viewer when we can do editing of metadata right in the viewer (for which proper structured data underneath is a prerequisite). Otherwise it's appropriate for the File: page to be primary and any expanded info to be minimal, so that readers learn about the File: page as a place to not only find the advanced info, but also possibly curate/edit.--Erik Moeller (WMF) (talk) 08:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
@Jheald: "MV should not be a replacement for visits to Commons." What should it be then? I'm using a Mac with a trackpad, I don't need a media viewer to enlarge images. Yes, being able to view files and metadata from projects like the English Wikipedia reduces Commons traffic. However, if traffic is all we care about, we should probably stop using free licenses as they encourage copying and transferring. I personally don't think that traffic is more important than the usability of our user interface, and the financing of Commons fortunately does not depend on traffic. There was a very loud and clear message from the community, namely we don't want the Media Viewer. It should not come as a surprise that large parts of the community, often having very strong feelings about this product, would welcome any removal of features. The WMF has decided not to listen to these parts of the community, and instead start a process to find out what the actual users think about their product. Also unsurprisingly, none of the actual users said remove features from it. Now, probably because of the superprotect fiasco, it has been decided to fulfill one wish of the angry croud perceived as important, and do exactly that. The full description and date of creation are essential information, the MV could as well only display a low-res version of the image – imagine how much Commons would profit from that.
@Erik Moeller (WMF): "I think we should revisit a more comprehensive expanded viewer when we can do editing of metadata right in the viewer […]." Are you aware that it isn't currently possible to edit metadata right on the file description pages either? If you wanted metadata to be modifiable in the Media Viewer, why didn't you just add [edit] links? Also, if you want to encourage the curation of files, why does the prototype make exactly that even harder? Yes, there are tools on filedesc pages that can't be made available in the MV. However, using the current MV, I was able to detect metadata with errors (typos in decriptions, wrong date formats, overcats, …) and fix them.    FDMS  4    22:11, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
The prototype is better than the current version :) --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Can we please make Media Viewer opt-in only, especially on Commons? On commons it really serves no purpose at all since you are already on commons. I appreciate that it has been removed for logged in users, but I am not always logged in and find it extremely annoying to click on an image to get to that file and instead have the media viewer pop up. I note that the result of the RFC on EN was to make it opt-in only. Delphi234 (talk) 20:45, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

This appears to have been implemented now. Very good. Or was Media Viewer completely deleted from commons? Delphi234 (talk) 18:57, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Per Fabrice's comments earlier. MediaViewer was set to opt-in for only logged in users on about august 20 [6]. Logged out users still have the feature enabled. Bawolff (talk) 19:20, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
I spoke too soon. I may have had javascript shut off when I thought it was not being used. It is still here for IP users. Delphi234 (talk) 21:06, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

1.700 videos added

Johann Strauss arriving in Amsterdam (1931)
War vessel HMS Bristol in the port of Amsterdam (1973)

Hi all, At the Netherlands Institute for Sound and Vision we have in recent weeks uploaded another 1.700 videos of Dutch news reels from roughly the '20s until the '70s of the 20th century. Even though the more recent items contain Dutch commentary (and at present no subtitles are available) there is also a considerable amount of silent footage which could very well be used on other Wikipedia language versions. For some items English metadata is already available. We would highly appreciate the use of these items in articles on Wikipedia, also to 'scale' the discussion about the role of video on Wikipedia in general. Only 0.12% of all articles on enwiki contain videos! And with nearly 4000 video's on Commons, the Netherlands Institute for Sound and Vision provides 8% of all video on the platform. Even though we are pleased to be the largest provider, we also acknowledge that this is mainly due to the fact that there is so very little video being offered on Commons. It was the videoonwikipedia.com initiative that stated: "Motion! Videos can explain, clarify, and engage like nothing else." I hope that when Wikipedians use this collection they can illustrate this point and inspire other audio-visual archives and producers of video to, where possible, make their material available on Commons. 85jesse (talk) 07:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Great to have all these videos in Commons, but this is the one wrong place to call for their use in other projects — you need to tell that in those projects’ VPs and WCs and other such generic discussion boards. What Commoners must do is to categorize our videos, so that they are easy to find by people researching media items for any given subject. Lets do that! (Although categorizing video and audio is way more time-consuming than categorizing images.) -- Tuválkin 19:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Watermark

We received an "informal" opinion on Removal of watermarks from Commons images from the WMF legal team. (see the notification above.) We discussed this matter at Commons_talk:Watermarks#m:Wikilegal.2FRemoval_of_watermarks_from_Commons_images and most people suggested that we must stop encouraging/advising people to remove watermark until we get a different opinion from the legal. Currently two of our templates are not only advising people to remove watermarks, they state doing it is fully legal. This is directly contradicting with the opinion of the legal. So we need to take immediate measure to either stop the use or rewording of these templates. See the discussion. Please keep all the comments on that DR. (as a single place) Jee 12:55, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Angel's Logo.png

I am not sure if the copyright rationale given for the File:Angel's Logo.png is correct. The uploader is claiming that they are the copyright holder, but the url address listed in the image leads to this page which is apparantly copyrighted by "Angel Sessions". The image appears to come from this page. I guess the uploader could either be Angel Sessions or her representative, but the same uploader has also uploaded quite a few other files, all of which have be flagged for deletion or some other problems. To me, it looks like this logo was taken from the aforementioned website and uploaded to commons entirely in good faith, but inappropriately as "own work". I am solely basing this assumption on the fact that all of the other files uploaded by this user, including File:Twitter-50x50.png, File:Facebook-50x50.png and File:Linkedin-50x50.png, have been uploaded using the same "own work" claim. - Marchjuly (talk) 04:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting, Marchjuly. I've filed a deletion request. --El Grafo (talk) 19:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for taking a closer look at this El Grafo. If you have time can you also look at "File:Amanda eliasch 2014.jpg" and "File:Amanda-Eliasch-2009.jpg". - Marchjuly (talk) 02:03, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata property for Commons Creator templates

The wikidata:Property:P1472 may now be used to add details of a person's "Creator" template to their Wikidata biography. Andy Mabbett (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Andy!
Note that this new property should always be used instead of direct sitelinks to the Creator template. A list of Wikidata items (currently 5) that do contain direct sitelinks to Creator templates can be found at d:Wikidata:WikiProject Structured Data for Commons/Phase 1 progress/Links/Creator, together with links to SQL queries that anyone can run to produce updated lists. Jheald (talk) 13:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

September 17

upload a page to wikepedia

How can I upload a profile to wikepedia?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigmick98 (talk • contribs) 02:30, 18 September 2014‎ (UTC)
This is the Wikimedia Commons, not the English Wikipedia. If you are interested in creating a new article on the English Wikipedia, a good place to ask for help would be w:Wikipedia:Articles for creation. — Cheers, JackLee talk 19:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

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

To discuss this DMCA takedown, please go to COM:DMCA#India Against Corruption logo Thank you! Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 23:47, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

September 18

"Naturalis license" ?

