Open main menu

Commons:Village pump/Archive/2017/08

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.


Hot-Cat broken

see MediaWiki_talk:Gadget-HotCat.js#ESLint_changes_broke_HotCat_entirely_for_me, can anyone please fix this if the uploader of the new versions doesn't? -Herzi Pinki (talk) 19:51, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Not entirely broken for me, but behaving strangely and not responding to keyboard commands. -- Tuválkin 22:30, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Even worse: Not responding to all keyboard commands, but responding to some, some times. Savvy users will know that to use Hot-Cat productively to add a single cat to a page (and thus enjoying the one-click publish advantage) very often, when one navigates parent or child chats, up- and down-arrow key input is unavoidable. That functionality is, at the moment, still broken, making categorization (explicitly careful categorization, be it either with full dissimination, which needs , or having checked for soft-redirects, which needs ) much harder and time-consuming than before. Please fix! -- Tuválkin 01:22, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Meanwhile fixed. — Speravir – 15:38, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Speravir 15:38, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Watchlist problems

Is anyone other than me having their browser go into an apparently terminal "not responding" state when they try to load their watchlist? Has been happening to me for the last several hours. All I can think of is that someone might have edited so many of my files that the browser is overloaded (I say this because I know that less than 24 hours ago, before this trouble started, someone had edited several hundred of my files, changing some categories). Tried stopping it partway through, to no avail. - Jmabel ! talk 23:41, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I do/did not have any problems. In future, if you report such a problem, please, specify the OS and browser that you use to help to reproduce the problem. There is a good guide at en:Wikipedia:Reporting JavaScript errors. Ruslik (talk) 18:09, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Did it hapenned something like "Ocorreu um erro na consulta à base de dados. Isto pode indicar um defeito no programa. [WYYP-wpAADwAAI@c0-UAAABE] 2017-08-05 18:36:44: Exceção fatal do tipo "Wikimedia\Rdbms\DBQueryError"", like it happens to me when i try to load with the time selection of more than 12/24H? I´am using Chrome 60.0.3112.90 (64 bits) on Windows 10 and this occurs in the last couple of weeks. Tm (talk) 18:38, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Finally worked now. And, yes, someone edited well over 1000 of my images (changing a category). - Jmabel ! talk 22:47, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
FYI, you can drastically cut the number of days your watchlist displays at to help troubleshoot this problem.   — Jeff G. ツ 22:57, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Jmabel ! talk 22:47, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Feedback Netherlands the World Exchange Platform requested

Dear all,

The Netherlands and the World Exchange Platform aims to be a place where (Dutch) GLAMs and Wikimedia volunteers can interact to help bring digitised collections to Wikimedia Commons. The platform went online in April 2017. A few months later, we would now like to collect some feedback on the platform:

  • If you’ve signed up on the platform but never got around to using it, or if you looked at the platform but didn’t sign up, we would like to hear about that.
  • If you’ve never heard of the Netherlands and the World Exchange Platform before, we would like to hear about that too.
  • In general, we are also interested to get feedback about the platform itself. So, whether you’ve already had a look at it, or just learned about it from this email, we would appreciate it if you would take a few minutes to browse the website and share with us your thoughts on its purpose, the available functionality, the layout, things that you’re missing that should be there, suggestions, etc.

Feel free to share your thoughts on my talk page, this talk page or email me directly if you don’t want to share your thoughts in public. Your feedback will be invaluable to help us decide how to move forward with the Netherlands and the World Exchange Platform.

Thank you!

Regards, --AWossink (talk) 11:52, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

  • @AWossink: how about a link to this platform you're describing? --HyperGaruda (talk) 18:47, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
    • @HyperGaruda: Ha, good one! I just inserted the link in the main text! Best, --AWossink (talk) 10:12, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Precise bus stop location?

Busstop Hvítárnes Crossroads.jpg

There must be a hike route close by crossing the road. Not visible on Google. Same location: File:Road at Hvítárnes Crossroads.jpg, File:View by Hvítárnes Crossroads I.jpg, File:View by Hvítárnes Crossroads II.jpgSmiley.toerist (talk) 10:29, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I was able to find a map showing the location of Hvítárnes Crossroads. It is at 64°33'10.6"N 19°45'48.3"W on the road F35 near the lake Hvítárvatn. --Dannebrog Spy (talk) 13:33, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

OAuth account?

How can I get an account with OAuth? I am told I need this for Internet Archive uploader, see this Saturday event. Avery Jensen (talk) 02:03, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, as far as I see one’s Wikimedia account data is used. You seem to speak of IA Upload, I see in the first box there a link for logging in. — Speravir – 03:48, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
There’s quite a backlog BTW … — Speravir – 03:49, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, IA uploader, I see we have two files in that queue for today's event. The page you point to lets me log in, but I understood I need special permissions from an admin, maybe I am not understanding this correctly. Avery Jensen (talk) 14:49, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi, You don't need to be an admin to upload files with IA Upload. Do you have an error message while trying to log via OAuth? Regards, Yann (talk) 16:23, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
you need OAuth permission to use IAuploader. in addition, there are jp2 books files in the queue that have not been uploaded. i.e. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 17:04, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

@Avery Jensen: Aside from Yann’s question, can you sign in to the Locator-tool (cf. Commons:Locator-tool)? It works with OAuth, too. — Speravir – 00:12, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Ok yes I can log in to Oauth for locator tool and events dashboard, and have now uploaded a different document with IA uploader (it told me the queue was empty). Retried the two original files, but they are still stuck, looks like it's an uploader thing and not OAuth, so thank you. Avery Jensen (talk) 18:07, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Avery, you could ask Sam Wilson, one of the maintainers of IA Upload, who says he would be most active on English Wikisource. His user page there is s:User:Samwilson. — Speravir – 23:09, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Potentially controversial category moves

Dear fellow users,

Wikipedia guidelines state the following:

Does the same apply to potentially controversial category moves here on Commons? --Leptictidium (talk) 13:45, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia guidelines doesn't apply here, we have our own policy on categories at Commons:Categories. Typically, moves that affect many categories or in any case of doubt are discussed at Commons:Categories for discussion. seb26 (talk) 14:11, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Am I therefore correct in understanding that the correct procedure is to discuss such cases before the renaming is carried out?--Leptictidium (talk) 14:48, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Leptictidium: according to the second page I linked, the {{Move}} template can be used, a request can be posted on User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands (non-controversial only), and I would say everything else that is controversial should probably be talked about first at CFD. Are you looking at making a change? Would you like to mention it here for input if you have concerns? seb26 (talk) 15:40, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. My question has to do with Category:Àngel Guimerà, which was controversially moved to Category:Ángel Guimerá without prior discussion. Post facto discussion on the category talk page has yielded no consensus in favour of the move (in fact, a slight majority against it), but the person who made the move refuses to revert it.--Leptictidium (talk) 15:52, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Commons:Rename a category, although is not strictly marked as a policy, does suggest what is the status quo at Commons, that name moves be generally discussed first. However, users do regularly make changes themselves and it is often the source of some controversy. I would not agree with your question in a sense where it would say, there was a clear policy violation of X, criteria A because the user moved the category before discussing, therefore we need Y action ASAP. In the case of Angel Guimera category, it is probably more progressive to steer the discussion toward reaching an agreement for now rather than looking at what was already done, and if there are a lot of users, perhaps there could be a vote put to it to decide. It seems that category has been marked for a CFD, with a link to that talk page. CFDs are usually discussed for a number of weeks before being closed by an admin/experienced user. I'd imagine this should go on for a bit longer but again since you posted the question here on VP it wouldn't be a bad idea to also wait for the input of others. seb26 (talk) 16:10, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi seb26. I'm the person who carried on the move of the category, as I have previously done in dozens of categories (and never found this case). I had also no idea about what commons says about this issue; in that case, knowing that, I would have done this the first. Anyway, I would like to ask you: what says Commons about manipulated consensus? I mean, some users from ca:wiki have plotted from that wiki in order to get more support (even, they proposed to find a "friend" administrator to block the category from unwanted changes). In fact, user Leptictidium seems to be so close to one these users. Of course I agree with consensus, but I totally disagree if I know there is on course an organised campaign to manipulate a normal process of this place. So, what is the position of Commons on this issue? Manuchansu (talk) 20:05, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
  • On the substance of the matter, it seems reasonable to me that for a Catalan person who wrote in Catalan, we would use the Catalan form of his name (with an accent grave).
On the process: if there was no solid consensus, it probably would have been best to leave things as they were. All things being equal, stability is of some value. - Jmabel ! talk 22:39, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
  • (Edit conflict) Manuchansu, I suggest that you bring the matter of plotting for manipulation of consensus to the proper venue. However bear in mind that even if the parties you accuse of attempted sabotage and insidy for fabricated process are actioned in the most severe manner possible, that is still unrelated to the matter at hand: You may prove there was a complot to undo your cat renaming, but that doesn’t mean that said renaming was itself correct and done according to to rule and custom. -- Tuválkin 23:10, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Tuválkin, I never said it was perfect or correct, and when I saw the problem, I proposed to rename it (again) as a form of compromise, adopting the most used form of his name when he was alive and the most used form in english sources too (Angel Guimerá); I gave sources, I explained that Àngel Guimerà was never used by him and that this form is not the most used name at a global level; but some of this people repeated the same slogan once and once, as an unquestionable dogma.
Tuválkin, did you read the link I gave, or just kidding on me again (as you already did yesterday)? One of the users on the discussion (Enric) went to ca:wiki searching help to manipulate the consensus, and from that moment all the troubles had began. Anyway, that's the good thing of this kind of plottings, you provoke the damage and then....hahaha...prove it!!!. The only duty of some of these guys (not all) is to get it at the previous form, so it's perfect: after getting it, you come back to ca:wiki and no problem. Manuchansu (talk) 23:23, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, I have now read the whole Guimerà affair; I could fully confirm my initial impression. -- Tuválkin 03:29, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
  • As is been clearly proved and referenced, the renaming is against Commons:Naming categories, that states Modern personal names are generally not translated. --Panotxa (talk) 02:55, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Cat-a-lot oddity

If I try to use Category:Images by Amanda Slater in Cat-a-lot it freezes. Does this happen for anyone else? What causes it? Andy Mabbett (talk) 13:05, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

You should follow this guideline when reporting javascript errors. Ruslik (talk) 19:55, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
@Perhelion, Zhuyifei1999, Didym: Confirmed. I get these error messages in Firefox browser console (German locale):
TypeError: cats is undefined[Weitere Informationen]  load.php:56:219
	onStopRequest resource://gre/modules/WebRequest.jsm:345:7
— Speravir – 21:19, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
✓ Done thanks. Should be fixed. Special:Diff/253877889 --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 22:31, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Ah, thanks, Zhuyifei1999 – ha, the category was faultily (?) not categorized and, so, had no parent cat (I actually should have noticed from the error message). Changed now. — Speravir – 22:53, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

August 02

Category:Photographs of X

Is this the new normal Category:Photographs of Makino Nobuaki‎ just to weed out two images of tombstones? Or is this an outlier and not the usual way to do it? Don't we usually separate out documents from portraits in the gallery? I just want to know which way I should be doing it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:32, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Yeah, that's pretty odd. If there was a need for two separate categories, it seems to me that it's the grave that should be separated out. - Jmabel ! talk 06:19, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Unidentified bird

Can anyone identify this bird? Have seen them in Sydney lately, never seen them before. A Google search didn't help

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sardaka (talk • contribs) 09:05, 3 August 2017‎ (UTC)
It looks like a Starling, Category:Sturnus vulgaris --ghouston (talk) 08:12, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Looks like you're right. Sardaka (talk) 10:05, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree, and renaming has meanwhile be done. — Speravir – 17:52, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Speravir 17:52, 8 August 2017 (UTC)


Hi, can someone take a look and rename "avaition" --> aviation? It's about 40 images. I did my little bit to correct the typo. Thank you for your time.   Lotje (talk) 12:06, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Lotje: All   Done, please consider replacing the word inside the files descriptions −ebrahimtalk 15:15, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
@Lotje, Ebrahim:   Done   — Jeff G. ツ 16:21, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Speravir 17:44, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

مخالفت با حذف‌‌‌‌عکس های صفحه کاربریم

با سلام و عرض ادب خدمت شما همکار گرامی عکس های شخصی من در صفحه کاربری را حذف نکنید و اگر من پرونده ای را بارگذاری میکنم اکثرا توسط خود هنرمندان هم تایید میشود با تشکر ویلیام علی الهیاری


— Preceding unsigned comment added by Williamaliallahyari (talk • contribs) 07:24, 31 July 2017‎ (UTC)
  • Google translate says this is "Opposition to deleting page shots. With my greetings and courtesy of your service, do not remove my personal cutaways on the user's page. If I upload a file, it will also be confirmed by the artists themselves." Could someone who knows Farsi please engage with this user? - Jmabel ! talk 14:47, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
@Williamaliallahyari: درود جناب ویلیام. به طور ساده میشه گفت سیاست های ویکی‌انبار بسیار خودخواهانه است. نام یا پیوند تصاویری رو که بارگذاری کرده بودید در بحث من بزارید تا جلوی حذف شدن شون رو بگیرم. --Doostdar (talk) 03:25, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Rimless eyeglasses or borderless glasses?

He seem to have both:

and we should merge these into a single pair. Which is the correct wording? -- Tuválkin 00:36, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Rimless eyeglasses would be the normal term in the U.S.; I'm a U.S. native and I've never heard borderless here in this context. I suspect the other may be UK usage (the word eyeglasses is almost nonexistent in UK English, where they normally say spectacles or sometimes just glasses, but not eyeglasses). - Jmabel ! talk 02:21, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
… and en:Borderless glasses is a redirect to this article. — Speravir – 21:05, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Well, looks like this is an easy one. I’ll move and redirect as suggested by the above. -- Tuválkin 08:08, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Identifying a bird

I am trying to identify a bird I have just photographed and never seen before. Can I do that here, or is there somewhere more appropriate? Sardaka (talk) 09:47, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

@Sardaka: Here is fine for starters. Which file contains your photo of that bird?   — Jeff G. ツ 13:42, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
@Sardaka: Add to Category:Unidentified birds, or one of its subcategories. Andy Mabbett (talk) 14:20, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: Thanks. For future reference, all photos of unidentified living and formerly living organisms are under Category:Unidentified organisms.   — Jeff G. ツ 14:33, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds is often a good bet on this. - Jmabel ! talk 14:53, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Renaming of some files

Hi, anybody hanging around who is willing to rename the files in Category:Norse stories retold from the Eddas (1908): replace "illistration" by "illustration"? Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 08:06, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

here's another set which imo should get a closer look and probably be renamed. But needs the description spelling correction?   Lotje (talk) 08:12, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

  Done — Speravir – 23:08, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Speravir 23:08, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

British Museum and blatant copyfraud

Last weekend I visited the Tullie House Museum in Carlisle. They have a number of objects on loan from the British Museum and it appeared that it was only those objects that had any restrictions on photography. I took photographs of two of these (without any flash), as the restrictions are shockingly obvious cases of copyfraud, and not for any reason that might protect the works from damage. It seems incomprehensible as to why the British Museum would ever want to make copyright claims over 2,000 year old works especially considering they are not a money-making commercial enterprise, but a National institute and charity, with a stated objective[1] that "the collection should be put to public use and be freely accessible".

Does anyone have any ideas for action, or contacts in the Museum, that might result in a change of how loans from the BM are controlled? I'm wondering if the most effective way forward is to cause the Trustees of the museum some political embarrassment over the poor behaviour of their loans management team in order to force some overdue changes to policy. Thanks -- (talk) 11:33, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Since creating this thread and posting an email on Wikimedia-l which linked directly to the photographs, both images have been raised for deletion based on the copyright notice having potential copyright. These are Commons:Deletion requests/File:British Museum Fortuna statue, with copyfraud notice.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:British Museum 2nd century bronze jug, with copyfraud notice.jpg. In response I have uploaded the camera icon used in the notice, now in the gallery above.
As the email discussion became lively, if a little muddy, it seemed polite to let the two museums involved know it was happening. I have sent a tweet for information. -- (talk) 14:41, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't think Commons filenames (and discussions on VP) should accuse anyone of "fraud" without very reliable sources. That requires one to demonstrate, for each exhibit item above, that there is intention to deceive and intention to profit from that deception. As a private property, they are entitled to restrict photography and don't have to explain or justify their reasons. The claim "as it is protected by copyright" may well be incorrect, but they could still take actions against you if you photograph and/or publish images taken without permission [Commons may not be interested in such non-copyright issues, but you as an individual might be]. While there could well be intention by either museum to restrict photography in order to sell licences or permits, there is also likely to be a lack of resources/knowledge to enable them to be confident of temporary-exhibit items being safe-to-photograph, so they stick the sticker on as a precaution. -- Colin (talk) 15:01, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
"they could still take actions against you if you photograph and/or publish images taken without permission" Such as? Andy Mabbett (talk) 15:24, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
If you take pictures it is only breaking houserules. The most they can do is remove you from the property. Prosecution can only be done by authorities for violating laws, not for violating houserules.Smiley.toerist (talk) 16:03, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Andy Mabbett depends if they can claim you are breaking a contract. If they make clear at the time of buying your ticket and entering that photography is not permitted for certain exhibits, then you may be breaking that contract and some civil action may result, though is admittedly unlikely. Persistent and/or outrageous behaviour (like, oh I don't know, going onto a major website and accusing them of fraud) could also get yourself banned and risk tarnishing Wikipedia's name. Essentially you are a guest in a private property and this is not how one behaves as a guest. The language used in the filename and in the above discussion is legally unwise imo. -- Colin (talk) 16:51, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
The BM still in effect operates a "don't ask, don't tell" policy on photography - see section 8.1 here: "8.1 Except where indicated by notices, you are permitted to use hand-held cameras (including mobile phones) with flash bulbs or flash units, and audio and film recording equipment not requiring a stand. You may use your photographs, film and audio recordings only for your own private and non-commercial purposes." The same goes for the images on their website. But as I think Fae knows, they have in the past kindly facilitated back-stage photography of objects by Wikipedians, knowing the images will be uploaded to Commons. Our former main contact left some years ago. Most "policy" matters are hard to change at the BM because of the size of the organization. Johnbod (talk) 16:07, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Claiming copyright does not give you copyright. There is a Swiss legal firm who claims they own the Rorschach inkblot test. The rest of the world generally ignores their threats. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:56, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
@Doc James: I don't think anyone is disputing the copyright status of the objects, just the appropriate way to communicate with one of the world's leading cultural institutions. The Land (talk) 22:05, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks User:The Land. Agree one does not need to be overly critical of the BM. Many large institutions have a poor understanding of copyright. I think we should just respectfully ask them to correct it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:10, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
AIUI, that's what WMUK now intend - as a direct result of Fae's intervention - to do. Andy Mabbett (talk) 12:27, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
One could make a similar point about the appropriate way to communicate with Wikimedia UK. The Land (talk) 19:35, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
The Commons Village Pump is not intended to be a playground for chapter politics and you must realize this is off-topic. -- (talk) 22:16, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Maybe they thought that polishing a pot gives one copyright on the clean object resulting from the initial object! There is no limit to absurdities once one accepts that automatic digital derivatives (scans, format conversions etc.) produce new copyrights. Nemo 06:20, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Doctored image?

