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

An edit war

Hi. Please tell me, do I need a consensus to make pages translatable? I've prepared the Commons:Checkusers/Requests page for translation by preparing two more translatable templates for that. There had been an issue with edit section link that I've fixed in my last edit there – everything worked just like it used to, except now it became translatable. But the two users keep reverting my changes saying that I need consensus for such a change, and they don't bother that the contradictory change had been fixed already, they just move on edit war. As I can see, they just don't understand what I did, and how it works, nor they do understand what's the Translate extension itself. Can you express your opinion on that? (See the details on the talk page)--Piramidion (talk) 19:46, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Long story short the above editor had made changes to the above page however they'd only applied it to 1 request page (thus causing other pages and my dashboard to mess up, I've suggested twice this editor should get consensus however they've continued to edit war, If 2 editors have an issue with something then the next step is to gain consensus ... not edit war. –Davey2010Talk 20:18, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
I have fixed it. Don't you understand? I reverted only once, because you didn't explain what's wrong. The second edit was made to solve the issue you pointed. But still that's not enough for you two, is it?--Piramidion (talk) 20:27, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't care what was fixed - Point was your changes should apply to all 4 requests not just one, That aside the edit button is pointless and only makes it easier for vandals to well ... vandalise it. –Davey2010Talk 20:48, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Apparently you don't understand what I write. I have told you that I HAD FIXED ALL THAT. There's no edit button anymore. And my changes now don't have to apply to all 4 requests, even though I was going to make all them translatable as well. Try to paste this {{User:Piramidion/Sandbox}} (my last edit's code) into your dashboard in place of the {{Commons:Checkusers/Requests}} and tell me if it works the same or not.--Piramidion (talk) 20:54, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Sorry I hadn't actually realised you'd removed the edit button, Right let me explain:
when you first did all of these changes the heading was messed up and there was an edit button, The 2nd time you reverted me it was the exact same, I didn't look at the third time you added it because I obviously didn't revert then and simply assumed it was the same, Having pasted your sandbox into my dashboard there is no actual difference,
If you'd only planned on doing the translation stuff and nothing else then I wouldn't have had an issue but when the heading was changed and edit button added I obviously assumed this was your intention hence why I wanted you to get consensus, –Davey2010Talk 21:21, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
(The sandbox is fine an there's no difference between Commons:Checkusers/Requests and your sandbox, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 21:22, 2 January 2017 (UTC))
Ok, thanks. So I don't have any issues with you anymore, but FDMS4 remains. Reverting constructive changes is not OK, right? You know, sometimes if you try to make something better, you end up with something a bit broken. This time it wasn't too broken to boldly revert my changes instead of trying to help me find a solution (or instead of letting me implement the solution I had already found).--Piramidion (talk) 21:35, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Sorry to moan but you should've used the preview tool fist to make sure nothing externally was changed, Sure we all mess up and make mistakes but if someone makes a mistake then they should be reverted and told to fix their mistakes which is what I kinda done with you, Anyway everyone makes mistakes and if you haven't deleted the main page then I'm sure you're fine Face-wink.svg, –Davey2010Talk 22:13, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Agreed, that was my mistake too. But the problem is that after I fixed the mistakes I still have been reverted.--Piramidion (talk) 22:18, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

This is a very sensible area so you should actually consult checkusers/buerocrats and other admins so they may immediately verify your changes on related pages. Do not install this without proper testing by Admins responsible for this area. --Denniss (talk) 21:55, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, I'm a translation administrator and translator, and I edit all the translation related pages and subpages if this is necessary for translation purposes, and this is the first time I hear about the need of a special permission to do that. Secondly, I cannot think of a way to test this without implementing the changes. How was I supposed to see a user's dashboard being broken? Anyways, the testing and solving all the issues was done and reverted. Do you think this is OK?--Piramidion (talk) 22:02, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

FYI, I reverted to the last uncontroversial revision, where the change by Piramidion is not yet included. Please see my comment on Commons talk:Checkusers/Requests for explanation. Poké95 10:59, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Talking about "controversial" – who's disagreeing with my change now?--Piramidion (talk) 14:02, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Apologies, I didn't knew that FDMS had accepted your change now, I reverted back to your revision. Now closing this section as resolved. Poké95 10:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks!--Piramidion (talk) 10:48, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Issue resolved. Poké95 10:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Heads up regarding paid editor with questionable uploads

Earflaps (talk · contribs) has been blocked on en.wiki as a sock and paid editor - see ANI. They've uploaded a lot of files here, some of which have questionable permission/copyright status. I've already tagged a couple that were released on Flickr by companies under CC licences, but contain EXIF data giving specific photographers, who may not have released them under CC licences. More probably need checking Smartse (talk) 13:08, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

what makes you think that corporate images are not work for hire? paid editing disclosure not a policy here - Commons:Paid contribution disclosure policy. but hey - go for the mass deletion. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 14:04, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
If the files are useful, I wouldn't care in the least if someone was paid to upload them.-- Darwin Ahoy! 12:33, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
if they are in use, are they useful? photos of living people are hard to come by, even if promotional, the people tend to be notable, if they can afford the PR agent. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 03:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
@Smartse: You're right. Even some of the OTRS ones are a little off; many of that user's OTRS uploads are credited to disguised author names that appear nowhere else on the web, mostly of the format "ABCphotos", where "ABC" seems to be random two or three initials to disguise the true source: "LKphotos", "TRphotos", "MRphotos" (Marriage Records), "TKPphotos" (Kyle Park?), "CTphotos" (Cassie Taylor), "RD3Ddesignandphotography", "RRMTphotos", "Photos_of_CWOAR" (Chessington World of Adventures), "JLPhotos" (John Lissauer), "SaS photography" (Samantha Sackler), "TWP_photos (original photographer Danny Croucher)" (Trophy Wife). Funny that so many people want Earflaps to give them similar hidden names as their required CC-BY attributions, isn't it? Maybe someone with OTRS access should be giving these a second look and/or contacting the subjects/alleged "authors" to see what's going on here. --Closeapple (talk) 17:48, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
@Closeapple: Speaking 'solely' as an OTRS agent, here, the tickets appear to be valid. Reventtalk 14:04, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
OK, so that just leaves the non-OTRS ones. @Revent: Thanks! --Closeapple (talk) 15:41, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
it is not at all surprising that a london PR agent would have access to multiple clients and multiple photographers. and that their camera metadata would be screwed up. (when you look at the MacArthur foundation, it is a jumble of stringers working for hire). Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 03:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Looking at a random group of images from Special:Listfiles, I saw nothing problematic. Most of the uploads I checked were from Flickr and had proper reviewing tags (nothing possibly wrong there, unless someone faked the review), most of the others came from other free online sources (several from a Dow Chemical Company with an explicit cc-by-sa release, and one modification of an image already on Commons), and File:Shama Joseph in studio 2015.JPG, but your allegations can only be proven or disproven when we have a bunch of images like the Shama Joseph one, so I can't say that I believe you or that I disbelieve you when I've found just one image. Could you give me some additional examples that you're talking about? Nyttend (talk) 04:59, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

December 23

Common data sets licensing issue

So we now have data sets thanks to User:Yurik and co at the foundation. Currently it uses only CC0 licensed data sets. I am thinking we need to also allow CC BY licensed content at least. There are a lot of great data sources that are CC BY licensed including those of the United Nations as seen here. Wondering others thoughts?

Weather map GDP in the US
 

See or edit raw graph data.

 

See or edit source data.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:40, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

A bit wary about license conversion issues. Data per se are usually not copyrightable (and BY terms thus unenforceable), their "compilation" or "selection and arrangement" can be though. Would this constitute an issue? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:19, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
The UN Website says "All data and metadata provided on UNdata’s website are available free of charge and may be copied freely, duplicated and further distributed provided that UNdata is cited as the reference."[1]
I guess the question is do we need to follow "provided that UNdata"? I like attribution as we should be doing it anyway for verification purposes. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:31, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
it seems a very good idea which would bring in more images(as long as there are no issues of copyright)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:17, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I suspect Mike Linksvayer might want to comment? --Yurik (talk) 03:50, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

@Doc James: Now that Commons is hosting data we need to have an RFC about whether or not Commons wants to respect database rights. As database rights are not recognized by US law, the Wikimedia Foundation is not required to honor such rights. We also need to develop guidelines on proper licensing of datasets. Data itself is not copyrightable. However, the selection, arrangement, and presentation of data can be, even in the US, but only if there is some creativity involved. For example, most datasets at http://data.un.org/ are not going to be copyrightable. However, they may be protected by database rights. We will also need to create a bunch of new templates to cover all the various cases for datasets. Kaldari (talk) 23:32, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
If US law does not recognize database rights than neither should we IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:31, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Agreed The US has no database rights laws (nor should we) but even in the case of some creative work involving a database, the process would be the same as a photo or text which is a creative work. I don't see why this is a problem as such. —Justin (koavf)TCM 03:46, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  Comment Many countries protect databases: w:en:Sui generis database right, w:en:Database Directive, w:Copyright law of the United Kingdom#Database right. We need to approach that a bit more carefully. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 04:12, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
@Hedwig in Washington: But that's true of all copyrighted works as well: what is in the public domain in [x] is not necessarily in [y]. So I don't see how this is unique. —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:36, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Tuck´s postcard

 
File:Siva temple Chamundi Hills.jpg

I would like to date this postcard. Wich Oilette series is this one? And wich temple category is this? Do the buildings still exist? Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:35, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

According to this picture of the back it's series 1. The temple is Chamundeshwari Temple, our Category:Chamundeswari Temple on top of Chamundi Hills, Mysore, India. The bull statue also still appears to be extant, see Chamundi Hills. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:49, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

New template to replace magic words

Template:ISBN I have ported over w:Template:ISBN and w:Module:Check isxn from en.wp. Magic words as links are being phased out and although we don't have to replace all instances of them now, they will all be removed from MediaWiki in 2017. See mw:Requests_for_comment/Future_of_magic_links. We have about 100,000 entries in Category:Pages using ISBN magic links. —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:33, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

License enforcement: German court on a link to a Wikimedia Commons image

I learn from IPKat's GS Media finds its first application in Germany that the Regional Court of Hamburg has held a (commercial) website X liable for one link to a Wikimedia Commons image which was used without attribution. If I read the sentence correctly, the website was fined 6000 €.

The case is LG Hamburg, Az. 310 0 402/16 EV (FAQ).

I could not understand whether the website just linked (as most news say) or rather directly embedded the image into their page, nor whether there is a third website in addition to Wikimedia Commons and X. So it's not clear to me whether the file was hosted on Wikimedia Commons correctly, nor whether X was misled by false (or missing) copyright statements (either on Commons or on a third website which had taken the image from Commons).

Apparently there was some excitement in Germany about the thing ([2] [3]), so there is probably some discussion ongoing in the German community. I found Mögliche Ausweitung von Abmahnungen, Urheberrechtsverletzung auf afd-mv.de. --Nemo 10:20, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Yes... just linking to a file. It is a preliminary injunction regarding link liability. The amount in dispute was 6000 Euro which isn't unusual. LG = district Court, imho the issue should be clarified at the BGH (Supreme Court). Here is a informative article (in german language). --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:21, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
    • It won't go to an higher court because the defendant has accepted the ruling and settled the case, according to IPkat. Nemo 11:09, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Indeed, just linking to a web site (not only a picture) that has illegal content has been deemed illegal. I (and many others) wrote to the LG Hamburg, asking if they could please give me a legally binding statement that they have no illegal content on their site so that I can link to it and to the ruling. I finally got an answer just before Christmas, the short translation is: "We assume that all of our content is legal and don't see a necessity to give you any legally binding statement." They really don't understand the ruling that they handed down and what it means to the internet. I do hope that this case goes on, although it gets quite expensive to go through to the upper courts in Germany. --WiseWoman (talk) 13:02, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  • From what I understand, the fact that the image was originally hosted on Commons is irrelevant to this. The file was incorrectly licensed on site A and then linked from site B. Please also note that precedents have lower meaning in Germany than in Common Law countries, this is a ruling from a court fairly low on the food chain that is known for its controversial, unrealistic rulings, and directly contradicts prior rulings from a higher court. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 13:46, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  • @Nemo bis: Reading through the court case, it sounds like someone re-used an image from Commons and modified it (adding some UFOs), but they did not provide any notice that the image had been modified. According to the terms of most CC licenses: "Licensor hereby grants You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright) license to exercise the rights in the Work as stated below: ... to create and Reproduce Adaptations provided that any such Adaptation, including any translation in any medium, takes reasonable steps to clearly label, demarcate or otherwise identify that changes were made to the original Work. For example, a translation could be marked 'The original work was translated from English to Spanish,' or a modification could indicate 'The original work has been modified.'" Thus the re-use did not meet the conditions of the license. The controversial aspect here is that someone else was sued for merely linking to the infringing image (not the original Commons image). Kaldari (talk) 23:13, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

January 01

Upload from Panoramio

What am I doing wrong?

Until Simulate all goes well, with upload I get an error.

  • Simulation of File:Sans Souci beach, Santo Domingo Este.jpg Filename available.

{{Information
| Description = {{en|1=Sans Souci beach, Santo Domingo Este}}
| Date = 06-01-2013
| Source = http://www.panoramio.com/photo/84355845
| Author = Talavan
| Permission = Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported (CC BY-ND 3.0)
| Other_versions =
}}

Category: Sans Souci, Santo Domingo Este

  • Upload of File:Sans Souci beach, Santo Domingo Este.jpg ERROR: null

--Jos1950 (talk) 00:35, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

@Jos1950: I don't believe "CC BY-ND 3.0" is accepted here in Commons, possibly that's why you are getting an error when uploading? -- Darwin Ahoy! 01:30, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
There are many files with those licencie for example this and this. I had already looked at that, so I do not think that can be the cause. --Jos1950 (talk) 03:01, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
The first looks alright; the second seems to be BY-ND on the source site, but somebody has uploaded it as cc-by-3.0: I'll nominate it for deletion. --ghouston (talk) 03:45, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Think again. Content whose licensing prohibit modification is not free and is therefore not allowed on Commons. The error message should explain this. What upload process did you use? LX (talk, contribs) 09:41, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Upload process url2commons and I can not find an explanation. If ND (=) is not accepted, it was likely the error message. I finally found the ND (=) restriction on Commons:Copyright_tags#Unfree_licenses. --Jos1950 (talk) 15:53, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
It's also mentioned in Commons:Licensing, Commons:Licensing/Justifications, Commons:Project scope#Non-allowable licence terms, Commons:Project scope/Summary#Must be freely licensed or public domain, {{Nonderivative}} (which {{cc-by-nd-3.0}} redirects to) and many other places.
The unhelpful error message sounds like a bug that should be reported to User:Magnus Manske. The link for bug reports listed at wikisource:Help:URL2Commons doesn't work, so I guess you'll have to use his user talk page. LX (talk, contribs) 16:10, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. I go reading that. --Jos1950 (talk) 16:50, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Another file with ERROR:0. Reported on Help_talk:URL2Commons

Copyright problem in Casas-Ibáñez

I'm checking category:Casas-Ibáñez and I have found many pictures uploaded from Panoramio by a bot. Some of them have copyright symbols clearly on the images themselves, for instance File:Cadena de melones con cerradura de calabacín - panoramio.jpg. I think those should be removed from Commons. And I have doubts about the copyright status of the other pictures in the lot. So I have two questions, 1st how do I mark the copyrighted for deletion and 2nd what should we do with the others? Thanks. B25es (talk) 17:38, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

  • That's a watermark from the person on Panoramio whose account they came from. While we don't encourage watermarks, they are allowed. As long as that Panoramio user also provided an appropriate free license, those images are perfectly eligible for Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 18:34, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
    • OK, then. Thanks. B25es (talk) 18:37, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

January 04

Switching names for some categories

Hi! I was wondering if someone here could help me with something, as I'm unusued to working in commons (I do some work at Wikipedia). I apologise if this is placed in the wrong place.