Howdy,

May I run something by you? In the past year I've been visiting in the entomological collection of the natural history museum "Naturalis" in Leiden, Netherlands to research collection specimen and also to shoot images of these. The museum made me sign an agreement that states that I'm obliged to credit the museum for the usage of their collection whenever work resulting from this is published. As such I can only make the images from these sessions available under a special license form that includes this limitation. Here is an example. This would be very similar to selecting a CC-BY license using the museum as "author" but not quite the same. It would not be correct to name the museum as the author as they didn't create the images. For my part, I couldn't care less, my images are CC0/PD anyway, but it may not be fair to have the museum associated with the quality level of the images or some such. Anyway, it would surely be best to not abuse some existing license for this purpose but to simply indicate properly and truthfully what the license limitations are. Also, more authors working in the collection may have this problem and some may wish to make their images available under some other license (GFDL, or CC-BY-SA or some such) with the additional limitation of requiring credits for the usage of the collection. So what we would be looking at is a a set of licenses/templates to indicate this additional requirement such as:

Usage of this image requires that Naturalis always be credited for the usage of their collection

(or some other wording) Note: Although I'm not totally convinced, on principle, that the museum would have full legal rights to claim this requirement (it being largely government funded and all that), that is not the path I want to follow. If this is what they want, I'm happy to comply. Questions:

  • Is this something wikikmedia commons can live with (is it compatible with what we aim to do here)?
  • Would it require a full-fledged new license system with long legalese, or will a simple template do?
  • I'm pretty much "done" worrying about and discussing policies and templates on wikimedia projects, so I would be happy to supply images and keep doing so after future visits, but it would require help from the policy and template gurus here to set it up.

Your thoughts on this please :o) Cheers Pudding4brains (talk) 17:55, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

My suggestions: Don't try to reinvent the wheel. Don't try to mix different licenses, or a CC-0 declaration with an attribution obligation, or any other attempt at creatively making compatible stuff that is normally not compatible. it will just totally confuse the potential reusers. To me, it seems what you want to do is exactly what a CC-by license can do, with an attribution that you will word to say exactly what you want to say. In the attribution under CC-by, you don't have to credit yourself if you don't want to and you don't have to present the museum as being the author of the photograph. You can write that attribution to say anything you want. The only thing that you are requiring with the CC-by is the presence of that credit, for example something like "Specimens of the Naturalis biodiversity center, Leiden", or "This image uses specimens of the Naturalis biodiversity center, Leiden", or "Specimens photographed at the Naturalis biodiversity center, Leiden" or whatever wording you want and you think will make the museum happy and is short enough to be easily reusable. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:27, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Museums often sell postcards or books including copies of their images, and while the collection and card is protected, the images that it contains are not, but retain the copyright status of each image. While you are contractually bound by your agreement to provide attribution where ever you use the image, no one else who uses that image is. I would recommend noting in the description that the image is from the Museum, yourself, but I do not see how anyone can be constrained to include that description who sees it and uses it - other than the fact that it is very helpful to know where the work actually exists, but where it exists is not a part of any copyright, as far as I can tell. Delphi234 (talk) 21:22, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
My understanding of the question was that the photographer wants to require that the mention of the museum be retained when the image is reused, and is looking for a way to actually require only that, while not requiring anything else. He should be able to do that with a license. The obligation of the reuser of the licensed photograph is to the photographer, not to the museum, and the photographer would probably not be interested to sue a reuser who would not include the credit to the museum, but still, the principle remains that if the license from the photographer requires mentioning the museum, then in theory reusers should include that mention. (We know that many reusers ignore the licenses anyway, but that's a different matter). -- Asclepias (talk) 23:20, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Agree with Asclepias. Adding an "institution" template as used here will help to highlight the museum from which the specimen is coming. Jee 02:08, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Okay folks, thanks for all the replies. I've now (quick&dirty) done this with it: File:Puncha_ratzeburgi_aberrations_-_collection_Naturalis.jpg.
The license terms (non human readable) seem to indicate that if the name of the author is supplied that it must be included in the attribution. This is not what I want, so the only way around that is not supplying an author name (or pseudo), which is actually technically and policy-wise impossible here, as WC requires me to truthfully state that it is my own work. So the solution is not "elegant".
The supposedly free licenses, be it GFDL or Creative Commons, make it near impossible to do anything useful with the work released under those licenses. If you care to do exactly as the license requires that is. Which is exactly why all my work is PD/CC0. All the attribution, linking, license mentioning etc etc would make it totally impossible to create a collage such as the example here if you would care to do so from CC-licensed work by others (not your own images). I was looking at creating my own template, using some cc-by icon, but the as the icon is licensed under a more severe license (cc-by-sa) than what it even stands for, I would need to include all sorts of bullocks for that license on the page just to be able to use the icon to indicate some other license. GFDL and CC licensing sucks big time. Sorry for the rant ;o)
If anyone feels I should handle things differently, be it due to policy/lagal issues or efficiency or whatever, pleas let me know.
Thanks and all that :o) Cheers, Pudding4brains (talk) 03:18, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • This reminds me of some related questions. Haven't some museums been inappropriately expansive in their claims to intellectual property rights. Haven't some museums made naive claims that their physical possession of artifacts give them ownership of the IP rights to that artifact -- even when the artifact is clearly old enough that the original IP rights expired, and the artifact is really in the public domain?
  • Can't we just ignore the claims of museums that have made bizarre assertions? Geo Swan (talk) 20:35, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Museums have a legal right to permit or not photography in their exhibits, and they can use that right to compel photographers to sign licenses that give them arbitrary control, up to and including signing over copyright to the pictures. The recourse photographers have is not to take photos there.
  • Or smuggle a camera in--in this day and age, it's virtually impossible for a museum open to the public to stop cell phones at the door. I don't know what recourse a museum has there, besides throwing you out, but it's a way to avoid signing a license.
  • In this case, they gave Pudding4brains permission to photograph in the museum conditioned on a signed agreement. I can see a court ruling that he had no right to release the photos under license that didn't demand citation, and thus any such licenses would be null and void. At the least, the museum would refuse to work with us.
  • No clandestine photos of public areas are going to equal what we get with proper equipment (like tripods) and getting full access to the collection. Asking for a line of credit beside pictures that were taken with the assistance of the museum is hardly a bizarre assertion that we should reject.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

September 14

Cats for photos of unnotable wikimedians

Are categories of wikimedians shown on photo ok per PS and so on? I mean of those who are not notable to have a Wikipedia/Wikiquote article about them. We've got plenties of photos with users from wikimeet-ups, wikicons, even wikiexpeditions (thought users are supposed to make photos of objects but not themselves in the latter) - I think they should have cats like Category:Photos showing User:Example or just Category:Photos of User:Example. I've seen such IIRC but are they really allowed? If yep then it's work to be done to fill them :) --BaseSat (talk) 19:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I don’t know whether there is a guideline for these categories, but de facto, they exist, see Category:Wikimedians and its subcategories (called [[Category:User name]] or [[Category:Real name]]). But I’d hesitate to create such categories for other people without asking them. It’s a difference between a photo that only shows you and a photo that is linked to your user name or real name. ireas (talk) 20:58, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Well about real names I agree but about nicks I'm not so sure. If you go to wikimeetup and say there your nick and allow to be photographed then you definitely understand that a photo of you could be signed in wikimeeetup's report (or similar stuff for other wikievents) or just on filedesc - actually what's the point in doing it otherwise. Would be nice to hear another opinions :) --BaseSat (talk) 16:09, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
I suggest caution. I recall several past instances where Wikipedians asked to be un-identified in group photographs, or photographs where they were caught unaware, and this is a courtesy we would expect to offer even if they did originally give permission. In general, we should keep in mind that there are other tools, like profiles on user pages, Google+ or on Facebook, if any contributor wishes to make themselves easily identifiable. These other tools have the benefit of (mostly) quietly offering the user control over their image if they ever stop using their account and want to drop old photographs, on Commons that is not always an option. -- (talk) 07:40, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikilegal/Removal of watermarks from Commons images