We have File:Kunstmuseum Wolfsburg.jpg and File:Kunstmuseum Wolfsburg in the dawn.jpg. They are so similar that I am certain that at least one of them has fake signs, but neither acknowledges doing so. Also, they are the only two images uploaded by the account, and the relation of the account name & author name is a bit confusing (different in how they credit an author). Can anyone tell what's going on here? - Jmabel ! talk 23:35, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

@Kunstliebhaber 1994: - Jmabel ! talk 23:36, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Kunstmuseum Wolfsburg in the dawn.jpg appears to be the original. The photo is of a higher resolution, and the translucent banner appears fully realistic. The other image is scaled down to hide inevitable defects of editing. When you zoom in, you can see that the edges are just too perfect. Guanaco (talk) 01:10, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
OK, I'll mark the other as a derivative image. - Jmabel ! talk 02:22, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm still not convinced they aren't both derived from some other original. Look at things like where you see through a translucent scrim, or where the "Menschen im Museum" and its reflection are in File:Kunstmuseum Wolfsburg in the dawn.jpg. Would someone really have worked through removing that to make the other? (Then again adding the reflection isn't trivial, either.) I'm still a bit unsure. - Jmabel ! talk 02:30, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
File:Kunstmuseum_Wolfsburg.jpg's signs at least are fake, since it's supposedly a 2014 photo (which happens to be in line with EXIF and also File:Kunstmuseum Wolfsburg in the dawn.jpg's signs), but the signs advertise a 2017 show. This of course doesn't mean the others are real. Storkk (talk) 07:42, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
It seems as if the uploader User:Kunstliebhaber 1994 is the stated photographer Marek Kruszewski and he is working for Kunstmuseum Wolfsburg. See copyright notices at --GeorgHHtalk   08:24, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
I missed the step where you found the association between our user User:Kunstliebhaber 1994 and Marek Kruszewski. That usually requires OTRS verification. Storkk (talk) 09:25, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
@Storkk. Both images are uploaded by User:Kunstliebhaber 1994: File:Kunstmuseum Wolfsburg.jpg with the statement source=Kunstmuseum Wolfsburg, author=Marek Kruszewski. The other image, File:Kunstmuseum Wolfsburg in the dawn.jpg, says source=own work, author=Kunstliebhaber 1994 and credit Photo: Marek Kruszewski. This suggest a association between both, in my eyes. --GeorgHHtalk   13:07, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
A claimed association, yes. But when the files have been published elsewhere first, as is the case here, we normally require OTRS verification since we cannot otherwise verify that the uploader is indeed the photographer. This would be true even if there was an explicit claim on-wiki that the uploader is the photographer, but here that claim is only implied. Storkk (talk) 14:06, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
great way to welcome yet another institution to commons. wall of warning templates, with seven days to respond, and who cares if the OTRS backlog is 60 days? do you have any evidence to doubt photographer's license, or is this the doubt that sweeps all before it? i.e. [2], what next you are going to betacommand prod all UW files? there is an email contact why dont you use it? Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 18:18, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure who you are criticizing here, but I think I was completely appropriate to raise a question about these files. - Jmabel ! talk 21:53, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
you - what steps did you take to contact this photographer and institution, other than templates, and whinging at VP? it is a mode of communication with a reckless disregard for the abysmal reputation of this place among GLAMs. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 15:11, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but not very, that you are offended that when I am not sure what is going on I come to a central place for discussion. I stand by what I did here. I guess you can add me to the long list of admins you hate. - Jmabel ! talk 17:38, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
To be honest, most GLAMs have never heard of Wikimedia Commons and I have seen no evidence from various online discussions that this project has an abysmal reputation, or any particular reputation, especially when compared to the ghastly issues GLAMs have when trying to promote or share their collections on Flickr, Facebook, Twitter etc. -- (talk) 15:23, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
actually i do not "hate" admins; rather i do not respect the doctrinaire pro forma rules enforcement. there is a nice way to enforce rules and a nasty, and commons almost always chooses the nasty way. GLAMs have a standard of practice and code of conduct, and commons does not.
User:Fæ - you are aware of the User talk:Finnish Museum of Photography fiasco, perhaps you are not aware of User talk:Digitaleffie. you are right most GLAMs are not aware of commons, Commons:GLAM is silent, moreover, the ones that are aware would not touch this place with a barge pole. and so more work for the interlocutors. we see a trickle as they ask permission for GWtoolset, but the upload process is so tortuous and broken, they soon turn away. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 16:20, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
See also Stadt Wolfsburg - Kunstmuseum Wolfsburg (direct image link: kunstmuseum_140908_kmw_mkp_095.jpg). — Speravir – 22:17, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Take a look slightly left of roof corner on the left: There is a spot, probably a stain on the objective. This is existant in both images on exactly the same position. — Speravir – 22:27, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Huh. I bet the spot is a result of cloning to get rid of something. - Jmabel ! talk 00:52, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Both images have a person in exactly the same pose in the exactly the same position (lower right), so they are clearly the same photograph. I'd say that the "Kunstmuseum_Wolfsburg.jpg" is the altered one, since the Wolfsburg in the dawn.jpg seems to have accurate lighting and wrinkles on the banner, and matches the one on the website. Skepticalgiraffe (talk) 19:33, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Both images have been deleted, let's move on.   — Jeff G. ツ 15:30, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

--Kunstliebhaber 1994 (talk) 15:42, 17 August 2017 (UTC) Why the image was deleted? It is an offical image of the Kunstmuseum Wolfsburg. Where can i be sure to upload the image and noone delet it? --Kunstliebhaber 1994 (talk) 15:42, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

July 26

Fixing the date format in {{Information}} templates

I'm working on fixing the dates from free-form formats to yyyy-mm-dd as needed by the {{Information}} template. I have two questions regarding this:

  • Why do I need to enter a captcha on every edit?
  • would it be permissible to perform this task semi-automatically?
    — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arnekoehn (talk • contribs) 07:43, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

--Arnekoehn (talk) 07:44, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Arnekoehn, there are some bots that revise new file uploads and make formatting changes to dates. However, I would not say there is a bot operation out there currently that is adapting the date format for already existing files. You could look at making a bot proposal or a request on that linked page. As for the captcha, it could be that the page includes external links and that your account is not marked as autoconfirmed due to its low number of edits. Non-autoconfirmed users are typically prompted when introducing new external links so I can't explain why you are prompted for captchas when you are not introducing new links but it is the closest thing I can think of. seb26 (talk) 01:04, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
seb26, thanks for your reply. I always need to enter a captcha when I *remove* links to en-wp (sometimes day and year are linked...). I'll look into the bot infrastructure, thanks for the link. Is this page the right place to ask for formatting advice regarding the Spoken Wikipedia templates in commons? Some of them are quite a mess because of their old age and the transfer from the local wikipedias. --Arnekoehn (talk) 08:20, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

August 04

Traffic of a video

WMDE have developed a tool to measure the number of views of a video:

Technical info:

(Source of the announce) Pyb (talk) 17:24, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

HotCat and other functions have stopped working, again

I don't know if anyone else is having this problem, but my HotCat preference no longer works for me. In fact, I don't even have an operating sign in button. --DanTD (talk) 18:07, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

If anyone else has the latter problem, Special:UserLogin should work on any MediaWiki wiki.   — Jeff G. ツ 18:11, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
That didn't work. -- --DanTD (talk) 18:54, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Works for me. The information you gave is not enough to determine what is going wrong on your side. Please see en:WP:JSERROR --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 19:41, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
How much more info am I supposed to give? It just stopped working. Also, it's not just the signature button that stopped functioning, but all the edit tools (which have shifted to the bottom of the page), and the task you showed me still haven't resolved this issue. ----DanTD (talk) 19:54, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
UPDATE: Now even the edit tools on my Wikipedia edit page aren't working either. ----DanTD (talk) 21:40, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
DanTD, Zhuyifei1999 asked you to provide more technical information, like console logs or other data, which can help pinpoint the issue. "It just stopped working" doesn't help people solve the actual issue. The page en:Wikipedia:Reporting JavaScript errors has some instructions for how you can best provide the technical information. It would be more productive if you read it and copy and paste an excerpt of the error messages here so they can be viewed and interpreted. seb26 (talk) 22:04, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
I read those instructions, and they don't do anything for me. As for copying and pasting images, I'll give that a try, but I'm not sure it'll do that much. ----DanTD (talk) 22:07, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
The instructions are not about solving the problem, they detail how to report them in a manageable way so that we can actually interpret what is going on and then embark upon a solution. Right now I personally have no idea what is causing your issue and I would be inclined to just ignore it because there's no actionable way to move forward. The page doesn't speak about copying and pasting images, rather "error messages". Look for the error console of your browser. Google "javascript error console" and the name of your browser to find out how to open and view it. Then you copy and paste the information from the console into a comment here. seb26 (talk) 22:19, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

August 05

Question regarding the licensing/copyright status of this seal

This section was archived on a request by: Moved to Commons:Village pump/Copyright.|2001:2003:54FA:D2:0:0:0:1 15:33, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

SDSS image use policy changed at last!!!

This is good news for astronomy amateurs and professionals. Few days ago Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) has released their 14th data set (DR14). At the same time they changed their image use policy to Creative Commons Attribution license (CC-BY). There were many discussions about their policy on Commons and also many files have been deleted due to their previous policy (non-commercial use only). Now we can upload many thousands pictures of astronomical objects. Enjoy!
Pings for people who took part in recent discussion about SDSS @Lithopsian:@Ruslik:@Clindberg:@Ghouston: Pikador (talk) 10:10, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Does this license change apply to the new images only, or is it retroactive? Regards, Yann (talk) 10:17, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
The wording at the above link reads to me to apply inclusively to the whole collection of images on the site, with no separating mention of images before/after a certain date. Any SDSS image on the SDSS Web site may be downloaded, linked to, or otherwise used for any purpose, provided that you maintain the image credits This looks good to go. seb26 (talk) 12:16, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
A description on SSDS site states: DR14 directly follows DR13. As always, SDSS data releases are cumulative, so DR14 includes all the sky coverage of prior releases. So it looks old images have the same policy as a part of new data release. Pikador (talk) 12:57, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
It's good news. There are quite a few deletions that can be considered for undeletion: [3]. --ghouston (talk) 00:51, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
OK, I will take care of that tomorrow, unless someone does before me. Regards, Yann (talk) 01:16, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be a good idea to have a specific {{SDSS}} template to make it easier to differentiate their material, as we've done with {{ESO}}, {{NRAO}}, {{CERN}}, and others? Huntster (t @ c) 21:40, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Such template is absolutely necessary, since there will be dozens of thousands of images and even more in the future (they started to survey southern hemisphere this year). Pikador (talk) 07:30, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Well its good to have that cleared up. However, it seems to me that the important part of the new policy is not the much-heralded CC licensing of website images, but the line that states:
All SDSS data released in our public data releases is considered in the public domain. 
Previous confusion has largely been around the status of images generated using this data, not of actual images published on the website. Whether this is just clarification or an actual change in terms, it would seem to give use free reign to use SDSS imagery. However, do check the licensing terms of the image tool to make sure the right license is tagged to your images in Commons. Lithopsian (talk) 19:27, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Problems with thumbnail generation?

I encountered several photos uploaded by different uploaders which seems to be damaged: File:SBM(Haryana).jpg, File:SBM Haryana.jpg, File:Congress Building.jpg. May be problem lies in thumbnail generation? Purging didn't help. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:56, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Might be related to phab:T168949. Guanaco (talk) 14:57, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Graphic lab/map section

Why has the the Map section in Graphic lab another layout than the other sections and most important: The New request link is not longer on the Map section so we don't get the code we need to work on a request?
All the code that is a part of the template used on the other sections is thereby missing and archiving and other stuff will not work. --Goran tek-en (talk) 18:09, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

August 07

Guidance for undeletion requests

It is currently very hard to find how to request an undeletion. A moment ago, I experienced that myself, when I searched the following pages for information about how to request undeletion (leaving out some irrelevant ones):

  1. Main Page
  2. Help center (from the link in the left sidebar)
  3. Commons:Contact us
  4. Commons:Contact us/Problems
  5. Commons:Help desk
  6. undelete prefix:Commons:Help desk/Archive

The last search led me to

That was the first instance of an undeletion request I saw, so I decided to do the same at Commons:Help desk#Undelete request. The reply I got finally led me to Commons:Undeletion requests.

I believe, the extra effort I incurred and inflicted on others could be easily avoided with better guidance if at least one of the pages I visited had had just a link to Commons:Undeletion requests. If there are no objections, I would therefore add such a link to the "Help for editors" section of Help:Contents (a.k.a. "Help center"), probably to the third bullet under "Information for beginners", and request that it be added to the sidebar of Commons:Contact us. SebastianHelm (talk) 07:46, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

May I suggest adding it to Template:Discussion menu? --El Grafo (talk) 12:00, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
If I search for "Undeletion" and include "Commons" pages in my search, Commons:Undeletion requests is the first hit.
I'm guessing that you didn't include "Commons" pages in your search. Nearly all policy and how-to is on Commons pages. - Jmabel ! talk 15:33, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
But adding it to the template does not hurt in my opinion. — Speravir – 00:41, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  Done — Speravir – 00:41, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Speravir 23:26, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Huge "dump" of old free images from the British Library on

I recently discovered that the British Library have uploaded more than one million old images to - Apparently they are all public domain as more than 100 years have elapsed since original publication. My favourite sections are the First World War album and the maps section with over 12,000 images. I'm not sure how, or even if, it's done for such a large trove of images to be uploaded here. Or maybe this is old news here and already dealt with... Dodger67 (talk) 13:45, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

There ist a project for a coordinated upload of the files (Commons:British Library/Mechanical Curator collection) and about 25,000 images (including 1,800 maps) have been uploaded to Commons to date. I´m sure that help is very welcome... --Rudolph Buch (talk) 15:57, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Photograph categories by date

Many users have been creating Category:<MONTH> <YEAR> <COUNTRY> photographs (e.g. Category:March 2011 France photographs) categories in addition to existing Category:<MONTH> <YEAR> in <COUNTRY> (e.g. Category:March 2011 in France). I have a few question regarding to them:

  • What is the purpose of these categories and what advantages do they bring compared to the existing categories? To me the existing categories would be enough and the new ones just add confusion.
  • I am not an expert in English language (so correct me if wrong) but the current naming scheme sounds broken English to me.
  • Why the language-neutral {{Decade years months navbox}} month–year template is not used? (Wikimedia Commons is an international and thus multilingual project.)
  • Have these topics already been discussed somewhere? (I would be happy if someone could provide a link.)

Best regards, ––Apalsola tc 15:09, 7 August 2017 (UTC) –– (fix) Apalsola tc 15:34, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't see why we need this redundant category just to make CatScan easier to use. The answer is surely to learn how to use CatScan. See Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2017/08/Category:March_2011_France_photographs. Rodhullandemu (talk) 15:48, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-32

21:45, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

August 08

Odd stretched thumbnails

Description page thumbnail for this image and this image looks odd ever since pages were moved. For the latter it says "Size of this preview: 337 × 600 pixels", but 337 px thumbnail currently shows an image which is actually only 106 px wide. This 106 px thumbnail is apparently stretched to a size of 337 px on description page. Other thumbnail sizes are also smaller than requested. Purging browser/page/thumbnail cache doesn't seem to help. How to fix this? 10:57, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

All offered resolutions of both files work for me, perhaps you have a local caching issue.   — Jeff G. ツ 13:39, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Purge your cache, it causes new photos to fit in the old size. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:45, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
This does't help for me for given two images. I get wrong thumbnail size for every possible width that I try and that shouldn't be previously cached anywhere, and by using different browsers. E.g. 625 px actually generates 197 px. But if I'm the only one who gets this, then never mind. 15:24, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
I must confirm this. I tried to purge with {{Regenerate thumbnail}} and for both files it worked for most of offered preview sizes, but for width of 337 pixels the browser wanted me to download it instead. BTW the images look like they have been upscaled too much before uploading. — Speravir – 17:45, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
  • For me they are the right width, and the underlying image looks fine, but I see exactly what Speravir means about the thumbnails looking badly upscaled. It's as if the underlying image was scaled down further than it should have been, then upscaled. - Jmabel ! talk 18:07, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Hmm, here is what I get with suiting Browser addon: 337px-Hellemani_torn_2011_(2).jpg (JPEG Image, 106×189px, 7.87KiB), and, yes, it is clearly smaller than 337px-Hellemani_torn_2011_(1).jpg (JPEG Image, 337×600px, 60.62KiB). — Speravir – 22:00, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
@Bawolff, Matma Rex: Could you, please, inspect this? Could the real issue be, that these files have an embedded preview image? Coincedently, yesterday in German Wikipedia another image causing issues came up with this problem, see File:Rostockstein.jpg. — Speravir – 19:04, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Hmm, for the latter I meanwhile noticed, that in the originally uploaded version it has some contradicting properties in its Exif data: Image Width: 2347 and Image Height: 3568, but Orientation: Horizontal (normal). — Speravir – 21:20, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
In the meantime Nightflyer has fixed both Hellemani files by applying lossless rotation operations on them (with IrfanView). If this does matter: According to his words he did this in two steps, first a 90° rotation with saving, then the other 270°. — Speravir – 22:21, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Interesting. I poked inside the files using a hex editor, and they have an embedded thumbnail whose orientation (rotation) is different than that of the main image. What I suspect happens is that we try to render e.g. a 337-pixel-wide thumbnail of the 1456×2592px original file, but at some point the dimensions are mixed up and we end up calculating the dimensions as if the file was 2592×1456px – so instead of a 337×600px thumbnail, we end up with a 337×189px thumbnail, and because aspect ratio is preserved, that in turns becomes 106×189px. I was able to fix the original file by changing the thumbnail orientation to match the image (, and to "break" the fixed file by changing the orientation not to match ( I don't know where the issue is, but I can't reproduce it locally using PHP 7.1.5-1 and ImageMagick 6.8.9-9, so presumably it will magically fix itself a few years in the future when we upgrade our stuff in production. Matma Rex (talk) 18:23, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
I filed this as phab:T172556 for future reference, although I don't think there is much we can do here except to wait, and fix any affected files in the meantime. Matma Rex (talk) 18:41, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Have a look of Foto 1, Foto 2, Foto 3 and in german: Commons:Forum/Archiv/2017/June#.22Unscharfe.22_Wiedergabe. The problem is multiple. Gruss --Nightflyer (talk) 20:35, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
@Matma Rex: Are you interested in adding more examples? Cf. Nightflyer’s links, but for me File:Rostockstein.jpg is even weirder, because it produced rotated preview images. On embedding with parameter upright this got stretched then. (Update: But see also Commons:Forum#Mal was kniffeliges, especially what Smial wrote. — Speravir – 21:58, 4 August 2017 (UTC)) And the other strange aspect is that with {{Regenerate thumbnail}} the smallest preview image width was not purgeable. — Speravir – 21:42, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
@Speravir: Sorry, I don't have time to look into this further now; please comment on the task so that this isn't lost when this thread is archived. Matma Rex (talk) 21:10, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Next picture. --Nightflyer (talk) 21:35, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
@Matma Rex: I am actually unsure, whether it is the same issue alone or whether the rotation according to Exif or XMP data could be worth an own phab task. — Speravir – 17:48, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

August 03

Share your thoughts on the draft strategy direction

At the beginning of this year, we initiated a broad discussion to form a strategic direction that will unite and inspire people across the entire movement. This direction will be the foundation on which we will build clear plans and set priorities. More than 80 communities and groups have discussed and gave feedback on-wiki, in person, virtually, and through private surveys[strategy 1][strategy 2]. We researched readers and consulted more than 150 experts[strategy 3]. We looked at future trends that will affect our mission, and gathered feedback from partners and donors.