I do some work on Wikipedia writing about art and architecture, mostly. I think the categories for altarpieces, reredos and retables are a mixed up as it is. If I understand things correctly, in English a "reredos" is a large, elaborate screen typically found in the very back of a church, standing alone behind the altar. A "retable" is placed closer to the altar or even upon it. An "altarpiece" refers to both, and is a porte-manteau term for objects of artistic value placed in the vicinity of the altar. At least this is the conclusion I've drawn from the Getty Art & Architecture Thesaurus (see here, here and here). Do you agree with this conclusion, and if so, would you be able to change the categorisation of the images accordingly? Thanks a lot! Kind regards, Yakikaki (talk) 08:14, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Just to clarify your concern for everyone, Yakikaki, Category:Retables currently redirects to Category:Reredos, which serves as a parent category for Category:Altarpieces. That would suggest that alterpieces are a part of reredos. If I understand correctly, you are suggesting the that reredos are rather a type of altarpiece? Darwinius might have some input on this. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:57, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Themightyquill, yes: both "reredoses" and "retables" are "altarpieces". Yakikaki (talk) 18:12, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Hm, I'm not sure the issue is resolved, the categories are still pointing in strange ways and I don't know how to fix it. Yakikaki (talk) 20:57, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
In addition: Merriam-Webster: Altarpiece, Merriam-Webster: Reredos, Merriam-Webster: Retable. And you can fix it by re-categorization of the cats themselves respective removing the template inside of Retables and after this doing recategorization of all files, which in your opinion picture a retable. You could BTW even add some information into the categories’ heads. — Speravir – 23:36, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Yakikaki, Themightyquill, Speravir. I had that problem some time ago. Adding to the confusion between the different designations and their meanings, there is the additional difficulty of similar words in Portuguese, Spanish and French which often mean very different things. So I asked a fellow historian which deals with ecclesiastic matters, and she referred me to the "Thesaurus Multilingue del Corredo Ecclesiastico" as the authoritative source. She borrowed me her paper version, but fortunately there is also an online version here with the English meanings, which is what matters to Commons. The English Wikipedia articles on that are very confuse, so it's better to not rely in them at all. As you can see here, "reredos" is the same as "retable" (which literally means "everything behind the table" - the altar), "reredos" being the preferred word. A reredos is whatever is behind the altar. It can be a very complex set of sculptures, reliefs ans paintings, can be a single painting, or even a minimal cross just hanging from the wall. The modules that comprise the reredos are the "altarpieces". Therefore, an altarpiece is always inside the reredos, and never the opposite. Altarpieces can be paintings or sculptures. A single altarpiece behind the altar is a reredos. The concepts seem difficult at first, but after you learn how they work, the categorization becomes very simple and without even grey cases.-- Darwin Ahoy! 04:03, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

If you have moved some "reredos" or "retables" inside "altarpieces", please undo those moves. They may not be wrong in the common meaning of those words, which, as you have seen, varies wildly according to the source, but they are against the "Thesaurus Multilingue del Corredo Ecclesiastico" definition, which is an authoritative source for ecclesiastic matters. Let's not forget that the main purpose of the reredos and its altarpieces is and has always been to serve Faith and Religion, not to be a work of art, therefore I would not use Art dictionary definitions as authoritative in this situation, in particular if they are against the ecclesiastic ones.-- Darwin Ahoy! 04:03, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Darwinius (and Themightyquill, Speravir) and thank you for your lengthy answer! It seems to me that there are conflicting sources and perceptions about this and that the issue needs a bigger discussion to get sorted out properly. I understand what your source says (although I can't access the link, there's an error message) but several other reputable sources give another story. I've asked for a broader input on the subject from the people at the Wikipedia projects on Christianity and Visual arts. Best regards, Yakikaki (talk) 18:28, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

The problem is due to there being two meanings to "altarpiece" in English. Originally it referred to a single sculpture or painting for display on or behind the altar. Consider for example the Rubens altarpiece which is part of a tryptych reredos in King's College Chapel Latterly the term has been used for the whole structure which may include multiple sculptures and paintings as well as structural elements such as the "doors" in a di-, tri- or poly- ptych. If the structure is free standing or attached to the fabric of the church it is a reredos ("behind the back"). If it is attached to, or placed on the rear of, the altar, then it is a retable ("behind the table"). A further problem arises when the altar is moved substantially forward, particularly down into the nave. A large retable would block off the priests and the old sanctuary and even a small one would make using the altar as the centre of the rite difficult. When this happens an old and treasured retable may be removed from the altar and affixed to the east wall making it into a reredos.
How therefore to deal with categories? I would suggest using the more modern, larger, definition of altar piece. It would be a good idea though to include a note to warn about the earlier usage. Reredos and retable are then subcategories if it is desired to have them at all. It might be easier just to use them as redirects to a combined category. A final point: be careful about sources. A Roman Catholic encyclopaedia (particularly if it is a translation from Italian or Latin) may disagree with the terminology used in Anglican or other Protestant churches. I suspect the judgement of Solomon is required! Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:13, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
@Martin of Sheffield: The thing with "reredos" and "retables": There is not any difference between the two, by their own definition. Before Vatican II, the Liturgy was celebrated with the priest giving his back to the attendants, so altars in general where attached to the wall and, consequentially, anything behind the altar was also attached to the wall. Any difference between "reredos" and "retable" in Catholicism in the way you propose above is therefore fictional and modern, and was impossible to even imagine before Vatican II. The "retable" in the way you describe above looks more like a kind of portable altar, it certainly was not a common object of cult inside churches. Mexican popular culture - and other Latin-American cultures - has indeed such kind of thing like you describe above, for home use: they call "retablos" to those small portable altars they have at home. But they derived that word from the true retablos/ reredos of the churches. Maybe that confusion you speak of above between "retable" and "reredos" derives from those popular Latin-American "retablos"?
The "Thesaurus Multilingue del Corredo Ecclesiastico" is not a common encyclopedia. It's not even a "Roman Catholic encyclopaedia", contrary to what you have assumed, and much less a "translation" from the Italian or Latin. It's a mega project from the 1990s started by the Italian “Ministero per i Beni Culturali e Ambientali”, and developed at top state level between Italian, Portuguese, Spanish, French, English and other countries and sources, to serve as a way to provide a correct identification of cult objects in Catholicism in those different languages, precisely to avoid that kind of confusion we are falling in again here. It was co-published by the Getty Trust.
In my experience in Commons, I seem to recall that almost all reredos we have are Catholic, and therefore fall into the scope of the Thesaurus. And I do not know any source that can compete with it, by far. I therefore   strongly disagree with the inversion you propose based in a "more modern, larger, definition of altar piece", for which you don't even present any source, much less one with the authority and scope of the Thesaurus.
Finally: As far as I know, Roman Catholicism is by far the religion with most expression of retables and altarpieces. Protestant religions were often iconoclasts, even Anglicanism which is quite close to Catholicism does not see with good eyes a profusion of art inside their churches. At least this is my perception here, in Madeira Island - our Anglican church of the Holy Trinity has recently placed a painting of the Virgin Mary over one of its altars, and it is seen by the Anglican community as something kind of exotic, like a kind of osmosis effect for being placed in a Catholic country. Our Presbiterian church (the church of my grandfather family) has a single reredos, which consists in a very simple wooden panel with a cross over it. As far as I know, the situation is not different elsewhere. Furthermore, it is part of our History that Protestants and Anglicans derived from Catholicism, and not the opposite. Therefore, a source dealing with Catholicism should be authoritative about what is a reredos and an altarpiece, whatever art dictionaries say.
Indeed, I never knew of any conflict between Protestant or Anglican sources, and the Catholic ones. As far as I know, the Catholic designations were peacefully inherited by those churches when they derived away. In any case, if there is any difference, it should be dealt with as a special case, and not as something that would require a "judgement of Solomon". That's totally inappropriate, especially when the elaborate reredos of the Catholics, and specifically the altarpieces and the elements they represented, where precisely one of the reasons that motivated such derivation.-- Darwin Ahoy! 13:11, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
I think you are missing the point slightly; the difference between a retable and a reredos is structural. The key question is to what is it attached? Reredos originally meant a fireback (1321 or earlier, see the entry in the OED 3rd edition) and came to mean "wooden panelling attached to a wall" (1387, OED). It was also variously used for the rear of an army (c.1400), or a backplate (1405). Although the OED notes "rare" for its use for a fireback, there are quotations from 1423 to 2005. Its use for an "ornamental facing or screen of stone or wood covering the wall at the back of an altar" is attested to from 1447 to 1992, though of course is still current. At virtually the same date (1448) it was also used for a rich cloth hanging covering the wall, a usage recorded as late as 1559. Clearly then the essence of a reredos is its attachment directly to the wall.
Retable appears in French from 1426, but direct quotations (OED) only start in 1817. J D Chambers writing in "Divine Worship Eng." (cited in the OED) says "The moveable Retable upon the Altar is quite a modern invention" (1877). The dictionary definition is a "structure at the back of an altar consisting of a shelf for ornaments or a frame enclosing a reredos" (OED). An interesting use of reredos in this context! It is clear though that the essence is that a retable is attached to or on an altar.
Altarpiece is a noticeably later word. The OED defines it as "A work of art, typically consisting of a number of painted panels, designed to be set above and behind an altar". This is the wider, current usage. Quotations though from 1624 tell a different story: "In the middest for the Altar peece was the Popes picture". In the midst of what isn't clear, but the altarpiece is a picture. Twentry years later there is an "altar-piece of St. Michael being of Mosaic".
Without spending much more time I'm quite happy to believe that most of the large reredoses in Wikicommons will be in Roman Catholic churches. Orthodox churches are under-represented and at the time when the most magnificent reredoses were being constructed Protestant churches were notably plain. Further, northern European churches tend to have large east windows to get the maximum light in from a weaker sun, and they are in areas which became Protestant. More southerly churches in Europe and further afield into Central America tend to have smaller windows and more wall space.
I didn't "propose" anything, so your "strong opposition" is well wide of the mark. I suggested a possibility for others to discuss. Discussion is the key leading (one hopes) to a consensus. My aim in this is to try to ensure that in English language descriptions terms are used in their common English meanings. Wikicommons allows for notes in multiple languages, it would be easy for a Spanish or Portuguese linguist to explain how the terms are used in those languages. It needs to be borne in mind that Wiki-commons and -pedia are not statements of Religious dogma but a description of what exists. Great works of art and architectural masterpieces may have been designed purely to serve "Faith and Religion" but they are great art and architecture with an appeal beyond the narrow confines of the worshippers. Architectural books and Art dictionaries are therefore not to be dismissed lightly.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin of Sheffield (talk • contribs) 17:42, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
@Martin of Sheffield: I'm using an authoritative ecclesiastic/art source to define reredos and altarpiece, and you are countering that definition with vulgar common dictionary definitions. That is the same as using dictionary definitions to try to define scientific subjects. I don't find that acceptable at all: I've never, never seen "common English meanings" being used in Commmons over the correct technical designations. Never.-- Darwin Ahoy! 22:47, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
An interesting description of the most authoritative and comprehensive dictionary of the English Language! I assume that you are meaning vulgar as opposed to sacred rather than vulgar as crude. Should English annotations to Wikicommons reflect the English language or a particular sect? Not my decision, and since I'm trying to bring light and not push a POV about the structure I feel there is little point in continuing to discuss this with someone who clearly is more interested in sectarian than linguistic attitudes. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 23:33, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
@Martin of Sheffield: As I've said above, this topic is not about English linguistics, it's about one or more defined objects of cult, which are often objects of art as well. And the Oxford Dictionary is not an authoritative source on those topics, as it's not an authoritative source on Architecture, Botany, Physics, etc. When there are authoritative sources available, they should always be preferred over any dictionary, Oxford or whatelse.-- Darwin Ahoy! 00:00, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

@Yakikaki: You were the OP, are you OK with using the Thesaurus as an authoritative source about those definitions?-- Darwin Ahoy! 15:27, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I will just say that in this area it is not sufficient to rely on a source specifically intended to reflect Catholic usage - very much a minority in the Anglophone world. English-speaking Catholic usages often stay close to the Latin-based church regulations. Anglican/Episcopalian usages are sometimes different, including ones in this area. Often the Anglican ones are actually more traditional and in line with pre-Reformation usage than the Catholic ones. I mostly agree with Martin here - but the OED is not the best source. The original OED is over 100 years old, and especially weak on art-historical terms. I would not dismiss the English Wikipedia articles, some of which I wrote. They attempt to address the complexities and contradictions of usage in a way no dictionary is likely to, and point to other sources. Johnbod (talk) 05:09, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
@Johnbod: Well, reredos themselves seem to be very much a minority in the Anglophone world, for obvious reasons. If Catholicism was the dominant religion in the Anglophone world, reredos would be common as well. Anyway, I would like to discuss objective concepts, and not vague ideas. We are talking about objects which are primarily objects of cult, and then, at a second plan, works of art. I'm talking specifically about Catholic reredos, which from my experience are the large majority here. If Episcopalian/Anglican usages are different, they should be addressed separately and those reredos and altarpieces should be separated from the Catholic (they should always be, anyway). So, I don't see any conflict here. Catholic sources for the Catholic objects, wahetelse for whatelse: To each their own. So I should restrict my opinion here to Catholicism: In Catholicism reredos are the whole thing, and altarpieces are the individual parts. I don't see how this can be argued, in face of the authoritative source I've presented, and much less how it could be countered by Anglican/Episcopalian or whatelse sources, even if they exist - I've seen none until now, so I have no idea how other religions call them. According to this source - just the first hit from a quick search on Google - the Anglican usage is pretty much the same as the Catholic, anyway, so I suspect the "conflict" described above could be artificial and derived from the usage of non authoritative sources, such as common dictionaries and art thesaurus, which seem to forget that the main purpose of a church is to be a place of cult, and not to display Boticellis.-- Darwin Ahoy! 18:36, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Obviously many English churches have surviving medieval fittings, though most were destroyed, and there has been a great Gothic Revival all over the Anglophone world since the 19th century. Commons has to reflect standard English-language usage. Johnbod (talk) 19:20, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
@Johnbod: Exactly, surviving medieval Catholic fittings. And categorization in Commons is not, and never was about linguistics or "standard English-language usage", especially when we are talking about an object which exists in much more profusion outside the Anglophone world (and even inside it, all Catholic contexts such as Ireland or pre-reform fittings follow the system explained above). It's about classifying things in the most possible accurate way. It's absolutely irrelevant if the common English dictionary says reredos is an exotic tree or a Mexican dance, those objects have a proper definition, and that's what we in Commons generally follow when we classify.-- Darwin Ahoy! 23:27, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for my late reply, the holidays have been busy. Although I think the usage of these terms is properly confusing, I've reached the conclusion that I have to agree with Johnbod and Martin of Sheffield, and maintain that the categories should be changed. Darwinius, you've provided us with one source that by all means seems plausible but there seems to be an overwhelming favour of another usage of the word. Also I think the argument that it's a question of a specific form of "Catholic definition" is strange; what we mean by the words are naturally what should be reflected in the categories since this is, in effect, what they mean. So yes, it's a question of semantics. The word "reredos" refers to a reredos, regardless of Catholic practices (which haven't defined these terms anyway). Yakikaki (talk) 10:32, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that I was maintaining "that the categories should be changed"! I hadn't looked at them again before commenting, though I have in the past. Doing so now, the first thing I see is that there are lots of altarpiece paintings from museums etc in the "reredos" category, probably because the French term for these is normally "retable". I presume nobody supports this, so I will move them. The main remaining issues are whether there should be a "retable" category, and if so what should be in it. And what the hierarchy of these related categories should be - should rerodos continue to be a sub- of altarpieces? I must say I can't get very worked up about the last. There is a case for both being a sub and parent of the other. As for splitting out retables, I am somewhat against this, not for Darwinius' reasons but because the usage is confused and variable within and across languages. Commons is very poor at maintaining fine and complicated distinctions, and most users are probably better off with all poossible retables in a single place. Johnbod (talk) 12:51, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Look, Johnbod, that things are confuse in this topic is not a secret nor nothing new, that's evident already from the wiki-en articles. That's precisely why I tried to organize this using an authoritative source for that kind of objects, instead of dictionaries or even Art Thesaurus like the Getty one which tries to encompass everything and makes a mess of all those definitions. I myself would prefer the designation "retable", as it is very similar to the Portuguese, Spanish and French word "retabulo". I used "reredos" instead because the Ecclesiastic Thesaurus I used translated our, French and Spanish "retabulos" as "reredos" in the English language, and Commons uses preferentially English designations. And now you seem to be going again backwards with everything. If you are going to do any kind of change, I advise you to work with extreme care around the available sources, or else you'll only be contributing to make worst the mess that already is here, due to the multicultural nature of this project. I would strongly advice you to not mess up with those categories without a strong, reliable and authoritative source behind. You certainly don't want to behave like a bull in a china shop, changing things using yourself as a source, as you seem to be doing above ("I presume nobody supports this, so I will move them."). -- Darwin Ahoy! 14:59, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
@Yakikaki: Can you please present those sources, so that we can deal with this in an objective manner? Until now the only source presented which support your thesis was the Oxford Dictionary which, by all means, it's not an authoritative source for religious objects. I was the only one here presenting an authoritative source, and I feel like dealing with a wall of personal views and vague ideas. Please, let's deal with this with some objectivity.-- Darwin Ahoy! 11:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
@Yakikaki: By the way, when presenting sources, keep in mind that those objects are objects of cult. They are defined by religious sources, not by art or other dictionaries. I don't care if the source you present is Catholic, Lutheran or whatever, just present one. In Commons we don't use common dictionaries to deal with Botany or Heraldic, we use authoritative sources that deal specifically with those topics. This is not the English Wikipedia, this is not about English language. Please respect the way things work here.-- Darwin Ahoy! 12:47, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

@Johnbod: I believed I was talking with someone civilized and calm, but apparently you decided to start changing things according to your own ideas, like this obvious Florentin reredos or retable, consisting into a carved frame and a central painting, which you decided to change into an "altar painting". Don't worry, do your little mess as you please, then hopefully someone will fix it back sometime in the future.-- Darwin Ahoy! 15:10, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't aware that even you supported putting framed museum altarpieces in the "reredos" category - presumably this would mean merging the whole "altar paintings" tree into "reredos"! I can confidently say you will never find consensus support for that. Johnbod (talk) 15:32, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
@Johnbod: When you pot a Ficus benjamina it still is a Ficus benjamina. A reredos or retable in a museum still is a reredos. You have moved a complex structure with carved columns, capitals, frieze, header, architrave, cornice, predella, etc. around a central painting into "altar paintings", reducing the whole value of the structure to its central panel. You did that out of your poor knowledge of what it is, as you seem to believe it is a "framed museum altarpiece". That's what happens when you use your head as a source. But do as you please, as I said, hopefully someone will fix back your mess sometime in the future. We are already used to that.-- Darwin Ahoy! 16:05, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

December 18

Verso side of paintings

Hi there. Is there a category on Commons for verso sides of the paintings/drawings. Sometimes such images are useful.--Stolbovsky (talk) 00:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

We have Category:Reverses, which has subcategories for the reverse sides of paintings, photographs etc. --rimshottalk 00:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Data namespace: Referring to Wikidata URIs (via IDs)

Where are we discussing the "Data:" namespace? Being new to this area of our work, I looked for a FAQ, or community discussion page, and didn't find one...

Best practice for putting data online is "Reuse other people's URIs as identifiers within datasets where possible" [4]. Taking a liberal view of "other people's", and looking at Data:Population/City/St.Petersburg.tab as a semi-randomly chosen example, how can we associate the Wikidata item for the concept of "year", year, with the first column heading; population with the second column heading; 1764 with the first row heading, and so on? How do we indicate that the table represents the "Population of St. Peterbsurg, Russia" using Wikidata IDs? Andy Mabbett (talk) 23:47, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

@Yurik, Sunpriat: As you've been active in that namespace, can you answer, or suggest a venue for discussion, please? Andy Mabbett (talk) 17:09, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
mw:Extension:JsonConfig/Tabular#Documentation. Best Practice 10 covered "When ... HTTP URIs" although there is a bit about "The Metadata Vocabulary for Tabular Data", I don't know. --Sunpriat (talk) 22:55, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

December 30

Public Domain Day

Happy Public Domain Day 2017!
Undeletions commencing in 3... 2... 1...   Reventtalk 00:46, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Happy new year and may they odds ever be in our favour. Natuur12 (talk) 00:58, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Happy new year everybody, looking forward to finding out what entered into the public domain at midnight. Nick (talk) 01:14, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps not much, thanks to the United States 95 year rule. There will be some works of architecture can use US freedom of panorama. --ghouston (talk) 01:43, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Plus anything pre-1923 that's falling out of copyright in the source country. --ghouston (talk) 01:44, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Out of copyright in source country is sufficient, see Commons:Massive restoration of deleted images by the URAA. So for many countries this is about the works of which the author has died in 1946. Jcb (talk) 01:51, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Yet after they are restored, somebody could nominate them for deletion again according to Commons:URAA-restored copyrights, as long as they have "evaluated carefully", whatever that means. --ghouston (talk) 02:31, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, but we normally would keep-close such a nomination. This is a difficult theme. Several guidelines and templates about this subject are not in line with the current practice, but nobody dares to touch them. Jcb (talk) 20:14, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
@Ghouston: I think that it should mean that we have specifically established that the work meets each of the conditions needed to have a restored copyright... which requires more precise data than we have for most potentially affected works. Unfortunately, a couple of attempts I made to establish a precedent for how to show that works were clearly restored were buried under a local consensus that "I like it" and "we should ignore the URAA", and then kept under the argument that "we don't delete works based on the URAA". That is, IMO, not what the community decided (and what legal advised), but such 'local' debates tend to only attract either people who 'like' the file, or a couple of people who seem to feel strongly that we should ignore it.
Frankly, I think the 'current practice' mentioned above is largely based on the consistent actions of a small group of people, and not the wider community consensus, but it comes down to a matter of who is willing to argue about it... most people don't seem to care, and unfortunately the debate itself becomes disruptive rather quickly. Reventtalk 00:34, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
@Revent: The problem is that every public domain file is suppose to have a template explaining why it's public domain in the USA, as well as its source country. The only really useful US templates are {{PD-1923}} and {{PD-1996}}, plus the fact that buildings weren't copyrightable in the US before 1990. --ghouston (talk) 21:57, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
@Ghouston: Yes, far too many files have a non-US copyright tag, and no US tag. A lot of the problem, really, is that US copyright law is complex, the URAA made it worse, and most people don't understand it well at all. How to actually determine that something like 'not renewed' is true is not simple, and we don't offer ways to document such a search. Things generally simply get addressed when they come up, on a 'per case' basis. - Reventtalk 22:08, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
we could build a team to triage and curate the licenses. but that is not mass deletion, so no one is interested. people would rather fight than collaborate. it is all "i'm right and you are wrong". Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 16:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

How to show the coordinates?