In response to the WMF opinion provided in the title there is talk:Watermarks#m:Wikilegal/Removal of watermarks from Commons images discussion ongoing about how we on Commons will address the legal risks of removing watermarks and/or copyright notices (aka CMI). Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:43, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I would summarize the conclusion as nothing to see here—it is inconclusive as it states that the way we work at the moment is "most likely" fine and advises uploaders that they are better off "consulting their own attorney".
It would be refreshing if these series of essays from WMF legal interns actually broke new ice, and could be used in lobbying for change rather than hedging bets.
If the Wikimedia Commons community wants legal advice, then we would be much better off asking for a grant to pay a legal expert for a solid opinion, or to pursue a clarification from a trusted advisory organization. The Foundation does not exist to fill this need. -- (talk) 07:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Of course they are indeed this vague partly on purpose, to protect the organization by keeping liability with the contributors, safe harbor, and also partly because that's just the actual situation. It's America, judges usually have an enormous amount of leeway with interpreting the law, and many of our problems are exactly in the area that interpretation by the judge would be required. I've had a few discussions with Legal team members during Wikimania, and it was quite enlightening I must say. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 09:30, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Actually there is something significant here. WMF legal are unable to recommend removing watermarks from CC images. Yet CC BY-SA is supposed to be designed to permit images to be free to reuse, modify, adapt, crop. So if the licence is unclear on our response to a practice that is widespread throughout the internet (watermarking) then it is not fit for purpose. WMF should spend its money working with CC to create a licence that has fewer of these legal uncertainties. We've seen this before with issues surrounding image resolution and doubts about what exactly is being licensed. Essentially, every time we ask WMF legal to clarify an issue surrounding CC licenses, and they respond with something vague, they should treat that as a bug report on the CC and consider how they can fix this for v5.0. -- Colin (talk) 13:03, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Quite significant if you care about editors. WMF has said legal risk for removal of watermarks (CMI) appears to be increasing as case law has been moving in the direction of more liberal interpretations of what is CMI. Saffron Blaze (talk) 01:12, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Fæ -- when Mike Godwin was the one delivering such advice, he almost always opted for the more lenient or permissive interpretation of copyright etc. law, to the degree that some on Commons lost respect for his advice. Not sure which situation you'd prefer... AnonMoos (talk) 20:40, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
The situation I would prefer is implicit from my first comment, i.e. we (unpaid volunteers) should consider a grant to pay for legal advice for us, rather than having informal opinions/essays from Foundation interns which are subject to being misquoted as if it were advice or a resolution (as can be seen on this page).
It would be really interesting if legal insurance for uploaders of certain types of media file were to be paid for out of the millions of grant money. If, say, U.S. legal liability insurance for volunteers removing watermarks were to be offered at $5,000, this would seem a perfectly good proposal for a Wikimedia Commons grant from the IEG and avoid changes in policies for this project for an arguable and relatively trivial clarification of CC standard terminology and interpretation in U.S. courts. (talk) 08:56, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Let's do a direct quote: "There are good-faith arguments and caselaw supporting both interpretations, so neither position is ironclad. As a result, individual editors who are considering removing watermarks should seriously consider the legal issues involved and consider consulting an attorney before doing so.". Rather than wasting money on legal advice that may apply only to one image, created in one country, edited by a user in one country, hosted by a server in one country and reused by a publisher in one country, it would be far better for WMF/CC to realise they have drafted a licence that fails us as an international community drawing images from varied sources which are then reused internationally. The opinion of a US lawyer, should it be purchased by some grant, is of only marginal interest to a UK editor editing UK images. The position, as it currently stands, is that cropping watermarks from CC/GFDL images is simply not worth it. There are plenty really free images, without volunteers needing to take chances, or exposing our reusers to potential lawsuits. We have to recognise that by adding a watermark, the author really didn't intend their image to be truly free to reuse for any purpose by anyone. -- Colin (talk) 09:18, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

September 11

Colourising and replacing images

I'm alarmed to see that some colleagues, notably as part of en:Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Photography workshop, are colourising b&w images and overwriting the original. Recent examples are File:King Luarsab II of Kartli.jpg, File:King Archil.jpg and File:Chavchavadze 31-155 s.jpg (in the latter case, the b&w version already replaced a different image). The b&w originals are often historic documents. Overwrting them replaces the original on all projects and external sites that transclude them. Can we agree a clear policy that this is not to be done, and that colourised versions must be uploaded as new files, not overwriting the original? An example of such good practice is File:Sabinin. St George the Hagiorite colourised.jpg. Andy Mabbett (talk) 12:24, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong about colorizing old photos (if it looks good, at least), as long as in the file description it's clearly said that it's a modern colorized photo. Having said, the original photo should never be replaced by the new colorized photo. The colorized photo must be uploaded into a new file. --Lecen (talk) 12:48, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
While I agree with Andy Mabbett that these colorizations should be reuplaoded as new files and reverted, one thing makes this much less of a scandal than I first thought: These 1st two images are both derivatives — extracted / cropped off from an original that has been properly kept. (Not the case of File:Chavchavadze 31-155 s.jpg, whose file history shows three items which should all be reuploaded separately.) -- Tuválkin 13:27, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
There is everything wrong with colourising old photographs. It misrepresents history. There is no purpose served by creating colourised photographs of, say, Abraham Lincoln. It provides no useful information and misrepresents the image. As for the Luarsab II/ Archil of Kakheti etc images, yes, the engravings are derivatives from the original medieval works, but they are also historical works in their own right. Colourising them creates the impression that they are chromolithographs, which is very misleading. There needs to be some clear thinking about this. Are we going to create colourised film stills for b+w films? I hope not. It's one thing to represent the fact that a film, such as Casablanca, for example, has been colourised. It's another thing to create such images. The same applies to photographs. I can see no justification for the creation of this unspeakable thing: File:Mary Eristavi (crop) colorized.jpg or its new friend File:Mary Eristavi (color2).png. Compare them to the beautiful original photo File:Mary Eristavi (crop).jpg. Paul Barlow (talk) 13:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
I see no problem with it, porovided that the original image is still available (no overwriting it); the image is here to illustrate someone/sopmething where ther color is present (as opposed to a PD image uploaded to represent itself); and the description page states clearly that the image was colorized. Abraham Lincoln wasn'r black-and-white, and a colorized image of him would presumably look more like he did than a blackj-and-white image. A film still would be here to represent the film; if the film was black-and-white, then the colorized image would not be a better representation of the film. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:22, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
I've no idea what you mean by "the image is here to illustrate someone/sopmething where ther color is present". In many cases it does not illustrate anything but the fantasy of the colouriser. To say that the real Abraham Lincoln existed in colour is to wholly misunderstand the nature of images and what we get from them. There are two issues. One is that image is represented for what it is: a historical photograph, engraving or whatever. The other is that is does not represent something that is either useless, or potentially false. The editor who made File:Mary Eristavi (color2).png made up the colours. These images appear on google searches. Paul Barlow (talk) 15:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
The colorized image is not a historical photograph; it is an artist's impression closely based off a historical photograph.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:43, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Limiting myself to the actual question posed; Colourised images should never overwrite an original. The only potential exception I can think of is when the original was only uploaded in order to ask for a colourisation of it. I believe a discussion of the merits of colourisation itself is being discussed elsethread. Hohum (talk) 17:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
You refer to discussion on en.WP about the use of colourised images in its articles; it's not relevant here, because each project can set its own policy. Andy Mabbett (talk) 18:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Never mind what’s being discussed in w:en — this thread is about overwriting colorized images over their b/w originals, not the merits of colorization itself; if anything, Commons is way more permissive than Wikipedia when it comes to such matters, but feel free to open a thread about said merits here too. -- Tuválkin 19:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Er, that's what I said: "it's not relevant here". Andy Mabbett (talk) 13:20, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
That’s right. Apparently I borked the indentation. -- Tuválkin 11:56, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Because nobody mentioned it yet: There is a template ({{Retouched picture}}) for that.    FDMS  4    18:53, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps we need a more specific template, or parameter, and category, for colourised images? Andy Mabbett (talk) 18:54, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, please: We do need a kind of warning template for prospective users, saying something like «This color image was created from a monochrome original» (with a link to it), similar to {{Personality}} and also to {{Extracted}}. Simply saying it is a {{Retouched picture}} is not enough — sometimes retouching is a mere cleanup of a dusty scan or a damaged photograph, while colorization is a derivative new work — its contents may be signficantly different and re-licensing may apply, too. -- Tuválkin 19:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Re-licensing won't apply in the US; both the recent Copyright Office report and their report on the decision to register colorized movies make it clear they won't register colorized pictures.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:41, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
I was thnking of the “viral” nature of licenses such as CC-SA or GDFL: Any derivative work, such as colorizing, must be licensed in the same terms as the original. Unlike restoring, colorizing is not “mere labour”. -- Tuválkin 11:56, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
In the US, colorizing is not a derivative work; it has no separate copyright from the original. There's no point in discussing whether it's “mere labour” in the US; it's an explicit ruling. That may not apply in the rest of the world, of course.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:29, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
You and I know that US copyright laws matter especially for Commons, but that is not evident for the casual contributer. Colorizing a black and white original should follow the ruling you mention, yes — that’s why a specific template should be created and applied — like I said, matters about licensing of the colorized version are relevant: If the colorizer wants to license s/his work under a new license, s/he’s out of luck and must be informed about it, as well as possible re-users. A specific template to tag colorized works could also be used as a cleanup tool, flagging files whose licensing is incorrectly more restrictive than their monochrome original’s. -- Tuválkin 12:56, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that a new template for colorized images would be helpful. MjolnirPants (talk) 20:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 
I am the editor Pigsonthewing referred to in the OP. I uploaded colorized version over old images because I was asked to colorize those images, not to create separate, colored versions, and because I never gave a thought to the use of the image, only to the request itself. Despite the rather unproductive argument which ensued at en:Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Photography workshop, I agree that a policy of always creating new files when an existing file is modified in such a way is a good thing to have. I can find no mention of such a policy already, and so I think that WP and commons would be best served by using this thread to arrive at such a policy. To that end, I propose the following:
  • Works of art should only be colorized when doing so is part of an effort to restore the image, not to improve the image.
  • When an image used to illustrate some subject is colorized, it should be uploaded as a separate file and labelled as a colorized version.
I think that a way of communication this policy needs to be implemented as well. There is a header at the photography workshop that could be modified to show this and any other policies governing alterations to images used on WP. The problem is most likely to be solved by working to ensure that everyone is on the same page, not by berating or making demands of other users. MjolnirPants (talk) 19:34, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
@MjolnirPants:: There already is Commons:Overwriting existing files. Might be enough to add this to the header of the graphics lab? --El Grafo (talk) 19:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
@El Grafo:, Yes, adding a link to that would be a good idea. I'm not sure it's enough, though. I still believe there should be a policy regarding colorizing files, and that all policies relevant to requests made there should be linked. MjolnirPants (talk) 19:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
You are not "the editor referred to in the OP", as I did not refer to a single editor, but to a trend among editors, plural. The argument on en.WP was unproductive, because in response to my polite request that you create new files when colourising, you told me to fix the issue myself. Andy Mabbett (talk) 13:20, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
If you intend to do nothing other than whine and complain, then please excuse yourself from this discussion. MjolnirPants (talk) 13:40, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
It was said before, but it needs to be said again: Colorizations from monocrhome originals are perfectly acceptable as such in Commons, even for items whose substantive use in Wikipedia (any language version) would be abominable. So if the discussion in the English Wikipedia was «unproductive», here it will be even more so. -- Tuválkin 11:56, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Andy is undoubtably correct about uploading colourized images separately. And the more I think on it the more I agree with Paul too. These images appear on Google searches, and some of them arguably have negative EV. Perhaps there should be an equivalent to en:Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria that deals with the poorest quality images/edits, so that they can be deleted/reverted by consensus? All too often, valid concerns about image edits (of all kinds) are seen as vitriolic by thin-skinned editors, and discussions descend into a prickly exchange in which uninvolved editors are unlikely to 'take sides'. It would be useful to be able to hand over the decision to another set of editors. Apologies if I'm drifting off topic. nagualdesign (talk) 21:13, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