In July, a group of community volunteers and representatives from the strategy team took on a task of synthesizing this feedback into an early version of the strategic direction that the broader movement can review and discuss.

The first draft is ready. Please read, share, and discuss on the talk page. Based on your feedback, the drafting group will refine and finalize this direction through August.

  1. Cycle 1 synthesis report
  2. Cycle 2 synthesis report
  3. New Voices synthesis report

SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 16:12, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

August 09

Sloan Digital Sky Survey Images

I wanted to add to this archived discussion on pump/Copyright/Archive/2017/05#Sloan Digital Sky Survey "images" Sloan Digital Sky Survey Image Use. For full disclosure I wish to state that I'm the current Spokesperson of SDSS. In our most recent data release we have changed our image licence to CC-BY, and clarified the license status of our publicly released data (we declare the data to be in the public domain). You can see the details on our updated Image Use Page. We hope that will enable wider use of the images on Wikimedia/Wikipedia and beyond (the change was in part inspired by the difficulties the previous "free except for commercial use" license caused for Wikipedia useage). KarenLMasters (talk)

That is tremendous news. Thanks and felicitations to you and the SDSS team! Rama (talk) 09:52, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for posting here Karen. Congratulations to all those involved in helping to move to the stronger free license.
With regard to the archived discussion, I have raised an undeletion request at Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Sloan Digital Sky Survey. Thanks -- (talk) 10:01, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm pretty pleased - took a while to get the license change approved. What happens now? I see someone opposed the undeleteion on the basis of our archived ('classic' website). I've flagged this with our web team for edits, but it may be a while before they can get to it as we typically don't edit the archived site. Who makes the final call and how? KarenLMasters (talk) 07:48, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Rock carving

I found this carving on Sydney Harbour. Does anyone have any idea what it means?

  • In Cirth, this reads: FIILIIP MANNO. Does not make sense to me, looks like my guess is wrong. --PereslavlFoto (talk) 12:34, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
This looks like someone copying something in Futhark. It could be a faux engraving as part of Tolkien-ish fantasy, so may be very modern. -- (talk) 12:35, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
In old Norse "Angus the Red, 987 year of Christ". Where is this again? (j.k!) -- GreenC (talk) 15:13, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
On rocks in Ashton Park, part of the Sydney Harbour National Park. -- Sardaka (talk) 07:54, 10 August 2017 (UTC)


MP3 files are patent-free now, MP3 patents expired. How can I upload MP3 files to Commons? Thanks. --PereslavlFoto (talk) 12:26, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Relevant: phabricator:T120288. seb26 (talk) 12:46, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
To summarize the discussion there, they need to speak to Commons people. --PereslavlFoto (talk) 15:39, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Scan-a-thon BAnQ

Hi, During Wikimania, a scan-a-thon is taking place in Montreal. Any help welcome for checking Category:Scan-a-thon BAnQ to be checked. Thanks, Yann (talk) 20:47, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Template for QI...

Hi. Sorry for my bad English; I hope you'll understand me...

I saw some files of my watchlist promoted as QI but I never saw any template saying they're nominated so I was not able do give my opinion... What were the criterions to promote File:Citroen 2 CV A BW 2016-09-03 15-41-08.jpg‎, File:Citroen 2 CV A BW 2016-09-03 15-43-42.jpg and File:Citroen 2 CV A BW 2016-09-03 15-00-09.jpg‎???

If I'd see a template on these I'd say they were not promotables: the photographer is too high, photographed in "plongée": it'll be better to be at the same high of the subject and File:Citroen 2 CV A BW 2016-09-03 15-43-42.jpg is not in the very middle of the pic...

Have a nice sunday.   LW² \m/ (Lie ² me...) 20:45, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Nobody?   LW² \m/ (Lie ² me...) 20:36, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

August 06

Several deletion notofications

We are two contributors experiencing several deletion requests by one user. Could someone help us to understand what the problem is and if we can do something about it? --Nattes à chat (talk) 23:27, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

  • "two contributors" => you and who else?

=> DeuxPlusQuatre and me (we are both contributors of a project dedicated to the reduction of the gender gap.

  • "experimenting" => (I presume you mean "experiencing")

=>Yep experiencing !

  • Really hard to tease out which ones concern you from just someone's contributions list. You'll need to link the images or deletion requests you are concerned about.
  • Are you saying that the individual deletion requests do not state, in each case, what the problem is (or might be)? - Jmabel ! talk 23:45, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

=> nope, just that I dont understand some of them (the reason why).

Hello Jmabel here are the incriminated files (i responded beneath your quesitons above).

User:Yann intervened on most of them. I do not understand what the low re argument is about.

Thanks for your answer, --Nattes à chat (talk) 09:36, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

"low res" stands for "low resolution" (small size). That alone is not a valid reason for deletion. --El Grafo (talk) 09:45, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I think these requests were created as a retaliation following a disagreement on the French Wikipedia. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:30, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

August 10

Special:ShortPages no longer includes file pages

Following a discussion and Phabricator task, Special:ShortPages on this wiki no longer includes file pages. - dcljr (talk) 20:57, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

August 11

Hard cocks

I am sorry, but why is the category Sculptures of cocks and all its subcategories called so, when it is itself a subcategory of Roosters in art? Why isn't it called "Sculptures of roosters", etc.? Is it in order to allow for puns like my own (a sculpture of a rooster = a hard cock)? I would suggest that all the "cocks" are moved to "roosters" as per the main categories. --Edelseider (talk) 09:58, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Move seems to be reasonable. --Túrelio (talk) 10:07, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Then someone should activate a bot because there are a lot of subcategories and manual moves will be messy (I fear). All the best, --Edelseider (talk) 10:12, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Rooster is a North American word. In British and international English, cock is a more understandable term. I don't see why Commons would need to use North American just to avoid double entendres. -- (talk) 10:16, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Avoiding double entendres is a good enough reason, I think. Not vital, but not futile, either. --Edelseider (talk) 10:25, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
There are other words, such as "cockerel" or "chanticleer". But I am not a fan of furthering the americanisation of the projects, which is enabling to a certain attitude of dismissal and ignorance of the rest of the world which does indeed kill. Rama (talk) 10:44, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
@Rama: Aren't you dramatizing a bit, here? I don't have blood on my hands. Anyway, the thing could also go the other way round - move all "roosters" to "cocks" instead of all "cocks" to "roosters". Because that mixture of American English and British English is confusing. --Edelseider (talk) 10:51, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
I did not mean to suggest you have blood on your hands, and I appologise for giving you the impression I said so. I merely want to point out that US-centrism is an attitude of privilege that makes other cultures invisible and thus enables dangerous or oppressive mindsets — very much like using masculine grammatical forms by default marginalises women. Nobody will die from the choice of words or pronouns alone, but the cummulative effect yields policies, institutionalised discrimination and detachement from reality that kill by the thousands if not by the millions. Rama (talk) 11:09, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Rama, I'm not even disagreeing with you - there is certainly truth in what you write - but I do think that you are completely off topic now. I know that you think the exact opposite, that you are totally on topic, but the fact is that until 30 minutes ago I didn't even know that "rooster" was an American word. I don't want to advance any linguistic agenda or further any imperialism; I just don't want to be confused. That's a most reasonable request. --Edelseider (talk) 11:21, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia:
The term "rooster" originates in the United States, and the term is widely used throughout North America, as well as Australia and New Zealand. The older terms "cock" or "cockerel", the latter denoting a young cock, are used in the United Kingdom and Ireland.
Imperialism-wise, seems half a dozen of one and six of another; shall we use the Empire's word or the word of the Empire's upstart descendants across the world?--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:25, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Another pro-move rationale might be that — at least today — the term "cock" is quite ambiguous, as the disambiguation page en:Cock shows. --Túrelio (talk) 10:56, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
As opposed to "rooster", that most certainly has only one unambigu OH WAIT! Rama (talk) 11:12, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Compare en:Cock to en:Rooster. The biggest concern for me is that cock can be used for any male bird, not just the rooster.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:25, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Just to make sure

I feel that this is slightly getting out of hand, so let my rephrase the question: Why are many categories dedicated to *that* bird called "roosters" and many others, dedicated to that *same* bird, called "cocks"? It looks and seems random. Shouldn't it be standardized one way or the other? --Edelseider (talk) 11:30, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

You are forgetting about the parent category Category:Gallus gallus (male). Maybe we should rename them all to that. --ghouston (talk) 23:00, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Indeed! --Edelseider (talk) 05:43, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Linking to no English wikipedias in text here

How is this done? The default is [[wikipedia:Albert Einstein|Albert Einstein]]. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:19, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

See en:Help:Interwiki linking (which is itself a use case of an interwiki link). — Speravir – 17:45, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Not to forget Special:Interwiki. To give some examples with Albert; I intentionally leave out the second wiki link part after the pipe:
Also for Wikidata [[d:Q937|Albert Einstein]]: Albert Einstein; or for Commons: [[c:Albert Einstein]]: c:Albert Einstein (but the long form does not work from inside of Commons [[commons:Albert Einstein]], commons:Albert Einstein). — Speravir – 18:14, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I will add to my user page so I do not forget. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:27, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Richard, I would add the links to help and special page, as well. And I myself prefer to always add a colon in first place exactly like I have to add one for a file or category – it helps to avoid accidentally creating old style interwiki links and is a marker for a special link. It works also for links to other projects: [[:s:en:Author:Albert Einstein]], s:en:Author:Albert Einstein. Also note, that I erroneously created wrong links to Wikisource above, cf. Wikidata entry. — Speravir – 01:08, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
s:en:Author:Albert Einstein is identical to s:en:Author:Albert Einstein as far as I can see (one has a colon). There doesn't seem to be a way to make them into interwiki links, although it would be useful for putting Wikidata links on pages or categories that can't link to the relevant item because it's already used elsewhere. --ghouston (talk) 01:33, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Ghouston? The thing with the colon was, what I intended to point out (in the help you will find all these prefixes without colon). And these are interwiki links. Otherwise you would have to use external links: [] [ Author:Albert Einstein - Wikisource] or similar. Oops, signing forgotten …
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Speravir (talk • contribs) 00:48, 12 August 2017 (UTC) (UTC)
@Ghouston — Speravir – 01:26, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, my terminology is wrong, it seems they are "interlanguage prefixes". [[en:Albert Einstein]] and [[:en:Albert Einstein]] have different functionality. There's a lot of weird stuff on Special:Interwiki, I didn't know there were prefixes for the likes of the Final Fantasy wiki. --ghouston (talk) 03:23, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Commons related meetups at Wikimania

There are two Commons related meetups happening this weekend, where every Commons user, attending Wikimania 2017 is invited to:

  • Commons categorizer meetup 2017, Fri, 16:00 @ Salon 4 (level 2)
  • Commons photographer's meetup, Sat, 15:30 (after the photography panel), @ Drummond East (level 3)

Both these meetups will include the discussion of a dedicated Commons Conference sometime next year. If you can't attend, but want to contribute to the discussion, I encourage you to write down your thoughts on User:MB-one/Commons Conference. Cheers, --MB-one (talk) 14:27, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

August 12

File names with swastikas

What shall we do, if a user from Germany, or another country with similar anti-swastika laws, uploads a file with a swastika in its name? Shall we delete, keep or rename this file? And shall we tolerate, warn, block or ban the user? -- 06:41, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

This is managed under current policy and is not an issue. Hypothetical debate is not going to be useful. -- (talk) 06:47, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
, what is the current policy in regards to this? Actually, I think it depends on the case, on the file in question. The IP did not give an example, and in the linked category I do not see an issue. @IP: There is a template {{Nazi symbol}} which could be added, but for content with Asian origin it’s in my eyes a bit strange to add this. — Speravir – 17:42, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Commons:File naming is sufficient in terms of bureaucracy, and any misuse which may be seen to harass users or disrupt the project is covered under COM:BP. I agree with your more general point, characters which may appear to be the swastika should not be discouraged unless used intentionally that way. As a mathematician, I have no issue with seeing Alephs used constructively. Thanks -- (talk) 04:45, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
ACK. Note that even in Germany (which has pretty strict rules against the use of such symbols), the use of the swastika is indeed possible in a context that is clearly not related to Nazi Germany (such as practising en:Falun Gong, according to de:Swastika). --El Grafo (talk) 09:07, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
+1, El Grafo. Thanks, Fæ. I now wonder, why I didn't find this (oh, it's a proposed guideline, this may be the reason). — Speravir – 01:22, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  Info: Known user who suffers from a Nationalsocialists'-symbols-and-abbreviations phobia, see here for example. --Achim (talk) 17:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
"characters which may appear to be the swastika" is not at point; it's characters which are the swastika. Unicode has four, left-facing and right-facing versions in Chinese and Tibetan versions. w:Swastika is a history of this symbol's long history, and the Western strong association of the swastika with the Nazis hasn't transferred to the East.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:19, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

User: Ellin Beltz have been removing the images I keep uploading claiming it to be copied

Unless this guy: Ellin Beltz has proof of the same, kindly request him to not take down the images I upload??

I can show the pictures which I had uploaded more than an year ago with all necessary information's provided and registered as own work. Own_work_LR.png

Please re-instate the images uploaded for Wikipage "Luke Rockhold".


— Preceding unsigned comment added by 7leumas (talk • contribs) 15:57, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
@7leumas: Hi,
Any content previously published elsewhere needs a formal written permission from the copyright owner. Please do not reupload delete files. BTW Ellin Beltz is a woman. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:59, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Yea but this case could be more complicated as it claims that is comes from en wp. So can somebody check that file also on en?--Sanandros (talk) 20:19, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
File:Lr2.jpg, for example, has a watermark on the photo saying "©Zuffa LLC via Getty Images". Are you saying that is yourself? - Jmabel ! talk 20:48, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
And that (for File:Wanda stadium.jpg) you are also "FCC" credited at - Jmabel ! talk 20:53, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-33

23:28, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

August 15

Nazi mug shots: File:Elise and Otto Hampel.png

These pictures are from a series of Gestapo mug shots after their arrest [16]. Can anyone confirm if the PD-EU-no license is correct for Nazi mug shots, or are they even PD? Picture is dated 1942. Thanks. -- GreenC (talk) 15:07, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

If there's no known author, then an anonymous tag is usually appropriate. I'm pretty sure Gestapo mugshots were never published with author's name attached.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:40, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Right wouldn't expect an author name for a mug shot, but question is if a Gestapo mugshot is copyright. -- GreenC (talk) 14:20, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
The license tag says "The copyright of this image has expired in the European Union because it was published more than 70 years ago without a public claim of authorship (anonymous or pseudonymous), and no subsequent claim of authorship was made in the 70 years following its first publication." Why doesn't that cover it?--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:52, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Aside from copyright in the European Union, is there the possibility of the image being copyrighted in the US? --Gazebo (talk) 08:36, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Photographic rules in Indonesia

There are no recent image of skyscrapers and skyline of Indonesia. I have uploaded a few recently,but it is persistently being tagged for deletion. Please let us discuss about the topic.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by M R Karim Reza (talk • contribs) 01:19, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I presume this would be because there is no freedom of panorama in Indonesia. Any photograph of a recent building there would need the permission of the copyright holder, typically the architect. - Jmabel ! talk 05:10, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • And I see you have already been told that. So there really isn't anything to discuss. - Jmabel ! talk 05:13, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • This also was not the first time you were told: two mass XfD's already. --HyperGaruda (talk) 05:37, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • As instructed by User:Jeff G. at COM:UNDEL, please have the architect(s) verify permission via Commons:OTRS for Indonesian works of art under copyright. Otherwise Commons can't host them. 2001:2003:54FA:D2:0:0:0:1 15:31, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • If there is an interest in using photos of copyrighted Indonesian architecture on the English Wikipedia, then one option would be to upload such photos locally to the English Wikipedia and to tag then with {{FoP-USonly|Indonesia}}. (Unlike Commons, the English Wikipedia operates under US law only and the US has FOP for architecture.) --Gazebo (talk) 08:27, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks everybody except HyperGaruda ----Reza

Commons topics on Wikimania 2017

Wikimania is a crazy place where one can meet and exchange ideas with people from many backgrounds, projects and locations. This year quite a few were related to different aspects of Commons:

I am sure other attendees from Commons had different interests and experiences and that I omitted some important topic related to Commons covered at the conference, so let me ping few of other attendees that could add their impressions: @Yann, Susannaanas, Beria, Benoit Rochon, Jean-Frédéric, Kaldari, Léna, Lokal Profil, Missvain, PierreSelim: --Jarekt (talk) 13:45, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Category:Images by Auoob farabi with watermarks

Hello.Is it possible to get rid of borders, watermarks and brackets quickly?Thanks ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 16:58, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

August 16

Petscan vs. Commons Database

I usually create lists of new files in Category:ice hockey using PetScan, but since beginning of June I always get the following error message: Database query failed. Problem with commonswiki? This is my petscan configuration Any conclusion, how I can avoid the error? Any other tool to get new uploads per category? --Xgeorg (talk) 08:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I think that you should file a bug report with the tool's developer. Ruslik (talk) 16:50, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

The image File:Children in the Holocaust concentration camp liberated by Red Army.jpg

See Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:Children_in_the_Holocaust_concentration_camp_liberated_by_Red_Army.jpg. -- (talk) 11:07, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

File:2017 Charlottesville ramming (car involved).jpg

File:2017 Charlottesville ramming (car involved).jpg Can someone add categories for this file, to identify the make of the car, and it's ID plate? [1]

There should be a category tree for cars by number of doors, but I can't find it. It would be normal to do so, since it's basic car identification (ie. 2-door vs 4-door) This is a 2-door

  • The plate number is OHIO GVF 1111

There should be a category tree for sorting cars by their registration number, since other objects can be sorted by registration or serial number.


