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

Contents

MP3 Extended uploaders user group created

There's been lots of talk about support for uploading MP3's over the last few months. :) We discussed approaches, held an RFC on which user groups should be initially allowed to upload, and defined the qualifications for the new user group.

The result is the creation of a new user group called "MP3 uploaders". Currently there is an Abuse Filter running on Commons (192) that should prevent anyone from uploading mp3s unless they are an administrator or in the "MP3 uploaders" user group. If someone wants to be added to the MP3 uploaders user group, they can apply at Commons:Requests_for_rights#MP3_uploader.

Now we're ready to take a big step forward and enable the upload of MP3s to Commons. This will be enabled on November 28th. Thanks to everyone who's worked with us on this and we look forward to seeing what the Commons community does with support for this "new" file format. CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 16:16, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

We had to delay the deployment slightly in order to make sure all of the transcoding pieces are in place. MP3 uploading is now scheduled to be turned on for Commons at 20:00 UTC, Wednesday, November 29. Kaldari (talk) 01:21, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
@Kaldari: I noticed you crated an abusefilter, not a fan because we had problems with the condition limit in the past. I also think the group should be renamed as proposed on AN. Best --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
@Steinsplitter: Currently, Commons is only using about 280 conditions per edit (the limit is 1000), so there's no danger of hitting the limit any time soon. In fact, I'm surprised that Commons' use of AbuseFilter is so limited. Most wikis are above 500. Regarding the user group name, I don't really have any opinion on that. I'm happy to set it to whatever the community wants. Do you have a specific suggestion? Kaldari (talk) 18:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
@Kaldari: Oh, i am surprised :) (btw, the limit on commons is 2000, where you see the usage stats?). I think "Trusted uploaded" or so would be perfect, so we can exempt users in that group from copyvio filters, we can (maybe later) add uplaodbyurl to that group, etc. --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:56, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
@Steinsplitter: Abuse Filter dashboard. I like "Trusted uploaders" fine, but you and George Ho don't agree on it, and so far the two of you seem to be the only people who care. If the two of you can come up with a name that is agreeable, I'll be happy to change it. FWIW, George only objected to the "trusted" part. He wasn't opposed to creating a broader group. Kaldari (talk) 21:39, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
@CKoerner (WMF), Kaldari, Steinsplitter: How about simply "Uploaders"?   — Jeff G. ツ 01:02, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
We are already uploaders, right? ;) George Ho (talk) 03:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
@George Ho: Yes, those of us with accounts in confirmed, autoconfirmed, and sysop groups are allowed to upload, but we don't have a specific user group named in our honor. Do you like any synonyms of "trusted" for this purpose?   — Jeff G. ツ 03:34, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) No synonym of "trusted" would do for me either, especially by reading definitions and meanings, like Wiktionary's or Merriam-Webster's. George Ho (talk) 03:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
@Steinsplitter: Same question for you, do you like any synonyms of "trusted" for this purpose?   — Jeff G. ツ 03:41, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
To be honest, i don' really care if "trusted" or a other word (which one?) is used. I am not a native speaker so it is better to let the native speakers judge. But it don't think "soud uploader" because so we can't use it for non-sound related stuff if needed (such as uplaod-by-url tool later). Best--Steinsplitter (talk) 07:20, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

What about "extended uploaders"? Or even sound uploader? Artix Kreiger (talk)

@Artix Kreiger: Given that there are now and will be interesting in-scope files in various formats whose patents have expired and will expire, I wanted to future-proof the name of the class of users so it can be repurposed later for the next great format. "extended uploaders" fits that bill but is a little long for my liking; "sound uploaders", not so much.   — Jeff G. ツ 03:06, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
"Sound uploader" seems fitting; so is "extended uploader". However, both should be separate user rights as they potentially have different purposes. "Extended uploader" reminds me of "extended confirmed" at en.WP. George Ho (talk) 03:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
@George Ho: Is that reminder a good or bad thing?   — Jeff G. ツ 03:36, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Not a bad thing. I don't mind "extended uploader" as long as it's separate from "sound uploader". George Ho (talk) 03:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
extended uploader sounds reasonable. --Steinsplitter (talk) 07:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
OK, I'll change it to "Extended uploaders" then. Kaldari (talk) 19:35, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I've added Image-reviewers to the groups allowed to upload MP3s, as we appear to have consensus for this in the previous thread. I also created MediaWiki:abusefilter-warning-mp3, which will appear when an MP3 upload is rejected by the filter. Guanaco (talk) 03:58, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Not been on much so had no idea this was even taking place - If I've read this right "Extender uploader" goes beyond just MP3's (?) which if that's correct then I think "Extender Uploader" sounds perfect, I know my comment at this point is redundant but figured I'd chip in anyway, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 01:39, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Novermber 29

Break time

Do we have a category for this? Break time, pauses etc.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:51, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Sure, yes. Country of location is a good categorization criteria for most photos. However both photos are subcategorized in multiple categories that refer to their countries (Belgium and Czechia), so I’m not sure what you mean. -- Tuválkin 18:59, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

All pages which starts with "("

Hello.Please remove "(" from all files which starts with "(" and the reason is "Non-controversial maintenance and bug fixes, including fixing double extensions, invalid or incorrect extensions, character handling problems, and other similar technical issues.".Thanks ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 10:06, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

@ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2:This seems like a bad idea. It would, for instance, involve removing the (correct) '(' character from the start of a bunch of chemical names like File:(+)-Perillyl alcohol.svg. Can you explain what you're trying to achieve? --bjh21 (talk) 12:00, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
@Bjh21:I mean the unnecessary false brackets ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 12:08, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
@ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2: So which files have unnecessary false brackets? Presumably not all files whose names start with '('? --bjh21 (talk) 15:55, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
@Bjh21: All the files in the list.See also Category:Photos from Panoramio ID 5065123 and Category:Images by Auoob farabi with watermarks ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 16:02, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

How to change {{#babel}}

Actualy I'm cleaning up non empty cat redirects and stumbled over Category:User pt-BR. All entries using {{#babel}} with parameter pt-br-X. They got categorized not into Category:User pt-br but into Category:User pt-BR (Upper/lower case error). I have no idea which code or page has to be modified to correct the categorization. Maybe anybody else could help. Thx in advance. --JuTa 21:23, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Not possible, this is part of BCP 47 --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 23:01, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
The redirect, and its subcats, should be reversed --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 23:14, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

December 03

Photo challenge October results

Huts and sheds: EntriesVotesScores
Rank 1 2 3
Image      
Title Hut for hay storage. Tux, Zillertal, Tyrol, Austria. Vineyard sheds in Burgundy. Beach huts in Swanage, England
Author Wald1siedel Roumpf Sun2Shine
Score 27 13 8
Corroded objects: EntriesVotesScores
Rank 1 2 3
Image      
Title Three champions on the steps of a podium, Laos A wrecked ship in Conception Harbour, Newfoundland. Varigotti (Liguria), Rusty Anchor
Author Basile Morin JoannaPoe Prelvini
Score 22 19 18

Congratulations to Wald1siedel, Roumpf, Sun2Shine, Basile Morin, JoannaPoe and Prelvini. -- Jarekt (talk) 03:37, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Science Competition 2017 uploaded files

Hi. In Commons_talk:Wiki_Science_Competition_2017#Guidelines_for_the_workflow I tried to discuss some points. Probably national organizers are fine with their specific systems but I will be mainly in charge to all the internationally uploaded files for all countries without jury. I would like to agree on some standard with the community if possible. For example the name for the category of disqualifed files.

The second level jurors are mostly expert wikimedians, we will try our best to leave it in order, I am sure the status of the files (titles, categories) will be better than in 2015 (I am also doing my best to improve some backlog there).--Alexmar983 (talk) 05:40, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I am also tempted to create a specific barnstar or use the wikilove tool with a special icon to those simple users that are massively helping with the files. Very helpful.--Alexmar983 (talk) 10:43, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Send a 'thanks' notification to one contributor for a log entry: it is almost possible...

Hello,
Have you ever wanted to send a 'thanks' notification to one contributor for a log entry? It can become possible... if you add your support vote to this proposal in the 2017 Community Wishlist Survey !
Regards --NicoScribe (talk) 10:50, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Checking on a permissions blurb

At Death Salon: Publicity Photos it says "Feel free to use these photos on any story about Death Salon, but please be sure to include the proper photographer credit for each image." Is that text sufficient for a CC-by license? Or do they need say that in more explicit legalese? Thanks! --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:34, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

If it were "for any purpose" we could accept it as {{Attribution}}. Unfortunately the wording only allows use in stories about Death Salon. One might violate the terms with other uses, such as distributing standalone prints. For this reason we can't accept the images under these terms. Guanaco (talk) 04:48, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:08, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

The license may not be true

These two images were uploaded under a US PD no notice license, but when I was watching the source, the trailer of the film, it clearly was written at 2:00, "Copyrighted 1957 by 20th Century Fox Film Corporation". Is this alright? Aditya (talk) 18:31, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

@Clcx: Why is this PD?   — Jeff G. ツ 18:44, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Arguably it uses the word "Copyrighted" as opposed to the valid notice of ©, Copyright, or Copr, so the notice is defective. I doubt this would hold up in court. Guanaco (talk) 19:02, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
US copyrights from that era (until 1963) also required renewal, which may not have happened. Ought to be checked, anyway, and the applicable specific licence tag substituted for the no-notice. (It seems absurd to me that copyrighted could be held not to convey the same meaning & intent as copyright in that context, but IANAL.)—Odysseus1479 (talk) 20:14, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Does the image from the trailer appear in the movie? The movie Will Success Spoil Rock Hunter? (1957) was registered (LP93212) with the U.S. copyright office on 26 July 1957 and renewed (RE0000237380) on 28 February 1985. —RP88 (talk) 02:38, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
@RP88: As I understand it, under U.S. copyright law at that time, even if in one place (e.g. the film itself) they put out the material with a proper copyright notice, it lost copyright protection if in another place (e.g. a trailer) they put it out without one. Kind of dumb, but often to the advantage of those who want to use material on a PD basis. But I wouldn't want to rely legally on a possibly defective copyright notice. - Jmabel ! talk 03:05, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
With regards to whether the notice in the trailer was defective, I don't think the notice was defective. In Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices, Third Edition, Section 2204.4(C) "Variants for the Word “Copyright”, the U.S. copyright office says "A misspelled or variant form of the word 'Copyright' or the abbreviation 'copr.' may be accepted if it is clear that the term is intended to be 'copyright.'" One of the acceptable variants they mention as an example is "Copyrighted". —RP88 (talk) 03:08, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
do not see a renewal at http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?DB=local&PAGE=First when you search for "20th Century Fox Film Corporation" and there is a renewal for "Wire's end. By 20th Century Fox Film Corporation." 1958. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 01:47, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

How do we deal with 'bad' sourced maps?