We sometimes use paintings of people who were dead when they were painted, as well as hand-painted postcards of b&w photos. People respond very strongly to color, and it turns some of those dull splotches of grey or brown into something that would actually attract readers' eyes. Especially if some research is done, these images can be very valuable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
@Nagualdesign: I think your point about avoiding prickly discussions and side-taking is quite valid. It's unproductive to argue about the validity of certain edits. If, instead, we can reach a rough agreement on when such edits are appropriate, and a firm set of guidelines as to how they should be done, such discussions can -for the most part- be avoided in the future. Improper requests can be stopped before they are fulfilled and improper edits reverted without lengthy arguments if we can agree on standards which images must meet before being colorized, and standards which the colorized version must adhere to. That would be far better than a group of editors simply voicing complaints about certain edits without taking any steps to correct the problem. Note that despite the length of this thread, no-one has argued that overwriting images is an acceptable practice.
Also, you said "All too often, valid concerns about image edits (of all kinds) are seen as vitriolic by thin-skinned editors," I would like to point out that referring to edits as "abominations" and "unspeakable" is vitrolic, regardless of the thickness of one's skin. "The quality of this edit is quite poor," is a valid concern about an image edit, while "This is an abomination that should never happen!" is vitriol. MjolnirPants (talk) 13:40, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
I stand by my original statement. You seem to be cherry picking individual words to be offended by, regardless of context. "Personally, I think unspeakable images such as this should never happen at all" is a valid concern, and I would gladly second that opinion. And "Creating the coloured abomination serves no more purpose other than creating a coloured-in version of a Julia Margaret Cameron photograph" is equally valid, IMO. I see no vitriol.
The world is full of all sorts of different people with very different sensibilities. Some people can be terse, others polite, and you just have to find a way of getting on with different personalities. If you're going to 'spit the dummy' whenever anyone words something differently to how you would have preferred, perhaps a collaborative project isn't for you. And if you honestly believe that "appending "please" to a demand does not make it less of a demand" then you're on a hiding to nowhere. nagualdesign (talk) 18:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Answer me this... Are you more concerned with ensuring this doesn't happen in the future, or ranting against me for doing somethign you don't disagree with? Your response indicates the latter, and if so, you're on the wrong site for that. Perhaps Facebook or a blog would be more appropriate. Do you have anything to actually contribute? MjolnirPants (talk) 21:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
"Answer me this"?! Sounds like a demand to me! Et cetera, ad nauseum. You can see how this going, right? Perhaps the point I was trying to make is that one can simply address the issue(s) raised by another user (especially one with a valid point that you agree with) rather than getting bogged down whining about the manner in which you were spoken to. But we digressed. The thing that actually concerns me is, as I said, not being able to pass contentious images/edits on to a group of uninvolved editors. My suggestion was that, just as with Featured Picture Candidates, a group of volunteers could arrive at consensus on a case-by-case basis through discussion, developing guidelines as they go. I'd gladly defer to the wisdom of crowds rather than engage in a one-on-one that's going nowhere. nagualdesign (talk) 03:26, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Umm.. Maybe this already exists, actually. I've just been reading Commons:Deletion policy and it seems like some of these unspeakable abominations could be dealt with under existing policies for being out of scope/not educationally useful. I'd still like to have somewhere that poor workmanship could be dealt with though. nagualdesign (talk) 03:40, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
A famous colorizing error was giving "Old Blue Eyes" brown eyes. Delphi234 (talk) 16:53, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Yikes! Do not overwrite the original, ever, and warn against article use when colors are guessed. For example, a reader might look at the photo/drawing of one of these kings in the article to decide whether he is wearing Tyrian purple, or some other color or dye with traditional regional significance, and if the colors have been guessed, this could entirely mislead the reader. Wnt (talk) 22:05, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

German train station categories

(I also started this discussion on the German forum.)