-- 06:19, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

{{83|…}} and similar broken templates in UploadWizard uploads

Hi, due to my mistake in a recent patch ( aiming to correct the sort order of languages in the dropdown shown when entering file description) recent UploadWizard uploads used {{83|…}} and similar broken templates (with different numbers) instead of {{en|…}} etc. (with different language codes) in the description pages. This should no longer occur for new uploads (fixed with, but the descriptions of a number of files are currently broken due to this.

I will be finding and fixing the affected descriptions; you do not need to do anything, this is just a notification. See phab:T173522 for details. Matma Rex (talk) 17:46, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

August 18


Hello, Someone knows why this maps (and the Date/Time) does not appear? Thanks!--Ghybu (talk) 12:41, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean by "does not appear"? Ruslik (talk) 16:45, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
@Ruslik0: We don't see the file.--Ghybu (talk) 18:01, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Ps: I use Mozilla Firefox (55.0.2). I tried with Google Chrome and IE: it works.--Ghybu (talk) 18:06, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Looks perfectly normal to me, and your last comment "it works" hardly clarifies. Could you describe exactly what you are doing when things go wrong, and what exactly doesn't work? It might be simpler to follow if you don't shorthand by putting texts as part of the links: for example, I have no idea what you meant to do by indicating [[:File:Nile-ku.svg#File history|Date/Time]]. - Jmabel ! talk 20:43, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
@Jmabel:This is what I see with Firefox: [17]. With Google Chrome or IE the look is normal--Ghybu (talk) 23:42, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Huh. I'm using Firefox, and it looks perfectly normal to me. Maybe some sort of caching issue? Have you tried going to the page an hitting CTRL-F5? - Jmabel ! talk 04:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
A caching issue is also my guess (Firefox user as well): Try purging, see for that after my signature. — Speravir – 22:25, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Please purge your browser’s cache. (You only need to do it once.)

Internet Explorer: Press Ctrl+F5
Mozilla Firefox: Microsoft Windows and Linux:
Hold down  Shift while clicking Reload (or press Ctrl+F5 or Ctrl+ Shift+R)

+R (reload page) or + Shift+R (reload page and rewrite cache)

Opera/Konqueror: Press Ctrl+F5 or  Shift+F5
Apple Safari: Hold down  Shift+Alt while clicking Reload

Mac OS X:

++E (clearing browsercache) or +R (update)

Microsoft Windows:

Chrome: Ctrl+F5 or  Shift+F5 or hold down  Shift while clicking Reload
Note: in MacOS  Cmd for Ctrl
This is the first thing I did was before coming here. If I am the only here to not see the image :) so the problem is solved... Thanks! (Note: I also think it's probably a caching problem. Because, I have downloaded the same file on ku.wikipedia and the file appears normally for me too.)--Ghybu (talk) 18:42, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikilegal post on 3D files and 3D printing

Hello, Following the previous conversation regarding 3D files on Commons, the legal team at the Wikimedia Foundation has recently shared some points addressing 3D files from a legal perspective. Particularly concerns around patented objects and objects that are weapons. I encourage Commonists interested in discussing the details of this feature to participate in a discussion in preparation for the feature. On the technical side, work is progressing. We want to make sure all aspects of this feature are considered before it is enabled. Thank you! CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 17:24, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Thanks for writing some of this on-wiki. The section on what the WMF will delete from Commons is troublingly non-specific, it looks any any 3D model file that contains a "pointy edge" could be considered a weapon; let's hope the policy can be shaped up when there are case studies to test policy against. -- (talk) 18:01, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm OK with the idea that we don't want to be a place where terrorists and others can bypass arms control legislation by 3D printing weapons. Though as Fæ says implementing this in a clear and sensible manner is not going to be easy. Lots of supposedly non military technology can make improvised weapons.... However one area where I'd like this to be broadened is torture technology, I can see the argument that picture of thumb screws would have an educational purpose, but I'd rather we didn't enable Daesh or someone to make them. WereSpielChequers (talk) 15:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "Therefore, the Foundation’s recommended approach is to have users agree to a disclaimer that they do not hold any patent rights in a potentially-patentable object upon upload of the 3D file."

    — Wikilegal/3D files and 3D printing

I see there's a footnote, but the widely used {{GPLv3}} license provides a patent grant and is already "ideal" for copyleft computer software and 3D-printer plans. More lax, permissive licenses with patent grants exist, such as {{Apache-2.0}}.

Patents unconsidered, in addition to the GPLv3+ the Free Software Foundation also makes a suggestion other free licenses (Creative Commons) already in use at Commons are also fine for 3D-printer plans of practical use. In addition, 3D-printer plans for decorative objects are artistic works and don't typically concern with patents so CC BY(-SA) 3.0+ should be fine for them. Indeed, Commons should make a distinction between 3D-printer plans for artistic and practical uses during the upload process (UploadWizard).

I don't favor more different patent grants as suggested by Wikilegal (which may not interoperate with other free works or software), but instead opt for well understood existing copyright licenses with patent grants. Dual-licensing under CC BY(-SA) 3.0/4.0 and GPLv3+ (at your choice) could be an option, much like how existing CC BY-SA 3.0 / GFDL (unversioned, no invariants) works on Wikimedia projects.

"Because the uploader could be forfeiting substantial rights in the 3D object, it would be advisable to have a specific warning, triggered upon uploading the 3D file, alerting users that any patent rights they have in the object will be waived."

— Wikilegal/3D files and 3D printing

The cause of the previous quote is the most terrifying proposal to me in my opinion, and may be a big barrier for contribution wrt. {{GPLv3}} and others. (Think like Ogg Vorbis/Opus or VP8 video codec patents, with free patent grants.) At the same time, I feel like software patents should die.

I skimmed over some of the Wikilegal perspective (TL;DR), but overall it seems decent excluding issues pointed here wrt. patent interests in copyleft & pointy edge weapons. 2001:2003:54FA:D2:0:0:0:1 12:57, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Icelands West-fjord names

What is the name of the bay between Furufjörður and Reykjarfjörður? (see location File:Reykjafjarðarlaug (700589586).jpg) There was confusion with two fjords wich are called Reykjarfjörður I hopefully resolved. The boat was ankered in this bay, but we crossed over on foot to the Reykjafjarðarlaug valley up to to the Drangajokull glacier. So I have pictures of both fjords/valleys.Smiley.toerist (talk) 14:47, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

@Smiley.toerist: The coordinates currently given at File:Reykjafjarðarlaug (700589586).jpg point actually to Reykjarfjörður. However, according to the map, the narrow fjord between Furufjörður and Reykjarfjörður is called Þaralátursfjörður if that's what you're looking for :-) Gestumblindi (talk) 20:38, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, thanks. Now I can upload the pictures with the correct name. The Category:Reykjarfjörður pictures are already uploaded.Smiley.toerist (talk) 23:28, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I made a new Category:Þaralátursfjörður. There some strange standing wave effects: Any idea what is seen in File:Þaralátursfjörður 2017 05.jpg and File:Þaralátursfjörður 2017 08.jpg? It is not a surface effect, but must be underwater. There was praticaly no wind at that moment and the small wind waves moved through the area without any effect. (smaller windwaves tend to brake by bigger waves. I suspect it has nothing to do with surface waves. There is a time lapse of around 9 minutes between the to images and the bands dont seem to move.Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:49, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Cannot edit Village pump page

I cannot edit this Village pump page at the bottom. The problem starts just after 13:45, 15 August 2017. My debugging skills tell me that it has something to do with the RTL text used in a signature.User-duck (talk) 05:15, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

@User-duck: How about now? I have not experienced this problem. —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:45, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
@Koavf:I removed the lines with RTL text to add this comment.User-duck (talk) 08:15, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Category for Power Plug Travel Adapter Converter

I've uploaded three photos with AC Power Plug Travel Adapter Converters and I can't find a more specific category for them than Category:Power adapters. Can someone please help me to find or to create a proper category for them?. Thanks. Fructibus (talk) 02:19, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Category:Mains adaptors looks like a better match. --ghouston (talk) 03:19, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

August 20

Unidentified partridges in Iceland?

and File:Patrijs in de Westfjorden 2.jpgSmiley.toerist (talk) 12:45, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

@Smiley.toerist: German-language Wikipedia has a very nice page where people identify species: de:Wikipedia:Redaktion Biologie/Bestimmung - I suppose you could also ask in English there :-) Gestumblindi (talk) 20:20, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
@Smiley.toerist: See Category:Unidentified birds and its sub-categories. Andy Mabbett (talk) 15:29, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Solved is/Lagopus muta islandorum in summer plumage.Smiley.toerist (talk) 21:31, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

.jp2 files

What is the status of JPEG 2000 on WIKIMEDIA? I have come across image files using jp2 format. I do not have software to convert them into PNG format. It seems a shame to convert JP2 files into JPG format just to upload them. It makes sense to me to upload them as JP2 and if anyone wanted to use them, they could download them and use as they wish.User-duck (talk) 05:05, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

@User-duck: See phab:T13871 and phab:T18803. —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:47, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
And phab:T20803. —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:48, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
@Koavf:When I searched on jp2 I found NOTHING. That is why I asked the question. The fact that JPEG 2000 files are not supported should be mentioned. I found the mention that BMP files are not supported.User-duck (talk) 08:15, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
FWIW, JPEG 2000 is listed at Commons:File_types#Unsupported_file_types. --El Grafo (talk) 08:52, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Like I said, I searched for "jp2".
Still cannot edit file without removing RTL. I guess a work-around is better than nothing.User-duck (talk) 18:47, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
JFYI: I’ve just added JP2 (and more) to Commons:File types. — Speravir – 20:59, 20 August 2017 (UTC)


Hello everybody,

The last three months Infobliss has been working on a tool which eases uploading of images from GLAMs to Commons. The tool is aimed at collections where importing everything at once to Commons is not feasible (due to scope, copyright or data quality issues). The tool currently supports uploads from the Amsterdam Museum and the Nationaal Archief (of the Netherlands). We welcome you to test out the tool glam2commons at toollabs and give feedback on what you think about it, what can be improved and which collections you would be interested in seeing supported. Some more information about the tool can be found at Glam2Commons. Infobliss is especially interested to know whether the instructions on how to use the tool are clear; How you feel about the loading times when uploading multiple (more than 3) images; What you think about the general look and feel of the app; And any suggestions on the resulting image descriptions. Your feedback is probably best suited on Commons talk:Glam2Commons, we thank you in advance for your interest.

Greetings, Basvb (talk) 14:46, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Monuments UK is looking for volunteers

Hi all. Wiki Loves Monuments UK is looking for some volunteers to help with reviewing this year’s entries and identifying a long list of images that are worthy to be submitted to the three judges who will pick the final winners. You don't need to be a top photographer to volunteer for this, but you should have a good understanding of what makes an exceptional photograph and be able to distinguish good from mediocre images. You'd need to be able to commit to something like four or five hours work, mostly during October but perhaps during September as well.

If you are able to help, please leave a note on my talk page, or alternatively contact me using the "email this user" feature. More details can be found here. MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:02, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

You got mail. Gruss --Nightflyer (talk) 19:35, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Link to a Commercial Site in Pic Description

Dear All,

I am new to Wiki Commons and have seen that 'Commons is not a place to advertise'. However, I would like to be able to give a link to my commercial webpage inside my pics' description. I have seen some authors do it. For instance, the author below adds a link to his/her commercial site into the 'author' section of the pic description: I assume this is a common practice and does not violate the rules, but want to be on the safe side before I do the same. Thank you for your replies.

Best, Stephan —Preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 20:52, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

  • I'd say that is riding the edge. I personally have a similar policy, but I state it on my user page, not on every individual photo, and I don't link an external site, I tell people to contact me if they need a different license. - Jmabel ! talk 22:29, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

August 21

Accessible editing buttons

--Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 16:56, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

  • What’s the advantage of the new buttons, besides being incredibly ugly? Is this, along with breaking user-created code, only meant to discourage and alianate long term “power users”, or is there some actual good in it? -- Tuválkin 20:18, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Tuvalkin: clearly a lot easier for someone whose motor skills aren't that great. These were pretty tiny, from that point of view. - Jmabel ! talk 22:05, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Jmabel, such people (or indeed everybody) are expected/advised to turn on their systems’ and/or browsers’ ability to “attract” the mouse pointer (see example about MS Windows’ snap-to function); of course, for that to work it needs the buttons on a web page to be HTML compliant — are these?
Having big buttons, on the other hand, takes up valuable screen real estate, and that affects negatively people who cannot afford 4096 px high screens.
-- Tuválkin 23:28, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Why isn't that an issue for the user/browser to deal with instead of the website? And why make it the default, when it decreases usability for people who don't have motor skill problems? A bunch of websites have decided to force these giant buttons on everyone the last couple years, along with other kinds of forced whitespace, on the theory that it makes it "easier" (or the even less-meaningful "less cluttered") for phone users. It makes things annoying for normal desktop/laptop users-- if I wanted giant buttons I'd increase the font size. I've seen those buttons somewhere else already and sighed-- I think maybe on English Wikipedia-- and thought maybe a browser update had switched to that annoying style. (I tried to look for discussion at the obvious place [[18]] but it uses the "modern" discussion mode that I guess nobody likes, because there's only one comment despite this being implemented in other places.) --Closeapple (talk) 03:36, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Closeapple, it’s called Flow and <sarcasm>it’s a great thing only silly people like desktop users dislike.</sarcasm> -- Tuválkin 06:11, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  • While contributing in Meta earlier today I noticed that the new buttons, already active there, have a very dim, barely perceptible way to reflect focus, much harder to notice than unstyled HTML buttons in your typical broswer. What’s the deal, then? It cannot be a matter of accessibility, unless all that was tested was accessibility for fat-fingered users of tiny screens. Is this, once again, sheer imcompetence, or something designed to alienate users of 100-button keyboards who actually navigate webpage controls with the TAB key? @Whatamidoing (WMF):, are you guys going to improve the visibility of focus state variation of these buttons, or not? And if not, why so? -- Tuválkin 20:13, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Legend of File:BigButtonFocus.png
focus on the textbox:
blue blur all around  OK
focus on the checkbox:
black dotted orle  OK
focus on the publish button:
only slightly darker border
 B8D892  vs.  ADCB89 
  Not OK
focus on the preview button:
only slightly darker border
 C9C9C9  vs.  AAAAAA 
  Not OK
  • I’m viewing this with the Monobook skin in Firefox ESR 52.2.1 run on Windows XP SP3:
-- Tuválkin 22:12, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Please compare. This is a net loss in productivity, a step backwards. Don’t be surprised if people are unhappy. -- Tuválkin 03:47, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for this. I hadn't realized that you were using MonoBook, and this problem only exists in the MonoBook skin. The patch has already been written, and phab:T94301 is expected to be deployed next week. BTW, there is no color change on the button. The green gradient remains the same. The only difference is that (currently) a barely visible line forms around the edge of the button – maybe one pixel wide. That's impossible. Next week, it should be a noticeably thicker line. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:01, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, the colors I refer to above are the 1px border, not the filling of the button. Glad that at least this one issue will be fixed. -- Tuválkin 08:02, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
  • «Next week» is today @Whatamidoing (WMF): When will the change be enforced? I just checked in and this accessibility blunder is still in place. -- Tuválkin 08:21, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
    • "Next week" on the deployment schedule means no sooner than 19:00–21:00 UTC tomorrow (for Commons; 24 hours later for most Wikipedias – and all of these times are subject to delay if there's an unexpected problem). Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 03:51, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Today is the 14th and both in the English and Portuguese Wikipedias (the ones I checked; most likely it is identical everywhere) the solution found to this matter is now in place, which is also what we should expect when this “improvement” is inflicted onto Commons as well. As the screenshots above show, there was two ways of showing form element focus in Monobook skin as per the new UI: A blue blurry haze around the element (textbox) or a dotted black orle around the element (checkbox). Guess which was chosen to mark focus on buttons? (Hint: it was a choice that furthers the dumbing-down trend that the WMF is lemmingly following for a long time.) Well, at least is visible… — except probably for color blind people, but who cares, am I right? -- Tuválkin 11:06, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

@Whatamidoing (WMF): At mw:Contributors/Projects/Accessible editing buttons, it says that this will happen around August 20. Which date is correct? Guanaco (talk) 10:40, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

20 August 2017 is the correct date. I have corrected the note above. I postponed this change for Commons because this community depends upon so many older scripts. Commons contributors who are going to the Hackathon associated with Wikimania next month should feel free to find the Editing team there if they need help testing and fixing any scripts.
Thank you for the ping over this. I'm sorry about the confusion; sending this message to Commons with the non-Commons date in it was entirely my fault. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:47, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

The change in button color is necessary in order for the WMF to justify the highly-paid designers and developers they have on staff. Expect more unnecessary changes to coincide with employee quarterly reviews. Senator2029 ➔ “Talk” 22:53, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

This change will happen in a few minutes. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

July 28

Category redirects

I would suggest we correct the problems with category redirects so that the software treats them link redirects not separate pages. Meaning when you land on them, you do directly onto the target without having to click on the target. This causes several problems.

  1. When a reader lands on then through searching or from other websites (like Wikipedia) they have to click through them.
  2. When adding a category (through HotCat) the category redirect comes up as well as the actual title. If you try to add Category:Great Maplestead you also see the redirect Category:Great Maplestead, Essex which may make people think there is multiple. This also applies when searching, the redirect is presented as if it is a separate category.
  3. When reverting a move were the redirect even has no edit history, it doesn't allow it, which then requires admin assistance. This isn't the case with galleries or other pages.