Hello all. I'm wondering how we deal with graphics(maps/flags/graphs) that are uploaded but don't have a source for the information they represent or contain contradicting information? I'm not talking about graphics of which the author is unknown but about graphics that are made by the users themselves. Examples: File:Flag of turkish Kurds.svg.png - File:Турецкий Курдистан.jpg ~ Zirguezi 19:30, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

We have the {{Factual accuracy}} template along with various disputed templates, to name a few {{Disputed coat of arms}}, {{Disputed diagram}} and {{Inaccurate-map-disputed}}. You can add one of these templates to a file page, then on the talk page put details on what you dispute about the graphic/media and why. Make sure to add information to the talk page because just adding the templates without additional details doesn't help to inform other users (and the uploader) of any potential issues with the graphic/media. - Offnfopt(talk) 19:47, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
This is exactly what I was looking for. Thank you! ~ Zirguezi 19:03, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

December 04

Tech News: 2017-49

17:50, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

December 05

File:Mint logo.png - overwritten by unrelated file

I found this file and I'm not sure how to deal with it...

The original upload (from 2010) is a screenshot of Linux Mint, and it was overwritten in 2015 by a logo of some Turkish movie company (MinT Motion Pictures). This second version may very well be a copyright violation. And on top of that, the file is used on two Wikipedias (different languages), where in one case the first version should appear, and in the other case the second one.

I thought maybe somebody else should look into that; I hope this is the right place to ask.

Thanks, Novarupta (talk) 15:34, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

It should be split.   — Jeff G. ツ 16:31, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: -- User: Perhelion 18:20, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

{{On Wikidata}}

Hi, I'm writing here to get a broader audience than on the template's discussion page. Reason is this starting edit war with User:NeverDoING: see [8].

The documentation of {{On Wikidata}} says: This template is intended to be used to link to the related Wikidata entry (when an interproject link at Wikidata cannot be used so). Adding the Commons category (P373) to the wikidata item (Q20675724 (Q20675724)) is sufficient to get all the interwiki links created automatically. It works like a charm, no need to add {{On Wikidata}}, which obviously does not add information to the category (the link to the WD item is in the left menu anyhow). So why is there a need to additionally add a redundant {{On Wikidata}} with the item's own Wikidata-id (if so, could be also defaulted to own id)?

Can we clarify on the template documentation page, when to use and when not to use {{On Wikidata}}?

Disk with NeverDoING: [9], no answer until now. Pinging @Jean-Frédéric, ŠJů: as the main authors of the template. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 11:09, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

@Herzi Pinki: The template {{On Wikidata}} was created before several newer function and possibilities. However, there remain several types of situations where the template can be still useful.
Not every Commons page has its own corresponding Wikidata item page. Most of Commons categories are related to a specific item, they are counterparts of Wikipedia articles. However, if the corresponding Wikidata item page is linked with the Commons gallery page, it cannot be linked concurrently with the Commons category pages of identical item. Generally, to link Commons categories directly to "article" items is considered as non-standard (and the gallery page is preferred to be linked with the Wikidata item page). That's one of reasons why some Commons category pages have not a direct link to Wikidata item via Wikidata interwikis. Similarly, if the Commons category page is linked with the Wikipedia category page, it cannot be linked directly with the Wikipedia article page and its Wikidata item page. As accurately says the documentation "This template is intended to be used to link to the related Wikidata entry (when an interproject link at Wikidata cannot be used so)."
The newer template {{Interwiki from Wikidata}} is more sophisticated and is even able to extract interwikis using category's main topic (P301) and topic's main category (P910) from the sister item page of the identical item. {{On Wikidata}} includes this template which enables to utilize both possibilities.
The template {{On Wikidata}} can be removed as duplicate (and replaced with {{Interwiki from Wikidata}}) from those pages which are directly linked with a corresponding Wikidata item. However, in such cases, the change is needless because both the templates work identically. In other cases, {{On Wikidata}} needs to be kept. --ŠJů (talk) 15:31, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
@ŠJů:, confuses me even more. What about my example? Is {{On Wikidata}} necessary or not? And why? We have a minor church, Commons category (P373) is set and we have a simple single page on WP - single item on WD - single commons category - relationship. It is rather unlikely that we will get a category for the church on WP side or a gallery for the church on Commons side (and if things change, we can change using {{On Wikidata}} too, in general we do use a quite iterative approach in the wikiverse). Setting Commons category (P373) on the WD item will allow to navigate from the WP article to the Commonscat (through the left menu, no need to add explicit Template:Commonscat) and allow to navigate from the commonscat to the articles in various languages. Not sure that I even understand what an interproject link is. I consider this to be one of the blocks at the end of an WD item: Wikipedia, Wikiquote, Wikiversity, ... and Wikivoyage and Other Websites (or excluding Other Websites?), you can set the commonslink under Other Websites but that is not necessary, Commons category (P373) is sufficient. In my example IMHO the negation of (when an interproject link at Wikidata cannot be used so) applies (means: an interproject link at WD **can** be used) and there is no need to add neither {{On Wikidata}} nor {{Interwiki from Wikidata}}. If this is not true, than there is a consistency constraint that **all** commons categories **must have** either {{On Wikidata}} or {{Interwiki from Wikidata}} (your last paragraph says so). This should be done by correct implementation, but we hope to achieve consistency in the long term by uncoordinated millions of user edits?
Just another remark to {{On Wikidata}} vs. {{Interwiki from Wikidata}}: the later does not need an explicit item identifier, which is less error prone than the first.
The other way round: If 'to link Commons categories directly to "article" items is considered as non-standard holds, is my usage of Commons category (P373) in Q20675724 (Q20675724) violating rules? (That's my standard proceeding). best --Herzi Pinki (talk) 21:15, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
@Herzi Pinki: Regarding the edit war at Category:Saint John the Baptist Church (Sankt Johann in der Haide), the template {{On Wikidata}} is not needed there for now, but it is also not needed to remove the template. There is not probable (but also not impossible for the future) that that specific church will have its own category at any Wikipedia project - some other church can have its own category. Should such category appear sometime, the template {{On Wikidata}} or {{Interwiki from Wikidata}} can extract interwikis from both linked Wikidata pages. I wish that Commons pages have this function implemented defaultly, without adding these templates. But it has not. That's why it can be better to have {{On Wikidata}} or {{Interwiki from Wikidata}} at every page. Then we need not to prophesy which item has a chance to have sometime it's own Wikipedia category somewhere and which item hasn't.
I personally always supported the Commons-category - Wikipedia-article connection and opposed the gallery - article connection (however Commons-category - Wikipedia-category relation should be preferred to Commons-category - Wikipedia-article relation). Regrettably, designers of Wikidata (as I know) were mostly of the contrary opinion, even though galleries are of quite different character than articles. I have even a fear that some aggressive proponent of that opinion will erase the category-article connections all at once by a bot and destroy a lot of useful work of others.
Regrettably, all these problems were caused by ill-considered conception of Wikidata project which doesn't follow it's own principle that one item should have just one item page in Wikidata. IMHO one item page should link both together - article pages of the item as well as category pages of the item. Both the mentioned templates and P373, P301 and P910 properties are only surrogates which should reduce and compensate the basal defect. As soon as the problem is solved sometime, all the properties and templates can be transformed to interwiki links. Regrettably, such a progress is not in sight. --ŠJů (talk) 23:56, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
@ŠJů: Thanks a lot for your explanation and for your (fruitless) efforts to get it right. Still {{Interwiki from Wikidata}} should be preferred / replaced by bot, as it does not need the magic number already defined somewhere else. Alternatively {{On Wikidata}} should work without parameter set. Can you please change the documentation of {{On Wikidata}} accordingly, as deprecated in favour of {{Interwiki from Wikidata}} and that every commons category should have a {{Interwiki from Wikidata}} (despite: when an interproject link at Wikidata cannot be used so). Maybe the later can be also achieved by a bot? best --Herzi Pinki (talk) 00:37, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
@Herzi Pinki: I think you're wrong about Commons category (P373) being sufficient to make interwiki links appear on Commons. Take Chad Brook (Q44198284) as an example. It has a sitelink to en:Chad Brook and a Commons category (P373) link to Category:Chad Brook, Birmingham. But on Category:Chad Brook, Birmingham no link to Wikipedia or Wikidata appears. In your example, Q20675724 (Q20675724), by contrast, there's a sitelink to Commons and a Commons category (P373) link, and I think it's the sitelink that causes the interwiki links on Commons. --bjh21 (talk) 00:04, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
@Bjh21:, you are right. Usually I did link from the commons category to the appropriate WP article (via the adding-interlanguage-links feature in the menu) which creates a situation as in Q20675724 (Q20675724) and I always cared for that constraint. (I tried and reverted it also on your Category:Chad Brook, Birmingham). But doing so, creates the navigational links I mentioned above. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 00:37, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
@Herzi Pinki: I think, the quoted sentence from the documentation is still as accurate as was originally. This template is intended to be used to link to the related Wikidata entry (when an interproject link at Wikidata cannot be used so). This condition applies especially to the case when the interproject link to Commons on the Wikidata item page is occupied by the gallery page, and that's why the Commons category pages cannot by associated with the Wikidata item. And analogously, if we would prefer links to the Commons category, the template can apply to the gallery pages. Btw., the two templates ({{On Wikidata}} and {{Interwiki from Wikidata}}) should be merged, and should be usable in both ways - with a parameter (Q item code) (if the item page is not associated by Wikidata interwiki) and without a parameter. --ŠJů (talk) 01:35, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Some clarifications. Herzi Pinki wrote: Adding the Commons category (P373) to the wikidata item (Q20675724 (Q20675724)) is sufficient to get all the interwiki links created automatically. It works like a charm. No, adding Commons category (P373) does not add interwikilinks, only adding sitelinks to the items adds interwiki links to pages on Commons. {{Interwiki from Wikidata}} template is a second way of adding interwiki links. I think it needs to be used with the q-code, in case of commons-category to wikidata-article links, but it can be used without it in case of commons-category to wikidata-category links when you want interwiki links to link to articles instead of categories. I also like to have {{On Wikidata}} as it provides visual link to Wikidata. I also like using {{Wikidata person}} and {{Wikidata place}} templates. --Jarekt (talk) 04:02, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