I want to discuss German train station categories. Currently, most categories have a name like Bahnhof Sometown, where Bahnhof is the German word for train station. This contradicts the naming rules in Commons:Categories: Category names should generally be in English. They are also not proper names and the word Bahnhof is not appropriate for an international platform like Commons. I think there are two alternate naming options:

  • Sometown Süd (für unique station names) and Sometown (train station) (for ambiguous names), i.e. the category is named after whatever appears on the train station sign, with disambiguation if needed
  • Sometown train station

I prefer the first option. Another question are proper named that include the word Bahnhof, like Berlin Hauptbahnhof (literally Berlin main station). Do we use the German proper name or the english translation. Personally, I prefer the first option, because it means we have clear rules: The category name is the same as the station sign (+disambiguation if necessary). In this case even the article on English Wikipedia is named Berlin Hauptbahnhof. Also, what about Cologne main station, aka Köln Hauptbahnhof? --Sebari (talk) 17:04, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

en:Köln Hauptbahnhof :-). We could make our life real easy if we just leveraged the work that went into choosing the en.wp article names (at leas for those subjects where an en article exists). --Dschwen (talk) 18:33, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Disagree with Dschwen, train station names can be different on Commons and en.WP (for example, I think that most train stations are actually called railway stations there). The "train station" in category names isn't there for disambiguation purposes, but an essential part of the name, and therefore shouldn't be put in brackets. And, central stations are called main train stations on Commons. My suggestion: [name] train station and [name] main train station.    FDMS  4    22:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Definitely not "main train station". If the name in the timetable is "Köln Hauptbahnhof", then the exact string "Köln Hauptbahnhof" should also be in the category name (non-Latin scripts should be transliterated though). I don't really see much merit in mass-changing such a scheme (note how France has Category:Gare de Menton and such), but I will note that if the common element of such category names is at the beginning rather than the end, that makes it much quicker to categorize into these categories using HotCat because you can then define shortcuts like #bf for "Bahnhof". darkweasel94 13:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
It´s not broken, so don´t fix it: An estimated 95 percent of the German railway station categories are very consistently named in the form "Bahnhof X" as this is understood to be a proper name. As all of them are categorized in a "Train stations in Y" category, a descriptive English addition to each individual category seems rather unnecessary. I appreciate the category structure being English, but on the level of individual objects, the actual names in the most common form should be used. --Rudolph Buch (talk) 08:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Moving files into English Wikipedia from Russian Wikis

Hi, I've been advised to post an image here I would like to have converted into usage file for English language Wikipedia. The image is Файл:Madamin-bek.jpg but if someone can advice me how do this myself I will try to add other images myself. Thanks!Monopoly31121993 (talk) 19:10, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

There is a tool, CommonsHelper/Move-to-commons assistant which you can use for transfer. But you need to check the copyright status of ru:File:Madamin-bek.jpg, if it is compatible with Commons licences, Template:PD-scan etc. --Atlasowa (talk) 09:11, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
The image on ru.wikipedia claims PD-70 on the basis of having been taken in Russia before 1944 (the date is in 1920). The photographer and source aren't listed. I suggested Monopoly31121993 come here to ask for advice on whether this use of PD-70 is accepted these days on Commons. Thanks. --Amble (talk) 21:54, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Atlasowa, and Amble, thank you for your help. Sadly I couldn't figure out how to perform the upload. I typed the name of the file (:ru:File:Madamin-bek.jpg) but I got this message ("This image has no verificable good license, and can thus not be uploaded to commons through this tool."). I do think that Amble is right and since the image is 94 years old it qualifies for the public domain but I'm still not sure how to go about uploading it (and similarly PD images) to commons. Is there a help page that explains how I can upload these? Thanks again.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 10:13, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

September 19

CSIRO ScienceImage bulk upload

Hi all. I'm in the process of running a bulk upload of Category:Photographs from CSIRO ScienceImage which will total ~3500 images. They're great pictures including some unusual subjects, and the majority would be of use in wiki projects. My auto-categorization is pretty poor (based on unthinking conversion of their keywords). So I'd appreciate any help in categorization or usage. CSIRO will announce the collaboration when the upload is complete, so it will look even more impressive if some are in use by then. --99of9 (talk) 03:53, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Could you re-think your approach? Based on a random sample of one, where it has 6 redlinks and no existing categories, this does not seem to be working out that well. 3,500 is a modest number to play around with, so it should be possible to identify the most common keywords found in the text, or map the CSIRO categories to something more useful than adding "in Australia". In the past I used test batches to drive the production of a spreadsheet of matches which could then be used for batch "housekeeping". I suggest you move the current red-links to a list of keywords in the description and use these as a source for VFC or similar against the bucket category.
If in doubt, I recommend creating a project page on BATCH so that you can "show your workings" and in the long term people can chip in with cooperative suggestions for improvement. -- (talk) 07:54, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
I'll take another look when they're uploaded. Once they're on wiki I expect I can get the common categories sorted pretty quickly with cat-a-lot/hotcat/AWB, and some of the redlinks should probably be blue. I don't think there's any harm in having redlinks in the meantime - it just makes them less findable until then, and proper category/keyword maps would take me a lot longer to implement. What is VFC? --99of9 (talk) 13:51, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Help:VisualFileChange.js   -- (talk) 14:06, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Interwiki

Please, add interwiki to Category:Darba: [[cs:Darba]], [[lt:Darba]] and [[ru:Дарба]]. This is disabled for me (by unexpected error). Thank You. --Kusurija (talk) 08:15, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Done. Have a nice day, Kusurija! --Atlasowa (talk) 08:30, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but the same problem is for me (why) with all categories of Lithuanian rivers/rivulets. Can someone help me? Thank You. --Kusurija (talk) 08:36, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Actually categories should not be linked with articles ans vice versa. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:08, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Just add the Wikipedia link in the category page, instead of as an interwiki list. Only one needs to be used because all the rest are linked through the language links. Delphi234 (talk) 16:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Done. If there was a page for it on Commons that could be added to the interwiki links though. Delphi234 (talk) 16:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
On Commons most of the interwiki links are between Commons-categories and Wikipedia-articles. As we discussed a year ago at the moment wikidata is only used to store Commons-gallery to Wikipadia-article, Commons-category to Wikipedia-Category and other same namespace interwiki links. So the majority of interwikis are still handled the old way by adding [[cs:Darba]], [[lt:Darba]] and [[ru:Дарба]] to the category page. The assumption is that in the future we will be able automatically create Commons-categories to Wikipedia-articles interwiki links (or something equivalent) based on wikidata, but at the moment we can not. --Jarekt (talk) 14:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Convert to SVG need a tiny RfC!?

Hello, there is a small "fruitless disagreement" on the rudimentary using / position / correct placing on the file desc. So it is appropriate to make an RfC? (I personally have never done this before but this RfC thing seems very useful?)User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?) 11:09, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I propose a standard location for all maintenance templates (either top or bottom of the file). This prevents double usage which I have seen several times. The same applies to maintenance categories (such as "Maps needing South Sudan political boundaries"). Karlfk (talk) 12:20, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
I started to recommend putting them after the description, but then looked at the template and realized that it really does not matter where it is located. Delphi234 (talk) 15:16, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Full image AND a cropped version?