If it is not possible to do this then I would request that a (global) bot fixes links to redirects in the various projects. There is already some discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/11/Category:Cleveland, Ohio where R'n'B. gave some explanations. However surely they could still direct the reader directly to the target category or at least do this if the redirect is empty. I would also ask for Achim55's comments on this as they have helped with fixing links. Crouch, Swale (talk) 06:56, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps a good alternative global solution would be to make redirects "embeddable" (inside templates --XXN, 22:27, 15 August 2017 (UTC)) and to make them work even if placed after other content (e.g. at the end of page). By this then will be possible to include a redirect syntax directly in the {{Category redirect}} and every redicted category will act also as a regular redirect. --XXN, 14:40, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
But we have 298,085 redirects, even a bot fixing them like that would flood the recent changes unnecessarily, wouldn't a change in the software be better. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:09, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps my message is a bit confusing, or we misunderstood each other. I agree that it's not necessarily to edit all pages transluding this template. With the solution proposed by me it's sufficient to do the needed changes in Mediawiki core, and to modify {{Category redirect}} to include either a redirect syntax or a new magic word, and after this a category redirect will act both as a standard redirect and category redirect. XXN, 22:27, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, that's what I was suggesting, maybe I should propose this on the talk page with the edit protect template. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:17, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Probably a Phabricator task should be open first, to let devs make redirect syntax "embeddable"/"transcludable", as it currently does not support this. XXN, 12:25, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Eclipse photography

Hey folks! I work with the Wikimedia Foundation's communications team. We've embarked on a bit of an experiment this week: we put together a blog post and infographic to encourage photographers of the upcoming solar eclipse to upload them to Commons.

We're planning to publicize that blog post on our social media channels on Monday, and the only specific outreach we have planned is to people who post high-quality photos on those platforms. We're deliberately limiting our push so we don't flood Commons with poor-quality photos, and/or make life difficult for anyone here.

Please feel free to use the infographic to reach out to photographers, and let me know if you have any comments or concerns with anything. I'd love to work with you all on improvements as needed. This is definitely an experiment, and your feedback will help us figure out if we'll want to repeat it for other (perhaps more global) events. Thank you! Ed Erhart (WMF) (talk) 22:43, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing, Ed! What about adding a remark at the bottom like "PS: if you have other images with educational value you'd like to share with us - we welcome those too!"? Effeietsanders (talk) 23:30, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Hey Effeietsanders, that's a great idea! I've just added a note to the bottom of the blog post. Ed Erhart (WMF) (talk) 05:40, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Hey @Ed Erhart (WMF): Out of curiosity, have you considered using an upload campaign (both as a « customised landing page » and as an upload helper) for this? Jean-Fred (talk) 16:22, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
@Jean-Frédéric: That would be a no, as I genuinely didn't know that existed. :-) That's something we'll keep in mind for the future. Thank you for the pointer. Ed Erhart (WMF) (talk) 16:35, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
@Ed Erhart (WMF): Glad I could be of help. I went ahead and made a simple Campaign:SolarEclipse2017 − only pre-fills the main category. Turns out one can even replace the Licensing tutorial at the beginning − how fancy is that ;-) Jean-Fred (talk) 22:11, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
@Jean-Frédéric: I'm sorry, I'm only just seeing this! I'm going to have to play around with that tool and see how we can best employ it. For example, a general infographic, useful for different sorts of self-taken photos, tailored for that 'learn' step would be awesome. Ed Erhart (WMF) (talk) 03:45, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

August 19

Tech News: 2017-34

18:00, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Unsplash no longer CC0

I can't find mention of this at the VP archives, so posting this "news":

Unsplash, has changed their definition of "do whatever you like" with their "free" photos. In June 2017 their licence page changed from saying "All photos published on Unsplash are licensed under Creative Commons Zero" (i.e. placing them in the public domain) to their own home-grown licence that forbids uploading to image-hosting sites like Commons on any scale: "This license does not include the right to compile photos from Unsplash to replicate a similar or competing service." Creative Commons commented on this change here. Some further discussion and links here. The restriction is expanded on here and here.

Aside from the threat that "copycat" sites pose to Unsplash's website intrinsic value, their other concern apparently is that they permit photographers to remove their images (and account) from Unsplash but if these are duplicated on other websites collections, it is hard/impossible for them to be removed everywhere. They do accept the licence is irrevocable but like to have the ability for the photo to be no longer publicly offered for free.

Wrt the previous mass upload by it was believed that licence review was not required, as the whole collection was CC0 (unlike e.g. Flickr which has a variety of licence/copyright options). However, we are now in the situation where it is no longer possible (easily) to determine which images were originally published with CC0 and which are published under the new non-free licence.

A further issue of concern for photographers donating their work to Unsplash is that their terms of use grant Unsplash a perpetual licence to use your work and to sub-licence it (under any licence, including for a fee) and, importantly, to authorise them to legally pursue those who break the terms of any sublicense. Further, each photographer does not appear to have any control over the licence terms offered by Unsplash, so their CC0 can be downgraded to "Unsplash licence" and could be further downgraded and restricted.

Template:Unsplash needs updating to using an link to the licence pre 15 June 2017. The documentation for that template should also be updated to warn users about the new licence terms. Images uploaded to Unsplash after that date cannot be uploaded to Commons and must not be tagged with CC0. @Tuvalkin:, who also contributed to the earlier discussion on Unsplash. -- Colin (talk) 12:34, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I have made a first go at editing the {{Unsplash}} template and its documentation. My assumption is that the new Unpslash license does not qualify as a free content license. From what I understand, the CC0 is intended to be irrevocable, so images that were made available on Unsplash under the CC0 prior to the license change should still be usable under CC0. (On the other hand, images that have been made available on Unsplash under the new custom license and which were not made available under CC0 would not be acceptable on Commons.) --Gazebo (talk) 05:30, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Gazebo. I think there is no problem with us and Unsplash agreeing that images hosted prior to June 2017 are CC0 and can be used on Commons. Other than upload date to Commons, we have no easy way to determine which images on Unsplash are free (AFAIK). I know CC asked Unsplash to clarify which images are CC0 and which have the new licence, but Unsplash did not consider this important or helpful to their users, who they believed would see little difference. Obviously there is a difference to us, as the new terms exclude collecting Unsplash images like we do, but I think there is also a difference for re-users, who no longer are able to simply state the image is CC0 but rather have to point to some ad-hoc licence page, the wording of which may change again in future.
I think the template documentation change is fine, but not the template itself. The template is for the benefit of re-users, who need assurance that this image is safe to use. So how about:
This image is from Unsplash. Images hosted on Unsplash prior to June 2017 were released under the Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication.
See Unsplash's archived licensing page for more information.
-- Colin (talk) 07:57, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm wondering what the "license reviewer" considers if they see a new Unsplash image. Do they read the template documentation, or do they rely on the template text to guide them? If the latter, then perhaps a brief text saying "Images from Unsplash uploaded to Commons after June 2017 need careful license review. See template documentation for details". Or something like that? What I want is that the licence reviewer is clear about what caution they need, but also that the re-user doesn't have to guess and wonder in doubt, but is confident. Maybe the template needs parameter to indicate:
  • Unassessed
  • Uploaded prior to June 2017 so safely CC0
  • Uploaded since June 2017 but confirmed to be CC0
Though I'm not sure how someone does the latter confirmation now. If there really is no easy way, then perhaps we just have to forbid new uploads from Unsplash? -- Colin (talk) 08:06, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  • @Colin, Gazebo, : Well, aint this a bummer. Disappointing, although not surprising: Unsplash was already infamous for willingly witholding information about the location of their promoted images, and other relevant information about it. (This posed some interesting identification challenges, some of them still unsolved; everybody likes a riddle to puzzle out, but, unlike century-old images, these mysteries stem from their capricious whim.) That they are dickish about reuse is a likely segue.
I hate to be shown right about having been pessimistic, though, and this is one of these cases. When we started bringing stuff from Unsplash into Commons (2nd wave, in 2014), I defended that {{Unsplash}} should be only a statement of source and permission, and not transclude {{CC-zero}}, which I applied separately to file pages, fearing that something like this would happen.
But since CC-zero is not revokable, what to do now seems simple (already oulined above), and not even too taxing in terms of workload (it is a smallish collection, after all): Update the template (done?), secure archived source urls for all images (done?), and make sure no Unsplash image published after the change of their terms comes to, or stays in, Commons. -- Tuválkin 10:26, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Tuválkin, I have discovered that if you click on the (i) info button for the image's page on Unsplash, it shows the "Published On" date. So anything published before 15 June 2017 is CC0. This could be used for licence reviewers. Tools that scrape Unsplash could also figure this out. Currently we only have one permitted licence for Unsplash images so I'm ok if the template adds the CC0. What we want to prevent is someone uploading new material without checking the "published on Unsplashed date is before 15 June 2017" and making false claim it is CC0. The good news is that with this info, we could still upload many images to Commons. -- Colin (talk) 10:50, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I fully agree with the above. Looks like we’ll be able to make the best of a bad situation. -- Tuválkin 14:55, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks seb26. I made a couple of tweaks. Images uploaded after 15th June (and for years to come) will need reviewed and could still be valid provided the publication date is earlier. There are a lot of images on the site with CC0 that are not on Commons, partly because many lack enough information to be useful. Yes I get the same issue as you. I don't know if there are problems with The text appears briefly and then vanishes. If you look at the page source, the text is there. -- Colin (talk) 14:17, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Seb26, the last that works is — the next ones show a fully blank screen, lacking (visually) even the WayBack Machine’s interface. I suspect that this is one of those tricks shady web outfits used to play with in the late 1990s (woo, <div> is haxor!!), and it’s all there, if you check the HTML source. The change in wording ocurred between these two:
All photos published on Unsplash are licensed under Creative Commons Zero which means you can copy, modify, distribute and use the photos for free, including commercial purposes, without asking permission from or providing attribution to the photographer or Unsplash.
All photos published on Unsplash can be used for free. You can use them for commercial and noncommercial purposes. You do not need to ask permission from or provide credit to the photographer or Unsplash, although it is appreciated when possible.
More precisely, Unsplash grants you a nonexclusive copyright license to download, copy, modify, distribute, perform, and use photos from Unsplash for free, including for commercial purposes, without permission from or attributing the photographer or Unsplash. This license does not include the right to compile photos from Unsplash to replicate a similar or competing service.
So, May 29th, 2017 is the latest we can state Unsplash was relicensing as CC-zero. -- Tuválkin 14:55, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Tuválkin, thanks for looking into this. But... great, even worse. Colin, would you also agree on this as a date? seb26 (talk) 15:04, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I know: Even worse, two weeks “worser”… -- Tuválkin 15:08, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Sadly yes. The announcement was dated 15th June so I assumed that was when they did it. Further, a noticeboard message on the 23th commented "Last week, we put together the new Unsplash License" which would also match the 15th. But shows the new licence on the 8th. So I guess someone slipped it out early without posting any news. I will send them an email to ask the exact date when they changed the licence. For now, perhaps "June 2017" is accurate enough. -- Colin (talk) 15:33, 10 August 2017 (UTC)


  • I added to one Unsplash photo this experimental feature: {{Unsplash|uploaded=2016-08-04}}; it can be picked up but the template as transcluded. -- Tuválkin 15:36, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Tuválkin, I think the parameter name should be "published=2016-08-04" as it is the publication date on Unsplash that matters, not the uploaded date on Commons (which here is 2017-07-29, after the licence change). I know both sites have users "upload" to them, but the terminology on the Unsplash page is "PUBLISHED ON". -- Colin (talk) 16:39, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Agreed, also as the intended date was of publishing/upload to Unspash, not to Commons: Change   done. I cannot go around to implement its transclusion in {{Unsplash}} yet, but who ever does it, pls don’t forget to synch all language versions and, maybe, add an warning display if the date in the parameter |published is >2017-05-29 (or whatever exact date it ends up being). -- Tuválkin 11:55, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

@, Tuvalkin, Seb26, Gazebo: I got an email back from Unsplash. The licence changed on 5th June 2017. So we should ensure any template parameters, documentation, and any bot transfer scripts take note of that date (i.e., must be 4th June or earlier) wrt "Published On Unsplashed". Later files should be deleted unless the photographer wishes to declare CC0 themsleves in some manner or through OTRS, or offer another free licence option. -- Colin (talk) 08:33, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

  • I have changed the {{Unsplash}} template and its documentation to indicate the license change date of June 5th, 2017. --Gazebo (talk) 07:04, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Recently, I made some slight edits to the {{Unsplash}} template and documentation in order to make the information consistent with regard to the cutoff date of June 5th, 2017. (In particular, it would seem that if the license changed to non-free on June 5th, 2017, then files published on Unsplash after June 4th (not June 5th) would be non-free.) --Gazebo (talk) 05:47, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Well, it’s good to have an exact date to work on. (They are not going to deny later it’s this date, are they? No need to print out that e-mail with all headers and snail mail it to WMF legal or something?) Any idea how many files will be impacted? I haven’t come across any such recent upload, even given the huge increase of Unsplash material uploaded to Commons these past few weeks. -- Tuválkin 19:43, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Tuválkin, I have no reason to assume the date was not given to me in good faith. In the end, the difference in licence is small to the point where the only legal challenge one might face is if one created a large online database of Unsplash images that had the new licence. So getting the date wrong by a few days here or there isn't going to create that problem for anyone. -- Colin (talk) 10:42, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
      • Indeed, and since they publish to the rhythm of «10 images in 10 days» the difference between what they stated (June 5th) and what can be proved by an external source (May 29th) would only affect on batch of 10 images, at most, or even none. -- Tuválkin 23:30, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  • As I am advocating for quite some time now, this proves once more that we need a license review for every image uploaded from an external site. In cases of mass uploads, this can easily be done automatically, so there is no reason not to do it. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
    • How would an automated license review have worked in this case? -- Tuválkin 23:30, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Difficulty appealing deletion requests from mobile device

I recently made an appeal on a deletion request from a mobile device. There was no clear place or method to comment other than a 'Discuss' button. It turned out that my appeal may have been overlooked because the discussion page is not the usual way to discuss a deletion request. For what it is worth, it is not really clear how and where to reply to these sorts of comments even on a laptop.

How can we improve the Wikimedia software, as deployed on Wikimedia Commons, so the user experience in discussion threads is more clear? Particularly, how can we improve the 'reply to' functionality in threaded discussions such as deletion requests?

Brylie Christopher Oxley 23:29, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I was a bit skeptical about this, but after trying it out myself, I   strongly agree that the current situation on mobile is suboptimal. Go to any DR on (the one that prompted Brylie's report above is ), and there is a big inviting "Discussion" button. Worse, after clicking it, the warning edit notice doesn't seem to appear at all. Is there a way we can make the "Discussion" button either go away or point to editing the subject page? I'm not really (read: "at all") familiar with how or where commons.m is developed. Storkk (talk) 10:24, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Well, that's interesting. When I go to (for example) this mobile version of an active DR with my Desktop browser (Firefox 54 on Linux), I kind of get the opposite effect: There is just no way to reach the discussion page at all. But there are pen symbols for editing the page and sections thereof. --El Grafo (talk) 11:17, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
When logged in in Firefox 54.0.1 on Windows, I see the Discussion talk page button. When logged out, I do not. I don't see it in Chrome (desktop) either way, but do on Chrome Android. Storkk (talk) 11:39, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
I see what's happening. The mobile interface only has edit links for section-0 and <H2> headings, we use <H3> heading to organize deletion requests by date. For some reason the mobile interface is treating section-0 from other headings. File a bug on phabricator:. —Dispenser (talk) 11:28, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

August 22

Showing DVD of American Graffiti

We would like to have a movie night outside on a 15 x 13 screen for just friends. Invited friends only. On our own property. Is this allowed? —Preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 02:22, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

  • As far as I can tell, this has nothing to do with Wikimedia Commons.
  • Commons is not in a position to dispense legal advice.
  • You don't say what country, so not even a lawyer could give you a solid answer on the legalities.
  • Speaking entirely from a practical point of view, as an individual who is not lawyer, and speaking for myself rather than for Commons or the WMF: do you really care whether this is technically copyright violation? It's not as if George Lucas is likely to sue you over this. - Jmabel ! talk 03:40, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

"Based food"

We have several "... based food" and "...based-food" categories. First of all, for standardization the words should be used in all cats in one identical form. (I have no personal preference for "based food" or "based-food".) The real question is, together with "x as food" cats, these "based" cats confuse people. (I'm among the first group running in confusions race.) On the other hand, sometimes these "based" cats are used for "dishes". That is not the best solution. Let me give an example: We have "Potatoes" (or under their Laatin name) as a plant/vegetable/root, whatever. Something that makes you fat if you eat too much. When these potatoes are in a supermarket or food market or whatsoever commercial stall, or inside our kitchen, in or out of the fridge, no more alive, they are "Potatoes as food". Then comes "Potato based or Potato-based food". For me, that is "Potato starch" and other foodstuff produced generally in a factory, using potatoes, so that we can use them in making dishes, desserts, etc. Then lastly we have Potato dishes, like French fries or various Potato salads etc. We should use more of "dishes" cats and less (I mean not for dishes but only for dish ingredients, like potato starch, or to change the example chickpea flour, rişce flour etc) the "Potato or other -chickpea, rice- based foodstuff". I tried to explain this in the simplest form I could. Could I? --E4024 (talk) 13:31, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Nagorno-Karabakh Republic - Republic of Artsakh file rename requests

I am a file mover and seeing a bunch of requests on Category:Media requiring renaming to rename files containing the string "Nagorno-Karabakh Republic" to "Republic of Artsakh" since that's the official name now. The enWikipedia page has been moved to account for this, but it doesn't seem like the rename requests are covered by any specific point of the COM:FMC. I am wondering if they are worth doing anyway. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:41, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Is COM:FMC a typo? I noticed this, too, and being unsure decided not to rename these files, i.e. leave them alone, but I think, also when it’s the historic name, it is perfectly fine. Note, in COM:FR for renaming reason 5 (yes, the one for violations) you can find a foot note regarding the neutral point of view. — Speravir – 17:23, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
File movers should take care to avoid renaming files where a new political boundary or national identity has changed, but this would be anachronistic for the image. For example, a 1960s photograph of a tea plantation in Ceylon should not have "Ceylon" changed to "Sri Lanka", as the name only changed in 1972. If this is confusing, then relevant category descriptions or image descriptions should have additional notes to give context.
In this sense, media on Commons are not maintained in the same way as articles on Wikipedia. -- (talk) 23:16, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

August 23

Curious svg glitch

Hey, anybody know why File:Google Photos icon.svg is celebrating tomorrow's solar eclipse? Until recently it resembles a colorful pinwheel. Now it is completely black. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 04:25, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

The actual image is displayed correctly, so it seems to be a problem with generation of thumbnails. --jdx Re: 05:44, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Must have been introduced with the latest update of rsvg (the SVG renderer Commons uses to generate the preview PNGs). The Commons SVG Checker, which still uses an older version of rsvg, says the file is fine and displays it correctly. If someone would like to file a bug report at phabricator, you might want to mention that this is not the infamous flowed text turns into a black rectangle bug. But if it's an rsvg issue, it probably needs to be resolved upstream by the rsvg developers. --El Grafo (talk) 11:54, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
I've reported to upstream. --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 10:01, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! --El Grafo (talk) 11:46, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
The upstream developer stated it's fixed in 2.41.x while we run 2.40.x (2.41.x has a new software dependency on Rust which the Debian packages of librsvg that we deploy on the Wikimedia servers do not fulfill yet). He also states that the SVG file is broken in several regards. --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 16:54, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for keeping us updated! I don't speak enough SVG to understand what that last <path> was supposed to do, but removing it seems to have solved the issue. Also removed references to other non-existing objects, hope that didn't screw up anything. --El Grafo (talk) 14:02, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Call for copyright spotters and filemovers to help with an Unsplash backlog

25,904 R Images from Unsplash (review needed)

Example: Matt Nelson 2017 needs a name that at least tells us the photo has birds in it!