@Jarekt:, I corrected my error, see answer to Bjh21 above. But then it works like a charm (in case of commonscat - wd - wp article = 1: 1: 1 (no commons gallery, no wp, wikivoyage, etc, category). That I have to enter the commonscat in such a case in two places in wikidata, to allow different values in 1 of a 10000 cases, is annoying. And I do not agree that we need the q-code in case of commons-category to wikidata-article links, we need the q-code only, if the commonscat sitelink is not set on wikidata. As wikidata is our one and only central data repository, the link to commons (commonscat) **has** to be set on the wikidata side.
I understand your wish to have a visual link, but the visual link is already there in the left menu (and more visuality is a matter of css). Adding additional visual links for some purposes clutters the appearance of a page and makes it more difficult to find other stuff. So if we could keep the information in just a single place, it makes it much easier to find other information not duplicated for making it more important. Not everybody can sit in the first row. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 10:44, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Herzi Pinki, sorry I did not see your correction. If I want a template to work on Commons I do not want to leave it up to users on Wikidata to keep the commons-category to wikidata-article sitelink when the usual attitude is that same namespace sitelinks are preferred. For example if we got together and agreed among ourselves that sitelink to category is always preferred over a sitelink to a gallery, than we could try to push such preference but at the moment you can add a template without q-code but at any point it can stop working due to edit on Wikidata and I am not even sure if I should reverse such edit. As for {{On Wikidata}} template it is a preference issue: You value lack of clutter more and I prefer ease of and speed of navigation. I have often the hardest time finding the link I am looking for at the left menu and find Wikidata icon much easier to locate. But as I said it is a matter of preferece and priorities. --Jarekt (talk) 04:33, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
@Jarekt: Agreed. Just allow me one more ideological remark: I consider the wikiverse as an interrelated common structure of parts called wikipedia, commons & wikidata (and some others), where we should do things where they are most effective and we should avoid doing duplicate work (especially if it puts workload on volunteers we consider to be an endless and completely scalable resource - they are not). What is the problem if someone replaces a commons category by a commons gallery on wikidata? As long as the gallery is categorized into the corresponding commons category (I consider this as a constraint), it is one more click for navigation (in 1 of 10000 cases) to the category. There btw is another design flaw in wikidata regarding commons: while there should be only one commons category for a real world object, commons galleries are by concept language specific (by naming conventions, but I never saw that) and there could be more galleries for a category showing various aspects; but the commons interwiki link can only hold one of those. regards --Herzi Pinki (talk) 09:20, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Herzi Pinki, let me start from the beginning. There are two ways (at the moment) that templates on Commons can learn the q-code of the related item:
  1. Q-code is hardwired, as we do with {{Creator}}, {{Authority control}} and many other templates
  2. Q-code is detected, because the commons page is linked as a sitelink from the item (or related category-item). That approach is used by {{Interwiki from Wikidata}}, {{VN}} and probably other templates
The second approach is nice because the link-data is only stored at a single location (on Wikidata) which simplifies maintenance. However in case of cross-namespace sitelinks, someone can just replaces a commons category by a commons gallery and break the template on Commons that was relying on it. By the way meta:2017_Community_Wishlist_Survey/Wikidata#Allow_multiple_entry_from_same_site_on_wikidata and meta:2017_Community_Wishlist_Survey/Wikidata#Stop_using_string_datatype_for_linking_to_pages_on_other_projects proposals could be a big help with this issue. --Jarekt (talk) 13:36, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

(Since I was mentioned) I honestly can’t remember which use case I had in mind when creating that template. Back then it was just a top-right icon and not a banner (so way more discreet). As others said this was all before we had other ways of integrations with Wikidata, so the template is definitely not always the best choice. Jean-Fred (talk) 11:30, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

@Jean-Frédéric: Perhaps we should fork the template, with one template displaying just a top-right icon as originally designed by default, and the other displaying a banner as currently implemented by default, with optional parameters to trigger the other display method.   — Jeff G. ツ 11:39, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

December 02

Category:Jitra

 
This is a sample

Jitra is a town located in Kedah, Malaysia. But the category have many child where not belong there. Can somebody cleanup that picture and only leave for the town one? Thank You.*angys* (talk) 19:23, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Convenience link: Category:Jitra. - Jmabel ! talk 02:27, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  • @: you uploaded these, any idea how this should be sorted out? - Jmabel ! talk 02:28, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
I do not understand the question. -- (talk) 07:14, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
These files are tagged Jitra on Flickr, but they are apparently not referring to the town in Malaysia. I'm not sure what Jitra they refer to. --ghouston (talk) 08:58, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
It's possible that it just means "morning". --ghouston (talk) 09:14, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
In the example the tag appears to refer to a Czech folk group; Dubinek is another.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 10:20, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
So can we create a Category:Jitra (Czech folk group) for these? - Jmabel ! talk 16:44, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Seeing no objection, I will do that. - Jmabel ! talk 06:00, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't object, because at least it cleans up the Malaysian town. But I'm not entirely convinced that Jitra is the name of folk group. At least, we have File:31.8.15 1 ZZ Bavoracek 031 (21050225281).jpg that says something like "detsky folklorni soubor Dubinek / Barovacek", or "the folklore ensemble Dubinek / Barovacek", and if we Google those we find pages that do seem to be folk groups [10] and [11], but I can't find any page like that for "Jitra". Who knows. --ghouston (talk) 10:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Feel free to fix those up however you want. My guess is that none of them will ever be used for much, but I just wanted to get them out of polluting Category:Jitra. Once I looked through and decided they didn't look particularly useful, I did not take time to evaluate or analyze them further. I just fulfilled the apparent intent (classify them in as the folk group Jitra). - Jmabel ! talk 16:21, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Dubinek appears to be better known; my identification of Jitra was based on a few mentions on pages like this (Google Translate: “The following ensembles performed here: […], Jitra, […] and, of course, our ensemble.” and this (GT: “The [youth] and children's folk ensemble Dubínek from Sezimovo Ústí will take part […], accompanied by Jitra.”) The latter prompts me to speculate that they’re a musical group that plays for folk dancers, but at any rate they seem to be part of the South Bohemian ‘folk scene’.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 20:13, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
That makes sense. --ghouston (talk) 21:34, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Category:治家全書

Hi, anybody here wanting to take a look at this category to be renamed --> English text. Thank you for your time. :) Lotje (talk) 05:21, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Challenge: date this tin of buttons

 
"Honeyco", 2lb tin of honey

Can anyone suggest a date for the original design of this tin? I'm guessing the 1940s based on style and appearance of the earliest buttons stored in the tin. Someone may have an idea of how to discover more about the company, Honeyco, which was in New Zealand, or in fact remember their products. Thanks -- (talk) 13:43, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

This is out of my wheel house so I'll just add what few crumbs I found. The patent for the tin itself is dated 1934. You can also see a honey can from the same company (the canning company) here with a press-in lid, so they changed the type of can at one point. A similar but slightly different press in lid from same company can be seen here and that page says 1960s. So based on that limited information would lead someone to believe it is from somewhere between the 1930s and before the 1960s. I know that isn't much help, but hopefully someone more knowledgeable can chime in. - Offnfopt(talk) 14:57, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming a terminus post quem, nice work. I saw the patent number but was unsure how to track it down. Maybe someone will be able to find a logo redesign date which can pin it to over 70 years old. -- (talk) 18:36, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
If you wanted to take a look at the patent you can find it on the New Zealand Intellectual Property Office site. - Offnfopt(talk) 20:25, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  • The Internal Marketing Division mentioned on the tin, existed between 1937 and 1948. --HyperGaruda (talk) 21:18, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
    Given the state background, it seems likely that the design would be unchanged after the war. It seems safe to presume a pre-1946 terminus ante quem for the design, if not the specific tin. Thanks for the research, great evidence. -- (talk) 21:26, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Flickr's Top-25 photos of 2017

https://www.flickr.com/photos/flickr/galleries/72157688116208652/?rb=1 Unfortunately, only two allow reproduction, both NC-SA. —Justin (koavf)TCM 23:00, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to Blocking tools consultation

Hello all,

The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team invites all Wikimedians to discuss new blocking tools and improvements to existing blocking tools in December 2017 for development work in early 2018.

How can you help?

  1. Share your ideas on the discussion page or send an email to the Anti-Harassment Tools team.
  2. Spread the word that the consultation is happening; this is an important discussion for making decisions about improving the blocking tools.
  3. Help with translation.
  4. If you know of previous discussions about blocking tools that happened on your wiki, share the links.

We are looking forward to learning your ideas.

For the Anti-Harassment Tools team SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 23:22, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

December 09

Tool for removing pages from DJVU files?

Are there any tools for removing pages from DJVU files? (Especially for cases like File:Annali_della_Scuola_Normale_Superiore_vol._VI_1889.djvu.) Kaldari (talk) 18:55, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Install the djvulibre package, and use "djvm -d[elete] doc.djvu pagenum".--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:25, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

MP3 uploading is now live


  Chopin - Waltz in E minor, B. 56
Performed by Olga Gurevich
Problems listening to the file? See Commons:Sound.



Admins, image reviewers, and extended uploaders (previously called MP3 uploaders) can now upload MP3 files to Commons. Also, all newly uploaded ogg vorbis files will automatically have MP3 versions created via transcoding (similar to what happens with video files).