I'm uploading a WWII Army Air Force photo. It was mounted on a card that carries all the original identifying marks. I'd like to upload the version with the card so it can be seen, but only use the actual image within it in my wiki article. I'd prefer not to upload two photos, is there a way to have a single page have both and be able to link to either one? Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:38, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, the best way to go about it is to upload both, then link each to the other with the | other_versions parameter of {{Information}}. -- Tuválkin 14:26, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
The User:We hope method is to first upload the full scan with all info, then upload the cropped scan as a new file version under the same name. The full image is available in the version history for those that want to access it... AnonMoos (talk) 01:29, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Translation not appearing

This File:Alaska RaceComposition2005 PieChart.svg has translations added, mostly to add a decimal point instead of a comma in the percentages, and when it is used as a thumb it works,

 
Language not specified

and if the language is specified,

 
English specified

but not on the file page when English is selected from the drop down box. Japanese works and Chinese, but not English. If your browser is set to a default language other than English this might display properly in English for you. English uses the default for the title, but a translation for the legend values. In other words our rendering works for different languages, but not on the file page. How is the rendering done for the file page, and how is that different from any other use? The various sizes that you can select all work properly. I tried uploading a new version with English, and it did not seem to work so I reverted to the old version, and now it does work, but I might have being seeing an old version both times because of the cache.

As a separate issue, the default is not showing in the drop down box, so I can not see what the image would look like in de, pl, es, fr, and any other language that uses the default, because it is not showing default as a selection in the drop down box (those languages all use "Alaska" as the name of the state). So basically, if a default is used with switch, default needs to be included in the drop down box.

No default:
     <switch>
          <text systemLanguage="en, zh">69.2</text>
          <text systemLanguage="de, es, fr, pl">69,2</text>
     </switch>

     <switch>
          <text systemLanguage="de, en, es, fr, pl">Alaska</text>
          <text systemLanguage="zh">阿拉斯加州</text>
     </switch>

Default, but does not appear in the drop down box for anyone using English, but it needs to appear, 
so that anyone using English can see that the default does not use a period, but uses a comma for the decimal point:

     <switch>
          <text systemLanguage="en, zh">69.2</text>
          <text>69,2</text>
     </switch>

     <switch>
          <text systemLanguage="zh">阿拉斯加州</text>
          <text>Alaska</text>
     </switch>

You can, though, see what say French looks like by adding ?lang=fr&title= in the URL after php and before the file name.[7] Delphi234 (talk) 16:06, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand what isn't working in your first paragraph. What are you expecting to see, and what are you seeing instead? As for the second point, yes I could see how it might be appropriate to still have a (default language) option even if english (Which is the MW go-to default) is in one of the <switch>'s. As it stands, you'd have to do something like https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Alaska_RaceComposition2005_PieChart.svg?lang=Default Bawolff (talk) 16:45, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
I am guessing that I just needed to hit "reload" to get the decimal points to show up (I was replacing one with commas with one that uses switch to select what to use). I uploaded the same file to Test.svg and it worked fine. ?lang=Default is not working for me - it should show commas as the decimal point, and does not force default to appear in the drop down box. Delphi234 (talk) 17:19, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
As a work around, for now I am just going to upload a version that has all of the languages that use "Alaska" for the name of the state for one of the percentages. Delphi234 (talk) 17:24, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, guess it only works when you use lowercase d - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Alaska_RaceComposition2005_PieChart.svg?lang=default (which is really just a hack - its looking for a language with code "default" which obviously doesn't exist so it falls back to actual default). Bawolff (talk) 21:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

September 20

recording

Hello, on this file, I hear a "boom" at the end, can you remove it please ? Fort123 (talk) 13:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't hear a boom at the end (at least not in Firefox 32 and Chrome 37). You could download the file and open it in an audio editing tool to see if you get the same results, and/or provide more information how to reproduce the problem. --Malyacko (talk) 22:43, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
There is a lot of noise at the end of the file as the microphone or recording is shut off. This is corrected i.e. removed by adding a taper at the end so that it decreases to zero without that "boom". Normally a taper is added at the beginning for the same reason. Delphi234 (talk) 17:54, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Comparison of no taper and a taper. File:Audio lead in and lead out taper.png Delphi234 (talk) 20:19, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

September 21

Fresh category members tool idea

Hi. I'd like to (and I'm almost in the process on) write a tool which would show latest category members -- with subcats, recursively -- for new page patrol purposes. It would be a web app where you type a wiki name and category name and get a list of category members sorted by time. Later on I'd have to implement pages (if there's too many) or limit the time frame. Is this worth doing given that categories would move to Wikidata soon? If so, how soon? Thoughts? (P.S. Please distribute to sister projects village pumps). Gryllida 07:32, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

There is already something similar: User:OgreBot/gallery. But that only works for newly uploaded files, not for files that were added to the category later. It does sound useful, though its usefulness depends on the implementation; it should be able to do at least as much as OgreBot. I think in the WMF office hour on structured data (18:21:48) it was mentioned that categories will not move to Wikidata. The system you mean is supposed to be in addition to categories, not as a replacement for them. darkweasel94 08:10, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
I think that the point is in the tool not only being able to track old pages which were added to a category recently, but in it also being able to query categories at any sister Wikimedia project. English Wikipedia new page patrol is a pain at the moment imo. Gryllida 08:14, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
About Wikibase, thanks, I see -- would be nice to see the things documented in more detail. Gryllida 08:14, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Why we stop use Commons:Photography critiques?

I'm having "problems" cause I want opinions to improve some photos, and as the Commons:Photography critiques looks like a tomb, I send the photos to "Quality images", when then a received a feedback, some of then not satisfactory, as they say the problem not a possible solution (sometimes not even the problem, just "not good enough"), and the good answers became ridiculous because of the space to answers in QI.

What we could do to bring back that page? Link in the Main Page? Here with a explanation? ... Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 09:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton, I've thought about that as well. Maybe archiving the old discussions could be a first step to make it look less abandoned, then put up two or three new files for discussion. Maybe also launch a watchlist notice to invite people to visit (and watchlist) the page. People seem to have forgotten about it, so make it pop up on their watchlists more often by simply using it. --El Grafo (talk) 09:07, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Not usefull to give the uploader not the right to delete his picture after he gets a big problem

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Totenkopf3.jpg

"The employer of the uploader told me, he shares the copy right with me, because I was his employee while I did produce the picture. He don t want the picture in wikipedia under my name Hans Bug (Diskussion) 09:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)"

When I need it, to fight for my copy right, I will do it. But not under the force of wikipedia against my will and against my employer. I love my job!^^ Please make a fast deletion for me. Thank you for this -- Hans Bug (talk) 09:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Hans Bug, you did not say "I want you to remove my own photo" you said "they don't need that any-more".
So reinsert properly your request. Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 17:14, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Ups. My first argument was, i am the uploader and beg to delete the picture. Nobody other did need it last years. And my second argument was, its possible to do it, because another admin did this without any problems (and the other uploader didn't beg to do it.)
The same argument was here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Justiz1.jpg
What's the sense of this? Why do I need more than one good argument, when I need help?
And now I give a third very big argument to help me please. But nothing happens.^^ What's the spirit of wikipedia? -- Hans Bug (talk) 18:46, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Hans Bug -- "Delete this image because I uploaded it", with no other meaningful reason given, is what's known as a courtesy deletion -- we don't have to do this, but sometimes we choose to do it out of abundance of goodwill. Assuming that the file is properly licensed and not problematic in other respects, the original uploader really doesn't have any "right" as such to peremptorily demand deletion. AnonMoos (talk) 05:57, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Omg! What a horror! The uploader makes the work for wikipedia, he declares the license, he has the accountability. But why he has no power? The administration has all the power and no liability for anything. And suddenly you are the supplicant, because you have a big problem with your employer and you risk your job for nothing if you don't have the right to revise a mistake. And to be friendly to a user is not a part of the administration in this situation?
You want that I loose my job for wikipedia and for a picture nobody did need all the years? That is what you want to tell me? And you want to tell me, this is a good system for wikipedia to do this? How to understand this? -- Hans Bug (talk) 06:45, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Why don´t you simply tag it as a copyright violation with {{copyvio|Uploader does not own the rights necessary for release under GFDL}}? This should lead to a speedy deletion within a very short time. It clearly isn´t a case of courtesy deletion but an obvious copyright issue. --Rudolph Buch (talk) 07:42, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
I have deleted this image as a courtesy and/or copyright violation. It wasn't in use, I don't see the harm in deleting it when the uploader is so clearly unhappy about it. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:55, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks :) I made me very unhappy, all time i did tell nothing else here. -- Hans Bug (talk) 09:19, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Angel's Logo.png flagged for deletion by El Grafo