If you enjoy surfing through interesting photographs and have some skills in spotting possible copyright violations, adding sensible categories, or have file mover rights and would like to put names on photographs reflecting content, rather than default names with dates and place names, then the above backlog needs more help. Don't forget to remove the 'review needed' category once done. Some of this collection have been good enough to become Featured Pictures...

Thanks   -- (talk) 13:21, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

@: I think "(review needed)" is actually referring to license review, as described in Template:Unsplash. Most of the files will need license review. There are a few possible solutions to facilitate this, including templates and scripts, but I don't think the "review needed" category should be removed by non-reviewers. Guanaco (talk) 11:59, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Fortunately, as the uploader, it's not my problem as I should not even operate a bot or run a script to solve it, even if this could be done along with the upload. During a previous discussion on UNDEL, when I proposed that automatically verified uploads could be marked as being reviewed because logically it was impossible for the uploads to fail to have the right license, it was rejected on the presumption that uploaders could not verify their own uploaded files, even when this was fully automated. Logic still shows that in these circumstances that duplicated verification is a waste of time, but that's the old community consensus unless someone wants to create a new consensus. -- (talk) 12:22, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

CfD on Category:Images from the Geograph British Isles project (1.7 million files)

Since it's one of the bigger categories on Commons, I think I should mention here that I've proposed renaming Category:Images from the Geograph British Isles project as Category:Images from Geograph Britain and Ireland. Discussion should take place on the CfD. --bjh21 (talk) 11:39, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Conflict between current uploaded and old revert images

After uploading a new file version of image File:Auster 5J-1 Autocrat EI-AGJ, Weston Aerodrome 1959.png I find the newly uploaded file only appears when I am logged in. When I am logged out (or as a member of the public) and I click on the file, or its link in the article (w:Weston Airport), then the old blurred (6 Aug) revert image appears as current, not the newly uploaded (23 Aug) current image. Thank you for revealing what the trick is -- do I have to first delete the old revert image, or, give the new image a new file name? Thank you for help on this. Osioni (talk) 20:19, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I've purged the affected pages and everything seems fine for me when I'm logged out. If the problem continues, it could be a browser cache issue. Try CTRL-F5. Guanaco (talk) 22:08, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

August 24

Windows at Washington National Cathedral

I'm looking at the contents of Category:Stained glass windows of the Washington National Cathedral, and while most of the contents appear to be uploaded as ostensibly PD, I am certain that the cathedral retains copyright to the window images. Can someone offer corroboration before I nominate everything in the category? Mangoe (talk) 18:18, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

You are correct, the modern stained glass windows are likely to be protected by copyright. However, many of the stained glass windows in the Washington National Cathedral are likely in the public domain due to age or failure to renew copyright (i.e. {{PD-1923}}, {{PD-US-unpublished}}, {{PD-US-not renewed}}, etc.). I don't think a blanket nomination of the category is appropriate. You might consider starting by nominating for deletion photos of any original stained glass work taken from the interior of the Washington National Cathedral where the stained glass was created on or after March 1, 1989. The only way we could keep those photos would be if the creator of the stained glass has licensed their work under a free license. —RP88 (talk) 19:01, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't think we get to assume that copyright has not been renewed, and while I don't have a date here I'm pretty sure that the oldest windows pictured are too young to be PD by virtue of age; OTOH everything shown is (I believe) 1985 or earlier (possibly some of the nave clerestory windows are younger, but I don't see any of those pictured here). Mangoe (talk) 21:13, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
"I don't think we get to assume ... that the cathedral retains copyright to the window images." rather you should provide evidence. go search the book [25] and the with the names of all the artists. might want to make a list at wikidata of all the windows with their dates. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 16:37, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

August 17

Category lag

I'm experiencing substantial lag in category updates after file uploads (as much as 30 minutes, even with purging and clearing cache). Is this related to a recent software change? Jc86035 (talk) 09:46, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I've had the same when making bulk category changes with Cat-a-lot. Not sure why. Might be variable, based on server load? Guanaco (talk) 00:15, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
@Guanaco, Jc86035: Take a look at the queue size at . The servers are overcharged by jobs from Wikidata.--Jerry Bleacher (talk) 11:32, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Well, sorry I called Wikidata vapourware then: It does do stuff. -- Tuválkin 13:36, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Sunsetting Ogg video playback

As mentioned in this week's tech news, we're sunsetting Ogg Theora (.ogv) video playback, which was previously used as a fallback for browsers that didn't support WebM natively (Safari, IE, and Edge). Our JavaScript compatibility shim ogv.js now supports WebM directly, meaning we can produce a single set of low/medium/high-res video derivatives that play everywhere.

WebM playback on Safari/IE/Edge should be going live right about now, and if all seems well the generation of .ogv video derivatives will be turned off tomorrow. You can still upload Ogg or .ogv videos if you have them; they are automatically converted to WebM for playback!

Some folks with old/slow machines may see slower playback, especially in Internet Explorer, but maintaining the second set of derivative files was getting increasingly complex due to bugs and packaging problems. Switching fully to WebM also will make it easier to make future steps for dynamic resolution switching, which will help with picking the right playback speed for slow networks or slow CPUs.

Thanks for your patience while we refactor! :) --brion (talk) 19:23, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

The .ogv video derivatives are now switched off; only .webm video derivatives will now be generated and used. If anyone is specifically using .ogv derivative files (not the original uploads), beware that in the future you'll need to use the .webm versions. --brion (talk) 23:37, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Download question

How do I download Commons files by commandline (with curl or wget)? So when I have e.g. File:SemperOpenairball_2016_04.JPG, how do I guess a/a2/SemperOpenairball_2016_04.JPG? I'm hoping, that there could be some preexisting tools. I would be glad about any help.--Jerry Bleacher (talk) 11:32, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

a and a2 are the first one and two characters of the md5 hashsum of the filename --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 12:39, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
A slightly more official approach might be to use the MediaWiki API. This URL gets (among other things) the download URL for that file: . The API Sandbox is brilliant for playing with this. --bjh21 (talk) 14:36, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

2017 Summer Universiade photos

Hello. I have uploaded the photos from this album from Flickr (see Category:Volleyball at the 2017 Summer Universiade - Women's UKR-CAN (22 August), Category:Volleyball at the 2017 Summer Universiade - Women's BRA-MEX (22 August) and Category:Volleyball at the 2017 Summer Universiade - Women's FRA-COL (22 August)). According to my Google search and license laundering judgment, I can confirmed that these photos are pictured by uploader, and I can considered that the copyright holder licensed by PD-self. Please review these photos and transferred other photos. Thanks! This is Taiwania Justo speaking (Reception Room) 14:17, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

  • They seem to have had the routine bot review to confirm the license, and as far as I can see no one has raised doubts about them. What exactly are you asking someone to address? - Jmabel ! talk 15:20, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
  • @Jmabel: When I use Flickr-to-Commons tools to transfer, in order to the PD Mark, it automatically marked {{Flickr-public domain mark}} and I must changed it to {{PD-self}} manually. This is Taiwania Justo speaking (Reception Room) 15:49, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Ah. I'm not at all sure we allow that. While your analysis of the situation is probably right, the fact is that the Flickr user in question hasn't actually granted a license, just clicked on something that clearly is not accurate. While I'm more or less certain you are correct about the Flickr user's intentions, I strongly recommend going through the COM:OTRS process. - Jmabel ! talk 16:17, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
    • @Jmabel: Okay. I haven't encountered this condition before, and tried to figure out the policies for Flickr. Now, I considered that we should delete these files before checking the PD condition. But VisualFileChange.js is broken. This is Taiwania Justo speaking (Reception Room) 17:42, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
    • @Jmabel: I think I found an evidence. According to the author's information and the photo's EXIF (author: Yueh, LeiShen; copyright holder: LsYueh vs LsYuehᴴᴰ on Flickr), I think the copyright holder of these photos are actually the uploader on Flickr. This is Taiwania Justo speaking (Reception Room) 01:42, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
      • Yes, but they haven't issued a license. They may have intended to, but they didn't. They didn't (for example) choose the 'CC-0' option on Flickr; they chose the 'public domain mark' ("This work has been identified as being free of known restrictions under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights...), which is simply not true. As I said, these need to go through COM:OTRS. You cannot turn this into CC-0 ("I, the copyright holder of this work, release this work into the public domain...") because you are not the copyright holder. As I said above, you should get the photographer to go through the COM:OTRS process (or change the licensing on Flickr to indicate CC-0 or other free license).
      • At least that's my take, based on discussions I've seen of similar images. I'm not going to delete these, because I think you have complied with the photographer's intent, but if you don't get the photographer either to go through the COM:OTRS process (or change the licensing on Flickr to indicate CC-0 or other free license), I'd expect these to be nominated for deletion, and I'd expect that process to result in deletion. - Jmabel ! talk 02:38, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
        • @Jmabel: Thank you for your suggestion. I have send the request to that author about the OTRS permission. If he cannot send the OTRS permission in 7 days, we will delete these photos. This is Taiwania Justo speaking (Reception Room) 03:34, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
        • @Jmabel: OTRS permission received: Ticket:2017082510002735. This is Taiwania Justo speaking (Reception Room) 08:58, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
          • Of course, I'm not on the OTRS team, but I assume that must be a ticket that still has to be reviewed, since I know OTRS is backlogged a month or so. You can put {{subst:OP}} on the file pages to mark the OTRS as pending while that gets sorted out. I recommend VisualFileChange as the way to do that. - Jmabel ! talk 15:26, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Government reports

For categorizing File:The Seattle Model City Program in Action, 1970 (36483172182).jpg, I can't find a Category:Government reports or anything like. Is there something like this under a name (and in a part of the category tree) where I didn't look, or is this something that needs to be created. - Jmabel ! talk 00:45, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Category:Government documents seems close. --ghouston (talk) 12:20, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes, that will do. - Jmabel ! talk 16:37, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Or maybe not. What a mess. Although we have many countries in Category:Government documents by country, Category:Government documents of the United States is a redirect to Category:Documents of the government of the United States (note that this concept is different, wouldn't include a city government document like this), which, in turn, is a redirect to Category:Official documents of the United States. So I'm not going there at this time, beyond just Category:Government documents. Someone more familiar with this area of the category tree might want to sort out this mess and make sure parallel categories for different countries are, indeed, parallel. - Jmabel ! talk 16:44, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the relationship is between Category:Official documents and Category:Government documents. Are official documents always government issued? Some of them will also be Category:Legal documents. --ghouston (talk) 01:33, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Sort key conventions

Hi, I was wondering if there are specific conventions with regards to the use of symbol sort keys like ~ ! # * -. When to which symbol? Let's take Category:Buildings as an example. From what I have seen in comparison with other major categories:

  • "!" is used in categories with good-quality files.
  • "?" is used in categories with unidentified files.
  • "[space]" is used in categories with the same subject plus an additional criterion, i.e. the "Buildings by..." categories.

The three symbols above make sense for how they are used, but what about asterisks, hashes, hyphens, periods et cetera? --HyperGaruda (talk) 10:53, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I think it's ad-hoc per category. If there are guidelines anywhere, I've never seen them. --ghouston (talk) 01:21, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Filtered whatchlist causing Database error

This happened to me 3 or 4 times in the past couple days: When calling, I get the following:

Database error

A database query error has occurred. This may indicate a bug in the software.

  • [WY9ASQpAADkAADtp0HoAAACQ] 2017-08-12 17:53:09: Fatal exception of type "Wikimedia\Rdbms\DBQueryError"

It always works right at the 2nd, immediate try. I can add that my watchlist has 20933 items (sorry!). -- Tuválkin 17:57, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Hardly: That’s about rare combos, and my watchlist has hundreds of hits every day. It’s surely due to something new in the engine, as I have been using the same exact url above with no problem for the past many months and only in the past week I have been getting, very often, this error message. (Just now, once again.) -- Tuválkin 11:23, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I have experienced the same error, also about 4 times yesterday; watchlist with 36588 items. My internet connection was quite slow yesterday, I think it might be related to that.--Zaccarias (talk) 11:48, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
    I've been seeing this for about a week or so as well. I'm also seeing an increase in "Due to high database server lag, changes newer than X seconds may not be shown in this list" messages, as well as very long watchlist load times. 61k entries in the watchlist, showing three days, max 1000 entries. Internet connection speed unlikely to be a factor. I have a fast connection without issues on other sites or other Commons pages. LX (talk, contribs) 10:18, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
I see this message regularly, for much longer than the last month. It's erratic but the frequency of it appearing may be related to whether asking for a mobile version. I probably have one of the largest watchlists, though I have a tool that trims it down now and again, currently it's hovering at 440,000+ so I doubt it's related to watch-list size. -- (talk) 11:24, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
I also see it regularly. I just trimmed my watchlist from ~40k to <10k, hoping that it will load faster. Hopefully it will take case of the error as well. --Jarekt (talk) 12:09, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Is the size of the watchlist the cause of the problem indeed? --Stunteltje (talk) 18:55, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
No: As reported, people with watchlists containing modest 20 thousand items started suffering from this issue at the same time as others with twice as many items, and before that nobody had experienced this. I tought it could be due to category load, and unwatched to big cats (Unsplash): My watchlist report got much smaller, but I still managed to call it only after a couple F5s. It’s the new normal: These days it’s database error every first time the watchlist is called, and that’s not good. Fix this, WMF, that’s what you’re here for. Work, and let us work! -- Tuválkin 16:08, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I just wanted to report this same issue too. I have a watchlist with c. 90,000 pages, 1000 edits shown. The problem was not there yesterday, but today, I can't access the watchlist. --Eleassar (t/p) 14:03, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
This is probably caused by the size of your watchlist, or, more precisely, it is probably caused by some bugs that aren't handling large watchlists properly. They're being fixed, but I'm hearing that it's likely to be another couple of weeks before all's well again (last I heard/YMMV/disclaimers apply/not my project). Some of the bugs are related to ORES, so I'm guessing that there's a chance that turning off the Beta Feature for "New filters for edit review" might help, if you happen to have that enabled. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 06:19, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi - Zaccarias, LX, , Jarekt and Eleassar, can you provide the error code you have? Like [WY9ASQpAADkAADtp0HoAAACQ]. Thanks ! Trizek (WMF) (talk) 18:36, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

[WZ8dywpAADgAAHPJLBEAAAAL] -- (talk) 18:43, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Trizek: WZ8hIApAMFYAAH6Ak3wAAACW (first attempt), WZ8hgApAAD0AAH-dhsUAAAAF (second attempt), WZ8hwwpAMEsAAFP0PkkAAACX (third attempt), WZ8iBApAMFQAAF4d1DUAAABI (fourth attempt). The fifth attempt was successful on this occasion. Thanks for looking into it. LX (talk, contribs) 19:01, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
See also phab:T171027. Mattflaschen-WMF (talk) 19:31, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi Trizek. The error code at my watchlist is "WZ8r8ApAADoAAG3YIToAAAFV". Thanks for taking a look into this. --Eleassar (t/p) 19:43, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
for attempts in a row: [WZ@1XApAIDcAACSvYa0AAAAH], [WZ@1ugpAMFUAAFBXWeYAAAAM], [WZ@2CwpAAD4AAJfgTVcAAAAA], [WZ@2WApAEKgAACgIos4AAAAE] the fifth was successful. Thank you. --Zaccarias (talk) 05:45, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you all for the codes! This issue is under investigation. Sorry for the delay and the inconvenience. Trizek (WMF) (talk) 08:13, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Some more codes from me: [WaAiVwpAEK4AAC5H7t4AAAAP] 2017-08-25 13:13:55, [WaAiowpAADkAAJ3Fq5YAAADE] 2017-08-25 13:15:11, [WaBdAgpAEKoAAGt9GesAAABB] 2017-08-25 17:24:15, [WaE3GgpAEKkAABSteSUAAABJ] 2017-08-26 08:54:46, [WaJP2QpAAEAAAHVHXFkAAACA] 2017-08-27 04:52:37, [WaJQLQpAADwAAJF1DeEAAAAF] 2017-08-27 04:54:01, [WaLRQgpAIDoAADxH@i8AAAAW] 2017-08-27 14:04:46, [WaLRlApAMFcAAA7BIhgAAACP] 2017-08-27 14:06:08. I presume this is enough for now. --Zaccarias (talk) 18:00, 27 August 2017 (UTC)


I published this image on the web in 2008 with good intentions... but with an invalid license.

Is there a way I can get it removed from Wikimedia Commons?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Radswiki (talk • contribs) 13:46, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
@Radswiki: Yes, file a Deletion Request.   — Jeff G. ツ 14:04, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Thanks! I already tried that: File talk:Simitar-syndrome-003.jpg

Any other advice?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Radswiki (talk • contribs) 16:11, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
In what way was the licence "invalid"? I note that the image's page has an OTRS notice saying that "Wikimedia has received an e-mail confirming that the copyright holder has approved publication under the terms mentioned on this page." Andy Mabbett (talk) 20:54, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing:, I erroneously thought that I had the copyright for the image. The detail are not 100% clear as I posted this image in the late 00s. I was recently contacted the physician who was directly involved with creating the MRI image. He is asking for me to get the image removed. I would really appreciate it if the image could be removed. -Ben
@Radswiki: you should nominate it for deletion, just like you would an image someone else had uploaded. Give your explanation in the nomination. It will presumably be deleted. - Jmabel ! talk 17:54, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

August 26

Wikisource use of files in the Commons

Wikisource uses some files in the Commons, only for some languages it is not very visible. Compare Category:Dutch Wikisource with Category:English Wikisource. No mention of File:Tweede reize door de Majorij van 's Hertogenbosch.pdf wich is used in Dutch wikisourse. There are probably a lot more files used for Wikisource in the Commons.

A lot Wikisource pages use sourcematerials in their own space (mostly files. They sometimes use jpg files, but they seem to be only in their own space. For example French Wikisource Vie de Lazarille de Tormès. Is it posible to have the files in the Commons and linked to Wikisource?

I ask this because I see this as a posible solution to input the Journal de Bruxelles files into the French Wikisource. In Wikisource the text layer can be added on. (I tried several OCR tools but they dont work very wel on the badly printed 1800 French text) I problably could research a way to convert the files into a PDF or DjVu file to upload to the French Wikisource. However this would imply an unnecessary redundancy. Idealy the files would be dualy used; In the Commons and searchable with the limited amount of keywords; and in Wikisource where the full text can be seen and searched.