If the community decides they want to open this up to more users, it's controllable via an abuse filter. I created a proposal at the Community Wishlist Survey to build an audio/video review tool for Commons to help automatically identify copyright violations and flag them for human review. Such a tool will probably be needed before opening up MP3 uploading to all users. If you want to support this proposal, please go to Meta and vote for it.

Kaldari (talk) 20:01, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

::@Kaldari:, the abuse filter needs updating. Artix Kreiger (talk) 20:07, 30 November 2017 (UTC) Never mind. Artix Kreiger (talk) 20:07, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

here are two place to mass upload from: http://cylinders.library.ucsb.edu/playlists.php ; http://www.loc.gov/jukebox/ Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 16:04, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Why the hidden category is not removed?

I've seen that many of the photos in Category:Tasnimnews review needed are already license reviewed. Is there any problems? --Mhhossein talk 20:21, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

They were directly categorized --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 20:48, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
@Zhuyifei1999: Thanks, but should not the category be removed automatically by the time the image is reviewed and verified? --Mhhossein talk 13:21, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
It would work if Category:Tasnimnews review needed is categorized by some review template, just as Category:Flickr review needed is categorized by {{Flickreview}}. Tasnimnews unfortunately uses {{Licensereview}} and uses direct categorization via substitution. The reviewing script AFAIK only changes template tags, and not category tags. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 18:34, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
You are correct that the current Tasnim template being used is {{subst:Tasnim/tasnim}} that automatically applies the correct Tasnim attribution license, the {{Licensereview}} template and also places the file in Category:Tasnimnews review needed. See Commons:Where is the license on various sites?#Tasnim. So manually removing the category seems like the only option unless someone knows how to modify the reviewing script. Ww2censor (talk) 22:18, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

December 01

Freedom of panorama

After uploading photos of a public sculpture, I have become concerned about the copyright status. The photos were for the article Digital DNA. The sculpture has generated a lot controversy, and photos appear in numerous places, including:

https://www.arts.gov/art-works/2010/altart-sci-we-need-new-ways-linking-arts-and-sciences http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/11/24/palo-alto-removal-of-digital-dna-sculpture-may-lead-to-court/ https://ww2.kqed.org/arts/2017/10/15/artist-fights-to-stop-palo-alto-egg-sculptures-removal/ https://hyperallergic.com/404716/digital-dna-adriana-varella-palo-alto/ https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2011/12/16/fixes-planned-for-palo-altos-iconic-egg-sculpture https://www.flickr.com/photos/royprasad/19466032390/

The possible solutions to to the copyright problem might be:

1. Ask the artist to use commons licensing, through orts.

2. Ask the artist to furnish a photo with the necessary commons license.

3. Use a photo in which the sculpture is in the background.

4. Use some other exception for considering the artwork in the public domain. Even the government web site is using images of the sculpture. All these news organizations seem to have a way around the copyright.

5. Does fair use apply, since there is controversy about removing the artwork because it is weathered or defective. The photo shows the condition of the art.

What should I do? Comfr (talk) 04:55, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Upload a low-res version to Wikipedia as non-free content? See en:Wikipedia:Non-free_content. --ghouston (talk) 05:41, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
@Comfr, Ghouston: There are other projects than English Wikipedia which accept non-free content; all are listed at m:nfc.   — Jeff G. ツ 11:10, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Comfr -- The de minimis doctrine is for when you've incidentally captured some part of something copyrighted in a photograph, but the main purpose of the photograph is something quite different. If you're using "a photo in which the sculpture is in the background" for the purpose of illustrating the sculpture, then you're violating at least the spirit of de minimis. But thanks for linking to the en:Digital DNA article, which is quite entertaining... AnonMoos (talk) 22:23, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

welcome to the fair use hypocrisy. contemporary art, that are widely published, are denied here, because "have a care for the downstream profiting reusers" whoever they are. you can write an article on english and get one fair use image. consensus is cast in stone. you can save images to flickr. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 00:29, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't see anything "hypoctritical" about having policies and applying them consistently. Hypocrisy would be making "convenient" exceptions. I may not love all the policies, but they are generally community decisions that have been hashed out at length. - Jmabel ! talk 02:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Some of the sites linked above probably can claim fair use, e.g., for "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching". How can an image archive like Commons claim fair use? Can Commons host any file as long as it has a "fair use only" disclaimer on it? I doubt it. --ghouston (talk) 02:25, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
the policy is not consistently applied: on the contrary, it is the symptom of an ideology, that deletes what it is not interested in, like say art, and fights to the death the "censorship" of porn. (and dictates license terms to institutions, who use NC, as it allows hybrid licenses with NC). it is fundamentally at odds with the sum of all knowledge. art history go away, we do not value your knowledge. and hey if knowledge graph and now everipedia steal views, that is just fine, they are not as pure as us. new users are baffled, maybe a warning template of license purity FAQ is in order. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 18:37, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Whether Commons should censor porn or host NC files doesn't seem relevant to this particular case. Porn can't be hosted on Commons as fair use, and the Digital DNA sculpture isn't even licensed NC. --ghouston (talk) 22:08, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
it goes directly to the claim of hypocrisy. it is not the free license, or scope or policy, but rather it is who the uploader is. the list of examples is enormous. lacking a standard of practice, the community thrashes with periodic drama, but it is not unhypocritical. you realize there is an ocean of fair use with PD-old that is only curated by waves of drama, not teamwork? let's not look. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 15:30, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it is fundamentally at odds with the sum of all knowledge. If you wish to run the Pirate Bay version 2, go ahead, but that's not us. If you like art, then perhaps you should reconsider pirating artists' works instead of letting the artists profit from their work.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
i love the reflexive ad hominem to "pirate bay", to criticism of this place. you are holier than they are. being without a standard of practice or code of conduct will inevitably lead to inconsistent and even hypocritical decisions. you should not imagine that outside people with standards will not notice. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 13:53, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
You mean standards like knowing what ad hominem means? Anyone without a standard of practice cannot engage in inconsistent or hypocritical decisions; each decision is then de novo and thus can not be inconsistent with the last. Complaining that we delete art and keep porn (a silly accusation if you actually look) is complaining about what are standards are, not that they don't exist.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:51, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
you means standards like RIAA, MPAA and author's guild? anyone without a standard lives the hypocrisy, as they thrash from day to day from one sophistical excuse to another, but the ignorance is not de novo, it is an affect. complaints of inconsistent deletions are a waste to Cretans. and rest assured, the professionals are staying away from interacting with this morally challenged site. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 03:47, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

December 07

"Upload to Commons with flinfo or Bryan's upload tool": Both broken

WDFIST is great to search for free images to use on Wikipedia.

For any search, it shows available Flickr images with links: "Upload to Commons with flinfo or Bryan's upload tool".

Unfortunately, these two tools say "SSL_ERROR_RX_RECORD_TOO_LONG" and "No webservice" for my query.

After a WDFIST search, users usually want to upload one or several of the results to Commons, so it would be great if we could have a tool for that :-) Thanks a lot! Syced (talk) 05:18, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

@Syced: Do you have a link? And where it is lined from? I see nothing. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:43, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
@Steinsplitter: I edited my question to add a link to my query, thanks! Syced (talk) 04:42, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Revert? How does it even work?

I tried reverting File:Barhagaunmuktichhetra.png to its original version. After four attempts all I have is a lot of versions. Can someone please delete the versions? I have given up on the revert already. It just doesn't work. Aditya (talk) 14:09, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Aditya Kabir, it looks like your first revert worked. You may have needed to be patient while the image thumbnail was regenerated, and to clear your browser's cache in order to see the change. Of course there were then subsequent reverts and now the file is back to the uploader's 2nd version. seb26 (talk) 14:16, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
And, in the process I have managed to generate a large number of silly versions. Can someone delete them? Aditya (talk) 14:18, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
I've deleted some of the intermediate versions and hope we now have the intended one since it wasn't clear what you were trying to achieve. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 14:33, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
you need to purge your cache. if you go to preferences you can set a maintenance tool check box to add a page purge drop down button. [12] given that this is a common UX failure maybe we should enable for all editors. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 03:31, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Bug changing category names with HotCat

Hi. in these weeks I am dealing with a lot a files because of the current Wiki Science Competition 2017 and I keep noticing something almost once or twice a day. It looks like a problem of page update maybe, but it wasn't there months ago, not that I recall.

Here it is: when I open a input box of category to change the string adding some text in front of it for example, I can write the first letter, than it automatically jumps at the end of the word. see this edit. Usually I would have written quickly "green" in front of "light", than looked at the screen one second later and corrected the capital "L" form light. But in these weeks If I click at the beginning of the text, write "green" on my keyboard and look at it after that, "Glightreen" appears. At this point, I usually delete everything and start from zero.

I just want to know if you have experienced something similar as well. I use Firefox, on Windows 10 on a brand new ACER. I was too busy to make consistent tests with other combination but I can do it later. I can simply start to use the other web browser, but I am curious.--Alexmar983 (talk) 06:41, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I have seen that off and on for a long time. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:58, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
So I am not the only one! There's hope it will be fixed :D I have never noticed, when I was mostly using my older MAC with IE or Firefox.--Alexmar983 (talk) 07:37, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
This isn't something that just happens occasionally. It's something Hotcat always does. Go to any category, and insert any letter at the beginning, and the cursor will jump to the end. It doesn't happen if you insert a letter at any other position. I have no idea why it does it. --ghouston (talk) 09:17, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
It seems to be related to the capitalization. If you insert an upper case letter it doesn't happen. --ghouston (talk) 09:18, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Ok, strange I never noticed in all the other moments I had to massively use it. 1) was it discussed on Phabricator? 2) does it occur sometimes even when used on local wikipedias?--Alexmar983 (talk) 09:52, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Templates not being expanded on user talk page

I can't tell if User talk:Talmoryair has broken a July 2017 final warning for copyright violations, because the warning templates they've been given since then are all unexpanded. Is this a bug, or do templates just stop being processed beyond a certain page size? --Gapfall (talk) 12:25, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

The page has been added to Category:User talk pages where template include size is exceeded, take a look at that page, it includes more information. - Offnfopt(talk) 13:27, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Is it appropriate to step in and archive another user's talk page for them, at that point? It doesn't seem great that we're trying to warn the user about copyright issues (which they could potentially clarify and fix for us) and they're just getting mangled, empty messages with nothing to click. --Gapfall (talk) 13:41, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm all for a policy which forces users who have more templates than MediaWiki allows to archive their talk page. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 18:36, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Proposed. --Gapfall (talk) 20:28, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
fix your semi-automated templates. your code bloat is your problem. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 04:19, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

December 11

How can I prove that I am not a paid editor?