I am the owner of all of Angel Sessions photos, videos, website and songs. I created Angel's Logo.png, I build her website and I am her manager and husband. Every photo you see on her website I took. If you go to Angel Sessions website at www.angelsessions.com and scroll down to the bottom right corner you will see that I have added my name (Demetrius Guidry) to the copyrights. As far as the Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn icons I was only trying them out. Those have been deleted and we are not using them anymore. However, please do not touch any photo, video or song that I upload because I own all of it and have all rights to do so. Therefore, please do no flag or delete anything I upload with regarding Angel Sessions and withdraw your flag. Thank you.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Demetrius Guidry (talk • contribs) 14:36, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello Demetrius Guidry, the problem with this is, that basically anyone could create an account with your name here and claim to be you. Hence, we have no idea if you are Demetrius Guidry or if you are just someone claiming to be Demetrius Guidry. For cases like this, we have established the procedure explained at COM:OTRS, which I already linked for you at the deletion request. Please follow the instructions there and refer to our volunteer support team at permissions-commons@wikimedia.org if you need assistence with that (please note that there is a backlog at the moment so it may take a while until you get a reply). Once everything has been sorted out, the deleted file(s) will be restored by an admin. I know that this may look like unnecessary bureaucracy, but it is intended to prevent people like you from getting your images stolen by people who don't understand/care for your Copyrights. Best wishes, --El Grafo (talk) 10:09, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Librarian congress images

Hello, there's a lot of CC-By-SA images of the World Libraries Congress (Lyon, France) on FlickR: could anyone download them on Commons? Best

Hi, thanks for the notice. I looked through them and uploaded three pictures in Category:International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions, but I doubt that a mass upload would be reasonable: Most images are just generic conference scenes and unfortunately, many of the potentially notable individuals aren´t named in the captions. --Rudolph Buch (talk) 19:17, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

"File:Amanda eliasch 2014.jpg" and "File:Amanda-Eliasch-2009.jpg"

I've come across some files which were uploaded as "own work", but which might have been taken from somewhere else. Is there anyway to verify if either File:Amanda eliasch 2014.jpg and File:Amanda-Eliasch-2009.jpg are actually each respective uploader's own work. One of the files was nominated for deletion here and the result was "keep"; the keep rationale assumes the photo was the uploader's "own work", but doesn't indicate the existence of any proof of the image actually being the uploader's "own work". Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

The main reason to accept our claims of "own work" is assuming good faith, because "own work" is nearly impossible to prove, but proving copyvios is easy: you just need to find where the image has been copied from.
Anyway, according to deletion request, the article where the image was (is) used is self promotional. Therefore, it's quite likely that the image was made with collaboration of subject to be used in Wikipedia, and I no see strong reasons to doubt of authorship unless some evidence is found.--Pere prlpz (talk) 12:01, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the reply Pere prlpz. I always try to assume good faith, just wasn't sure if "I am the copyright owner but my picture has been previously published" applies here because at least one of the photos (File:Amanda-Eliasch-2009.jpg) has been used in other places like on page 7 of this pdf. I don't think that's a copvio though because the file was uploaded to Commons in 2009 and the pdf is dated 2013, but not sure if an OTRS is needed. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:05, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
As far as I've seen, OTRS permission is only requested if publication elsewhere is previous to uploading to Commons. There is a lot of images taken from Commons later republished elsewhere - abiding to the license or even not abiding to it.--Pere prlpz (talk) 09:44, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
OK. Thanks Pere prlpz - Marchjuly (talk) 12:26, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

YouTube creative commons interview of Amanda Eliasch useful to us?

I googled Amanda Eliasch, saw that wikipedia has an [[en:Amanda Eliasch] article, and searched for additional creative commons images of her. Among the hits was a YouTube video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNo6VmbT7Pg -- marked as creative commons.

  1. YouTube allows uploaders to release their contributions as creative commons? I didn't know that. Their summary of CC doesn't say anything about "non-commercial", so is this considered a "free" license?
  2. The videos commons allows have to be in a non-proprietary free format, so, if a YouTube video was under a free license, and was in scope, it would have to be converted into a free format first -- correct?
  3. Screenshots from this video would also be creative commons?

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 17:13, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

See Commons:YouTube files. Like all files, whether or not a creative commons license is acceptable depends on the type. Note that youtube's parent company are the people developing the (free) webm video standard, so some videos on youtube could even be in a Free format (Although recently youtube has moved to "DASH" which makes things harder to download). Screenshots are generally a derivative work. They would probably be licensed the same as the video. Bawolff (talk) 03:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Ans 1: Some youtube videos are CC BY 3.0 licensed [8]. Jee 09:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

User uploading images of unknown copyright status

Most, if not all, of the images uploaded by User:Jaumellecha as "own work" seem to have been taken from the internet. Their copyright status is, for the images that I have looked into, either unknown or they are outright copyright violations. A few of their uploads have already been deleted as such. The reason why I am here is that I don't know what procedure to follow on Wikimedia for a case like this. - Takeaway (talk) 14:30, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

You could start a mass deletion request; the VisualFileChange tool makes this very easy. -FASTILY 21:42, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
I have invited the uploader to discus them here. I have also put up a few for copyvios, others for standard deletion request. For some other files, I can't find anything with Google Image Search but they too are suspect as they are all very small, around 500-800px and files of max 30kb which to me indicates that they also have been taken from the internet. - Takeaway (talk) 00:02, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Additional customisation to the "Cat-a-lot" tool?

Would it be possible to add an additional customisation to the "Cat-a-lot" tool? I'd really like having the possibility to automatically add in a custom edit summary to the recats I do, such as for instance "removed category per COM:OVERCAT". - Takeaway (talk) 14:38, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Just posted this request at the Cat-a-lot discussion page itself. Forgot that that existed too. - Takeaway (talk) 00:16, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

4600 Euros for Socialize Wikimedia Commons

Hello, I have noticed that a user has requested on meta 4600 EUR for "Socialize Wikimedia Commons". I am concerned. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:17, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

UploadWizard: Only first file uploaded

When I try to upload a file using UploadWizard and Mozilla Firefox, only the first file is being uploaded, despite I selected 3 concurrent uploads in my preferences. After the upload completed, there are a bunch of console warnings (like that that the API callback is deprecated -- guys, this is going to be removed in MediaWiki 1.25! so it should probably not in the Wizard any more) -- a thumbnail picture is shown and then the Wizard goes idle simply doing nothing despite indicating 2 pending and 5 more queued uploads. Someone should fix that. -- Rillke(q?) 14:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Are you selecting all files you want to upload at once, or are you selecting them one-by-one? I also use Firefox and selecting them one-by-one (by dragging from the file manager) generally works. darkweasel94 16:55, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Selected them all together. I sent a link to a screen recording to Gilles. Now using Special:Upload. -- Rillke(q?) 20:26, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Firefogg enabled triggered this bug. -- Rillke(q?) 17:19, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I've encountered this problem too, and can confirm that disabling Firefogg will solve the problem. However, I'd just like to point out that I installed Firefogg following advice at "Help:Converting video#Firefogg" which states: "Firefogg is a cross platform browser extension for Firefox which is supported by UploadWizard to automatically convert and upload almost any video file. Just download and install firefogg and use the UploadWizard as normal." If Firefogg is no longer compatible with other stuff, then that advice needs to be updated or deleted. — SMUconlaw (talk) 20:31, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Royal Society of Chemistry - Wikimedian in Residence

Hi folks,

I've just started work as w:Wikimedian in Residence at the w:Royal Society of Chemistry. Over the coming year, I'll be working with RSC staff and members, to help them to improve the coverage of chemistry-related topics in Wikipedia and sister projects.