Hello.I activated the Coordinates While taking these photos.Why did not they show?Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 08:13, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I just checked two files, there are no coordinates in the metadata showing up. Check the setting in your camera again, shot a test pic and upload. Maybe it's our software. The settings in the camera would be my first bet, tho. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 09:23, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
@Hedwig in Washington: I uploaded this and I can not find the coordinates.How can I add them to metadata and how to add the template to the page?Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 10:39, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
The templates are here: Template:Object location and Template:Location. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 11:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
@Hedwig in Washington: How to make the coordinates added to the pages automatically?
If the coordinates are saved in the metadata, the upload wizard does that for you. If not, you need to add them manually. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 14:43, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Coincidentally, I had a HTC Desire 816 until it died several months ago. Turning on the feature in the camera app isn't enough. GPS must be working, which means it must be getting signals from enough satellites. Several apps can tell you what your GPS is doing. I use "GPS Status and Toolbox" for that. Jim.henderson (talk) 14:54, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Is there any tool or quick way to deal with over-categorization?

In the topic I concern, I discover that many images are over-categorized, which means B is the subcategory of A, but the images have both A & B as their categories. Instead of cleaning up one-by-one, is there any tool or quick way to deal with that? Thanks, --Ceeseven (talk) 05:04, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

  • If the same combination of categories keeps coming up over and over there are some nice tricks using VisualFileChange, but I don't know of a more general solution. Is it repeatedly the same combination of categories? If so, let me know & I can explain how I fix that with VFC. - Jmabel ! talk 05:23, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  • If you use AWB, I can describe how I use that to fix this issue. I have used it many times to remove multiple parent/grandparent categories at a time using AWB's automation. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:53, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
    • And if you use VFC, you can go to each subcategory and, for all images in that category, replace all instances of "\n[[Category:South Horizons Station]]" with nothing. - Jmabel ! talk 18:31, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

@Ceeseven: Please be careful with what you do, as "B is the subcategory of A, but the images have both A & B as their categories" is not necessarily over-categorization. The Eiffel Tower is a subcat of Paris, but a panoramic of Paris with the Eiffel Tower would be on both cats. This is a very common situation here in Commons, and it is not a problem at all.-- Darwin Ahoy! 21:42, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

There is a problem with over-categorization, and the exceptions you named make the solution even more difficult. I often use Cat-a-lot to clean up over-categorization: I move all files that obviously don't belong there from the parent category to the most specific category. Those files that are already in the proper cat will simply be removed from the parent cat. For images with multiple over-categorization this procedure has to be repeated in each of the incorrect categories. This is often the case with bot-generated uploads. Sometimes I wish it was permanently possible to give feedback to upload bots to stop them from adding certain incorrect categories. --Sitacuisses (talk) 22:04, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
A panoramic of Paris should generally be in Category:Panoramics in Paris, and it's questionable whether it should be in the Eiffel Tower category even if it incidentally includes the Eiffel Tower.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:00, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes: Yes, OK, it was only a generic example. Imagine that "Panoramics of Paris" still didn't exist, and that the Eiffel Tower was so prominent in the picture as to deserve categorization. The thing is, sometimes (many times) an image includes another subject which is a subcategory of the generic subject it represents. Sometimes it is worth creating subcategories to deal with that (like "Panoramics of Paris"), sometimes it is not (See: "Pigeonholing", another (much more damaging, IMO) form of overcategorization). Anyway, in those cases the image should either be moved to some specific subcategory, different than the A & B presented above, or it should be kept in its parent category. It should never be simply removed from there.-- Darwin Ahoy! 11:47, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Unnecessary category

IMHO Category:Schemes in virgin is 100 % redundant to Category:Language-neutral schemes. If you concur, may you please do a category redirect?--Tostman (talk) 12:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello Tostman, I mean "virgin" is a very unlucky term for this. So yes, merge "Category:Schemes in virgin" into Category:Language-neutral schemes. PS: Normally you can solve this next time with COM:CFD. Cheers User: Perhelion 23:31, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Unnecessary category (tag only)?

There is a proposal of removing this wider tag-Category:Black and white photographs with 97.000 members. User: Perhelion 14:38, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Upload errors

When attempting photo uploads in either the classic interface or the Wizard, uploads are failing for me with the message "Could not store upload in the stash (UploadStashFileException): "Error storing file in '/tmp/BlQNic': Could not connect to storage backend "local-swift-eqiad".". Kelly (talk) 16:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting this! There are currently problems with the servers that serve images (which might be related). Developers are aware and try to fix the problem. --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 17:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Could we have the Phabricator ticket reference please? My log shows upload failures, when trying to upload an image from DVIDS using the API, from 16:10 (GMT) through to now, 17:43 (GMT); that's a long time to be unable to upload. The error message is:

internal_api_error_LocalFileLockError: [WG-WfwpAAE4AAj16mCoAAADP] Exception caught: Could not acquire lock for "mwstore://local-multiwrite/local-public/d/df/NOLES_participants_conduct_non-lethal_weapons_shoot_140811-M-UR323-006.jpg. [servedby:mw1283]

-- (talk) 17:46, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

@: Oops, misread your comment as asking for a ticket to be opened, so I made one. Just looked through and didn't see an open ticket anyways, so now there is one. Elisfkc (talk) 18:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Merged my task with this one. Elisfkc (talk) 18:09, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
@, Kelly: it's fixed now. Elisfkc (talk) 18:18, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
New uploads are OK but thumbnails of my files uploaded at 16:02 and 16:07 are not displayed at the Special:ListFiles. --ŠJů (talk) 18:25, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

T154780 seems to be the key task to refer to, however there is no explanation of the root cause or where to find an analysis. Can someone advise where we will be able to read this, it being quite a sweeping operational problem? Thanks -- (talk) 18:49, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

This just happened so there is no analysis yet, sorry. :) Once the timeline and actions are known, they will be published under wikitech:Incident documentation. --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 20:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

January 07

Deletion question

Can anybody explain me why my file has been deleted ?

Officially, it's because the file is unused, but I gave a link of a site that use it, so it's not unused. There is no other free example of persona in french on the web, so my file was very useful for a lot of people, I guess.

My english is not very good, so maybe there is something I didn't understand. Or maybe it's because my file was in french ? Why should I contribute if anybody can just delete my files randomly, giving a false explanation ?

I'm a native french speaker, so please excuse my poor english. I just want to give a little help and share my work, I'm not an expert at wikimedia.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yodalejedi (talk • contribs) 20:42, 04 January 2017 (UTC)
I do not know the image, but it has been deleted for Copyvio. This means that it is not free to use, and that is not allowed in Commons. Unused is for the maintainers a sign that it is not used in a Wikimedia project. --Jos1950 (talk) 21:35, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Presuming we are talking about File:Exemple de Persona.png, I think that may have been wrongly decided. On https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/article/user-personas-for-mobile-design-and-development-a-winning-technique-for-great-ux it says "Author/Copyright holder: Florence Herrou. Copyright terms and licence: CC BY 4.0". I don't see the basis to presume a copyvio. The question of whether the file is useful I leave aside, but that isn't the basis on which it was deleted. - Jmabel ! talk 23:29, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @Wdwd: you were the deleting admin here, with the one-word rationale "copyvio". Is there a basis for that? It seems the linked page credits it the same as the Wikipedia page, with the same license. - Jmabel ! talk 23:31, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
    • What about the personal info? At least I expect the name to be changed. Regards, Yann (talk) 23:35, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
      • @Yann: Any particular reason to presume it hasn't been? - Jmabel ! talk 04:18, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
        • May be, but it is worth thinking about that. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:15, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
  Info Sorry, my deletion rationale is wrong. The original image seems to be File:Girl and dog (1).jpg, a PD-image, which i found out after some investigation. Unaware of this: the image File:Exemple de Persona.png is labeled as own-work, cc-by-4.0 and author User:Yodalejedi aka Florence Herrou, which is wrong. This image is used on different web pages like here or here. So, correct deletion rationale is: wrong credentials, not own work.--Wdwd (talk) 19:19, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
That doesn't seem like a reason for deletion, just a reason to clarify authorship and possibly clarify the license (although I think the text, if that is by the uploader, is enough to merit copyright and therefore require a license like the one granted). There is no legal requirement to indicate incorporating a PD photo or anything else PD, although stating so explicitly certainly makes matters clearer and should be done.
@Wdwd: Do I take it that you don't see fit simply to reverse your action? If that's the case, I'll open an undeletion request to provide a venue to discuss this (since this is already quite a bit for the Village pump). - Jmabel ! talk 20:46, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
no problem; restored the image and fixed the source.--Wdwd (talk) 20:59, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
I think File:Exemple de Persona.png fits on Facebook, but is out of scope on Commons. --Jos1950 (talk) 22:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you all for the explanations. I didn't know I had to attribute the public domain photo. I used it in my own work, for a tech talk. Why Jos1959 do you think it is out of scope on Commons ? Yodalejedi (talk) 10:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

January 05

{{Money-JO}} and Category:Files with no machine-readable license

Hi, does anybody knows why images using this license like File:JOD 1 Obverse.jpg are listed within Category:Files with no machine-readable license? I thought license templates needs to transclude one of the license-layout-templates like {{Copyrighted-Layout}} to prevent such a listing, which is the case here. I allready "played arround" with it but couldn't find out how to prevent these false positive listing. Can anybody help? --JuTa 17:04, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I think the problem is a missing </noinclude> tag, but i'm not so familiar with templates to make changes myself. --GeorgHHtalk   14:45, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Hmm, this doesnt changed the problem. --JuTa 17:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Not-neutrals Categories

Hello, Is it permissible to create these categories: [5] and [6]? And then divert links from Wikidata: [7].

I wanted to make sure before emptied them.--Ghybu (talk) 18:31, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

My sugestie is, rename it to "Kurdish freedom war" and PKK as an "PKK, Kurdish (war) organization" or something. --Jos1950 (talk) 18:57, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
These type of categories already exists: [8] and [9] (Create according to the English wikipedia article)--Ghybu (talk) 19:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I have made a request for deletion: [10] and [11]--Ghybu (talk) 15:30, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

January 06

Please update inactive helppage COM:Naming categories

It is absolutely sadly to see this page deactivated since over 2 years. How we can reach this? User: Perhelion 14:50, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

It's a bit strange. Apparently it's a failed policy proposal, although {{MetaCat}} (and who knows what else) still links to it. I don't know if it was ever voted on, or whatever needs to be done to create an actual policy. --ghouston (talk) 21:58, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
I'd suggest incorporating the metacat section into COM:CAT and keeping the rest as-is since it mostly appears to either be already covered in the before-mentioned policy or require further discussion (English Wikipedia naming standards are different from Commons' ones in may areas).    FDMS  4    11:29, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

FOP mass deletion requests notice

Some mass deletion requests are being issued under a policy that could potentially affect dozens of thousands of photos on Commons, please give your input on the policy's talk page --Abbad (talk) 06:50, 8 January 2017 (UTC).

Out of scope?

The user Fabrizio Gatta has uploaded some (watermarked) images during Wiki Loves Monuments 2016. Yet the images he uploaded do not focus on Museo Ugo Guidi (that was on the list) but rather on the model. Are they out of scope (except possibly number 6)?

--Carnby (talk) 20:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

  • These are good photos. They may be out of scope for WLM, but not for Commons. Assuming there are no copyright issues, etc. they are of interest in their own right, even simply as photos of people modeling. - Jmabel ! talk 21:04, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I concur with Jmabel, all of them seem to be in scope for Commons, even if only as photos of people modeling. The clothing, wigs, hair-dress of the models is of interest as well.-- Darwin Ahoy! 01:34, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
File:India Musicarte Museo Ugo Guidi 2.jpg might be problematic as the modern artworks displayed there are probably copyrighted, the other photos look fine - as Jmabel says, possibly out of scope for WLM, but certainly in scope for Commons. Gestumblindi (talk) 02:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, I will only ask the author to upload images without watermark, if possible.--Carnby (talk) 14:08, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

January 02

Accelerating of Commons files

Is it possible to increase the speed of opening, running and uploading Commons files (Especially animations and videos)?Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 13:48, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Marker templates for Ireland

I've created two marker templates for the Republic of Ireland that correspond to the two separate datasets of Irish heritage objects: {{Archaeological Survey of Ireland}} focuses (mostly) on archaeological sites of the pre-1700 period (see Archaeological Survey of Ireland while {{NIAH}} covers architectural heritage of the period since 1700 (see National Inventory of Architectural Heritage). Both can be used for categories and files to refer to the corresponding records. The inclusion of an object into one of these datasets does not imply any status in regard to their protection. These datasets are used to chose and/or to recommend to be protected objects. The lists of protected objects are, however, published elsewhere (usually per county or per planning authority).

In both cases, the templates sort their objects (files or categories) into corresponding categories of the 26 traditional counties of the Republic of Ireland which still serve as the major geographical division for research purposes as they provide more stability than the current set of planning authorities which changes frequently: Category:Objects recorded in the Archaeological Survey of Ireland with known IDs and Category:Objects recorded in the National Inventory of Architectural Heritage of Ireland with known IDs.

BTW, both datasets have been published under a Creative Commons 4.0 license: [12] and [13].

Suggestions and comments are welcome. --AFBorchert (talk) 14:07, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

For {{Archaeological Survey of Ireland}}, the ArcGIS REST Services Directory site supports HTTPS. The template and its documentation have been adjusted to use HTTPS for the links to this site. The usage of HTTPS will likely provide increased privacy and security for users. --Gazebo (talk) 07:52, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

File renaming criterion #4

I often see criterion #4 (to harmonize a set of images) misused in rename requests and also renames being done using this criterion, even though they clearly do not qualify. I urge everyone involved in file renaming to re-read the criterion and especially the footnote. This criterion is only to be applied to a very narrow set of circumstances. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 16:31, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Duplicate?

These two symbols used by NOAA are pratically the same, and the first one (Symbol thunder.svg) is a less accurate version. Besides it has been released with a wrong license ({{self|GFDL|Cc-by-sa-3.0-migrated|Cc-by-sa-2.5,2.0,1.0}} instead of {{PD-USGov-NOAA}}). Can it be considered a mere duplicate and safely deleted?--Carnby (talk) 17:52, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

As it is not an exact duplicate, please file a regular deletion request. (Although I agree that it should probably be deleted.) Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 18:40, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you.--Carnby (talk) 19:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ↔ User: Perhelion 21:18, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Large Flickr collection under open licence

There are around 11K open-licensed images in the SuSanA Secretariat Flickr account, covering sanitation projects (you may wish to avoid viewing them while eating!), many of which are of good educational value. That's too many for me, using Flickr2Commons. Can someone bring them on board, please?

Some may not be wanted, as they show non-notable people at events. Is it bast to import the lot, and then mark some for deletion? What's the alternative? Andy Mabbett (talk) 17:19, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

There's already a project for these, I worked with a SuSanA person to sort it out. Category:Files created by Sustainable Sanitation Alliance (SuSanA). and the section about it at https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/08/10/sharing-a-million-photographs/ -- (talk) 17:30, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: The SuSanA import was not a great success, since the pictures have flooded many categories, rendering them unusable.--Tostman (talk) 12:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Snipes from new socks does not really wash. Use a real account, rather than one you created 30 minutes ago, if you want me to take critical comments seriously. Thanks -- (talk) 13:21, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, . That looks like a great success! Andy Mabbett (talk) 13:18, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: If you favor bot imports over real edits and quantity over quality, that's true. 259 distinct images out of 10243 (total) are used.--Tostman (talk) 13:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
If by used you mean "in Wikipedia articles", shortly after upload, I wouldn't expect more. And keep in mind, there are categories where of course Commons wants tons of images that are never likely to be in Wikipedia. For example, we'd probably want every photo we could get from HABS (the Historic American Buildings Survey) even though no more than 2 or 3 photos of any given building are ever likely to be used in Wikipedia. - Jmabel ! talk 16:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I know and you can see from my overview, that only a few percent usage of imported pictures are average. I just want, that any import operator ensures the categorization of his files. We have enough time, it's not necessary to import everything right know.--Tostman (talk) 22:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

waiting for categories to be fixed before mass uploads is effectively a stop. wikidata is the solution. what is the category guidance and training for uploaders? it appears to be complain later, rather than collaborate before. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 14:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Handling incorrect language

I have noticed some file descriptions given as English using {{En}} template which are clearly not English. How is this handled? I could just remove the template but that would not flag it for needing someone to look at it to change to the correct language so is there a tag that can be added to flag the problem? Keith D (talk) 14:07, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

  • I don't know of such a tag. If there isn't one, there should be. - Jmabel ! talk 16:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
You could use {{Fact disputed}}, I guess, but just fixing it to the correct language seems easier. - Reventtalk 18:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I have seen often that the default language during upload is given as English, but that the description is for example in Spanish. I suggest to replace the {{en|}} in {{es|}} in that case. Wouter (talk) 21:14, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
    • I was more thinking of situation where I do not know the language or what the wiki equivalent is. Keith D (talk) 23:44, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
      • That's what I presumed. It might be simplest just to create a maintenance category for these, but possibly useful to go for a template so that it would be possible to associate further remarks not visible on the page (e.g. do this in a way that we'd automatically date it and indicate who added the tag). - Jmabel ! talk 01:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
you could edit the metadata to reflect the correct language. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 04:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • If he does not know what language it is or what the ISO code for that language would be (I assume the latter is what he means by "wiki equivalent") then that is not an option. - Jmabel ! talk 07:01, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • paste it in google translate with detect language, and it will tell you. i.e. do not tag it, fix it. i have fixed a lot of descriptions, but i will not be doing any tags. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 16:38, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Having some way to flag these would be good. Here's a page that lists the codes: look at the column labeled "639-1". --Auntof6 (talk) 07:49, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
I highly recommend User:MarkTraceur/editDescriptions.js, as it makes editing the descriptions, or marking the language, much easier. - Reventtalk 02:12, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Congressional Portraits

Can we crop the front-page image on https://barragan.house.gov/ and make it on Commons? Seems like federal government work to me. Also, are official facebook accounts' contents PD? It seems many current congresspersons' portraits were found on facebook.