I just imported 25 images from the University of California at Santa Barbara which required me to link 🔗 there for attribution, however as I did this this often COIBot xould see this as "spamming" and people like Billinghurst and Dirk Beetstra will probably assume that I am a paid editor and remove the University of California at Santa Barbara from every Wikimedia project as was done the last time, I have never been paid by any party for any edit, and I' have no vested interest in any external links that I use, but how and where can I prove that I am in fact not employed by these parties, and where can I declare that I don't have a COI? --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) ("The Chinese Coin Troll" 👿) (Articles 📚) 13:24, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't think any COIBot runs on Commons. That's an issue for what links / edits you make on Wikipedia. Otherwise, see en:Proving a negative. --ghouston (talk) 22:41, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
If you get paid, well done, we don't care. If uploads are in scope, that's what matters. -- (talk) 22:46, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) ("The Chinese Coin Troll" 👿) (Articles 📚) 12:31, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Frozen food + Liquid nitrogen

How would you call the category of food frozen using liquid nitrogen? "food frozen in liquid nitrogen"? "food frozen using liquid nitrogen"? "liquid nitrogen food freezing"? I'd like to use what could sound more appropriate for an en-N.--Alexmar983 (talk) 13:13, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

@Alexmar983: "Flash frozen food", or is that something different?   — Jeff G. ツ 13:18, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Is it used? Is it "neutral" in tone? I trust you... I just need a reliable name. I should/will put this category to remove two parent categories, so the key doubt is: is "flash" here equivalent to "using liquid nitrogen"?--Alexmar983 (talk) 13:24, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
As a comparison, it should be used in files like this one, this one, I am not sure maybe also this one and there is some fancy image of "chemical cuisine" (how is it called, that modern style of cooking that shows off the use of chemistry?) too.--Alexmar983 (talk) 13:34, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Wonder if this could be posted on [Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science] for better clarification. 'Flash frozen' is my choice. Commercially, food is not dunked into to liquid nitrogen because the sudden contraction and expansion shatters the food. The liquid nitrogen is 'sprayed' in at the end of the freezing process. The cold vapor then travels down the tunnel to cool the incoming food. Thus avoiding any sudden temperature changes but too quick for ice crystals to form and puncture the cell walls. Thermodynamically, it is more efficient this way. So mention of liquid nitrogen is not needed in the name of the category even though students let loose with a vacuum flask of nitrogen can use it to rapid freeze. P.g.champion (talk) 14:41, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
I did not know that, interesting. Thank you.--Alexmar983 (talk) 15:14, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Still. This doesn't answer your query. As you are more than aware, we like to keep categories simple and logical, so thank you for running it by us in oder to get broader opinions. The Category:Liquid nitrogen now looks large enough to be split into two as you suggest. Think the original cat can be kept as it is for showing images concerning the liquefied gas itself and its containment flasks etc. Suggest a new cat called Freezing with liquid nitrogen. This can then include, not just foods such as File:Dragon's breath.jpg (which needs to be immersed in a cryogenic liquid in order to produce the desired effect) but also freezing flowers etc., so that they become brittle and shatter in ones hands. Soft flexible rubber to can be frozen this way so that it becomes solid enough to be turned on a lath or milled and drilled. All the interesting images of this nature can then be included in the new cat. When that cat fills up, we can then think about splitting it again. I am more than happy to create this cat if others think this is the logical taxonomy solution. It is an import question because getting it right now, will save a lot of time in the future. I've spent many fretful hours on WC, kicking badly structured cats back into shape. What do you think? P.g.champion (talk) 17:23, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I've informed two projects on enwikipedia. Personally, I agree with the creation of "Freezing with liquid nitrogen" as a reliable starting point.--Alexmar983 (talk) 02:09, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Maybe we could simplify it further and just have for the major cat Cooling with gases. Let me explain the semantics of freezing/cooling. We want to keep things simple and at their most basic. Most people -in normal speech- associate the freezing of object with said object undergoing a change of state. I.E., liquid to solid etc. This is via a process of cooling, which I think is a better broad scientific term. It encompasses, cooling using gaseous/liquid nitrogen, argon, gaseous/liquid/ solid/carbon dioxide and some more esoteric applications using helium etc. It should be obvious to the image up-loader which cooling method is involved and we want to make it easy for them to find the right cat to place it in and likewise, easy for someone searching WC to find the right cat. So I suggest a belt and braces approach. Cooling with gases as the main cat. Then (with a request that administrators don't delete empty sub cats) we (me even) can populate it with some sub cats which include Cooling with nitrogen. WC has a feature that when an up-loader searches for cats, all he will have to do is type in 'nitrogen' for cats. The list can then show amongst all the available options as Nitrogen, cooling with. Thus, making it obvious which cat is most suitable. Same for for dry ice etc. That will display in the list Dry ice, cooling with. Conversely, someone searching WC for images of a cooling method only has to type in nitrogen or dry ice etc., to find a list of categories dealing with these gases. Food stuffs (along with biological samples and seed archives) will then be easy to categories and sub divide as more images get uploaded. P.g.champion (talk) 14:37, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
As this could circle around for sometime,... I have created Category:Nitrogen used for cooling to show what it looks like. It can always be undone if nobody likes it. P.g.champion (talk) 16:17, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Before this discussion vanishes in the archive, I have thanked P.g.champion for the category and I think that it fits the scope.--Alexmar983 (talk) 11:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Conventions for SVG-Files?

I've got some problems with uploading my svg-files and the resulting pngs. I've found out by trial and error what's not possible:

  • CSS for presentational attributes
  • HSL-Color codes

Are there any webpages/ discussions related to SVG? This page (Help:SVG) doesn't seem to cover my problems.

TIA

— Preceding unsigned comment added by MScharwies (talk • contribs) 03:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

03:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

The first issue is discussed at Help:SVG#Stylesheet. I've never heard of HSL (I have heard of HSV, but I'm not sure what it has to do with SVG). Anyway, there's Commons:Graphics village pump and Help_talk:SVG... AnonMoos (talk) 08:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. HSL_and_HSV are color Codes like hex-values and rgba. With them you can easily change to a lighter or darker hue, by just adapting the Luminance.
I will search the Links - especially the Help_talk:SVG ----MScharwies (talk) 13:59, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-50

17:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

How and why do Wikipedia 0-abusers treat Wikimedia Commons as a Warez site?

I keep reading about how Wikipedia 0 abusers use Wikimedia Commons to upload illegal content to stream here, but what would their motivations be behind that, how is it any better to use Wikimedia Commons than it is to let's say “Pirate site X” (I don’t know if that's a real website, I just made that up), is it the free data that makes using Wikimedia Commons better as a warez website? Sure I personally use Wikimedia Commons as a Warez-site for coin catalogues from 18th century Japan, but that’s in the public domain. I personally can’t see why using Wikimedia Commons is any better than any illegal content streaming site since such videos get deleted for copyright © infringement on the stop while it probably takes hours to upload a single motion picture. What actual advantages does Wikipedia 0 have over “Pirate site X”? 🤔

Sent from my Microsoft Lumia 950 XL with Microsoft Windows 10 Mobile 📱. --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) ("The Chinese Coin Troll" 👿) (Articles 📚) 12:32, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

@Donald Trung: From what I have gathered, the uploaders and their friends the downloaders are generally disadvantaged people from underdeveloped parts of the world where mobile data and movie tickets are relatively expensive. They have developed and used apps or other software to use free WP0 access to upload and download illegal copies of copyrighted Hollywood movies hidden and encoded in other content at no cost to them; the downloaders decode, extract, and experience the copies; and some of the downloaders probably distribute the copies on the street at a profit. Recent improvements in purging technology should further limit the time during which they can benefit from doing so.   — Jeff G. ツ 13:38, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
(A general note to other commentators) Though it's tempting to say more about how, I suggest this is avoided, we don't want to lay out an accidental hackers manual. Thanks -- (talk) 14:03, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't see why not. They are hardly doing anything advanced or surprising - and security through obscurity tends to cause more problems than it solves. The WP-0 abusers are uploading files. Then others are downloading files. They are doing it on commons (and other Wikimedia websites) because they can do it for free (due to zero-rating), bandwidth is expensive, and movies tend to be big files. Bawolff (talk) 21:32, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
How about at least a manual in the best way to spot it? Such as where does it show up first so it can be tagged for DR. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 03:58, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks to Embedded Data Bot and Abuse Filter's rule #180 Commons isn't currently abused by WP0 (ab)users. Although they still try – I can see it in Abuse Filter's log. Anyway, this seems to be a problem on other projects such as Indian and Romanian Wikipedias. --jdx Re: 07:15, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Alright thank you for clearing that up, I honestly wanted to know the why’s more than the how’s, and I most certainly don't want to inspire anyone to start using Wikimedia Commons for non-free content. Thanks for clearing this up, and I will mark this section as “resolved” so it would be archived quickly and won't catch the eyes of potential pirates. --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) ("The Chinese Coin Troll" 👿) (Articles 📚) 08:24, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) ("The Chinese Coin Troll" 👿) (Articles 📚) 08:25, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Spelling

Hi, someone hanging around who is willing to move "in one go" "policecar" into "police car"? It hurts my eyes. :) Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 08:11, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

It's OK in file names (should be corrected in file descriptions). AnonMoos (talk) 08:39, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
@Lotje, AnonMoos:   Done per AnonMoos's specs.   — Jeff G. ツ 10:45, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Just came across another one... Lotje (talk) 16:35, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Needs something to be done on [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=%22protrait%22&title=Special:Search&go=Go&searchToken=f0hsyodor5znvqhnfuy4hxp24 "protrait" in the filename? Lotje (talk) 16:38, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Ime Bishop.jpeg