You can keep track of progress at w:en:Wikipedia:GLAM/Royal Society of Chemistry, or use my talk page here if you have any questions or suggestions, or requests for help. Andy Mabbett (talk) 15:34, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

23M

Well, in the few last hours our file #23000000 was uploaded (or, taking deletions in account, better say a file was uploaded when the total was just under that figure for the first time) — current total is 23,006,289 ({{subst:NUMBEROFFILES}}). File #22M was uploaded on July 21st, a bit over than two months ago, so it is not big news anymore. With the killing-off of mobile uploads (hurrah!) we can maybe expect this growth to slow down a bit from less uploads; continued deltetion of off-scope items and copyright violations may even bring numbers down — although high quality in-scope uploads from GLAM and other such drives may be enough fuel to a growth in quality, also. -- Tuválkin 20:35, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

For reference, a possible guess at file 23 million is File:Nl-poedeltjes.ogg (That's 23 millionth file, not counting deleted files, considering files that are existing as of right now. The real 23 millionth file is probably a bit later than that file since things have probably been deleted in the intervening time). Bawolff (talk) 15:42, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Motd/2014-10-13 - possible problematic content?

Looking backward I think it is necessary to ask for comments to my selection of Motd/2014-10-13. Maybe this kind of content could be an ethical issue for some people. --Pristurus (talk) 21:50, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Are you sure this is in the PD? I know a lack of originality might prevent a work from being protected in some jurisdictions, but I don't know whether that's the case in the PRC or, more importantly, the USA …    FDMS  4    22:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Assuming it's real, security camera video is not copyrightable in the U.S. The only case for U.S. copyright is if the editing involved creativity, and as far as I can tell the editing is just omitting passages in which presumably little or nothing happened. - Jmabel ! talk 23:43, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Are you sure? I recall seeing the argument that security camera video is not copyrightable made in a lower court by one of the parties to that effect, but that's far from a ruling in a major court, a statement in the Copyright Compendium, or a claim in Nimmer on Copyright. I'm actually less comfortable about the editing; I suspect that it wouldn't take much editing to get a copyright and a lot more creativity involved even in simple edits than most people think.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:45, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Hmm. Maybe bring this to Commons:Village pump/Copyright where more people with actual expertise are likely to check in? - Jmabel ! talk 19:19, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
In the European Union, this would be protected by a w:related right, which states that the producer of a film holds the copyright for 50 years from publication. As this is a related right, it is exempted from the originality criterion. I'm not sure if China has anything similar. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:52, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

September 25

Alien possum ?

Hi, white eared possums use to be Didelphis albiventris‎ species. But they live in South America. So what do you think of this guy, said to be North American but white eared and black footed unlike regular Didelphis virginiana‎ ? --Salix (talk) 21:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

This might not be the best place to ask. What about "w:Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science?" — SMUconlaw (talk) 20:33, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
The page description doesn't seem very authoritative. FunkMonk (talk) 21:29, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Which page description? — SMUconlaw (talk) 22:22, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks SMUconlaw I will ask my question to this science reference desk. --Salix (talk) 09:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

September 27

Category for failure

Have we any missing bolts categories or track maintenance faults?Smiley.toerist (talk) 21:47, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd say just put it into a suitable subcategory of "Category:Rail infrastructure". I'm not sure it's currently necessary to have a specific subcategory dealing with maintenance faults or problems. — SMUconlaw (talk) 09:59, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

September 28

Largest files

What are the largest files hosted by the Wikimedia Commons, and their sizes? Thanks, Leucosticte (talk) 00:27, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

According to the File list, the largest file is File:2012 State Of The Union Address (720p).ogv, which has 3.21 GB. 2014Best (talk) 01:13, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


Flickr Images

Hello, I'm new to uploading images and I just discovered Flickr and uploading their images listed under "Creative Commons". I've posted several images which are from the Creative Commons and called "Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC 2.0)". Are these okay to add the Wikicommons? Thank you for the help and hopefully I don't have to worry but I wanted to check before going any further. Cheers!Monopoly31121993 (talk) 15:34, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

No. CC licenses with -ND or -NC in them are not ok. Most other cc lincenses are ok. The ok licenses will say approved for free cultural works on the page that describes the license. Bawolff (talk) 15:39, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
See also: Commons:Licensing. Cheers, --El Grafo (talk) 15:42, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
(Edit conflict)Looks like you figured out how to nominate for deletion. In a clear cut case like this, you can also mark them for speedy deletion with {{speedy|Misunderstood license, image is non-commerical}}. For future reference, when uploading files, in the source part of the description, please include a full url, not just "flickr" (So people can easily double check things if they need to). Cheers. Bawolff (talk) 17:25, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
p.s. You may be interested in http://tools.wmflabs.org/flickr2commons/ which is a tool to help transfer files from flickr to commons. Bawolff (talk) 17:29, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, i've recently created the Ewals Cargo Care article on nl.wikipedia. The German article features a logo from that company. ( https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Ewals_Cargo_Care_Logo.svg ) In my opinion this logo is a simple combination of shapes and text (PD-textlogo). Can I transfer this logo to Commons? Sindala (talk) 15:52, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, PD-textlogo looks fine for this. Yann (talk) 16:29, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. I've uploaded the logo to Commons. Sindala (talk) 17:01, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Ticket offices

I have created a Category:Ticket offices. I could only link it to retail. Are there similar categories? There must be a lot of other ticket offices mentioned in the non-english texts.Smiley.toerist (talk) 22:06, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Category:Ticket booths already existed... AnonMoos (talk) 00:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

File usage

Why am I getting a link to www.mediawiki.org? This file used to be used on the Greek wiki, el, but is not now.

File:France demographie.png

The following other wikis use this file:

(plus others) Delphi234 (talk) 15:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Weird:
MariaDB [commonswiki_p]> select * from globalimagelinks where gil_to = 'France_demographie.png';
+---------------+----------+-----------------------+--------------------+--------------------------+------------------------+
| gil_wiki      | gil_page | gil_page_namespace_id | gil_page_namespace | gil_page_title           | gil_to                 |
+---------------+----------+-----------------------+--------------------+--------------------------+------------------------+
| eswiki        |     1173 |                     0 |                    | Francia                  | France_demographie.png |
| frwiki        |  4363973 |                     2 | Utilisateur        | Benjism89/France/Article | France_demographie.png |
| kowiki        |    95069 |                     0 |                    | 프랑스                   | France_demographie.png |
| mediawikiwiki |      815 |                     0 |                    | Γαλλία                   | France_demographie.png |
| mgwiki        |      619 |                     0 |                    | Frantsa                  | France_demographie.png |
| sqwiki        |    53088 |                     0 |                    | Demografia_e_Francës     | France_demographie.png |
| svwiki        |   376949 |                     0 |                    | Frankrikes_demografi     | France_demographie.png |
+---------------+----------+-----------------------+--------------------+--------------------------+------------------------+
7 rows in set (0.00 sec)

No idea why its listed for the wrong wiki. 815 is the page id for el:Γαλλία on greek wiki. There is no page on mediawiki.org with id 815, nor has there ever existed a page named Γαλλία on mediawiki.org. Looks like for some reason the entry for elwiki, was inserted for mediawiki.org, and then never removed since the file was only ever deleted off of greek wiki (since it was never used on mediawiki.org). I have no idea. Bawolff (talk) 00:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

September 30