I will try some things out and see how far I get in French Wikisource, but assistence will be appreciated. Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:58, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Smiley.toerist,
Yes, there are many files on Commons used by Wikisource. For the French Wikisource, there are mostly in Category:DjVu files in French. Which software did you try? I use Abby FineReader, and the OCR results are usually good, even with old texts, as long as the contrast is good, which is the case here. FineReader also does the JPEG->DJVU conversion. And yes, this image should be moved to Commons. Some images and books are kept in Wikisource because of URAA. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:24, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
This was several years ago. I havent bought Finereader. I now tried free online OCR Service: This is the result of the first page:



sextidi 16 Frimaire an VIII de la république françaife. ,jecepl--ert.e.-7/ Te 11Touvelles cte Paris. -Arrè té des consuls qui ordonne la mise enliberté de plusieurs ecclésiastiques condamnés à la déportation. Approbation de la résolution relative aux acquéreurs des domaines nationaux. - Mesures prises par le général Championnet pour couvrir la ville de Gênes.-Nouvelles diverses. A V I S. L'abonnement de cette feuille , qui parois tous les jours très-exactement , est de 9 francs , par trimestre , pour Bruxelles , et zo francs 5o centimes , franc de port pour les de'partemens. De Paris , le I 2 Frimaire. Les personnes qui désirent écrire aux militaires composant l'armée d'Orient , doivent adresser leurs lettres à Toulon. Le directeur de la poste a ordre de pro-fiter , pour les faire parvenir, de tous les bàtimens qui pourroient partir pour rEgyp te. Le général Mack et son état-major , doivent arriver ces jours-ci à Paris. Les années impaires sont des années climatériques en France pour les consti-tutions. En 89 , la constitution monar-chique est renversée.; en 92 , la consti-tution décrétée alors est annulée par la révision ; en 93 , la constitution mixte est remplacée par une constitution dé-Ma gogique ; en 95 ,la constitution direc-toriale fait disparoitre celle de 93 ; enfin, en 97 la loi du /9 fructidor porte une atteinte mortelle à la consti. tution de 95 , qui , en 99 , reçoit son coup de mort. La voiture extraordinairement magni-fique et digne d'une entrée triomphale , qu'on a vue dans la rue IVIonmorency , est une voiture qu'on fait pour le compte de la reine d'Espagne. Tous les arts , il gest vrai , semblent Mir épuisé le: ge 1M- dustrie pour construire ce char somp-tue ux. Les meilleurs peintres et les artistes les plus distingués ont été appelés et consultés pour le faire et ce monument nouveau du, goût, de l'élégance fran-çaise et de la magnificence espagnole , sera dans peu de jours exposé aux re-gards du public. On porte sa valeur à. 200 mille francs. Si nous en croyons quelques persona nes , qui , par leurs relations , doivent avoir des renseignemens certains , dit un journaliste , le projet du code civil présenté à la convention par Cambal aérés , et celui présenté au corps légisa latif par le représentant Guillemardet doivent servir de base.-Les membres de la section se sont divisé les différenteà' parties du projet de Cambacérès ; chacul:n d'eux est chargé de comparer les dent projets , de les réfondre en un seul, d'examiner si tout a -été prévu , et de proposer ce qu'il croit nécessai.e pbut arriver à la perfection,. On assure aussi, que Cambac,érès ne dissimulant pas que son projet se ressent un peu des opi-nions qui dominoient ré mei, 4 été conçu, a proposé lui-xaéura de zrauds cbaugemens à eek.014,Yakétt`

Not bad I wil have to finetune the result.Smiley.toerist (talk) 17:36, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

@Smiley.toerist: The standard situation is to have a djvu file on Commons, based upon which a digital text is made, proofread and checked in Wikisource. Links between Wikisource and Commons are automatically generated. The link from Wikisource to Commons is found on the "Index:" page, e.g. "bron" at nl:s:Index:Tweede reize door de Majorij van 's Hertogenbosch.pdf (at fr-wikisource, they are named "Livre:" and "fac-simile" respectively), while the opposite link (or actually links) is found in the section "File usage on other wikis" of their respective Commons files as you can see when you scroll down through File:Tweede reize door de Majorij van 's Hertogenbosch.pdf. I do highly recommend to first convert your separate jpeg images into one djvu file, because most of the instructions and procedures at Wikisource are based on working with djvu. See Help:Creating a DjVu file for more information on how to do this. --HyperGaruda (talk) 18:39, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
A word of caution though. From the looks of Category:Journal de Bruxelles nr 76, some of the jpg images contain multiple pages. Be sure to first separate them into a single page per image before stitching them together into one djvu file or else the relation between printed and digital page numbers will get all messed up. --HyperGaruda (talk) 18:52, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I managed without djvu files. The result for the first two files is in Journal_de_Bruxelles_nr_76_1799. The layout leaves something to be desired, but the text I got from Free online OCR service. Some small errors but not much.Smiley.toerist (talk) 20:52, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

August 28

Beta feature: advanced filters and more options for Watchlists, starting September 5


Sorry to write in English. Please help translate to your language and share to localized VPs if possible!

As you may already know, the Global Collaboration team has created a Beta feature. This feature is on your wiki since few months: "⧼eri-rcfilters-beta-label⧽". You can activate it in your Beta preferences.

What is this feature again?

This feature improves Special:RecentChanges and Special:RecentChangesLinked. It adds new features that ease vandalism tracking and support of newcomers:

  • Filtering - filter recent changes with easy-to-use and powerful filters combinations, including filtering by namespace or tagged edits.
  • Highlighting - add a colored background to the different changes you are monitoring. It helps quick identification of changes that matter to you.
  • Bookmarking to keep your favorite configurations of filters ready to be used.
  • Quality and Intent Filters - those filters use ORES predictions. They identify real vandalism or good faith intent contributions that need help.

You can know more about this project by visiting the quick tour help page.

What's new?

On September 5, the Beta feature will have a new option. Watchlists will have all new features available on Recent Changes Beta now.

If you have already activated the Beta feature "⧼eri-rcfilters-beta-label⧽", you have no action to take. If you haven't activated the Beta feature "⧼eri-rcfilters-beta-label⧽" and you want to try the filters on Watchlists, please go to your Beta preferences on September 6. It will not be possible to try the filters only on Recent Changes or only on Watchlist.

Please also note that later in September, some changes will happen on Recent Changes. We will release some features at the moment available in Beta as default features. This will impact all users, but we will provide an option to opt-out. I'll recontact you with a more precise schedule and all the details very soon.

You can ping me if you have questions.

All the best, Trizek (WMF) (talk) 15:18, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Greetings Trizek (WMF), I read all the pages on that section, and have utterly no idea what this is going to help or not help for the project. It would perhaps be a good idea to have someone who didn't develop whatever this is please take a look at the instructions, because they probably make a lot of sense if you already know what's being discussed. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:54, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello Ellin Beltz and thank you for your feedback.
Can tell me what you have understood overall? (Even if it may be false, no worries.) That would help for futre messages or page rewriting.
Thanks, Trizek (WMF) (talk) 08:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

FulfillEditRequest.js doesn't work

Could a JavaScript guru fix it? @Perhelion? IMO it is related to phab:T169385. --jdx Re: 22:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Please explain what is meant by 'it doesn't work'. Exact steps to reproduce the issue and/or the error messages are welcome. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 01:53, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
@Zhuyifei1999: I have installed the script using following code in my common.js:
// Mark edit requests as done.
// If the subject pages does not exist, offer a textbox
// on the talkpage and a button to create the subject page
// from within the talk page.
if ( mw.config.get( 'wgNamespaceNumber' ) % 2 === 1
	&& $( '.com-edit-request-admin-area' ) ) {
	importScript( 'MediaWiki:FulfillEditRequest.js' );
The script adds two buttons to a page with {{Edit request}}: "Fulfill this request after…" and "Mark request as done", e.g. at the bottom of Template talk:Babel. The first button works as expected, but the second does nothing. Normally it should replace {{Edit request}} with {{tl|Edit request}}, add "thank you" message and signature. --jdx Re: 02:38, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
This has unfortunately the same root cause as #VisualFileChange_broken. One of the dependencies of this script is gadget libWikiDOM, which depends on a non-existent module jquery.mwExtension. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 02:58, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Which should be fixed now. However you should still extend the set of modules loaded by mw.loader.using in the evt.markDone function (line 64 atm), with the ResourceLoader module "mediawiki.RegExp". Now it's using mw.RegExp.escape, without declaring it's dependency on the mediawiki.RegExp module. Instead it relies on libWikiDOM to rely on this same module, but that is not guaranteed to continue into perpetuity. Any function or variable that you directly use from a library should always be guaranteed to load by declaring the dependency. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 12:47, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

August 25

Should this Voice of America map file now be labeled a derivative work?

The original uploaded file VOA map used the color pink for Taiwan[26] , but the "map legend" below this map File:South_China_Sea_claims_map.jpg was changed to the same color red used for People's Republic of China in later revisions. Should this current edited version of this VOA map file now be labeled a derivative work from the original uploaded VOA map file? Or is it now potentially factually incorrect, because the original image from the Voice of America (VOA) website here shows that Taiwan (pink) has NO CLAIM on the VOA map? Later edited versions of this map state in the edit summary that the Taiwan (Republic of China) has the SAME CLAIM as the Communist People's Republic of China, yet there is no textual source given for such a claim within the edit(s). Also, the ORIGINAL VOA map did not show this alleged fact and original sourced article never mentions either Taiwan or the Republic of China. --A ri gi bod (talk) 08:40, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

The version from the original source and modified versions should be split into separate files. --ghouston (talk) 10:30, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Although the difference between the original version and the current version is minimal, and some of the intermediate versions are just attempts to delete Taiwan from the key. Perhaps it should just be reverted to the original. --ghouston (talk) 21:40, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
I read at en:South China Sea that China and Taiwan do make the same territorial claim in the South China Sea, which isn't clear on the original version, so the current version may be an improvement. The 2nd version claims to be a correction to the Vietnam-Cambodia border, which would also be worth keeping if verified. However, I'd still reserve the original file page for the original image, and create new file pages for these two modified versions. --ghouston (talk) 21:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

A question for people with a knowledge of trees

Which are the gingko bilobas?

The article en:Place de la République (Strasbourg) is going to be a DYK soon and one of the most interesting facts about the square is that some gingko bilobas which were planted there in the late 1880s (as a gift from the Emperor of Japan to the Emperor of Germany, no less!) are still standing and in good health. Now the question: I would like to point out the gingkos in that picture by adding notes, but I can't recognise a tree from another. It just is not my area of expertise. Could somebody add notes to identify the trees? Thank you very much (the photo is beautiful, thanks to the photographer, too). --Edelseider (talk) 16:22, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

@Edelseider: from a distance it is really hard to tell which tree is a ginkgo. Thanks to Google Streetview I could get a close look at their characteristic leaves, so I was able to annotate two of the four ginkgo trees. There are two more on the other side, but I was afraid to annotate the wrong tree, seeing how blended the trees are on that side. --HyperGaruda (talk) 20:25, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
@HyperGaruda: Thank you very much! Great job! --Edelseider (talk) 20:30, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Please Help

"File:Gavia_Immer-map-localisation.svg" has a dead link in its sourse, and I am at a GAR on the common loon, where the issues needs to be addressed. I have no idea what to do, as there is no even any link in the wayback machine. Could you help me? Adityavagarwal (talk) 17:13, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Adityavagarwal the source for the information on that map is listed i.e. "del Hoyo et al. 1991-2000" meaning the book "Handbook of the Birds of the World" and Josep Del Hoyo is listed as one of the editors/authors of the book. You can see what appears to be a similar map @ HBW, but I can't see the full details of the map because it appears you need a subscription to access it. If you want to know their source for the data, you'll either need to get a hold of the book and see if it has sources listed or contact them and see if you can get the information on the research. You can read a little about the book here with this article interviewing Jesep Del Hoyo. Offnfopt(talk) 21:40, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Gotcha, I have the text of that book. Thank you very much, Offnfopt! :) Adityavagarwal (talk) 01:40, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-35

22:09, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

August 29

PD files uploaded by LTA

Hi, There are several pending requests for restoring files on COM:UDR, mostly old paintings, uploaded by an abuser, and deleted by Krd. While these files are most probably OK, I think that we should reupload them, rather than restoring them, in order not to encourage LTA. Opinions? Pinging involved people: @Krd, Andrassy66, Jeff G., Storkk, , Sanandros, Ankry, Steinsplitter:. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:01, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

The re-upload suggestion is a non-starter as only admins have access to the deleted files and pages. These PD files were speedy deleted outside of policy and should have gone to a DR. PD is PD, regardless of whether the uploader is blocked, a criminal or working for Donald Trump. -- (talk) 17:16, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
The idea is to find a solution, not blindly sticking to policy, when this is not the best. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:27, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
There has been no evidence that current policy is insufficient. I ask that admins stick to policy rather than ignoring it. Deletion of the files was not an emergency action, it just cut out the community. -- (talk) 17:38, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
I see no differenc:::e in restoring vs. reuploading. The images got bulk deleted because it is fact that this uploader embeds blatant copyvios and files with faked source or author information between dozens of valid pd-old files, and it is impossible to individually review all these files before deletion. The amount of files and the detail level of verification required is the reason why review and undeletion is slow. In my opinion we are not losing too much if we keep these files deleted until another user uploads them again from another source, if there is any. In my opinion it is no valid option to restore all images without verification, or not to delete them at the next occurence of socks of the abuser.
I also promised to review as many files as possible, but I request understanding that this will take time, and sadly, the more time is consumed by discussion, the less time will remain for the actual work. May sound crazy, but that's how it is. --Krd 17:55, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Rather than making a rod for your own back, a DR could have triaged these. Obvious copyvios can be speedied, the rest could hardly have counted as an emergency that could not be subject to public scrutiny for 7 days.
If the upload privilege is a loophole for abuse by single purpose accounts, then a change to upload policies is needed, rather than making up new rules on the fly based on one person's behaviour. -- (talk) 18:08, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
i see the difference. perusing a policy of vindictiveness harms the commons. how to you propose to fix your mess? "the sock made me do it", is not a defense. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 18:48, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
I'd like to recognize Krd's good faith efforts, the disagreement is how to get the best outcome of retaining PD content in the most open way. Thanks -- (talk) 11:07, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
As I wrote in this edit, ":@Andrassy66: Krd and Jim can do their analyses without restoring. I oppose the undeletion requests at COM:UDEL per COM:CSD#G3. These files were uploaded by a sock of User:A3cb1." I have been following the actions of CUs in furthering protection of this project per COM:DENY the principles in WP:DENY, as I have done sometimes on English Wikipedia. Perhaps we should have a COM:DENY. In any case, DENY has not worked in the case of this particular LTA and process was not followed, so perhaps these files should be undeleted and a DR started and linked here. I do not oppose release of the info on the File Description Pages to further an UDR or legitimate uploads with the same sources. We need not throw out the baby with the bathwater.   — Jeff G. ツ 13:54, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
yes, DENY does not work, but why stop now, importing english policy where you do not have a consensus? it is an open question whether some people are here to host images, or play out their power trip, but not for this admin: by his conduct in this case, we know him. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 14:55, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


Recently I learned a lot about commons and doing some patrolling for about several months. I would like to devote more time here and help in reviewing new uploads, edits, etc. Just wondering where can I start.--Hindust@niक्या करें? बातें! 14:34, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Hindust@ni,
You could start on Special:NewFiles. Category:Media needing categories also need help. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:40, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
@हिंदुस्थान वासी: The patroller user right would be helpful, so you can mark new files as patrolled. Then multiple people aren't reviewing the same uploads. You can request this at COM:RFR. Guanaco (talk) 02:01, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind suggestions. I shall do patrolling fairly regularly before applying for patroller right I believe.--Hindust@niक्या करें? बातें! 17:15, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Hindust@ni, Another area you can help with is to help translating Commons interface to Hindi. So the pages are readable to people what are not fluent in English. A good place to start would be to add Hindi options to pages in Special:PrefixIndex/Module:I18n/. If you are interested let me know and I can work with you. --Jarekt (talk) 13:53, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
I would like to do translation. Will give you heads up when I doing it.--Hindust@niक्या करें? बातें! 09:29, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

August 27

Asking for a Korean speaker

Hi. Could an editor competent in Korean and the Commons copyright policy please help me over here? 제승원 has uploaded several scientific maps from (probably) their blogs without including a CC-BY-SA notice on their blogs. It is very difficult to communicate with them since they cannot speak English very well and Google Translate's en–ko translation is apparently not very good. Thanks, Jc86035 (talk) 11:03, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Will comment soon. (Better chance of finding Korean at COM:사랑방.) — regards, Revi 11:23, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Subscribing the Commons Village Pump to the Structured Data on Commons newsletter

Hi everyone! From now on, I'd like to make sure that the new newsletters about Structured Data on Commons will be automatically posted here on the Village Pump, by adding the Village Pump to the subscriber list. The Structured Data on Commons project will have quite major effects on Commons, so I think it's good if as many people are informed about it as possible. Of course you can also opt to receive the newsletter on a personal talk page of your own choice. And yes, the project is definitely taking off. Its info pages will get a long overdue update soon. More info in the upcoming newsletter 😉 All the best! SandraF (WMF) (talk) 11:24, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Please do. Andy Mabbett (talk) 12:02, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
+1 --El Grafo (talk) 12:12, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
  Done - SandraF (WMF) (talk) 17:04, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

1841 of 1861 ?

I've moved many files from Category:Punch, 1861 to Category:Punch magazine volume 1 (1841) because their titles and descriptions mentioned 1841. But I realized afterwards that some were really from the 1861 edition, as the date is directly written on the picture. But not all of them. So what should we do ? For the moment, I moved everything back to 1861. And is it possible to rename all of them and change the description without doing it one by one ? (since there are more than 100 files!). --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 13:45, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

  • They seem to be from 1861, but mistitled. Do you have an example of one that's actually from 1841? --ghouston (talk) 06:41, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Misidentified portrait?

Hi, It seems this portrait is misidentified. It should be renamed if it is the case. I have no idea myself. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Maybe move to Misidentified as "Antonio Stradivari", more likely Claudio Monteverdi? Lotje (talk) 15:21, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Wrong messages

I receive wrong messages (1 2). Is there a problem with the gadget?Thank you ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 07:41, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

@ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2: No, there is a problem with your user talk page. I see that it is becoming quite long. Some old browsers may have problems editing pages approaching or longer than 32kb. Please archive it in accordance with the guidelines laid out here. You can do this automatically with MiszaBot, and to quickly use a standard setup for MiszaBot, simply place {{subst:User:MiszaBot/usertalksetup}} at the top of your user talk page. Thank you. It is rather difficult to navigate & edit, weighing in at 102,226 bytes wikitext.   — Jeff G. ツ 09:29, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
@Jeff G.:  Done.  Thank you. --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 09:44, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
@ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2: You're welcome.   — Jeff G. ツ 10:35, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Category for full movies ?