WTF? Thumbnail at the bottom is from version deleted by Guanaco on 20th October and "purge" link doesn't work. Have you ever seen something like this? Perhaps a ticket on Phabricator should be created? Of course the file must be deleted soon because the source video is licenced under Standard YouTube License. --jdx Re: 02:01, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I tried deleting and undeleting the image, and the wrong thumbnail persists. I'll try to reproduce the bug with a non-copyvio image. Guanaco (talk) 02:07, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
I see that the thumbnail is still publicly accessible [18] despite the image being deleted. Guanaco (talk) 02:09, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
I uploaded File:12 Dec test image.jpg, deleted it, and uploaded a new version. I used the same dimensions for these as the Ime Bishop photos. This did not reproduce the bug. It seems to be that the file 120px-Ime_Bishop.jpeg on the server cannot be deleted, moved, or overwritten - typical "permission denied" behavior. Guanaco (talk) 02:21, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
@Guanaco: I seem to remember a Phabricator task related to this problem and denying access to cached deleted WP0 files, but I can't find it.   — Jeff G. ツ 02:54, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Unrelated, I think. By "permission denied" I mean that the MediaWiki software itself can't change the file. Guanaco (talk) 03:01, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: The problem is mentioned on phab:T171881#3716877 and it seems to be solved now thanks to BBlack. There is also a general task: phab:T133821. --jdx Re: 09:41, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
@Jdx: Thank you.   — Jeff G. ツ 15:07, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

A fistfull cats...

  Resolved

Hi there!

This File:Funeral2.jpg has manymanymanymanymanymanymanymanymanymanymanymany cats... May someone help? I'm not good [enouth] in English for special cats...

Thanks   LW² \m/ (Lie ² me...) 04:41, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Looks like the user applied the results of a search on “funeral”. (I just left them in Funerals, not being familiar with that part of the tree.) Without more information as to place, denomination &c. the pix’ claim to being within COM:SCOPE is tenuous. The user‘s other couple of edits are also somewhat odd, to say the least.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 07:46, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
@Llann Wé², Odysseus1479: Thank you for that info. I have tagged all the uploads of User:Commandprompt6 here and they are now blocked on two wikis. Admins are encouraged to make it a trifecta.   — Jeff G. ツ 15:12, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks to all.   LW² \m/ (Lie ² me...) 23:12, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  Done Indeffed. Rodhullandemu (talk) 15:39, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Images from eBay

I'd like to upload more images of out-of-copyright two-dimensional objects (postcards, bank notes, cheques, etc) from eBay, does anyone know of a script or other tool to expedite this? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:53, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I like the idea but do not know of any tools that might be helpful. --Jarekt (talk) 12:52, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
I like the idea too but my concern is that it would too easily be misused by newbies to upload images of 3 dimensional works, which don't fall into 'slavish copies' of two dimensional works for which there is no copyright. Ebay is undoubtedly a cornucopia of such great useful images. Therefore think, such a tool would be very useful but think it would need to be special written. First and foremost, to place the uploaded images into a Limbo category. To be released only after editors experienced in the subtle differences of copyright have reviewed them. As the OTRS team are already overloaded with reviews, maybe we could create a second-tier level of reviewers that can distinguish flat from 3 D. We have plenty of script writers that can take on this challenge if the result is worth the effort. Just a thought. P.g.champion (talk) 14:15, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
User:Pigsonthewing would https://tools.wmflabs.org/url2commons/index.html work on a set of ebay images such as https://www.ebay.com/b/Collectible-Vintage-Antique-Photos-Pre-1940/407/bn_1859622?rmvSB=true ?? my concern is the concern immediately turning to "but what about the vandals" it is profoundly not AGF. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 23:57, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, but no. It gives an unsupported filename" error. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:21, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
The same could be said of the upload wizard. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:21, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I would say that if they're scans of public domain postcards (as scans of public domain images usually aren't copyrighted) that it might be feasible, but I would contact the seller(s) just in case. --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) ("The Chinese Coin Troll" 👿) (Articles 📚) 13:04, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Sellers rarely if ever reply to such queries, in my experience, and permission is not needed if the image is a scan of a PD work. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:21, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
@Jarekt: I have tools to download photos from eBay. If you give me a link to a search on eBay I can download them for you, but I really don't have time to upload any files to Commons. I still have a backlog of 8500+ files from this summer. /ℇsquilo 20:20, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

December 13

Don't load audio files in a gallery automatically

I've searched around but couldn't find anything. Is there an established way to disable audio files from having a player box rendered inside the gallery? I.e., when you visit a gallery page or a category, any audio files will take a few seconds to generate the standard grey color player, ready for you to click Play.

However, the behaviour is impractical on large audio-based categories because up to 200 player boxes will be generated, causing the whole browser tab to slow down. I've disabled JavaScript and that is a nice workaround, but naturally doing so inhibits usage of other JS tools like Cat-a-lot.

Any suggestions? seb26 (talk) 00:14, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

If there's a preference to limit or stop this behavior, I'd use it.   — Jeff G. ツ 00:41, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
You could the following css code:
div.mediaContainer {
	display:none;
}
Ruslik (talk) 20:30, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Ruslik0, thanks. The following worked better, as it hides only the media player on Category views, maintaining it on individual file pages.
#mw-category-media .mediaContainer {
	display:none;
}
seb26 (talk) 13:13, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Structured Commons newsletter, December 13, 2017

Welcome to the newsletter for Structured Data on Wikimedia Commons! You can update your subscription to the newsletter. Do inform others who you think will want to be involved in the project!

Community updates
Things to do / input and feedback requests
 
A multi-licensed image on Wikimedia Commons, with a custom {{EthnologyItemMHNT}} Information template. Do you also know media files on Commons that will be interesting or challenging to model with structured data? Add them to the Interesting Commons files page.
Presentations / Press / Events
Presentation about Structured Commons and Wikidata, at WikimediaCon in Berlin.
  • Sandra presented the plans for Structured Commons during WikidataCon in Berlin, on October 29. The presentation focused on collaboration between the Wikidata and Commons communities. You can see the full video here.
Partners and allies
  • We are still welcoming (more) staff from GLAMs (Galleries, Libraries, Archives and Museums) to become part of our long-term focus group (phabricator task T174134). You will be kept in the loop of the project, and receive regular small surveys and requests for feedback. Get in touch with Sandra if you're interested - your input in helping to shape this project is highly valued!
Research
  • Research findings from interviews and surveys of GLAM project participants are being published to the research page. Check back over the next few weeks as additional details (notes, quotes, charts, blog posts, and slide decks) will be added to or linked from that page.
Development
  • The Structured Commons team has written and submitted a report about the first nine months of work on the project to its funders, the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. The 53-page report, published on November 1, is available on Wikimedia Commons.
  • The team has started working on designs for changes to the upload wizard (T182019).
  • We started preliminary work to prototype changes for file info pages.
  • Work on the MediaInfo extension is ongoing (T176012).
  • The team is continuing its work on baseline metrics on Commons, in order to be able to measure the effectiveness of structured data on Commons. (T174519)
  • Upcoming: in the first half of 2018, the first prototypes and design sketches for file pages, the UploadWizard, and for search will be published for discussion and feedback!
Stay up to date!

Warmly, your community liaison, SandraF (WMF) (talk)

Message sent by MediaWiki message delivery - 16:32, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

December 14

Update on purging deleted files

As you may be aware, there's been a persistent issue with files existing on upload.wikimedia.org for extended periods of time after being deleted from Commons. This bug was being abused extensively by Wikipedia Zero pirate activities, and for many months now problematic files have had to be manually purged from the cache after deletion (which involves developer access).

After extensive investigation, the problem that was causing the files to persist has been identified and fixed. The issue was around how the cache servers handle encoding titles, you can read up on the investigation beginning here. Following the find and fix, the issue seems to have all but disappeared. There is still some final investigation left until this bug is formally closed, but the Commons community should not be seeing any further large-scale disruption from this vector going forward. The Phabricator links provided contain more context and information for the curious. Happy editing to you all. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 18:13, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

@Keegan (WMF): Thank you!   — Jeff G. ツ 18:45, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

December 15

Clarification about originality in color gradients

Hello, I think it would be useful to clarify at Commons:Threshold of originality, if possible, the status about how much "originality" does a color gradient add, specially it would be good to know whether there is any law talking about it. There are some deletion requests where the result was "keep" (1, 2, 3, 2), in others the result was "delete" (1, 2, 3). It seems right now that the decision depends on personal judgement, or maybe the precautionary principle, or the height of the threshold of originality in some countries. Does it matter the easyness of making the gradient? or if it's linear or not? or how much does a vectorization resemble the image which it was based in? --UAwiki (talk) 09:27, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Mobile batch uploading

Hello 👋🏻 everybody,

Currently I have a couple of batch uploads standing still such as one for Vietnamese/Annamese coins, and one for scans Edo period Japanese coin collecting catalogues. I am planning on doing the latter manually by downloading every item manually and then manually linking to the source, Etc. when I'll find the time in my busy schedule, unfortunately as I only have access to my cell.-phone to upload images with I can’t use desktop-only tools such as Commonist and the VicuñaUploader. In fact I can’t find any tool that allows me to upload a large batch of images other than Flickr2Commons. 🤪

Are there any tools ⚙ for mobile devices in development? And if not, is anyone interested in coding tools similar to Flickr2Commons that would allow users to upload large (or small) batches of images from a web browser wthout needing a special plug-in? I think that Wikimedia Commons would greatly benefit from more mobile-friendly tools.