Ueutyi (talk) 11:37, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Facebook accounts as such aren't PD, but at times PD content (e.g. official photos of U.S. federal officials) can be found on Facebook accounts. - Jmabel ! talk 21:51, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks; how about the front-page images? Ueutyi (talk) 10:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Assuming you mean FB profile images, they are no different in this respect than any other FB images. (If you meant something else, you'll have to clarify.) - Jmabel ! talk 16:18, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Pretty universally, if you are looking to upload a photo that you didn't take, you should have clear evidence of its licensing status, not something like "I'm pretty sure that this image I got from an unofficial site is an official image." - Jmabel ! talk 16:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
I meant front-page image such as on this https://barragan.house.gov/; I understand the situation for Facecook, but I have never seen an image on WP that used such front-page images so that raised my suspicion that such might not be PD. Ueutyi (talk) 22:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Offhand, I'm not sure how we could be confident about the photographers of those being federal employees unless it's explicitly stated (either on the site or in EXIF data). - Jmabel ! talk 00:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
I saw this on Rep. Barragan's site: "Except as otherwise noted in this website, all of the content of the website constitutes a work of the Federal government under sections 105 and 403 of title 17 of the U.S. Code." So I presume it's PD. Ueutyi (talk) 04:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Perfect! - Jmabel ! talk 04:26, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-02

19:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Paul Nash at ArtUK

The work of Paul Nash came our of copyright last night. Art UK has 86 of his works. Does anyone have a tool for importing from that site? Andy Mabbett (talk) 10:03, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

@, Jane023, Jonathan Cardy: Do any of you know of anything? Andy Mabbett (talk) 17:05, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
No sorry - the only way I have to upload photos is by hand. I do use a custom artwork template that I can click on from the basic upload page. It only saves me about 2 clicks per image though. You can try Pattypan. Jane023 (talk) 17:13, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
i note they have a blanket NC. is task done? only 86, i can do with pattypan if desired. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 14:42, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
@Slowking4: Thank you. I have Pattypan, but that still has to be populated (is there a trick I'm missing there?). Also, downloading each image at full res from that site is not straightforward. The artwork is PD-old-70 (as of this year) so the "NC" can be ignored. Andy Mabbett (talk) 16:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
yes, you also need some spreadsheet experience. pattypan generates a blank excel spreadsheet with the data in columns, and then you can fill in the cells and fill down. license column would have wikicode license PD-old-70 all the way down. then the javascript pattypan uploads using the metadata in the spreadsheet. this is small enough to be a good learning case. but let me know - i can do it. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 16:22, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
@Jane023: Can you share that template, please? Andy Mabbett (talk) 16:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
this is the template - Template:Artwork pattypan lets you select the fields of the template as columns to fill in the cells of the spreadsheet. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 16:24, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: Andy, it's just a modified script from User:TheDJ in my common.js file which sets up the artwork template in the way I use it most often and then adds a button to my left-hand menu. See here. Jane023 (talk) 16:33, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

oops, no, it's a modified script from User:1Veertje (how could I forget?) Lt me know if you're interested in the trick to add artwork fields to an existing file with the information template. Jane023 (talk) 16:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
i have also used old uploader and pasted artwork template from a doc. it's one at a time but can go as fast as wizard. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge
Yes that is all it is, in fact. Like I said it only saves me about 2 mouseclicks. Jane023 (talk) 19:59, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for ping, I seem to be late to the party. Currently I use little more than the default uploader. Jonathan Cardy (talk) 21:47, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Temporary change of user group rights

As some people are aware, there have been major issues with the videoscalers over the last month or so, initially prompted by the upload of an unprecedented number of very long, high-definition videos. The load created exposed a number of different bugs, both in how transcodes were started and in how the status of queued or running transcodes were displayed. This, at the worst point, created a backlog of well over 15,000 transcodes, and a wait time for new uploads to be processed of over a week and a half. Corrective measures taken have involved both multiple bug fixes, temporarily disabling video2commons, and doubling the number of servers dedicated to transcoding.

These measures have resulted in the backlog dropping to approximately 3000 transcodes. Unfortunately, however, the backlog has stopped dropping, and even started to rise again, over the last day or two. From examining the queue, this appears to be due to a high number of 'failed' transcodes of these large videos, that the servers cannot successfully transcode, being repeatedly reset when they fail. Each time this are reset, they are processed for ~8 hours before they fail again. An egregious example of this is File:Moscow Ring Railway full trip - view from ES2G train.webm, a 2.57GB high-definition video, but many other examples exist.

Unfortunately, there is no existing capability to determine who is doing this, and it seems likely that it is multiple people. As it stands, all 'autoconfirmed' editors have the ability to reset transcodes. The net effect of this has been to prevent the prompt transcoding of new uploads, and make it impossible to estimate when they will actually be processed.

The patch tracked above will, as an emergency measure, remove the ability to reset transcodes from the 'autoconfirmed' and 'administrators' user groups. The right will remain on the 'confirmed' user group (which is little used) and admins can add themselves to that group if they need to reset a transcode.

The community should probably consider a better way to deal with this, in the long term, but it's mainly going to be a matter for the developers and operations to deal with.

Pinging Zhuyifei1999, Dereckson, Yann, Pokéfan95, Hedwig in Washington, GLavagetto (WMF) as 'known' interested parties. - Reventtalk 02:38, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for heads-up! --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 02:46, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. If someone adds me to the Confirmed group I'd be happy to lend a hand. Reguyla (talk) 03:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
After some discussion about the particular issue (and how to not overload the servers) in chat, I've added Reguyla to the confirmed group for this purpose... there is also a longer-term issue of processing 'old' failed transcodes... and there are about a third of a million of them that have piled up over time. They need re-run at a rate that does not prevent availability of the videoscalers for new uploads. - Reventtalk 03:59, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

It occurred to me to specifically illustrate why this was needed. See https://grafana.wikimedia.org/dashboard/db/job-queue-health?panelId=7&fullscreen&var-jobType=webVideoTranscode&from=1477983314000&to=1483685724584 for a history of the "wait time" for transcodes over the last couple of months, and note that the scale is logarithmic. The transcoders were reset, a major bug fixed, and the capacity doubled on December 19th... the immediate rise in the backlog afterward was due to tasks broken by the prior bug being returned to the queue. The actual 'count' of the queue trended downward afterward (not visible here) but the delay until tasks were run did not decrease until the 5th, by which time most of the excessively long transcodes had failed out. The return of such tasks to the queue, at a rate that caused the 'count' of tasks to remain effectively constant, caused the delay to climb again... this defeats the important function of promptly transcoding new uploads, and accomplishes nothing in the case of transcodes that will simply timeout again. Transcodes do not need to be reset, en masse, by anyone who is unaware of the implications of doing so... removing the button from most people, at least until the queue returns to sanity, ensures that unaware people cannot simply 'keep hitting the button' because it did not work. - Reventtalk 07:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

BTW. I don't get why "reset" function is accessible for humans at all. Could someone shortly explain it? For sure it shouldn't be accessible for (almost) everyone, i.e. autoconfirmed or higher. --jdx Re: 09:34, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Honestly I don't see the point of having it so accessible either. Transcodes are literally the only user-resettable and long-running type of job in the job queue, unless I missed something. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 10:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
@Jdx: I suspect the logic dates from years ago, when a transcode that took five minutes to process was exceptionally large. There is timer on how often a 'specific' transcode can be reset. - Reventtalk 11:00, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Assigning it to the 'confirmed' user group is not an optimal solution. Better to create a separate usergroup. Ruslik (talk) 20:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
@Ruslik0: It was already on 'confirmed', this just temporarily removes it from the others. A better, long term, solution will involve actually logging restarts, and needs some thought.... this is just a quick measure to make it stop for now. - Reventtalk 21:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
I meant that userrirght content of 'confirmed' user group should be by design identical to that of 'autoconfirmed' user group. This change breaks this identity. Now if a user asks for 'confirmed' user group in lieu of 'autoconfirmed' user group we have to think twice. Ruslik (talk) 18:48, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes ideally 'confirmed' should be identical to 'autoconfirmed', but do we really want an admin-assignable temporary user group? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 12:13, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

As the queue has (finally) returned to sanity, before this was actually deployed, it's been abandoned. Hopefully we can avoid drama like this in the future. - Reventtalk 00:43, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Heeeeeeeeeeeeeelp

Can someone stop this shit? Block the person who uploads the shit on my name.

  18:33  	Category:Santo Domingo Province‎‎ (238 bewerkingen) . . . . [Panoramio upload bot‎ (8×); Jos1950‎ (230×)]:

--Jos1950 (talk) 18:34, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure I can follow you. What is the problem? Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 18:52, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Someone upload more than 250 flies with shit Panoramio pictures in Category:Santo Domingo Province I have moved them to Category:Controle DR (250 operations). . . --Jos1950 (talk) 19:19, 8 January 2017 (UTC).
Would you mind not swearing repeatedly? Also, have you contacted the operator of that bot? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 19:25, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
FYI, user Jos1950 has nominated for deletion ~300 files > Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Controle DR. --XXN, 20:33, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, but if you see the fliles nobody is happy. The bot operator is often pointed to the uncontrolled uploads, see User talk: Shizhao. Stop that bot, please ?? --Jos1950 (talk) 20:45, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
The images were from two batches. I moved them to either Category:Houses in the Dominican Republic or Category:Ciudad Modelo Mirador Norte. - Takeaway (talk) 20:57, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Speedy kept and closed. @Jos1950: I consider this DR a hair below vandalism. A hair below because today is a day to stay mellow.
  • a) Most files are within project scope. Read about the project scope if you don't know what you are doing.
  • b) Tagging the same files 3 or 4 times makes processing difficult. I had to let a script run several times to remove the your SHIT, if I may borrow your wording.
You need to read about the project scope and you need to learn how to tag files properly. Further, you need to read about staying mellow. If I find you swearing here again or creating unwarranted mass deletion request I'll teach you how to stay mellow by blocking your account so you won't get agitated and damage this project. I hope that was clear enough? --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 10:51, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

@Hedwig in Washington: You don't get the point. It's vandalism to upload tons of files without sufficient description and without proper categorization (which is not the same like tagging). Commons loses it's usability for NORMAL PEOPLE if they get back a lot of bullshit when searching for photos.--49.213.19.178 12:23, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Wrong. RTFM. It is disruptive editing to mass-dr files that are clearly in scope. You're clearly not making mistakes. This will be rewarded with a nice 3 day break, now you can swear to your hearts content for 3 days. In case you get tired of insulting the project and its users, you might want to read as I suggested above. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 13:48, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
@Hedwig in Washington: I'm wondering, is this IP the same person? The tone seems quite different from the "20:45, 8 January 2017 (UTC)" edit above, but toollabs:whois seems to suggest that this might have been used as a proxy (hosting provider in Singapore). I don't think CUs will check this case due to privacy policy, but I believe the talk-page-disable on User:Jos1950 should be reconsidered. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 15:33, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Send someone to RTFM and ask for a treatment less disruptive is not a good polite practice --The Photographer 13:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with read the fine manual as far as I am concerned. You should take a peek at the mass DR before you hit me on the head. I don't stand here and listen to a user insulting others and provoking after warning. 2017 is the year to be mellow. He has time to be mellow now and read our manual. In between he can swear a little at himself in the mirror. But not here. I don't want to make time and take this user by the hand and show him the basics; the basics of Commons and the basy ics of acceptable behavior. I can't think of anyone here willing to do that. We are not babysitters, certain behaviors can and will be expected. Throwing a Mass-DR party is not one of those behaviors. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 14:35, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
all that drama for 250 files? we should build a team to curate the incoming Panoramio files. mass deletion is not a quality control process. there seems to be a lot of ownership of categories. there needs to be a lot more ownership of metadata cleanup. so no- i will not be helping this editor, or any other editor who adopts his practices. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 14:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
I've personally dealt with a comparable number of Panoramio files that have come into Category:Seattle the last few weeks. It's been a bit frustrating, and not all of them are very good photos, but I've gotten them classified (with the exception of half a dozen or so where I've started a deletion process because they were probably copyvios: not outright theft of pictures, just photographs of copyrighted artworks). If there are more than you can cope with coming into Category:Santo Domingo Province, make a subcat like Category:Santo Domingo Province - Panoramio photos to be categorized. Crisis solved, no information lost, no need to delete potentially useful files. This sort of thing often happens on mass uploads, and this is a mass upload under a deadline, since Panoramio is being shut down. - Jmabel ! talk 16:26, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
@Zhuyifei1999: Maybe it is not the same IP, I got an new one-edit-account on my talkpage now. I suspect a meat puppet for canvassing.   It looks like a duck to me --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 19:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I have a variable IP address, I am not a sock puppet. Jos1950

Hedwig in Washington, you're ready for a Sabbatical year. Why am I writing this here? Why do I think that?

I write this message further into Dutch, because then I can describe it better.

Antwoord op mijn eerste vraag.

Ik wil deze discussie niet op verschillende plaatsen voeren, omdat ik hier in het openbaar beschuldigd ben van diverse vandalistische handelingen, en zonder reden ben geblokeerd. Door de blokkade kon ik niet meer reageren en is de discussie verder uit de hand gelopen. Hierdoor was ik genoodzaakt een e-mail naar wiki@wikimedia.org te schrijven.

Je schrijf enkele keren dat 2017 het jaar van Mellow is, maar in jouw tekst merk ik daar niets van. Het is grof als iemand, in het openbaar, op jouw manier wordt aangesproken en behandeld. Ik ken je niet, en volg je ook niet, want ik ben hier omdat ik het leuk en nodig vind om de category RD overzichtelijk te maken en te houden, en kan daarom jouw handelswijze niet accepteren.

Antwoord op mijn tweede vraag.

Het is abnormaal dat je iemand blokkeerd die het niet met je eens is. Dat is eigen rechter spelen en ondenkbaar in een democratische omgeving. En als je mijn woorden niet kunt accepteren moet je ze ook niet lenen en gebruiken.

Je bent in deze discusie acht keer gewezen op het feit dat je de verkeerde conclusie trekt of niet de juiste beslingen neemt, en nochtans sta je niet open voor argumenten. Daarbij gebruik je een agresieve schrijfstijl (niet mellow), en verwijs je naar een zwak argument om jouw standpunt te verdedigen (Duck) voor ongegrond bewijs dat ik een sokpop zou zijn.

Je hebt in deze discussie laten zien dat je volkomen ongeschikt bent om beslissingen te nemen op het niveau waarin jij hier functioneert.

Het lijkt mij onnodig om mijn acties voor massa deletion nog verder te verklaren. Zoals 49.213.19.178 schreef "You don't get the point." en is dat ook op jouw talkpage uitgelegd, waarin je op dezelfde agresieve manier reageert.

Ik was gefrustreerd zoals ook anderen gefrustreerd raken van dat soort Panoramio uploads (lees hierboven), maar jij bent niet mellow wat je van anderen wel eist.

De spiegel hangt bij jouw. --201.229.251.167 19:51, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

You insult people and the project and I am ready for a break? If it wouldn't be so sad it would be funny. You've admitted it yourself, you're using variable IPs. Just as I said, either variable IP and/or meat puppet use = DUCK. Not a weak argument but right on the money. BTW: Good luck with the email to wiki, I doubt I'll ever hear anything of it. Now you are breaking the rules again. Posting here using an IP is another reason to block or extend the current block, it is called block evasion. Regardless of whether you have been frustrated or any other the reason, behavior like the one you that got you blocked is not acceptable. This is not an aggressive behavior by me, but caused your own behavior. Don't confuse cause with effect. I don't know you either, and this is not a block out of animosity but because you broke the rules of this community. It seems democracy for you is you do what you want and we have to accept it. That's not how it works. Feel free to call a de-sysop procedure AFTER your block is expired if you think I am unfit to be a sysop. In the meantime stay away from editing on Commons, it will only get your main account permanently blocked. You can request deletions for single files if you like AFTER the block expires. You can do whatever the community guidelines allow you to do. In the meantime stay away from editing on Commons, it will only get your main account permanently blocked. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 21:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
It is obvious. You refuse to listen. --201.229.149.102 21:44, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
well that is news to me, that admins do not listen on commons. but you should put down the "i'm right and you're wrong" - it is a bad argument, even if true. you put on a maintenance category, so let's build a team to triage all this Panoramio junk. deletion is not always the answer. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 02:45, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

IP identified himself. I blocked user indef due to IP-socking. Further socks shall be handled with usual procedure for socking. I also removed the talk page-block, so they could add {{Unblock}}. If the user shall ever abuse that right, feel free to readd that. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 05:27, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

you are wasting your time. you realize we have banned users nominating files for deletion as ip's? need to talk down "climbing the Reichstag" not block. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 02:45, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

January 09

Problems with Template:PD-South Korea. Also, how to deal with anonymous works by Korean artists?

I am trying to finish my guide to Korean copyright at User:Piotrus/KoreaCopyright, but it is stalled as keep asking for clarification of some issues on template's talk but nobody is answering, for months. So I am taking this here. There are two main problem. First, is that the Template:PD-South Korea contains unsourced claim ('This applies to copyrighted works of which authors died before 1 January 1963'). It is unclear what 'this' refers to, nor how the year 1963 was arrived at. See Template_talk:PD-South_Korea#Where_do_the_dates_1976_and_1963_come_from.3F. Also, can anyone help with the question on how to deal with anonymous works published in Korea? In a discussion last year User:-revi promised to talk to a Korean lawyer, but seems we still don't have any answer from that lawyer; in the meantime a friend of mine found a vague guideline that suggests one has to file a petition with the Korean ministry before any reuse of any anonymous work is allowed? (I cite relevant text in my guide linked in the opening). PS. Also ping users who participated in last discussion: User:Clindberg, User:HappyMidnight --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Should I revise my categorizing practices ?