Hi everyone. In Category:Films and television videos, I can't find any category that would concern all video files about full feature films, like this one. How do you think we should name it ? Category:Feature film videos ? And also create Category:Short film videos ? What do you think ? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:44, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

August 31

Can someone help me?

Please help! I'd like to know how to create a new category for videos and put it in this category:

And then I plan to label all the videos Victorgrigas (talk) 00:50, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Thats what I'd like to know - How do I make a subcategory? Victorgrigas (talk) 01:50, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
@Victorgrigas: You create the desired subcategory (like you did), and then put it in the desired parent category (like Ghouston did in this edit}. You can do both in one edit if you plan well.   — Jeff G. ツ 02:39, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Multiple questionable uploads from a single user

Hello, folks. For the second time in about a week, I've come across a user who uploaded about half a dozen images within a few hours of each other. The users each claim that the uploaded images are their own work, but they clearly aren't. In each case, it didn't take long for me to find the images on a commercial website and, for each one that I did locate, I nominated the Commons upload for deletion (giving the URL for the original photo in the nomination). But for each of these two users, there was one or two images that I couldn't locate via a Bing search.

It seems inconceivable to me that a user can falsely claim authorship of four or five images, but still be a bona fide author for the one or two for which I couldn't find evidence. And yet, so long as I am nominating each image individually, I don't see how I can nominate those one or two other images.

I doubt very much that I am the first person to have come across this problem. Is there some method by which I can make a multiple-nomination of all of the user's uploads for that day? Or is there some other approach that I might take? Any advice on this point will be greatly appreciated. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

@NewYorkActuary: There is a gadget called VisualFileChange for this. Once you enable it in Special:Preferences, navigate to the user's contributions and click "Perform batch task" under tools. Guanaco (talk) 06:00, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll be sure to use that the next time I come across this situation. I appreciate the prompt response. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:04, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Glad I could help. Guanaco (talk) 07:08, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

A discussion about support for MP3 on Commons

Hello Commons,

The decoding and encoding technology for the popular MP3 audio format is now patent-free worldwide. Wikimedia Foundation legal has given the OK to move forward with the use of MP3 files on our projects from a legal perspective (phab:T120288#3316046). This means Commons could allow for the uploading and sharing of media in this format. That has the potential benefit of many free files being contributed to the project that exist in this format. However, as you can imagine, there are many workflow and technical considerations. There are also concerns regarding the uploading of content that is not under an appropriate license and the detection of such ill-suited files. The Multimedia team at the foundation wants to learn more from the Commons community. There is no currently planned work for the team related to MP3 support (Most of our attention is on support for structured data on Commons). Nonetheless, we want to take this time to work with the community in understanding how things might move forward.

I'd like to start, or continue for some, a conversation about how we might approach this opportunity. These are just ideas for discussion. First, a suggested course of action.

What if we approached MP3 uploads in phases?

  • Phase 0 - Uploading MP3s is a constrained user right defined in the permission system. It would be up to Commons folk to help determine the requirements for what this user right looks like. Uploads are only allowed by folks in this group. The community would need to figure out a way to track these uploads for accountability.
  • Phase 1 - A tool is developed that perhaps an expanded group of contributors could use to patrol MP3 uploads. This sounds something that might be accomplished via a Project Grant. It is also possible that the foundation could make plans to work on such a tool sometime in the future, but priorities, budgets, and annual goals need to be considered. User:Dispenser has mentioned to me a few services that may make this possible and can discuss a tool he has created: T132650#3273150 T120288#3461531.
  • Phase 2 - An inline tool for detecting non-free licensed files in the upload process that all uploads use.

More information:

Second, a few questions to consider:

  • Is enabling MP3 uploads something the Commons community wants?
  • How would enabling the upload of MP3 files function? What documentation, interface prompts, and tools are needed?
    • For example, do we need to modify the language on upload tools to reference MP3 related policies or technical limitations?
  • Where do you see problems with this proposal?
  • What concerns do you have with enabling MP3 uploads that are not addressed?

Third, a sincere thank you for reading all of this and and taking the time to provide your considerations on the topic. I look forward to the ensuing discussion.

Yours, CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 20:27, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

CKoerner thought I should mention the status of the audio copyvio tools. See phab:T132650#3273150 for a survey of technology.

  • AcoustID: Implemented into an IRC bot that reports audio and video uploads by newbies. It rips the audio track from videos and transcodes into formats understood by pyacoustid. Since everything is open source (free as in speech) it could be integrated into MediaWiki as an extension. The identification rate has been low (maybe 5%) due to only 8 million tracks with a western slant and WP0 pirates uploading local indie music (Shazam has trouble finding them too).
  • ACRCloud has given me access to their service which I've successfully tested. They have about 40 million tracks. It breaks audio files into 15 second clips for fingerprinting. This makes it effective at finding songs in a compilation, but can misidentify recorded sampled MIDI. Admins can double check files by listening to links from Spotify or YouTube. What's left to do? I need to rebuild my server to run their 64-bit binary blob, write a bot to post the results, and guest write on their blog how we're using their service.
  • Gracenote SDK. Largest database at 200 million tracks, owned by Sony, now Nielsen. They have a free "non-commercial" license, but fingerprinting capacity depends on system availability. I've downloaded it, but barely looked at the massive SDK.

Development has stalled since this is an Wikipedia Zero anti-piracy project. In that scope in July we blocked audio and video uploads from all new accounts on Commons and the staff is still working on getting the caches purged timely after files are deleted. Of course, until T167400 is done, the Wikipedia Zero pirates will find another way. —Dispenser (talk) 21:43, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Hi, At least for now, this should restrain to trusted users, to be defined by the community. Please do not repeat the issues we have had with cross-wiki uploads, and WP0. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:44, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • No on phase 0, treating some uploaders as second class citizens. Experiments on tooling should be done on test wiki.

    Do I want MP3 uploads on the Commons? Eh... Obviously OGG Vorbis / Opus is more preferred for higher quality and smaller file sizes, yet Commons accepts PDFs and other formats when no better format exists. If an Vorbis / Opus version is available, I think we should prefer those regardless of the expired MP3 patent. At the same time, I'm a bit reluctant of this: Both OGG Vorbis and Opus are supported in less browsers than MP3, according to

    How easily can people contribute improvements to something like the MP3 format, versus OGG Vorbis or Opus? At least the latter is not terribly difficult, due to being a free, portable format from the beginning. I also imagine conversion between OGG contained formats is a little bit easier due to shared metadata structure, correct?

    Would MP3 really be beneficial to the Commons in long term? In my opinion no, at least I'm dubious. Vorbis and Opus support is good, also in hardware. Actually, I think the question is do we want to support every free format out there...

    I don't personally see how uploading MP3s would be or need to be any different than any other audio format, from the uploader's perspective. Personally, I'd spend the time on educating uploaders to use free formats from the beginning instead of introducing previously-nonfree MP3 support. Arguable if that makes a bigger change or not... 2001:2003:54FA:D2:0:0:0:1 22:53, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

    • Thanks for the feedback. Just to be clear my intent with a phased approach wasn't to create a caste system on Commons around MP3 uploads. :) I want to proceed with care and consideration. I don't want to suddenly inadvertently overburden Commons with this potential change. CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 17:49, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
    • While the technical part can surely be tested on a testwiki, there's much more to copyright patrolling than just that. We have to develop new processes for handling audio files and test them in a real-life environment. With images, you can often spot a copyvio from a quick glance at the thumbnail – this won't work for audio files. Not allowing mp3 has in the past mostly prevented people uploading their favourite songs, but with mp3 that would probably change drastically. And yes, in the end uploading an mp3 file should work in the same way as other files and allowed for anyone, but we might want to start slowly. Remember what happened when mobile uploads were enabled? Remember the flood of copyvios from Wikipedia Zero? --El Grafo (talk) 10:07, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Another big consideration didn't cross my mind earlier: WebM (a common free container supported on Commons) only supports Vorbis and Opus for audio. Unless the container specification is changed to support MP3 (ditto for OGG), muxing derivative works could be more difficult. I don't want to re-encode a lossful format (MP3) to another lossful format (OGG Vorbis) to mux a video in WebM (or MKV) container. Access to a lossless format (FLAC, WAV) would then become a pre-requisite for proper, high quality WebM muxing. 2001:2003:54FA:D2:0:0:0:1 23:16, 12 August 2017 (UTC); edited 23:21, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
    If the original (or available copy) is MP3, then you reencoding it to Vorbis is likely to turn out better for you then having someone else reencode without familiarity with the compromises you need.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:22, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
MP3 is important because any reencoding is lossy, and the best available format for a huge chunk of recordings is MP3. I'm not a huge fan of OGG Vorbis; we should be uploading in FLAC or WAV formats if possible. OGG Vorbis is higher quality at the same bitrates (or the same quality at lower bitrates) but 320kbs MP3s are hard to tell from uncompressed CD audio, even under the best circumstances, and I think we're at a point that few care about the size difference (and we can automatically downscale if necessary.) I recognize and have no solution to the possible wave of copyrighted recordings (with the additional problem that all audio works are covered by copyright in the US until 2067.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:22, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Just enable it - if people don't like lossy formats then put up a notice that lossless is preferred, but sometimes the lossy thing is all you have. We accept JPEGs rather than requiring PNGs and making JPEG uploads a special privilege - David Gerard (talk) 14:55, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Just enable it, no phases needed. Great that we can finally have mp3s. --SJ+
  • enable upload go for mp4 next. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 19:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
    • MP4/H.264 is still patented and don't have the importance that MP3 have. - Yuhong (talk) 19:37, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
      • MPEG-2 (the DVD standard) becomes patent-free in Feburary. See T166024 Dispenser (talk) 18:15, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Beware the minefield. The vast majority of MP3 files on the Internet today appear to be copyvios of the big music recording industry companies' work. The trade association for these former record companies, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), has a team of lawyers with a long and well-publicized record of suing alleged infringers successfully (whether or not infringement was proven or wilful). Although it would be great if we could easily host free MP3 files, we do not have sufficient volunteers to patrol the predicted flood of them, and the WMF probably does not have enough lawyers to defend against RIAA, Safe Harbor or not.   — Jeff G. ツ 22:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I think that's what "Phase 0" is about: Restrict uploading to (for example) autopatrolled users in the beginning until we can figure out effective ways for copyright patrolling. As far as I understand, the idea is to use external databases in a similar way we use Google Images and Tineye for pictures now; possibly in a more automated fashion. Once that works we can open the upload process to a wider audience. --El Grafo (talk) 09:58, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree: Just enable it, MP3 is the JPEG of audio ;-) - of course there are lots of MP3 copyvios, but that's not really different from the lots of JPEG image copyvios. It's a format we should support, now that it's patent-free. Gestumblindi (talk) 13:53, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I think the proposed phased approach to enabling MP3 uploading is well considered. It incorporates the desirable goal of enabling MP3 uploads for all users while at the same time giving Commons the time to learn how to deal with what I would anticipate to eventually be a large number of MP3 copyright violations. —RP88 (talk) 19:14, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  • This proposal suggests that lessons have been learned, which is something that I really think we should appreciate. Per RP88, I'd be very much in favour of proceeding with a phased approach as suggested by CKoerner.    FDMS  4    14:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree. We've waited so long to mp3 to become free, there's really no need to rush it now. Let's take some time to do it thoroughly. To answer some of the questions above:
  • Yes, I think it's clear that mp3 is something we should support.
  • Given that we already support other audio formats, the required changes to policies, help pages etc. should be minimal. But this might be a good time to review what we have and think about what could be improved. When it comes to recordings of music, Copyright can get pretty complex due to different people being involved (composers, lyrics writers, performers, recording/mixing/producing). I.e. compositions by Mozart are certainly old enough to be in the public domain, but modern recordings (just like sheet music) are still subject to copyright. Commons:Audio already has some info on this, but I'm not sure how we handle this in practice. At the very least we should have some more guidance for this.
  • For catching the most clueless of copyright violators, it might be worth a try to check en:ID3 tags and other meta data on upload and compare them to song data bases.
And yes, I very much appreciate that the people at the WMF side of things start to ask for and listen to our opinions on this kind of subject matter. There have been tensions in the past that could have been avoided by this, and I see this as an important step towards re-building lost trust. Now it's time for us to do our part: Please, people, use the opportunity and share your thoughts! --El Grafo (talk) 09:56, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
With regards to {{Artwork}}, we've already built {{Musical work}}. A good overview of the existing file metadata inbox templates is at Commons:Infobox templates. With regards to indicating the licensing status of the multiple copyrights that might be relevant to a derivative work like a music recording, it appears {{Copyright information}} would be appropriate (although it may need a field added for "performance"). —RP88 (talk) 21:52, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Don't do it. It will be a fiasco like mobile uploads.--ISIL-KP (talk) 10:44, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Enable it now. We absolutely need these common file types, and we should then move on to the even more important question of which common video file type we can enable. --Jwslubbock (talk) 12:21, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Enable it now.. Dan Koehl (talk) 21:50, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support phased approach - We definitely want mp3s on Commons, but we don't want a massive increase in copyvios. The phased approach seems to be the right balance. Kaldari (talk) 22:27, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Enable now.   Husky (talk to me) 22:56, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support phased approach - we need to be sure that the uploaded mp3 files are not copyvios. Just enabling it will certainly result in lots of copyvios being uploaded. We need some tool to differentiate between the good and bad files. Ronhjones  (Talk) 17:17, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Enable Just enable it. Nobody is gonna be motivated to work on tools, until there is a actual problem to solve. The world won't end if we have a couple of months with increased amount of copyright violations on mp3. If it does end, we can always block all mp3 uploads. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 14:54, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
    • @David Gerard, Sj, Slowking4, Gestumblindi, Jwslubbock:@Dan Koehl, Husky, TheDJ: Each of you appeared to express above an opinion that we should enable MP3 support now. Please read A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc. and explain to me how the Wikimedia Foundation (and Wikimedia Commons along with it) would fare any better than the original Napster (which was forced into bankruptcy) if we were to just "Enable" and RIAA were to sue.   — Jeff G. ツ 15:25, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
      • WMF has safe harbor protections. As long as we remove files at the moment WMF are made aware of them and volunteers do the same to the best of their ability we should all be fine (as we are fine for jpgs). My main point is that we should deal with ACTUAL problems, not theoretical potential problems. We seem to be worried about a flood because we are opening a tap, and we are building retaining walls in advance, without having verified if the flood is a realistic danger. We can close the tap/turn off the water at any time between when the drip turns into a flood and then start building walls. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 15:40, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
        • @TheDJ: I would liken this more to a tidal wave than a flood. What percentage of the MP3 files in your collection have licenses free enough for Commons? In my case, it's 0%.   — Jeff G. ツ 15:49, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
          • Again, a theoretical problem as I'm not uploading my (incredibly dated btw.) MP3 collection. If we have actual numbers, then we will know what the actual problem is and we can intervene at any moment required and create the appropriate followup response. Considering how people always state that we (or rather the WMF) should take measures based on actual data, I'm surprised that not more people are open to this approach. Instead, once more we choose to exclude people and content out of fear, rather than to fulfill our own mission. Be bold, revert, discuss. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 16:06, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
          • As an admin who deleted thousands of copyvios because of past new services enabled by the WMF without a proper preparation (cross-wiki uploads and WP0), I am strongly against enabling MP3 all at once. I don't want to spend my time chasing a new wild run. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:14, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
          • Thanks to Wikipedia Zero we have a monitoring system in place for new audio/video files. —Dispenser (talk) 16:16, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
        • what a wonderful straw man, and ad hominem, and shifting the burden. next you will say "explain how you are not pirate bay, ubu, or sci-hub." your question answers itself: we are not napster, because you are here to stop all the reckless pirates: as we discuss where to draw the lines, we differ from those places, because they have no lines. we have a safe harbor. your normative fear based arguments do not address the question: what is the copyright vio rate by file format? do you have any evidence? are you going to make decisions based on evidence or fear? your collection needs some expanding; i suggest freemusicarchive and librivoxaudio. i.e. there are sound file collections online with CC licenses; are you for allowing them here or not? Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 18:11, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Enable, avoiding use of a widely available encoding format, now that it can be used freely, just to prevent copyright issues doesn't seem right. What new users of Wikipedia/Commons would think on some years from now if they find out MP3 is not available (but OGG or WAV do) just because we decided to make upload harder for newcomers? Of course it shouldn't be done carelessly also. −ebrahimtalk 16:45, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
  • No.. Under terms of Commons, WMF is not a partner, it is only a implementer. Gunnex (talk) 22:46, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Enable it now. I don't see what makes the copyright concerns any different from the formats we already support. It's not likely to be a flood of files in any case, and per TheDJ above, we're not going to build tools to avoid a flood of copyvio unless/until we actually have one. --ragesoss (talk) 22:48, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

August 14

Problem with a template ?


Someone added a template in the Category:Electricity_pylons_in_Vietnam

Suddenly this category becomes integrated in the cat : Templates_related_to_Iran

I don't understand : Why Iran ? But the most incomprehensible to me is that the cat : Electricity_pylons_in_China which has the same content (related to China) and template in its code displays something different, and no link to Iran.

Is there a problem in the code of this template, or is there a point I miss ?

Thanks for your help.Basile Morin (talk) 10:38, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Caused by this edit, in which Allforrous added a duplicate Category:Templates related to Iran to {{Iran}} outside its noinclude tag. Reverted. Storkk (talk) 10:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

OK, thanks, Storkk. Though same problem with cat : Electricity_pylons_in_the_Philippines , cat : Electricity_pylons_in_Israel , cat : Electricity_pylons_in_Malaysia , cat : Electricity_pylons_in_Bangladesh , cat : Electricity_pylons_in_Sri_Lanka ... Best regards Basile Morin (talk) 11:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Because of how MediaWiki works, pages are not parsed by the software each time they are displayed, but are instead cached. Over time, each instance will be fixed automatically as the category pages are parsed again, but if it is urgent, you can purge the cached pages to see the fix immediately. Storkk (talk) 12:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Note that this is a slight simplification, and how the cache works is somewhat arcane... I, for example, have no idea why Category:PNGs_with_missing_JPEG_versions, which had 171 (mostly spurious) members when I implemented this fix two weeks ago, still has 118 (mostly spurious) members despite my cache purging efforts. So take my advice for what it's worth. Storkk (talk) 12:36, 31 August 2017 (UTC)