Sent from my Microsoft Lumia 950 XL with Microsoft Windows 10 Mobile 📱. --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) ("The Chinese Coin Troll" 👿) (Articles 📚) 09:37, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Also, to prevent abuse from a potential web mass-uploader it could be limited to “request-only” mass-uploads. In this model there would be a special request page where one can add a URL (or just a site name in case this was blacklisted in bad faith by WikiProject Spam) and their username with the request to be allowed access to only upload photographs (or audio clips and whatnot) from that specific source, this would associate a username with a link 🔗 and allow mass-uploads only by that user from that website, that way the system won't get abused by someone uploading a massive amount of copyright violations © in one go. --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) ("The Chinese Coin Troll" 👿) (Articles 📚) 09:38, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
If you have not tried https://commons-app.github.io/, this may make uploading easier, but I believe the design is for single images. -- (talk) 10:51, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Well, I can't as I use Windows 10 Mobile and the application is for F-Droid and Android. But still, from what I can tell the Google Play app is still mostly for single uploads, one's potential for productivity greatly decreases when you use a mobile device, and from what I can tell there are no taskforces assigned to make mobile uploading or even mobile editing easier. Mobile users have less options in general, and that's why I posted this here, hopefully someone in the developing team will then see the huge potential that mobile devices have (especially through platform agnostic browser applications). --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) ("The Chinese Coin Troll" 👿) (Articles 📚) 11:48, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Mount Cook, New Zealand

 
Aoraki-Mount Cook from Hooker Valley

Hello everybody,

I have a problem with the photo on the right. Mount Cook in New Zealand is really peaks 3: High Peak, Middle and Lower Peak Peak. The peak in the foreground is probably Lower Peak. If it's true, a peak in the background it's not Mount Hicks. Anyone know enough to solve this? Tournasol7 (talk) 22:29, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

It's the right direction for Mount Hicks, and other pictures make the same claim: File:Aoraki - Mount Cook and Mount Hicks.jpg, File:Mt cook from hermitage.jpg. --ghouston (talk) 22:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
All these claims were made by the same person though. --ghouston (talk) 02:41, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Same identification here: [19]. --ghouston (talk) 02:56, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
So in the background is Mount Hicks and in foreground is Lower Peak of Mount Cook. Tournasol7 (talk) 13:45, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
It's possible that all three peaks of Mt Cook are visible. I haven't found a source with the specific peaks labelled. --ghouston (talk) 23:11, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

December 16

Massey Ferguson 6180- Der Schlepper ist mein Eigentum 2013-08-28 23-26.jpg

This file is "located" in the middle of the ocean. I'm trying to suppress that location but it once and again reappears in the South Atlantic. Maybe there's a temporary problem with modifications. Can you help? B25es (talk) 06:39, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

@B25es: looks like the coördinates 49° 57′ 17″ S, 10° 15′ 25″ E are in the metadata (courtesy link}—my guess is that they were entered with the wrong sign on the latitude, because the same figures but with N latitude would put it in Germany (just upstream of Schweinfurt on the Main). I don‘t know of anything that can be done in situ (other than adding a correct {{Location}}); I think one would have to download it, edit the EXIF, and re-upload.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 07:26, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
For what I can see in the picture, it looks like some German-speaking country. I'll try to change hemisphere with locator tool. Thanks! B25es (talk) 07:35, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Batch uploads of interest in December

Good news everyone! Right now there are four five interesting batch upload projects well underway in December, this is a shout out for anyone with some volunteer time spare to help with reuse and categorization. Samples and explanations below. If there are suggestions for mass improvements that could realistically be automated as part of housekeeping, please drop a note on my talk page. -- (talk) 11:35, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Cooper-Hewitt

Project page search
Category:Collections of the Cooper–Hewitt, Smithsonian Design Museum

Cooper Hewitt is a design museum, part of the Smithsonian Institution. Collections include the history of decorative arts and design. The batch upload will probably add around 70,000 photographs to Commons and should complete this week. Requested by Kaldari (archive).

-- (talk) 11:35, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

  Done Uploads are completed, with 74,024 files added to Commons!   -- (talk) 21:12, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Auckland Military Museum

Project page search
Category:Images from Auckland Museum

In addition to military history, the collections include a very wide variety of oddities both early and modern. It is uncertain how many images will be uploaded, the current estimate is over 200,000. Requested by Noideawhatiamdoing on Commons:Batch uploading.

-- (talk) 11:35, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Ordnance Survey maps of Britain

Category:Ordnance Survey 1st series 1:10560
Category:Ordnance Survey 1st series 1:2500

These are high resolution scans of the 19th century Ordnance Survey maps of Britain. The 1:2500 scale maps (png) are selected cities with very fine details down to the level of individual houses and facilities from Jewish cemeteries to public toilets. The 1:10560 (tiff and jpeg) is a complete map of Britain and is about half way through the uploads in alphabetic order. The maps are a great resource for research into local history or might be an interesting way to map some monuments photographs. Volunteers are needed to create galleries, similar to the London map.

-- (talk) 11:35, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

  Done Email update to UK list. In total over 1.05 Terabyte of data for 17,800 maps over a normal speed home broadband connection, was uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. -- (talk) 14:22, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

That is a fantastic result. Thank you so much for this! Jheald (talk) 14:52, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

MP3 music from Incompetech

Project page
Category:Audio files from Incompetech

Thanks to Commons now accepting mp3 files, we are uploading 1,277 mp3 music files originally hosted by Incompetech available a cc-by license; no need for transcoding and the upload should complete today! The music makes for great tracks to sample for video creation, background for an application or to just to listen to while jogging. Requested by ShakespeareFan00 on Commons:Batch uploading. Files are categorized by genre.

-- (talk) 11:35, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

In followup, it would be nice if Commons contributors identified the composers of works here Category:Classical_music_from_IncompetechShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:02, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

  Done The upload has completed with the expected 1,277 mp3 files added to Commons!   -- (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

There was a typo in the name of the project page (incomptech instead of incompetech); I corrected it. Thanks for this project! Gestumblindi (talk) 19:30, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Oh, by the way, : Was the site owner and composer of most of this music, Kevin MacLeod, contacted / informed about this project? I know it's technically not necessary, as he released the music under a free license, but it seems to me that a heads-up would be appropriate nevertheless; also ShakespeareFan00 himself suggested on the project page "Site owner not contacted, would suggest a GLAM style approach from an experienced Commons admin or contributor given that all the tracks are by a single artist." Gestumblindi (talk) 19:35, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
If there are no obvious issues with an open collection, or a historical reason to get in touch, I tend not to do this. The reply rate I experience is below 30% and the approach can cause confusion about why you are contacting the artist/collector/curator. In fact if I have started uploading or mapping out the upload, often the batch upload has completed before I get a reply. -- (talk) 19:48, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

German postcards from the 1900s

Project page
Category:1900s postcards uploaded from Zeno

As an early Christmas bonus, 10,000 classic German postcards from around the 1900s are being uploaded from zeno.org. The locations and other information are all in German, and the scans include both sides of the postcard, so there are lots of notes and example handwriting of the period. German speaking volunteers wanted to help categorize and add information about the most interesting handwritten messages!

-- (talk) 21:56, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Category:Photographs by Koos Raucamp

Hi, can someone add this category to all these images in one go? Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 16:58, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

@Lotje: Not the first 20? Have you tried COM:VFC   — Jeff G. ツ 17:13, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Oh dear, oh dear... wouldn't know where to start. Lotje (talk) 17:21, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
It won’t take long with Cat-a-lot, about 550 files. On it … @Jeff G.: the top couple dozen hits are already in the cat.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 21:38, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
  Done I skimmed through all the hits to make sure they were photo credits; I only noticed one false positive, at the very end. But please give them a once-over to verify they all belong.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 21:55, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Odysseus1479 for your kind help. I went through all of them and hopefully did not miss one! Cheers. Lotje (talk) 05:52, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Tool to extract images from PDFs

Searching today for a tool to exact mages from PDFs, I came across: http://www.pdfaid.com/ExtractImages.aspx It did the job nicely.

No doubt other such tools exist. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:37, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Category:Costumes of Manneken Pis (Brussels)...

Hello.

Following the French France 5 TV broadcast "Échappées Belles", one of the subjects treated is the Manneken Pis (@ Brussels), I took a look ("professional" distortion?) at Commons and at the "clothing" site of this statue.

At the very bottom of the "Contact" page, there is some copyright prose in French -which I do not copy here- I let here the link so that everyone can get an idea about the content of the suitable category.

The question, as everyone can imagine, is: are photos hosted by Commons lawful?

Thank you for your feedback and I leave you the "joy" to do what is right if you feel there is to do.   LW² \m/ (Lie ² me...) 22:04, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

see also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bruxelles Manneken Pis.jpg -- Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 01:41, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
I think Llann Wé² is talking about it wearing copyrighted clothes? I'm not entirely sure. The only example I can see is File:Manneken Pis sailor.jpg, but I'm not sure clothes can actually be copyrighted, let alone a sailor uniform. --ghouston (talk) 02:42, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
In the United States, clothing (especially clothing being worn) is almost always considered "utilitarian" or "functional", and so uncopyrightable. (Though there can be copyrightable designs on clothing, which is a different matter...) AnonMoos (talk) 03:57, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
@Ghouston:??? There are some 70 files showing the costumes in the child cat Costumes of Manneken Pis (Brussels). At any rate, the notice Llann Wé² is referring to reads (approximately) “The reproduction of the Manneken-Pis’s costumes is subject to reproduction rights and to authorization from the City of Brussels Museum,” goes on to justify the museum’s stance as the custodian of the city‘s heritage &c., says the statue & costumes are part of its collection, then reiterates that “they are subject to the right of reproduction and a special contract must be signed.” So I guess the question to be answered is whether or not these claims have any validity under Belgian law.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 05:13, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I missed the subcategory. It may also be a non-copyright restriction for Commons purposes. --ghouston (talk) 05:18, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
I was also thinking along those lines, ‘moral rights’ or "House rules" as distinct from intellectual property. Do we have a template, along the lines of the personality-rights, prohibited-symbol, and trademark tags, for this sort of thing?—Odysseus1479 (talk) 05:39, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to all (@Slowking4: @Ghouston: @Odysseus1479:) but yes I was talking about costumes (changed section title). Those clothes are only designed for the statue (one unit each time) for a special event so I think they're original creations and not "utilitarian" or "functional" as @AnonMoos: suggested.   LW² \m/ (Lie ² me...) 21:05, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