I encountered someone removing a number of the categories which I had added to an image I uploaded: -Category:1822 births; -Category:1900 deaths; -Category:Painters from the Netherlands; -Category:People of The Hague. It conserns the image File:Lambertus Hardenberg (1822-1900).png The categories I had added where correct in the sense, that the facts they represent are factually true. So, is there a reason why those categories shouldn't have been applied to this image ? Which Commons policy/cies is/are a factor in this case ? --oSeveno (talk) 13:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

@OSeveno: The file in question is already in the Category:Lambertus Hardenberg, which is in the categories you mentioned above. Therefore, the categories are redundant on the image itself. See COM:OVERCAT for details. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 14:08, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
@Srittau: My mistake, I missed that this new category was created. Thanks! --oSeveno (talk) 14:22, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Jmabel ! talk 16:07, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Another bulk process to delete large numbers of licensed files

Yet again, we have another poorly thought out change, then an automated 'bot process, assisted by another over zealous editor, setting itself to bulk delete licensed content.

Examples are File:The time before safety gear came around.jpg and File:Westhinder II.jpg. There are many more, look at the 'bot contribs history or the intermediate category.

The core of it is this: Should files uploaded in 2007 or 2008 under {{Cc-by-sa}} be deleted as "unlicensed"?

This change was made last night by Josve05a, [19], changing {{Cc-by-sa}} from a redirect to {{Cc-by-sa-1.0}} into a "no-licence" warning without a licence tag. This has rendered a large number of valid files as apparently "unlicensed". This change needs reversion ASAP.

The effects of the change have been made much worse by inappropriate behaviour by JuTa: they "reviewed" files in Category:Media without a license: needs history check "manually" by instead moving them en masse for deletion. " I used Visual File Change for this. This means I don't even see the file description pages when marking the files as "no license". " In what way is that meeting "needs history check"?!

Also raised here:

I think Josve05a should be seriously warned for this unconsidered and seemingly undiscussed change and JuTa should lose their admin rights, as this is not the first time. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:50, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I repeat my answer from my talk page:
Well, I used Visual File Change for this. This means I don't even see the file description pages when marking the files as "no license". There were more than 1500 files within Category:Media without a license: needs history check. And since about the 8 hours since I did it the last time there are now more than 700 in again. It would simply take much too much time to indivual check each image individual. If I would open each file decription page and each history and each source it would likely take about 2-4 minutes per image. This means 3000-6000 minutes for those 1500 images. Thats 50 to 100 hours or 20 to 60 days because I'm not working on commons 24*7.
If somebody else is willing to spent several hundreds of hours to check the upcoming images manualy, he/she is highly wellcome. There are again more then 500 in the queue.--JuTa 12:23, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
PS: In my eyes most of those images were never properly licensed, by that reason they need to be tagged as I did. --JuTa 12:29, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Let me paraphrase, "I have spent a lot of effort, doing something both tiresome and destructive. Now be grateful to me. None of you would do something equally tiresome."
The trouble is that, yet again, you have not the wit to either avoid doing this (it was worthless and damaging), to do it correctly (you ignored "needs history check"), or to realise any better way of doing it. This is a group of images that are already identified by a distinct tag template: they are a perfect candidate for automated processing, without anyone (even you) having to waste their time on doing a bulk task manually. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:51, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I reverted Josve05a's edit. At the very least, this should be discussed first. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:37, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, thank you for raising this topic. I see some crazy deletion notification for my own works released under CC-BY-SA license. At the moment of upload they were properly attributed. Now someone decided I need some arbitrary field to this license. (I can't remember - something live 'version', or 'phase of the moon'). And if I do not add them, someone will delete my contribution to Commons. I have one question: If I die and someone decide that license now need not only 'phase of the moon' field, but something else, like 'active president of Zimbabwe at the time of upload', and I couldn't update images due to my death, will they been removed? If yes, do I really need to spend my time updating licenses if images will be deleted after my death due to template fluctuation?
Yann says he reverted changes, but I still can see deletion templates on few hundreds of my images. Exmaples: File:Шпалерная улица.jpg, and the whole list at the bottom of my discussion page: [20] #!George Shuklin (talk) 12:59, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  Comment These are things that cannot be managed by a bot. Nor lack of time can be an excuse to proceed with an axe. I see lots of validly licenced files that only because of a change of template now seem to be unlicenced. This is a thing that must be fixed by hand, whatever time it takes. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 14:16, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  • If the files are still tagged, with a little luck (sarcasm) an administrator will delete those hundred of files with visual change, without even to have opened the files... Christian Ferrer (talk) 14:31, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Don't worry, I will take care of it if the reverted state is still the case in some days.--JuTa 14:47, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Please don't. I have no confidence in your competence to do so correctly, rather than simply slating them, unchecked, for bulk deletion as you have done so far. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:37, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
If somebody else likes to do it: fine. If not I'll clean up the mess I created. --JuTa 16:20, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
As I understand, these files were licensed correctly some day as CC-BY-SA. Now they are flagged as to be deleted. Why? This is completely not understandable for the related user. --Alexrk2 (talk) 15:10, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
The intention was good (to stop further addition of files with an ambiguous license); but the way chosen was not. Please follow the procedure as Sven Manguard did earlier. Jee 16:14, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
hey, do we have a consensus to desysop the barn burner yet? if not, you should expect periodic drama, when he is bored with a backlog. no sign of being able to follow directions.
this comment - "This means 3000-6000 minutes for those 1500 images. Thats 50 to 100 hours or 20 to 60 days because I'm not working on commons 24*7. For the reason why I mark them as no license, see the section above here." - is particularly worth of a block.
i.e. "i cannot be bothered to curate images, so i will mass delete them with an automated tool." Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 18:41, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Just adding my voice to the ones above. This deletion process breaks the prime directive. We are trying to increase the quantity of freely licenced stuff. @JuTa: is wasting his.her time an mine and great editors like @Slowking4, Jkadavoor, Alexrk2, Andy Dingley:. I have images that are labelled "cc by sa" that are going to be deleted because they lack the version number...what??. Images are going to be deleted that have been hand reviewed by an admin because they can't rbe read by someone favourite tool. I have complained at the admins user page and been told that doing the work properly would take too long... what??? There images are fine, the license is OK .... crazy to delete them. I sometimes go on holiday for a fortnight - does everyone have to check their donations every week to see if they are considered too troublesome to check. This is crazy! JuTa needs to admit its a big mistake and remove the senseless threats to remove images that are legal. Victuallers (talk) 19:16, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
@Victuallers: I fixed your uploads. They won't be deleted. Natuur12 (talk) 19:46, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Suggestion: We create a template {{Cc-by-sa-old}}, which is a copy of {{Cc-by-sa-1.0}} (which it currently points to), except that it also adds the files to a maintenance category. (Because we don't have enough backlog, yet.) A bot can then change all occurences of {{Cc-by-sa}} to {{Cc-by-sa-old}}. After that we can replace the text of the former to the text proposed by Josve05a. The idea was a good one, the execution had rather unfortunate side effects. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 20:17, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Created a proposed template and a proposed category: Category:Files tagged CC-by-sa-old. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 20:25, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Mayby somebody could then write bot to convert all inclusions for uploads before a certain date, e.g. before 1 January 2009, to reduce the number of files that need human attention? Jcb (talk) 20:32, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
i see you are returning to your failed proposal to have a bright date line. just curate them all. show me you can fix a license. is there any evidence you have fixed a single license or source? what would you call that but malpractice? i have fixed over 1000 images' metadata. if i can do it why can't you? Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 22:48, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Just a quick remark: As {{Cc-by-sa}} has been a redirect to {{Cc-by-sa-1.0}} since June 2005, I assume that it can be assumed that people marking their uploads with {{Cc-by-sa}} since 2005 were intending to release them under a CC-BY-SA 1.0 license. Only for uploads older than June 2005 (Commons exists since September 2004) we maybe need to raise the question whether they meant CC-BY-SA 1.0 or 2.0 (version 2.0 was released in May 2004). Gestumblindi (talk) 23:08, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, there is this case, where the file was marked with {{Cc-by-sa}}, because it was marked with de:Template:Bild-CC-by-sa on German Wikipedia, which actually referred to CC-BY-SA 2.0. I think there will be more cases like this. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 23:52, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
What the heck is going on here in the oh so peaceful days around the new year? Generic licenses without version numbers are just as valid as those with a specific version. And contrary to some assumptions here and the faulty redirect, a generic license always points to the latest version. Therefore we need perpetual generic templates and they should include a soft link to the latest version. Anything else is destrutive bodering vandalism. --h-stt !? 12:17, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
As {{Cc-by-sa}} has been a redirect to {{Cc-by-sa-1.0}} for more than ten years, I think we have to assume that users uploading their files directly to Commons with {{Cc-by-sa}} since 2005 were intending to release them under CC-BY-SA, version 1.0. So, if the redirect were changed to the recent version, we would have to manually change the license for existing uploads to CC-BY-SA 1.0, it seems to me, as we can't simply assume that the uploaders actually meant "any recent version". Gestumblindi (talk) 17:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment on Category:Media without a license: needs history check. I and User:Zhuyifei1999 created this category to catch cases when images which were properly licenses one day suddenly lost the license template. For couple years I was daily inspecting files in that category and about 80% of cases had their license restored and in 20% of cases some user removed clearly invalid license without starting DR discussions. For such files I usually added {{No license}} template in clear cases or began DR process in less clear cases. In the last year I was preoccupied with other tasks and was glad that other users picked up this task. I find batch processing of files in this category by User:JuTa quite irresponsible. Batch processing should be restricted to Category:New uploads without a license as files in Category:Media without a license: needs history check were meant to be hand processed and in majority of cases fixed on the spot. Maybe we need to clarify processing instructions. On the other hand, User:JuTa might be the only person performing this daily task and for that I am thankful. Fixing those files does not require Admin rights, so anybody can help out, and that would free admins to concentrate on other tasks where (hopefully) they can afford to spend a little more time on doing the job right. --Jarekt (talk) 19:02, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment if it is irresponsible, then do something about it. there is clearly no prospect of responsible behavior from that admin. i am not thankful: better a backlog, than mass deletions. irresponsible behavior, is not an impetus to do maintenance tasks. why would i want to free up an irresponsible admin to spread his disruption elsewhere? Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge
Slowking4, I am not tracking User:JuTa edits, but of what I observed in the past (s)he was doing a good job. This is a first instance I recall of edits I do not agree with. --Jarekt (talk) 20:56, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
i see a lot of false notices - i.e. here User talk:Jonnie Nord. the problem with mass deletion, when it is 80/20, is that it is not reversible. there is no way to track or correct admin errors. you should think about building a team to curate tagged files. but the "deletion to maintain quality" is dysfunctional, and tends to undermine the credibility of commons. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 02:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Of corse I viewed the files in both cases. And in both cases there wasn't a valid license template at that time. --JuTa 01:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Is right that the File:Unity 5 logo.svg lacked a license at the moment of uploading (I forget to add it), but, why don't added the right license (PD-textlogo) instead? This is another history, but for this case, how you ensure that the files actually don't have a license? Please stop tagging files with {{No license since}}, these actions are not helpful in any way. --Amitie 10g (talk) 16:02, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, there were similar logos deleted as above COM:TOO in a specific country. In those possibly borderline cases I dont set it myself, cause I would then the person the copyright could blame, that should do the uploader. The second question I dont understand. I ensure that the image has no license by looking at the file description page and history. I allready stopped the mass tagging a week ago, that was only during "one night. That was because another admin changed a prev. valid license template into an invalid and I ran into this "trap". And I will continue to mark images without a license as having no license. --JuTa 16:24, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Status

The bulk of files tagged {{Cc-by-sa}} have been moved to {{Cc-by-sa-old}} by SteinplitterBot. The remaining files with the former tag needs to be moved by hand, either to {{Cc-by-sa-old}} or the correct tag (for example, {{Cc-by-sa-1.0}}). Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 00:54, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

All transclusions in file pages have now been replaced. Only a few transclusions in user (talk) pages and links remain ([21]). If no one objects, I will restore Josve05a's version ([22]). Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 16:30, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
  Done Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 23:54, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Generating Hierarchy of Dependencies Associated with a Wikipedia Page

Dear Wikipedia,

I love your site, but I think you can make it easier to use by enabling people to instantly print not only the page they've decided to focus on, but also all other Wikipedia pages that depend upon it (directly OR indirectly).

To alleviate any confusion, let me elaborate upon my problem statement.

Say that you have a set of Wikipedia articles. I’d like a feature that returns the complete hierarchy of dependencies that generates this set, starting from completely independent articles and progressing towards entries within the set of articles that I care about.

Here is a simple example of what I mean. Say that I’d like to implement this functionality for the following set of articles: A, B, and C. Assume further that article A depends upon articles F and G. Assume further that article B depends upon articles F and H. Assume further that article C depends upon article I. Assume further that article F depends upon article J. Assume further that article G depends upon article K. Assume further that all articles I haven’t described in greater detail are completely independent. That is, they don’t depend upon any other articles within Wikipedia.

In this situation, I would like this functionality to generate the following output, tracking the hierarchy of dependencies from completely independent to each member within the set of articles that I executed this function on: article A: J -> F -> A K -> G -> A

article B: J -> F -> B H -> B

article C: I -> C

The above was a VERY SIMPLE example, but I hope you understood it. If possible, I would also like this functionality to apply to an arbitrarily long sequence of articles (eg: A -> B -> C -> D -> E -> F -> G . . .).

Thanks for your attention, and all the best!

- Mitch —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 165.125.176.20 (talk) 20:12, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Dear Mitch. You are probably asking this in the wrong forum. You have found discussion forum for en:Wikimedia Commons project. Your question would be better asked at en:Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) or at discussion forum for en:Wikidata project. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:15, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Interesting, I suspect in most cases you'd end up printing out the whole of Wikipedia, or at least a big subset of it. --ghouston (talk) 02:08, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Virtually every Wikipedia page, if you repeatedly click on just the first Wikipedia article link, will eventually get you to w:Philosophy. Eyeballing w:Philosophy says that you'd get a huge subset of Wikipedia; it'd be interesting to see just how large, but even a rough eyeball says you've hit most of philosophy, history and math in a few links.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:26, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

January 13

AutoHotkey for Windows

AutoHotkey (AHK) is a free, open utility for Windows, that automates actions such as typing a particular string; or opening a programme or website. We've started to compile some example scripts for using it with Wikipedia and sister projects, at en:Wikipedia:AutoHotkey. If you have any AHK scripts that are useful when working on Commons, please share them there, or in a comment here. Andy Mabbett (talk) 20:45, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:Move cat usage etc.

Template:Move cat doesn't document usage of its parameters. User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands shows at least 2 different usage examples:

  1. {{move cat|Nice, Palais de Nice|Palais de Nice|The first word "Nice" is unnecessary. ~~~~}}
  2. {{move cat|Old cat name|New cat name|3=Explanation|user=Your username}}

The 1st one results in a warning ("Username of requester missing (user parameter)"), and the 2nd one doesn't display the username (at least for me). Perhaps, something should be fixed. --Djadjko (talk) 23:47, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Yes, that is poorly documented in the template. Beyond the first two parameters (Old cat name, New cat name) I would strongly recommend explicit user=, reason= rather than anything positional. It is documented better at User:CommonsDelinker/commands/front. - Jmabel ! talk 00:49, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I've now done a minimal clarification at Template:Move cat/doc, which is transcluded into Template:Move cat. If you have further improvements to suggest, feel free to state them here. - Jmabel ! talk 00:55, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Fiddled around with the doc. One can now copy the template a little easier. Double click on entry (i.e. reason) highlights the text, just write over and done. Saves some time and reduces errors while changing the default to whatever you want. --Hedwig in Washington 18:50, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
@Hedwig in Washington: if I understand it correctly, it wants just a plain username, not a formatted signature provided by four tildes... (Is there a shorcut for users to insert their plain username?) --Djadjko (talk) 01:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
What's wrong with using the shortcuts (signature)? You can double click the tildes and type your username by hand if you like, it's just more work.  --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 02:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Just from a technical viewpoint, you need to use correct shortcuts. I don't know how the "user" parameter is used afterwards; if just a plain username (e. g., "User123") wanted, then something actually produced by 4 tildes (e. g., "[[User:User123|User123]] ([[User talk:User123|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 12:34, 12 January 2017 (UTC)") could simply not work correctly. --Djadjko (talk) 02:59, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

January 11

"Women's association football players from Norway"

I was adding a person to the category Association football players from Norway and happened to notice that men are categorised underneath this category and in a category tree directly underneath this category while women have a pretty much mirrored category tree underneath this category in Category:Women's association football players from Norway and prefixed with Women's. I did a quick check underneath a couple of other countries too and the same seems to be the case there. This kind of special treatment of women seems like a really bad idea and I know we have received some flack over this before in other cases. Either get rid of the category tree prefixed Women's or put men in a similar tree. Don't treat men as the general case and women as a special case. TommyG (talk) 22:30, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Was pointed in the direction of Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/01/Category:Association football players by country. TommyG (talk) 23:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

January 16

Template:Suppression image

Could a French-speaking experienced user take a look at {{Suppression image}}? It looks fishy. -- Tuválkin Tuvalkin 06:09, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Well, the English that is there now is an accurate, if grammatically challenged, version of the French that was originally there. The content seems kind of useless, although the template is transcluded into a lot of pages. It looks like a bad version of {{Superseded}} that fails to indicate what is the superseding image. - Jmabel ! talk 16:22, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
redir to {{tl|superseded}? --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 07:17, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I'd have no problem with that, but lacking the parameters that say what superseded it, the places where it is already used are of limited value at best. I think a first step is to add a maintenance category to all of these indicating that we'd like an argument added to indicate what they were superseded by, then we can do the redirect. - Jmabel ! talk 17:18, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I come across this template when commenting in an “intricate” DR, where it was added to images someone wants deleted — as if it were a synonym of {{delete}}. This use of this or other such template that lacks indication of which is the better image that replaces the one tagged could be safely undone and ignored, in my opinion. -- Tuválkin 13:19, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Cleaned up by hand, template deleted. No need for a redir. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 06:02, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 06:02, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Translation administrators gaining noratelimit permission

Translation administrators who are not also administrators have reported hitting the rate limit when moving pages as part of the translation system. It is proposed to add the noratelimit flag to the translation administrator user group. Comments concerning this change are invited. Nick (talk) 17:00, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

  • +1 makes sense, there are thousands of pages to maintain here. Nemo 17:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
maybe you need to rethink the rate limit. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 17:55, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I didn't know that there is such a problem… --jdx Re: 09:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Barbie dolls

Hello.It's a good suggestion that we add these files:

  1. Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Barbie dolls
  2. File:Mother doll 1.jpg and File:Mother doll 2.jpg
  3. these deletion requests

to Category:Undelete in 2030 (1959+71).is not it?Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 07:51, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Why 1959 + 71? The American Barbies will run through 1959 + 95 at least, and the copyrights on anything but the earliest will be arguably longer.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:31, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes:Depending on this, when can they undeleted?in 2054?Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 06:58, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Mountain running pictogram

Hi, I can not find any suitable mountain running pictogram. Can someone make this? Thanks. Ssu (talk) 08:25, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Hack tool to guess photographer possition

Hi, there is Jeffrey's Image Metadata Viewer (url removed), which from metada guesses photographer possition. Is here someone, who would be able create and keep tool on commons, which would ease to set categories to more images in time? Like we can work with files in PerformBatchTask by Rilke.--Juandev (talk) 10:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-03

23:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

January 17

Photos taken with iPhone uploading with wrong orientation

I've had no problems uploading photographs taken with my iPhone before, but a bunch of photographs I uploaded today (see my upload log) all ended up with the wrong orientation. I've tagged them for rotation by 270°. Has something changed, either here at the Commons or with the iOS software, to cause this issue? — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:22, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

  • I think there may be some new stuff with EXIF-specified rotation (there is at least for the Rotatebot. @Steinsplitter: do you happen to know more? - Jmabel ! talk 19:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Looks like the exif-orientation was wrong set by iphone. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:44, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Hmmm, so there is no solution? — SMUconlaw (talk) 14:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
If nothing else, they can be manually reset by some program then re-uploaded. Hopefully someone can come up with a different idea first though. If it needs to be done locally instead of on wiki: I think IrfanView will rotate and reset EXIF tags; ExifTool almost certainly can, because ExifTool can do almost anything to metadata. --Closeapple (talk) 15:29, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
It looks like Steinsplitter's bot has fixed this. So the solution is if this happens just use the {{Rotate}} tag. - Jmabel ! talk 16:49, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Yup, that's what I did, but it seems pretty annoying that from now on I have to manually request for rotation on each photograph I upload. (Not that it's the Commons' fault, of course.) — SMUconlaw (talk) 14:28, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Jmabel ! talk 16:49, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Structured data on Commons Funding

Hi all, the WMF and WMDE just announced funding for work on Structured data on Commons via a grant from the en:Sloan Foundation. You can find the announcement at the Wikimedia blog. More information about the grant is at Commons:Structured data/Sloan Grant. If you have questions, please join us at the Structured Data on Commons talk page, Astinson (WMF) (talk) 20:24, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

A $3 million grant to be spent on Commons is impressive. I look forward to seeing it making real differences for this project. It'll be interesting to see how this is going to be measured and reported on. BTW, this means that proportionately $190,000 should be spent on files I've uploaded.   -- (talk) 20:33, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
This is indeed good news. Structured data is a huge chance for Commons if it is implemented the right way. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 20:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes!! Or better: WOW!!! Seems we are doing something right! , you have to subtract the deleted files and you get paid in shells only  ! Thanks dear Sloan-Foundation! Thank you very much! Here's a link to the page on the Sloan website: [32] --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 20:59, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Well... If this Wikidata Commons will be developed with people not familiar with commons (which is likely...) then i am highly concerned about the outcome... There is absolutely a team of experienced commons people needed which is supervising the project and which can be contacted for questions. --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:53, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
@Steinsplitter: The grant allows us to hire two community-focused roles, whose jobs are to communicate with and help facilitate feedback from the Commons community and its broader contributor/reusers base within the Wikimedia Community (GLAMs, WLM, other Wikimedia contributors who rely on Commons for hosting free media). We also plan to spend time and resources researching different existing Commons workflows. We will definitely be soliciting feedback and conversations about community needs on a regular basis, and if you would like to be involved, make sure you are watching Commons talk:Structured data and, I see that you are already on the newsletter distribution list. Looking forward to continuing to work with you, Astinson (WMF) (talk) 15:36, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
i nominate user:Jane023 and user:Multichill. i.e. this has some expert commons help. (but then you have your names) go stroopwafels. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 22:33, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

.xls files from Wikipedia moved to Wikimedia Commons

Hello. I have a problem about the following files:

These files are licensed by free copyright, but they uses .xls filetype. Now the rule of Wikimedia projects cannot allow .xls to upload or transfer. I have a question: can we transfer these files to Wikimedia Commons, keep these files in Wikipedia, or delete immediately? Thanks! This is Taiwania Justo speaking (Reception Room) 07:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I looked onto zh:File:Yearpage01.xls and it looks like year page template. Why it's needed at all? Why such template could not be made in wiki-text or Lua? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:26, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
We certainly cannot transfer them to Commons. I don't know whether the policies of the various Wikipedias involved may allow these on those particular Wikipedias, but clearly they have not technically disallowed them. Issues of what to do with them on the particular Wikipedias need to be taken up on particular Wikipedias. - Jmabel ! talk 15:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Traditionally (as has been discussed in the archives of Commons talk:File types and elsewhere), Commons has been for media in a fixed visual, audio, or audio-visual form, and not really for abstract data which can be validly rendered in many different ways. That's why spreadsheet files and word processor files were not allowed to be uploaded. Of course .xls is also a non-free file format... AnonMoos (talk) 16:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

So, in WMF's policy, the non-free filetype should be extincted? This is Taiwania Justo speaking (Reception Room) 01:49, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
It's very old files and not sure that it's still be used. Maybe it's not be allowed to upload on Commons, but it's also not sure that it can be stored on anywhere, whether Commons not local wiki. --Cwek (talk) 03:12, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Something tells me the recent addition of tabular data may be the solution. Pinging @Yurik: --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 05:15, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Zhuyifei1999, thanks, I would suggest to look at the work @TheDJ: did at the hackathon - he created an importer/exporter from .csv and .xls files into a dataset as a gadget. --Yurik (talk) 17:58, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

The flow of event means the probable creator of that file needs to speak up... What does the importer/exporter work at on excel files so their licences change from copyright to some more free forms of licences. Regarding the question by Taiwania Justo, has a kind of consensus already reached for this issue? Stretching the reply by Cwek, my question as a reply is how dataset, that used to be represented in .xls or excel files, is uploaded onto Wikimania Foundation sites? Stretching this whole issue further, attending wikimania gives the attendants insiders information that can be handy -- there is a benefit of attending Wikimania. Is that hackathon mentioned above by Yurik presented at Wikimania? :) -- Ktsquare (talk) 06:47, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

you mean the creator from 13 years ago? User:Shizhao. i'm sure they are happy where they are- they have the "do not transfer tag" for a reason. why don't you just save as csv file and upload? Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 21:10, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
What do you mean when you say they are happy where they are. Without asking at least User:Shizhao, how do you know if they are happy where they are. The discussions on this thread is talking albeit good ideas. Do you talkers and users who chipped in ideas want truth or talking? -- Ktsquare (talk) 09:06, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
That is what you see in history. I did contribute to that project of doing articles on years, decades and that user was also a contributor 13 years ago. Which I think it was unfair to me because somehow history of contribution is lost in the works. Off the top of my head, at least I looked at the content of that .xls file -- Ktsquare (talk) 09:02, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, I think a proper way to deal with those .xls files is to convert them into other formats. Like PDF or .ods. --TechyanTalk) 06:16, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

New Excel and CSV import and export userscript

Hi all, This week I created a script that makes it very simple to import or export a CSV or Excel file into a tabular data set. When enabled it presents two export buttons at the bottom of a page like Data:Sandbox/Yurik.tab and adds a "File selector" on it's edit page. I encourage you all to try it out and maybe we can turn it into a Gadget. For something purely javascript, it's working surprisingly well and it takes care of most of the data that I have been able to throw at it. If you have a file or dataset that is problematic, do let me know on my talk page and when I get around to it (and you are welcome to further evolve the script if you want to). —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 00:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

  • @TheDJ: Using externally hosted javascript (eg. cloudflare) is usually frowned upon due to a potential to leak IP addresses to a third party without user's consent. Would you mind using toollabs:cdnjs instead? For labs we have a few tickets addressing this, but I'm pretty sure the same applies to gadgets as well. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 06:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @TheDJ: But still a question, some files have the marco. this factor should be solved. This is Taiwania Justo speaking (Reception Room) 13:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

January 12

Licensing issues

I would like to know if a source can design its own license other than Creative Commons or other free ones. Can we use its contents in commons? If the answer's yes, what terms should it include enabling us use the picture in Commons. Thanks. --Mhhossein talk 15:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Different versions of an image

If a source uses Creative Commons phrase, e.g. "all Content by this web page is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License," beneath its pages, does it affect the original versions of those images? I mean, if a file is licensed under CC, does the free license include higher resolution versions which are not available on that website? --Mhhossein talk 17:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

  • This has been argued several times. There is a decent case to be made on both sides. My own view is that it does not. The reductio ad absurdum of this is to imagine a reduction of a work of art to, say, 4x4 pixels that accurately reflect the average color of each of its 16 similarly mapped areas. Certainly no one would say that if an artist released rights to such a 4x4 color field based on one of his or her paintings, then the painting was automatically similarly released. - Jmabel ! talk 17:25, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Jmabel. Do you mean that there's no consensus on that? How does Wikimedia Commons treat this issue? --Mhhossein talk 18:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Speaking only for myself, and with the caveat that I am not a lawyer. I would say that there is no solid consensus here for what the rules should be, but that there is certainly no solid consensus that anyone is on good legal ground to upload the higher-res image, and that if you did so and were sued, you would have no reasonable expectation that WMF would give you any support, so I personally would recommend strongly against doing such a thing. - Jmabel ! talk 18:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Pinging user:Clindberg for more discussions, of course if he feels like to. --Mhhossein talk 18:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • This depends on weather the original images are in public domain or not. If the original images had fallen into the public domain, the notice on the website with claim "all Content by this web page is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License," does affect the original versions of those images regardless of the quality. If the original images are not in public domain, it's unreasonable to assume that they are in PD simply because a low resolution version were freely released under a CC license. This remind me of a controversial case involving the National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation in 2009 in which User:Dcoetzee (banned by WMF) uploaded over 3000 high-resolution images here from the British National Portrait Gallery's database of images. Dcoetzee received a legal threat from NPG as a result. I don't know if his banned was connected to the issue. Wikicology (talk) 18:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • i doubt that was the reason. Dcoetzee took a maximalist position position with respect to PD, leading to the PD-art, which is his spirit. contrary to the caution above. i trust his actions respected the TOU here as at NPG, leading to the hot water.
  • that being said, i would upload the lower resolution. need to play nice with institutions, and show the traffic we bring to them, to change their minds about the higher resolution. long game. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 22:15, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • If a license is given, it is only the copyrightable expression given out there which is licensed. If another "version" of the file has additional expression, then no, that additional expression is not licensed. So if someone licenses a crop of their painting, that does not give you any rights over the rest of the painting. The difficulty comes from the nature of "expression" in photographs -- it may be that a lower resolution photo contains all of the expression present in the higher-resolution version. If that is the case, then legally all of the expression was licensed in the low-res version. I don't think there have been any legal test cases on this matter, and it could be yet another area where countries have differences. For myself, I am not at all comfortable using alternate, non-licensed versions. The nature of paintings vs photographs make them completely separate questions, and it's possible that even if normally low-res photos do have all the expression, a photo of a separately copyrightable object (like a sculpture) may be different again -- a sculptor's permission on a low-res photo may well not apply to a high-res version of the photo, if that exposes more of the sculpture's expression. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Inquire about "Male Lion and Cub Chitwa South Africa Luca Galuzzi 2004"

Hello.I see that File:Male Lion and Cub Chitwa South Africa Luca Galuzzi 2004 edit1.jpg is identical to File:Male Lion and Cub Chitwa South Africa Luca Galuzzi 2004.JPGIs it possible to avoid repetition?Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 08:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

They're not identical. Look at the file sizes. The first one is an edit of the second one (hence the filename). According to the file description, it has had noise reduction applied to it. LX (talk, contribs) 08:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Discussed on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Male Lion and Cub Chitwa South Africa Luca Galuzzi 2004 edit1.jpg where it claims "noise reduced"... AnonMoos (talk) 13:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

URL to diff

Please can someone import the very useful en:Template:URL to diff from en.Wikipedia (or from Wikidata)? Andy Mabbett (talk) 16:16, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

You probably meant en:Template:URL to diff? Ruslik (talk) 18:22, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes; fixed; thank you. Andy Mabbett (talk) 18:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
I copied the files and adjusted the domain for Commons. The Lua module seems to work but I'm not sure about the template. --ghouston (talk) 05:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

January 18

Language selector

Hi. I've played with it few times but I still could not get language selector (drop down list box for select currently used language of text of file description page) working for my image. Could you please fix it for me for this file? I just want language selector like on this page. Then I fix all files in series myself. Thanks. Artem.komisarenko (talk) 08:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

The second file shows the language selector because it transcludes Template:Picture_of_week_on_the_Czech_Wikipedia, which is translated. Ruslik (talk) 17:52, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Got it. Thanks very much. Artem.komisarenko (talk) 08:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

January 19

New Facebook group to encourage photographers to add their photos to Commons

Hi all

I've created the Wikipedia Photography Club Facebook group to try to engage some of the 100s of Facebook photography groups who have 1000s of members with amazing photos. I would appreciate it if you would join the group so that potential contributors can ask questions. I decided to call it Wikipedia Photography club instead of using the word Commons because it is much more recognisable to people not in the community.

Thanks

--John Cummings (talk) 21:26, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

January 20

Potrace at wmflabs

Hi guys, I just forked javascript potrace (tool for tracing a bitmap) and put it on wmflabs for anyone to use. This was inspired by the amount of commons images marked with SVG template.

I am thinking I might try to extend/improve the code of the tool but I would like to hear from you if the community is interested in such a thing at all. I dont want to spend time on it if you think that the preferable way for people to vectorize images will be using other tools that are already available, such as inkscape etc.

To summarise, do you think it is worth developing the tool? --Wesalius (talk) 10:45, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Cool. It looks like a client-only javascript, right? Why not host it here as a userscript or a gadget? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 12:57, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
It looks like it has the potential of being very useful, but since the output is only black and white, its current usefulness is probably very niche. If it could accurately handle colours, I'd probably be using it all the time for astronomical graphics. Huntster (t @ c) 08:04, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
I just checked and there is no easy solution to tracing coloured images with potrace right now, BUT I found this https://github.com/migvel/color_trace I will try it out and if it yields good results, all that needs to be done is to put it on toollabs and write the frontend for input. --Wesalius (talk) 09:46, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Transcode queue backlog

I've had an audio file (File:Ainsley Harriott voice.flac) in the transcode queue for over 12 hours now. Is there a problem somewhere? Andy Mabbett (talk) 10:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  Comment The queue is a bit large just now, so it will take some time. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:11, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Surfeit of masturbation videos, still.

I noticed that one of my videos was added to Category:WebM videos, which mostly contains files, but also, as of right now, contains Category:WebM videos of male ejaculation‎ and Category:WebM videos of male masturbation‎, which I don't think are the most natural subdivisions of the category 'WebM videos'.

So I went down the rabbit hole; see Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/01 for where I wound up. We have Category:Ogv videos of male masturbation and Category:GIF videos of male masturbation and Category:2010s ejaculation (animated) and Category:2010s videos of ejaculation and of course Category:Videos of ejaculation by format and I keep finding more of them. If we're going to accrete videos from exhibitionist men (and it does seem to uniformly be men) like a whale accretes barnacles, I don't think we need to make categories that don't even fit our style. Did this just flood back over the last four years since (apparently) it was last brought to the Village Pump? grendel|khan 17:39, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

What action are you trying to get support for? If you think the categorization is poor, then be bold and change it. -- (talk) 17:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
I am--see see this month on CFD; I've nominated a dozen categories and I'm about to paste another six to ten nominations in. I'm part kvetching, part passive-aggressively seeking help, part at least explicitly noting somewhere what I'm doing, part wondering if I've made some kind of mistake and it's very intentional that Category:Videos of the 2000s contains Category:Videos of 2000, Category:Videos of 2001, ..., Category:Videos of 2009 and Category:2000s videos of male masturbation‎. grendel|khan 18:28, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough. If the categorization makes more sense, and ends up slightly flatter, then I can't see anyone getting far with criticising you for trying. If I notice someone working hard on a niche bit of categorization, I tend to stay away rather than tampering with their creation. -- (talk) 18:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

delete me and my photos please who can

delete me and my photos please who can

— Preceding unsigned comment added by VAPE buro (talk • contribs) 20:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
See Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by VAPE buro. Ruslik (talk) 20:40, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  Done per COM:CSD#G7. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 00:52, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

First Soviet nuclear test

Does anyone know when this photograph (en:File:Joe one.jpg) of the first Soviet nuclear test will enter the public domain? It was taken on August 29, 1949. I would like to place it in some category of "undelete in ...". --Metrónomo's truth of the day: "That was also done by the president" not an excuse. 04:53, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

If this photo was first published in Russian in 1949 and the author is truly anonymous, its copyright will expire in Russia on 1 January 2020 (1949 + 70 + 1) and in the US on 1 January 2045 (1949 + 95 + 1). As Commons requires works to free both in the country of origin and the US, if that information is correct it can be placed in Category:Undelete in 2045. —RP88 (talk) 06:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! --Metrónomo's truth of the day: "That was also done by the president" not an excuse. 02:53, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Commons cat -> Wikidata script now working again

This script adds a small box on a Commons category page, to let you know if there is a corresponding article-like item on Wikidata which has a P373 Commons category statement pointing to the Commons category page.

The script runs whenever you're browsing Commons categories. If the Commons cat page doesn't already include a Wikidata link on the page, it's well worth adding one, using e.g.:

I find it quite useful to spot when P373s are missing, for Commons categories that really ought to have them -- and also, to stop me adding a P373 for a Commonscat, if there's one I didn't know about from another existing item already -- a sign that, instead, the two Wikidata items should perhaps be merged.

To give it a go, simply add the line

importScript('User:Jheald/wdcat.js');

to your common.js on Commons.

It had stopped working because the service that it was previously relying on for its lookups (WDQ) has been withdrawn; I've now tweaked it to use the Wikidata SPARQL query service instead.

I think I got the changes correct, but do give it a try & let me know if anything doesn't work.

All best, Jheald (talk) 21:49, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

January 22

Authorship of a modified public domain file-- who gets to claim it?

Hello, Pump! I have been having a discussion with User:Kevjonesin regarding the meaning of "authorship" on a public domain image which has had annotations added to it (the image is here: File:Opened scallop shell (with arrows).png). I had a look around Commons and could find no clear guidelines with regard to a situation like this-- I am interpreting the existing policy one way, and Kev is interpreting them an entirely different way that may also be perfectly legitimate (see his talk page for our discussion). I would like to A.) invite others to have a look at the situation and help us come to an agreement on what the correct outcome is, and B.) find out where the policy information exists that would have prevented this confusion (or does it exist?). Any assistance would be appreciated! Thank you! KDS4444 (talk) 08:15, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I suggest folks start with a comparison ...
Here is the image uploaded by YuryKirienko to File:Opened_scallop_shell.jpg:
... to be compared with an image Kevjonesin uploaded to File:Opened_scallop_shell_(with_arrows).png:
... and then, if interested in further context, explore in detail the Wikipedia talkpage thread which KDS4444 linked above.
--Kevjonesin (talk) 12:43, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I made an attempt in the file page. Feel free to revert if you don't like it. ;) Jee 13:00, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Which I do like! The next question is, is that the correct answer? And is there a "correct" answer? KDS4444 (talk) 06:05, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
See my comments here and the links I mentioned there. (Here the source is CC0; so credit to source is not a must. But we can prefer it; CC too prefer it even for CC0 licensed works.) Jee 06:50, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
CC0 means you don't have to name the author when reusing the image. Still, it would be decent when you do name the author. I would say by adding some arrows and some letters to an image, it does not represent change significant enough, to be able to claim new authorship. The change should represent significant artistic and creative change, not just a brief explanation added to the original image. Respect (towards others) is at the basis of freedom. Feeling free to do something, shouldn't mean you can take liberties when walking a perhaps more gray area, where things don't appear 100 percent clear at first. When in doubt, do he most respectful thing. Besides this, the quality of the changes made to the original work are not of a very good quality in my opinion. Consider using a (freeware) vector image manipulation software like Inkscape to draw arrows. It would produce much better looking arrows. Just my thoughts on this subject. --oSeveno (talk) 14:18, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree -- there's no legal requirement that you mention the name of the author of a PD image that you've modified, and I don't think there's any strict Commons policy requirement to do so, but it's considered good etiquette to do this when uploading such modified PD images to Commons. AnonMoos (talk) 14:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I am getting the sense through this that there is no Commons page anywhere that specifically discusses the author= parameter of the {{information}} template other than the brief discussion of authorship on the information template's documentation subpage. I am now working on drafting such a page, and it can be viewed here. I would very much like input from others on this page: please feel free to view it and modify it. I would like to have a working draft ready to go in about a week or so. KDS4444 (talk) 10:19, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

KDS4444 -- If you do a lot of work vectorizing a raster, then I think that it's accepted Commons practice that you can add your name in the Author field (such work isn't necessarily always as "mechanical" as you seem to think). For File:Gender signs.svg, I included my name alone in the Author field, since while I was inspired by File:Gender signs.png to create a loose vector equivalent, I did not directly "vectorize" it at all in the sense of raster tracing -- rather I eyeballed the PNG when typing circle and line instructions directly into my text editor, and at the same time also applied certain corrections for a better visual appearance (which I then cycled back into the PNG), and I don't think I violated any Commons policies... AnonMoos (talk) 17:53, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
AnonMoos: would you describe your changes as creative ones? I understand that the changes were difficult, but if your goal in eyeballing was to improve accuracy, then that probably isn't considered creative or transformative. You can spend days and weeks making technical changes to an image and still end up with no right to authorship if your changes were not transformative of that original work. How would you characterize your changes? Do they reflect your own personality and artistic (not merely technical) skills? KDS4444 (talk) 03:56, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
It was not "to improve accuracy" (accurate to what, pray tell??) but because the male sign was ugly and didn't match the female sign too well. And such abstract simple geometric symbols are only dubiously copyrightable in the United States in any case. My attempt to get File:How-to-get-your-ex-back-tips.gif deleted was rejected for that reason (even though the source of the originally-uploaded file version is quite problematic)... AnonMoos (talk) 09:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Hi y'all, there is related discussion taking place at File_talk:Opened_scallop_shell_(with_arrows).png#Acceptable_option?. --Kevjonesin (talk) 15:30, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata Commons

FYI: Wikimedia Foundation receives $3 million grant from Alfred P. Sloan Foundation to make freely licensed images accessible and reusable across the web. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:06, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

It has been posted here. With only 3 comments :-/ . If implemented right this will be an amazing change! Amada44  talk to me 13:00, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
yes, i hear user:Astinson (WMF) is organizing. (see above Commons:Village_pump#Structured_data_on_Commons_Funding) i'm sure there will be plenty of cleanup after their bots run. in the meantime, check out User:Multichill/Same image without Wikidata or User talk:Multichill/Same image without Wikidata. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 22:27, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
I think the grant will be a good thing if done right, unfortunately I have not been impressed by the WMF's usage of previous grants on the purposes they were intended for. Astinson is a good guy though so my hope is he will be able to keep it straight with the WMF. Reguyla (talk) 01:06, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
well, they have not shared the grant app and plan, so wait and see. but i heard that it included input from wikidata folks, and had slots for 2 fellows, which is a hopeful sign. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 03:29, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
@Slowking4: The full grant application is in fact shared at Commons:Structured data/Sloan Grant#What did the grant application look like?. Matma Rex (talk) 20:20, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
thanks, that's good high level discussion. but i do not see a plan. i'm thinking more of a resource loaded schedule with deliverable milestones. it's a level of detail rarely shared. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 03:35, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

January 15

COM:V is Commons' official guideline, right?

I am writing to let you know that I have just added missing, I guess, template to this page. Any objections? --jdx Re: 09:04, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

It is more like a help page than a guideline. Ruslik (talk) 19:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
It is listed as a guideline in Template:Commons policies and guidelines. --jdx Re: 19:10, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
so you are locking a page indefinitely based on one vandalism episode a year ? Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 18:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
@Slowking4: His edit had nothing to do with page protection. He marked the page as a 'guideline'. - Reventtalk 12:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
the page is marked "High traffic page ([Edit=Allow only autoconfirmed users] (indefinite)" i do not see any discussion about whether it is a guideline or policy. i take it you will broadcast what your policy / guideline is by fiat, whenever you decide, no need for any input from non-confirmed users. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 12:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
It is a bit strange to complain about "no input" in a discussion section started asking for input. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 12:51, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
no that was not an request for input, that was an asking for acquiescence in action already taken. just send out your broadcast notices, no collaboration here. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 03:44, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Location map

Can anyone explain me how to create a location map? Xaris333 (talk) 22:28, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

  • @Xaris333: Are you just talking about a blank map of a region that can be used as a basis for locator maps? Or do you mean something else? It would help if you can point to an example of the sort of thing you are trying to create. - Jmabel ! talk 01:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @Jmabel: File:Limassol District.png I have uploaded this. The Border coordinates is wrong, I know that. I just cut the original map and put the coordinates I found from google maps. In not accuracy. Xaris333 (talk) 15:25, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Immediate biggest problem: that's not SVG. PNG is a raster format, not a vector format. Note the text in the {{Location map series N}}tag you added, "...SVG as file format..." Similarly, {{ValidSVG}} is obviously wrong if it's not even SVG.
    • It's pretty clear you are going to need more help here than I can give you. Unless someone happens to jump in and solve this, I recommend taking this to Commons:Graphic Lab/Map workshop, where there will be more people with expertise. - Jmabel ! talk 16:44, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Xaris333 (talk) 17:28, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

January 23

Tech News: 2017-04

20:14, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

January 24

Someone who knows Rome / Qualcuno che conosce Roma

In Category:Museums to be categorised by country there are a number of images of Rome from Panoramio, most (but not all) with names beginning "Via Veneto - Dolce Vita", that I suspect are not from any "museum" at all. I was hoping that someone who knows the area might be able to put these in appropriate categories. - Jmabel ! talk 05:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Category:CETA

... has two conflicting concepts contained under the same lemma. Three files concern the free-trade-agreement between Canada and the EU, two others a historic computer device that is also (and solely) represented in the supercategory-structure. I'm not sure on where to start unravelling this. What are the proper new lemmata to be used? Does one lemma take precedence over the other so it remains without bracket addition? --chris 11:53, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Looks like someone already unilaterally removed the trade agreement ones; no idea where they put them, but if anyone does, a {{Distinguish}} template on Category:CETA would be useful. - Jmabel ! talk 16:24, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
[edit conflict] I have created Category:Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement and added a hatnote to Category:CETA.    FDMS  4    16:26, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Duplicate photos, non-matching information

File:Roma Rome Italy Italia Art Monument - Castielli - CC0 - panoramio - gnuckx (9).jpg and File:Mascaron in Rome.jpg (renamed from File:DSCF1142-Castielli-Italy-Roma-CC0 (3491535823).jpg) are clearly the same photo, and both give the same username (from Panoramio and Flickr, respectively) as the author.

Normally, I'd just slap {{Duplicate}} on the newer one (from Panoramio), but I notice that the EXIF information doesn't entirely agree (different date) and also that the one from Panoramio is geotagged (though I suspect not accurately). Is there anywhere we state best practices for merging information in a case like this? Of course I can merge it successfully, but I was wondering if there is anything to give other less experienced users as guidance if they run across things like this.

By the way, if anyone can work out correct geocoordinates for this, that would be nice, too! - Jmabel ! talk 23:51, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

January 25

Mass-rename tool issues

Is anyone else having problems using User:Legoktm's massrename.js tool? I'm trying to rename all 91 files in a category and it does a few then stops. If I start it again, in a new tab or even after restarting my browser (Firefox 50), it does nothing. I managed to get it going again after restarting my machine (Window 10), but this time it made eight changes then stopped again. Andy Mabbett (talk) 18:40, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

While I remember that massrename worked very well a few years ago I sadly couldn't get it to rename even a single file when I tried to use it at several occasions in the past months. A fix would be very much appreciated.    FDMS  4    19:51, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
If I remember well, I used this script few months ago to rename several tens of images in one category, and it worked well. Last night I tested it, two times: by one time on one image in one category:) and it worked, but this may be not enough to detect bugs, errors. Maybe there are some specific cases when the script does not work (e.g. long/complex file titles or category name, large categories, etc.)?
Anyway, there are some alternatives (generic scripts for all type of wiki pages):
  • en:User:Plastikspork/massmove.js - which is useful when is necessary only to add/remove some prefix to titles. (His version is available only for admins, here is one enabled for almost all user).
  • User:XXN/massrename.js - this works with two parallel pair lists of page titles (sources & targets).
These scripts probably are not so comfortable as Legoktm's script; they need to provide directly the list of page titles to work on (one can achieve these lists either with AWB, CatScan, DB query, or directly via API and then processing it with a text editor). --XXN, 14:52, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing, XXN, FDMS: I've rewritten the tool a bit, the version from Legoktm has now also RegExp support (and using Commons libs) User:Perhelion/massrename.js. Be aware it is beta, so test it before. Cheers User: Perhelion 15:32, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘

 
Screenshot made on 2017-01-10 15.45.13 of errors generated by User:Perhelion/massrename.js.

.

@Perhelion: Thank you. I've just tried that. After making just two changes, it threw the errors in the above screenshot. See also Ajax error reports. Andy Mabbett (talk) 16:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing, Hedwig in Washington: Ok, next round for test, I've updated, thanks for the report. User: Perhelion 01:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
No change. Doesn't move one single file, that stinker. No error msg, tho. Tried Chrome and Firefox, both latest stable version. Here's a screenshot of the new input box using regex. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:26, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 
Screenshot of input box generated by User:Perhelion/massrename.js.

.

@Perhelion: The script is not even loading for me, now. Andy Mabbett (talk) 16:24, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Hej, yes, sorry, I'm working on a better version this days. User: Perhelion 19:49, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing, Hedwig in Washington, XXN, FDMS4: Check it out now. Every hint is welcome. User: Perhelion 14:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
@Perhelion: Thank you for the update! Just tried it; the script moved the file to the name of the category instead of the entered new name and also somehow mixed up the previous name with the entered reason.    FDMS  4    21:12, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
@FDMS4: Oh* strange, I think I fixed this. Test carefully, I also saw this sometimes on reusing the input fields with new text are ignored (and the old ones used, but maybe this is a wider problem). :-O User: Perhelion 21:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
@Perhelion: It worked, thanks! Could you add an option that lets users move non-file pages as well?    FDMS  4    06:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
@FDMS4: Thanks for feedback. Hm* I can't imagine a larger application? Maybe the script from User:XXN would be better for this extension!? User: Perhelion 20:57, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

January 08

Video2Commons down

Video2Commons is currently down. It gives the error "Error: An exception occurred: IOError: [Errno 116] Stale file handle"

Jasonanaggie (talk) 04:39, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I've had an audio file (File:Ainsley Harriott voice.flac) in the transcode queue for over 12 hours now. Is this related? Andy Mabbett (talk) 08:10, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: No, they are unrelated. Videoscaling system and video2commons are two separate systems. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 10:06, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Separate section opened, below. Andy Mabbett (talk) 10:09, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
@Jasonanaggie: Would you mind be clear about your issue and not crossposting? So far you have posted to here, phab:T155803, and a phab conpherence, and none of them contain the information required to debug the issue. Please read mw:How to report a bug and phab:T155803#2955339. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 10:06, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
it worked for me here File:Woman World War II Pilot Honored.webm but it was from IA. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 00:14, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Mass rename of Mauser98k uploads

The uploads seem to consist entirely of Russian coins. The user uploads the coins in their catalog number, which isn't descriptive for anyone who's not a coin enthusiast. The catalog numbers are described in ru:Список памятных монет России 2016 года (other years are accessible from the article, too).

The titles could be descriptive, and still list the numbers. For example File:RR3114-0001 10 rubles USSR 1991 Silver avers.png.

I requested the successful rename of one such file to File:Russian Silver 3-Ruble coin (2016).png not knowing about what the original name represented (and unaware of the rest of the set). The uploader has reached to me on my talk page, but hasn't replied to my last response (he agreed with me that the specific file that I requested the rename for be renamed to Russian Silver 3-Ruble coin (2016) - RR5111-0178-16.png, but not the rest of them according to a scheme like Russian Silver 3-Ruble coin (2016) - RR5111-XXXX.png). —Hexafluoride (talk) 10:32, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Why the theme is called "Mass rename of Mauser98k uploads"? In the Category: Commemorative coins of Russia, almost all files have similar names. And I downloaded a smaller part. --Mauser98k (talk) 12:02, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
@Mauser98k: I promise you this isn't personal against you. I'm merely trying to make the files accessible. If I'm just looking for a commemorative silver ruble, I'm not going to type "RR5111" into the search bar. I'll type "Russian silver ruble 2015". —Hexafluoride (talk) 21:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
I want to draw attention to the following features of this files.
1. In the Category: Commemorative coins of Russia so many coins. Everyone who download and use the files in the wiki enjoy existing names.
2. If you rename the files on the proposed scheme "Russian silver ruble 2015 5111-0178 obverse.png", the search query such as "Russian silver ruble in 2015" will be found many different files, but difficult to find a particular coin.
3. In the Category: Commemorative coins of Russia so many coins of different metals and different denominations, when manually renaming the very likely errors in the name of some files. --Mauser98k (talk) 12:17, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
  • All of which seems to argue in favor of the scheme which uses both descriptive text and the catalog number. Then both would be easily searched. (By the way, really, search does fine with the "description" text in the "information" template, so as long as the catalog number is in there somewhere, the search should still work fine, but I do think it's best to have both in the filename.) - Jmabel ! talk 16:01, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

When will it become in the public domain?

Hello.

  1. Microsoft Bought all the rights of File:Bliss.png, When will it become in the public domain?
  2. If the book was written by several people, Will it become in the public domain "cash all in one"?Or over parts by Author?

Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 07:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

The photographer (Charles O'Rear) isn't even dead yet! If the past is any guide to the future, there will be several rewrites of U.S. copyright laws before copyright expires, but it could easily remain copyrighted past 2100... As for your second question, there are sometimes special copyright rules for "collective" or "corporate" works... AnonMoos (talk) 16:38, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
@AnonMoos:Can you help me to know these rules to know what to do with these works?Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 07:03, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Prospective files

Hello.I suggest creation of a project (the draft) to suggest uploading files not yet in the public domain in certain years.Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 08:05, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Russavia flickr spam

May we delete Category:Photographs by Melv L - MACASR (check needed), which are 73 fully uncategorized files uploaded by Russavia's most recent sockpuppet?--Moritz Rodach (talk) 20:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

No, the photographs are good quality and well within scope. They look pretty easy to categorize if you want to fix that issue.
As for the WMF's action in locking the account, this was noted as "Globally banned user", nothing was said about whom. Please do not speculate on things that the WMF has made no statement about.
By the way, I can see you are using a temporary sock, but just to make it clear to WMF legal, I have no idea who you are, nor have I been on IRC talking to anyone before responding. So no reason for the WMF to ban me for writing this, despite their past threats and ridiculous bad faith presumptions. -- (talk) 20:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
"uncategorized" has never been a reason for deletion. you realize we have 300000 files without metadata? the vindictiveness belongs to english, that's where they RBI. no such essay or policy here. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 03:22, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
"uncategorized" is used like "out of Scope" and even a reason to deletion. There are severals admins that find more easy nominate a image to deletion instead of add a category to the file. BTW, Moritz Rodach is a clear suck-dramapuppet --The Photographer 11:40, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

"Erotic" art

There seem to me to be some very odd inclusions in categories such as Category:Erotic paintings in the National Museum in Warsaw. For example, this particular category includes Madonna and Child paintings that I presume ended up there because of a visible nipple. Is an image of breastfeeding inherently erotic? I would think not. Even more bizarrely, there is a scene of torture (File:Kalteysen St. Barbara Altarpiece (detail).jpg); I shudder to think who would find that "erotic". The category also includes a number of classical nudes that I would not usually expect to see classified as "erotic". Do we have any consensus on the use of this word in category names? Clearly, there is art that is intended as erotic (there is even some in this category), but equally clearly the mere depiction of a human with flesh below the neck doesn't make - Jmabel ! talk 23:17, 25 January 2017 (UTC) it so.

Feel free to recategorize them; I'm a little weirded out by the 'Historic BDSM art' category being used there--it seems overly broad. Not all violence is sexy violence. grendel|khan 01:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
I can work on some of these, but does anyone know whether we have any guidelines on these (to my mind) rather loaded words in category names? I'm hesitant to start into the potentially contentious task of adding or removing categories for which no objective criteria exist. - Jmabel ! talk 02:02, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
There are no guidelines, but you can always add a comment to the category for logical inclusion criteria. I suggest sticking to works intended to be erotic, or where it can be found that catalogues and exhibition of older works are now described as erotic by the gallery, even if this was a subtext at the time. -- (talk) 05:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
I removed the Madonna and Child images; someone else seems to have dealt with the St. Barbara; other than that, I have other things to do with my time right now, but someone may want to pursue this. - Jmabel ! talk 16:33, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Women's March mass deletion

many womens march flickr transfers marked PD, are being challenged as "requires a specific reason why this image is in the public domain." for example File:DC Women's March (32412372506).jpg. clearly the intent was to release the photo into the public domain. you could message / email the photographer, but you might want to defer deletion which will bring on needless drama. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 13:02, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes the unsolved mess of Flickr users tagging their own photographs as PD using Public Domain Mark (PDM). Originally {{Flickr-public domain mark}} was written in such a way that it encouraged people to replace the template with {{PD-author}} for such images, but that line was removed per Commons:Requests for comment/Flickr and PD images. I guess we no longer accept PD files marked by their authors as PDM. --Jarekt (talk) 13:36, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Common sense can and should apply. There are plenty of uploads using this license which we have amended licenses on (including some of my batch uploads), and the intent of the Flickrstream owner when they are the photographer can be taken into consideration; for example sometimes a statement on their profile is perfectly good evidence of their intended copyright release. -- (talk) 14:19, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
That was how {{Flickr-public domain mark}} was originally written: to follow common sense. But I think eventually the very narrow interpretation won that PDM by author is not the same as {{PD-author}}. We have now a long text why flicker users should not have used PDM, but reality is that not many flickr users will ever see that message and in thy mean time their PD images are being deleted here. --Jarekt (talk) 14:43, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
if you want to send a message, write a telegram. i'm sure most flickr uploaders upload there because it is easy, and the ones that know of commons do it, so as not have to interact with editors here. PD for everywhere but commons. "PD is revocable" = lol Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 23:58, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Endless discussions without a solution. Jee 16:48, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Unless a new Request for Comments has been made, the outcome of it and consensus stands. It is like a psudo-policy, which should not be undermined, but instead be followed to the letter. If you disagree with the outcome, please start a new request for comments, or follow the current position and consensus of the Commons community. (tJosve05a (c) 22:28, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
The RFC had no absolute outcome and did not say that PDM have to be deleted within any particular time frame. -- (talk) 23:10, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
ok, i will go change them to "PD-author" - i see no consensus for "Flickr-public domain mark". Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 23:37, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
DON'T! Consensus for it was on the RFC. Feel free to start a new one to gain 'new consensus' for pd-author, which currently there is 'no consensus' for. (tJosve05a (c) 01:25, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Use CC0 instead, since the Flickr user has changed the license. --ghouston (talk) 02:33, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Josve05a you need to provide me with a clear consensus for this extraordinary claim. you and one admin is not a consensus. you will not shift the burden on me to litigate this matter. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 03:32, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes; that's a poorly handled/closed RfC. I hope the crats will re-consider that case again. Jee 03:41, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Argh! If someone mark the image as PDM, they are not the copyright holder. If the image is marked on Flickr as PDM, the uploader on Flickr do not hold copyright to the image; and when we don't have evidence that the image is indeed PD, assume Flickr washing. Simple enough. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 05:49, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
No, simply using PDM is not a reason to presume Flickr washing in bad faith. Judgment and common sense applies. -- (talk) 06:12, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
If we can find no claims of anyone releasing the file into PD or in a free license, yet it is identified as PD by its uploader, we have significant doubt about it copyright status. COM:PCP and Commons:Flickrwashing applies. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 07:16, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Accusations of Flickr washing should be supported by more than bad faith. None of the above is a reason to stop applying common sense judgment. -- (talk) 07:39, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Zhuyifei1999, license laundering is someone falsely pretending as the copyright holder and providing a license. Here we've no doubt about the authenticity of the authorship; otherwise we will not ask the Flicker user to provide a different license. (Anyway i requested the crats to consult for some professional advise as we seems not to arrive in a consensus.) Jee 12:01, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Yet another needless argument about PD/CC0. The user has changed to CC0 as requested/required. That wasn't hard and the benefit is the Flickr user is educated that that they need to pick the correct licence tag. Of course picking "PC" for an obviously in-copyright recent photo is wrong, and demonstrates the user doesn't understand what they are doing. There's no need to complicate things with assumption of Flickr washing or bad intent, just ignorance. I see the 'crats have been pinged and legal pinged, but they ain't going to change the legal reality of the situation. We cannot upload PD Mark images that do not appear to be already out-of-copyright and where we cannot trust the source site to accurately judge whether the image has gone out-of-copyright. Flickr users wrongly picking PD mark for their own photos are self evidently not a reliable source of copyright information. Common sense tells us there is a problem with Flickr's UI and their advice to photographers, and so the correct thing to do is to write to Flickr users and to write to Flickr themselves. Has anyone in this conversation done that, or do you just want to argue about it again next month? -- Colin (talk) 12:16, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

why can't we upload PD Mark images? we upload GDFL images. we upload "no known copyright" - they are both "wrong" and low risk. you have to work with the world as it is, not as you would have it be. you cannot outsource license curation to others. they do not care as much as you do. one person talked to uploader in this case. would you have this license put in a category for human review, which includes contacting flickr uploader? that would be a way forward, other than unnotified mass deletion. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 12:35, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Because it's wrong. The image isn't already in the PD. Slowking4, you have spent more effort arguing about this than simply fixing the problem at source: get the Flickr user to use the correct tag. If the Flickr account isn't dead, then this is not hard to do. There's even bulk tools on Flickr to help the user fix multiple files. -- Colin (talk) 12:58, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
"it's wrong" : is it more wrong than burning down a pillar? the intent of the uploader is to place it in the public domain. is it your argument that your confusion proves it is not? i've done more to fix metadata than these automated no-notifying deletionists. they say "Remove this line and insert a public domain copyright tag instead" and that is exactly what i am doing. so review them and if you disagree, then we will go to DR, which is where we should have been all along. the subversion of process to avoid DR, is troubling. the failure to notify the uploader as required by policy is troubling. it tends to undermine confidence in good faith. i see you are not content to send messages to commons by deleting files, you will now send messages to flickr. that is a crusade i will not waste my time on. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 14:43, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
I have no confusion. The intent of the Flickr user is unclear. It really is. They have several options they could pick. Fat finger problem or ignorance. Either way the option they chose does not apply to their file if it is a modern photograph, which is the case for 99% of Flickr images. There are three issues here.
  1. The first is that Flickr makes it too easy for people to pick the wrong tag and then we are left in a position where we don't trust or believe or accept their choice. That is a problem only Flickr can fix, but in the short term, writing to a Flickr user can help swiftly fix the image tag (or revise it to a CC licence or All rights reserved if that was actually their intent).
  2. User:Victorgrigas has used Flickr2Commons to upload an image that should not have been uploaded (then). He should instead have asked the user to fix their tag. This may be a problem with Flickr2Commons or with this user, I don't know. Again, that should be fixed. I can see from the first version that this file was destined for the bit bucket upon upload. I cannot figure out why (a) we have software that lets people do this for a mass of files or (b) why people upload images without getting it right or fixing it quickly after them.
  3. You have an attitude problem.
While the issue remains on Flickr the solution is to fix the upload tool or educate those users uploading invalid files. There may also be an issue with uploaders not being notified of such files, I don't know. That's the problem. You instead seem to think insults and derogatory labelling people is a solution? It's only a solution if getting yourself banned is what you want. -- Colin (talk) 16:04, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
i expect that admins will follow policy. either block the editors who configured the tools to delete files against policy, or let every one know that the policy is a false promise. how many files have been deleted against policy; will there ever be a review of the against policy deletions?
you want to block me for insisting on policy being followed, then i invite your block as a badge of honor. this attitude is a learned behavior: we all know commons is a moral cesspool. i.e. admins sock to delete; admins block people in order to delete, etc etc. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 17:37, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I have emailed Flickr in the past but I have now tried a new approach with their "Suggestion" page.

If you have a Flickr or Yahoo account, please vote for this suggestion if you agree. Please do not use the Flickr page to argue about Commons policies. -- Colin (talk) 12:30, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Pictures that are obviously not old and marked as PDM must not be accepted here on Commons. PDM is only meant to mark works that are already in the public domain, not to release a work in the public domain. PDM is not a legal tool, unlike CC0. We can't assume that the Flickr user marking their image as PDM is releasing it into the public domain. If we are going to accept such images, we would be violating COM:PRP. There are some countries where judges don't recognize the "simple release of a work to the public domain" (like "I release this photo to the public domain"), like France. See Ruthven's comment on BN. That's why CC made CC0, to make those who wants to release their work to the public domain totally PD. Accepting PDM as a valid license for releasing a work to the public domain would be a problem for our reusers in some countries, and this will lower Commons's reputation. Remember, Wikimedia Commons is for all users, which means, not only those in the U.S. but all over the world. Crap, maybe ISIS might be using Commons! Poké95 04:46, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

January 27

SVG to PNG error

Hello,

I've uploaded two SVG files (1 and 2), made with Inkscape, and somehow the PNG conversion made by Commons is not great (text spacing in particular is clunky), while the SVG seems fine (displays correctly in Firefox and Chrome). Is there something to do (either in Commons or Inkscape) to avoid this isssue? Thanks CrlNvl (talk) 08:43, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Text-rendering problems are usually caused by font substitution; the servers have only a limited repertoire of free fonts available to them. Either use only fonts from the supported list (better for future editability, translation, &c.) or convert the text to paths / graphic objects (better for control of appearance).—Odysseus1479 (talk) 09:24, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
The problem here is rather more generally, not font-family specific, see Help:SVG #Text transform limitations. Scale your map with factor 10 (and dissolve all transform groups) and the result will be fine. User: Perhelion 10:36, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the precisions, I'll try to update during the week-end. CrlNvl (talk) 13:02, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

An own Shortener for Wikimedia Commons

In my opinion, an own Shortener for Wikimedia Commons would be very useful.

Extreme example: https://lizenzhinweisgenerator.de/ generates the following text:

323 characters:

Molgreen (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:20161111_xl_P1090340-1986-2016-Dokumentation-30-Jahre-SFV-drei-gruendungsmitglieder-zu-besuch-vlnr.-Bernd-Brinkmeier--Gruendungsmitglieder--Klaus-Greven--Wolf-von-Fabeck--Dedo-von-Krosigk--sowie-Alfons-Schulte.jpg), https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode

With Shortener:

92 characters:

Molgreen (https://w.mc/123abc9yx), https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode

Or:

53 characters:

Molgreen (https://w.mc/123abc9yx), https://w.mc/sa4.0


This is especially important for the creation of flyers. Here space is decisive. Sure there are risks. The advantage is obvious for me.


Is it useful to open a Phabricator Task?


--Molgreen (talk) 06:02, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

@Molgreen: It's in the works, see phab:T44085. In the meantime, you can link to pages with URLs such as https://commons.wikimedia.org/?curid=55175785 (the number is the "Page ID" shown when you click "Page information" in page's toolbar on the left). Matma Rex (talk) 07:17, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Azen

This sounds Dutch but it isnt (Ezels). Also no location information.Smiley.toerist (talk) 13:10, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

No doubt not understanding the language would be ample cause for someone to suggest deletion, so I looked up wikt:azen and it says it's ass (singular) in w:Breton. I'll have to look up what that is now... Wnt (talk) 19:41, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Are contributions related to Commons:Transition to SVG still appreciated?

Hello! I'm quite confused about the status of Commons:Transition to SVG. I think it's more important than ever, what with 4K televisions and high pixel density mobile phones. Yet, it is marked as "historical". I absolutely agree with the decision not to delete the original raster files after a {{SupersededSVG}} tag is placed, but in general, are contributions like mine (example w:User_talk:Ronlau817#Geological_deformation_of_Iceland) still actually wanted? I really enjoy vectorizing raster images on Wikipedia and have done quite a lot of it besides that, but I'm getting mixed messages and would appreciate some guidance.   All the best, Psiĥedelisto (talk) 18:54, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

  • As far as I can tell, totally welcome. - Jmabel ! talk 19:18, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
    • @Psiĥedelisto: I have no clue why anyone would mark that historical or deprecate it. Vector images (and SVG in particular) are much superior than raster images in many, many contexts. —Justin (koavf)TCM 03:32, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

About collages

I have a doubt and I will appreciate your help. When an person upload a multiple photo like File:Wallacea Fauna.png, it's necesary to specify the license and author of each individual photograph? Or is it assumed that who claiming to be the author took all of them and all have the same license? --Metrónomo's truth of the day: "That was also done by the president" not an excuse. 20:25, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

On the face of it the uploader's statement of "own work" should apply unless there's evidence to the contrary. Of course people may put "own work" because they made the collage and not worry about the source of the images. In this case, the extracted image File:Bubalus depressicornis.png can be found (e.g.) in a blog post from several years earlier [34], so it's invalid without OTRS verification. --ghouston (talk) 00:52, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Oh, I hadn't noticed the latter... Thank you very much for your response, I will remember it the next time. --Metrónomo's truth of the day: "That was also done by the president" not an excuse. 07:49, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

January 29

Are we too restrictive on simple maps?

Please see a discussion I started at Commons_talk:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#Inconsistency_with_the_map_section_.28too_restrictive_with_no_good_reason.29. I believe we may be too restrictive for very simple maps; crucially it is likely we should treat very simple maps as always in public domain and non-copyrightable, which requires a new template,and rewriting the casebook paragraph on maps. To keep discussion at one place, I suggest that anyone who wishes to comment does so not here but at the linked discussion page. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:06, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

January 30

Pernis steerei vs Pernis celebensis

We have two photographs of birds taken in the Philipines whose authors claim to be "Barred honey buzzard" (Pernis celebensis) but it is imposible, because this species is endemic from Sulawesi, Indonesia. See Category:Pernis celebensis. Others think that it may be "Philippine honey buzzard" (Pernis steerei), species that lives in the Philippines, but in the photographs you can be seen that both birds are cleary different and quite possibly they are not the same species. Another possibility is that this is a case of sexual dimorphism or that one of them is a subadult. The obvious is that none is Pernis celebensis, but what species is each? Some help, please... --Metrónomo's truth of the day: "That was also done by the president" not an excuse. 07:40, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Question about full dates in category names

This concerns a particular case of my renaming three categories created by Pigsonthewing. He has objected to at least part of the renaming on a basis that conflicts with what I understand to be rather straightforward naming best practices. After a little back and forth, he has expressed disinterest in continuing the discussion. So I am seeking third party input here. (Though there is a dispute involved, I don't intend for this to be handled as a dispute, but as a request for clarification).

Pigsonthewing created these three categories:

The first contained the latter two and no other.

I changed these to:

Reasons:

  1. The subject of the protests is the executive order prohibiting citizens of seven countries from traveling to the United States. "Muslim ban" refers to a campaign promise that people have connected with this executive order, but it is neither the name of the protests (at least not those I'm familiar with) nor precise when describing the subject of the protests. Putting it in quotes (scare quotes?) perhaps reflects this informal use, but seems inappropriate given the range of other descriptive names we could use.
  2. While the SeaTac photos are from January 29, the SFO event was actually on January 28 (as were most of the others).
  3. I would understand including the full date if (a) it were part of the name of the event or (b) it were necessary to differentiate two or more events that would otherwise be combined or confused (e.g. if we had pictures from two events on different days at the same location with the same cause). Here these categories I've listed were the only categories in the tree. There's no reason to include extra details in the name of a category if there's no need for them, and assuming they're already categorized according to date (which I added when renaming them, e.g. Category:2017-01-28). If later events lead to categories which would lead to confusion, we could add the date at that point.

Pigsonthewing objected specifically to the third, saying that I "moved files from a more-specific category to a less-specific category", to which I say yes, I did. Likewise, if the category specified the coordinates, city, state, county, country, start and end time, a list of causes involved, and everything else already included via other categories. Pigsonthewing does not seem inclined to discuss this further, and so I am here. If I am wrong, I'll be happy to have learned something, but this seems rather clear-cut to me. Given Pigsonthewing is an experienced user, I'm somewhat doubting myself, but unfortunately COM:CAT is not absolutely clear on the matter. — Rhododendrites talk |  22:05, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

You say I "expressed disinterest in continuing the discussion". What I actually said was that I was "not really interested in your baseless imaginings", after you started to presume to tell me what you "imagined" I would do in hypothetical and irrelevant scenarios. I also laid out my reasoning as to why I included specific dates in the category names, and why your removal of them was harmful. As to your second-numbered "reason", mages such as File:SFO Muslim Ban Protest (32205774800).jpg are clearly dated 29 January. Andy Mabbett (talk) 11:07, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
You are correct about the date. The first one in the category was taken on the 28th but not the others. Struck that. I agree spelling it out is preferable. I stuck to the existing convention of abbreviations just to be more succinct. Would still appreciate other comments regarding dates in category names. Obviously, if we have pictures from protests on other days at the same venues this becomes a non-issue, but the question stands for the instances when we do not have such other events. — Rhododendrites talk |  13:42, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Semi-related note: Please use San Francisco International Airport, the name of the main category, not SFO, an abbreviation whose meaning is probably unclear to most visitors. FDMS 4 13:15, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-05

18:45, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Mess with a bunch of duplicated files

Hi all, I've uploaded a whole album from Flickr to Category:People Choice Awards. Unfortunately, the album was already uploaded, though with lower-quality versions (that's the reason why the upload engine hasn't detected images were actually duplicated). What should be done? Duplication is one of the few situations in which deletion of lower-quality duplicated images is valid but previous handling would be needed in order not to let wikipedias without images. An obvious fix is simply to redirect the lower quality images to the images with larger resolution. However, if this was a regular Wikipedia, history merge would be needed. What's the proper way to proceed? --Discasto talk 09:36, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I am unsure you would need to history merge, the rest is probably done by Commons:GlobalReplace. However, I've never used it as I use Pywikibot to do the same thing. -- (talk) 13:09, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
May assume you suggest simply using GlobalReplace to point to "new" pictures and speedydelete the old ones? --Discasto talk 15:22, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

BTW, this not a singular case. Some time ago I encountered the same problem and I discussed a bit about this with Zhuyifei1999. Seems that in past some bots like Flickr_upload_bot or File_Upload_Bot_(Magnus_Manske) for some reason didn't uploaded to Commons the highest resolution file version available on flickr. I suppose there may be a lot of such duplicated flickr files in different resolutions and we need a plan to find and deal with them. The main concern, perhaps, is that it is not feasible to compare via API all Commons files originated from flickr against their source, due to the enormous amount of network traffic and system resources that would be needed for this. --XXN, 16:40, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I'll re-look this in the next two weeks. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 17:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Help needed for Russian Commons book photos

Hello, A Russian editor has requested the deletion of an image which is from 1917 but was taken from a book published sometime thereafter and was uploaded onto the Russian version of Commons. Does anyone know how I can request help from a Russian speaking editor to find out how to resolve this.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 14:38, 31 January 2017 (UTC)