OTOH I think textiles would fall under “plastic art”—especially when clothing a sculpture—and hence be exempted here under FOP.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 21:16, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Temporary displays don't meet the "permanent" requirement of FOP. --ghouston (talk) 21:29, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Oh, yes, good point: I neglected to consider that.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 21:37, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
see also http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/mdocs/en/wipo_ipr_ge_15/wipo_ipr_ge_15_t2.pdf -- you might want to footnote your queries with some facts or evidence to move the discussion forward. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 21:11, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

December 17

Tram current collection from the ground

I put this under 'Alimentation par le sol', that technicaly correct in French, but is a modern system. I cant seem to find a category for this old system.Smiley.toerist (talk) 20:20, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Is that not the same thing as Ground-level power supply? Judging by the interwiki fr/en WP links, Wikidata seems to think it is.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 01:01, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
More specific: en:Conduit current collection. I created a new Category:Conduit current collection.Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:42, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

December 18

What open government license would be applicable to this image

this image shared by the Scottish Government, I would believe, is available under an Open Government license. I am unclear on which to use however. Any help??? 07:13, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

in the sun credited to getty [20] Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 21:53, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Kleingrothe, Carl Josef

Hi, I was wondering if it would make sense to create a Category:Carl Josef Kleingrothe and Category:Photographs by Carl Josef Kleingrothe. There are many, many photographs taken by him. Thank you foryour time. :) Lotje (talk) 11:34, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Well you have already worked on c:Category:C.J. Kleingrothe (is dezelfde pief/same bloke) with, e.g., c:Category:Photographs by Carl Josef Kleingrothe from KITLV. Seasons greetings, Hansmuller (talk) 14:03, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
PS. c:Category:Photographs by C.J. Kleingrothe is just the COLLECTIE TROPENMUSEUM. So we have Kleingrothe (Stafhell & Kleingrothe) from both Tropenmuseum and KITLV. Hansmuller (talk) 14:13, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Hansmuller, there are so many of them and trying to make it easy to understand is hard. But thank you anyway. :) Lotje (talk) 15:54, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Category:1776 American Enterprise. Burley's United States Centennial Gazetteer and Guide 1876 by KIDDLER

Hi, anybody hanging around who would take a look at the category name? It seems to be "Kidder, Charles Holland" and not KIDDLER. Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 13:41, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

According to this, yes, it is a typo. Ruslik (talk) 20:32, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Category renamed and files now moved. Jheald (talk) 15:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Template:Taken on

This is primarily a technical discussion; please leave a note at my talk if you want to talk about the advisability of the idea, unless for some reason you think it's a serious problem that needs to be shut down.

We have a big series of categories for photographs by date, each of which is typically added by a template, {{Taken on}}; for example, typing {{Taken on|2017-12-16}} places the image in Category:Photographs taken on 2017-12-16. Unfortunately, the template isn't really customisable; aside from taking a parameter for the date, the only thing you can change is the categorisation, by means of adding |cat=no. Meanwhile, people have been creating some national subcategories, e.g. Category:France photographs taken on 2017-12-16, but the problem with this is that you can't add it without manual work, and adding it leaves the image in violation of COM:OCAT if you leave the template in place (because it's in the general Photographs in... category, and also in the national subcategory), or it makes you remove the useful template. I wondered about adding a simple parameter for the country, so I recreated the template in my userspace and added a second numbered category, and then I transcluded this userspace template on an image. This edit is all that we'd need to do to enable such a feature on {{Taken on}}.

So, the questions:

  1. Is this change the simplest way to add a geolocated subcategory, or is there a simpler?
  2. Can anyone imagine any bugs that might result from this?
  3. Are there any other technical issues that might make this a bad idea?

Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 23:50, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

As a design principle, burying detail within templates within templates is superfluous unless they add a bit more value than simply adding a category that could be added without relying on any templates. I understand why something more complex, like a credit template with boiler plate text, a category and links, is useful as a template that can be updated once for thousands of files, but I don't get the need for these.
By the way, 'overcat' is not applicable to bucket categories, which contain everything for good reason. Thanks -- (talk) 11:18, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
I am not a big fan of by-day categories unless there are is some significance to the dates. I also do not like many categories added by the templates, that require you to read code to figure out how to use. Automatically added categories are good for adding hidden maintenance categories and some flat bucket categories that without category tree within the structure, but once you have category tree, you should abandon automatically added categories. --Jarekt (talk) 12:40, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

December 20

Tech News: 2017-51

15:26, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

December 19

We must have a huge improvement in video uploading

Jesus Christ I don't know how to put in words how much is painful upload videos here. Seriously, I have 5 videos that have more than 20 min made to be distribute here, but it's an absurd how long is the process to upload here, and... mostly ever it f crashes.

I tried several, several methods, and all of them have to improve a lot to be considered at least "pretty bad". The Video2Commons crashes randomly with anything, if we miss click, it crashes, some wikitext misplaced, crashes, sometimes I do not have a near clue what happened, it simply crashed, for example:"An exception occurred: TaskError: pywikibot.Error: UploadWarning: exists-normalized: File exists with different extension as "MMC.eSports.jpg". After 13 hours, thirteen hours it crashed for no reason. And this was the one that I had last problems, even having to upload at YT, then import here.

I tried put plugging for the video editor, software to Linux, Windows, Mac... Nothing works. It's 2017 (almost 2018) it's not possible we have such bad uploader for video. The Youtube exists since 2005! We are far behind in video content, and this should be our priority. We should be accepting 4k 60 fps videos with several audio channels to use the same media in several languages, but I can't upload a simple 1080p 24 fps, let alone 4K... I could be producing complete courses in video, but put here would cost more time than editing it, and this is absurd.

We spend tons of dollars in prizes for contests, and do not focus our resources in simple things that is a game changer. We had a lot of gimmick announces in the last years, and nothing to solve real issues. The last big improvement was the Upload Wizard, that have 7 years! And it do not convert videos!!!


Frustration and felling outdated, that's the summary.



x0x0

-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 03:09, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

@Rodrigo.Argenton: FYI: With regards to video2commons, 'File exists with different extension as "MMC.eSports.jpg"' means what it means literally. It's an upload warning generated from MediaWiki, the software behind Wikimedia Commons, and we currently are not so good at handling such warnings (current implementation is just abort on any warning). To workaround the warning just rename the filename to some completely unused.
I'll revisit the quirky technical details of warning handling tomorrow and see if I have any new ideas tomorrow --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 06:45, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
There is a community wishlist survey proposal regarding easier video uploading / conversion at m:2017_Community_Wishlist_Survey/Multimedia_and_Commons#Upload_and_instant_conversion_of_mpeg_and_avi_etc. Hopefully it will be implemented --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 06:30, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
You could also try User:Rillke/bigChunkedUpload.js.   — Jeff G. ツ 06:40, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Plus the video playback experience is nowhere near to being competitive with YouTube. -- (talk) 06:55, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Humm, but Zhuyifei1999 the name that I tried was Aritmética das engrenagens ( now online, cut by half, but online), nothing close here, however the original name at YouTube was MMC (in use as a redirect of jpeg file), so even changing the name in the tool, it ignored the command, so I had to change the name of youtube video, and than pass trough the whole process again. Well, worked.
But Jeff G. this do not convert videos, right? It just chunk, no? -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 07:13, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
@Rodrigo.Argenton: Sorry, just chunk. But you could also try other uploaders from the list at User:Rillke/bigChunkedUpload.js/share/embed.   — Jeff G. ツ 08:31, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
That also , it's worst than players of "small" companies... so... yeah. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 07:13, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
yes, User:Brion VIBBER and user:fuzheado agree. see also w:Wikipedia:WikiProject Wiki Makes Video. but no love from WMF, my impression is they think it is too hard. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 03:27, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't think it (Improving video upload pipeline) is any harder than any other task WMF takes on. There can be lots of reasons WMF doesn't do things - typically it is because WMF has finite resources and they can only do so many things, so they pick some things to do, and don't do other things. Bawolff (talk) 14:18, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
and yet, WMF does not have a rationale beyond your "do not like it" (or "not a core function"). it is a fundamental difference in strategic vision. we should expect periodic push back as uploaders are turned away, by the difficulty of video uploading compared to other sites. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 15:50, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
@Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton: I think some new options will be opening up next year when the MPEG-2 patents expire. This will allow us to accept MPEG video uploads and also transcode to and from those video formats. Kaldari (talk) 21:37, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Request for technical assistance

Hello, I submitted a image File:Lake Tekapo 01.jpg to Picture of the day, but I don't know if I did everything right. My application is here. Unfortunately, I don't see it here (date: 2018, 19 november)... Can anyone check it? Thanks! Tournasol7 (talk) 22:01, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

From what I can tell it's listed now at "19", maybe it just took some time to process. --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) ("The Chinese Coin Troll" 👿) (Articles 📚) 10:31, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
  Done, ok, I look now too. Tournasol7 (talk) 13:21, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

December 21

Commonist or VicuñaUploader requested

Can someone with a desktop computer 🖥 please upload files from Eduardo Toda y Güell’s Annam and its minor currency from Art-Hanoi to Wikimedia Commons using either Commonist or the VicuñaUploader?

The URL’s follow the pattern http://art-hanoi.com/toda/11.html ... /12.html … /13.html … /14.html until /21.html (DO NOT UPLOAD ANY IMAGES AFTER THIS), files could be names “Toda No. 01” or something easy, I'll manually request more appropriate names as I'll be going through them myself, I will also add the descriptions and more appropriate categorisation myself as well, I just can't use desktop-only tools on my wireless telephone.

All files are in the public domain and I have already created a simplified body over at Commons:Batch uploading/Illustrations of Vietnamese cash coins from Ed Toda's "Annam and its minor currency".#An alternative proposal where I’ve tried to make the batch as simple as possible. Because there are no tools available to my wireless telephone to run scripts for uploading files like this I would either have to do all 300+ images manually or I would have to request someone else to do it. If anyone has too much time on their hands 👐🏻 then feel free to do this task.

Sent from my Microsoft Lumia 950 XL with Microsoft Windows 10 Mobile 📱. --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) ("The Chinese Coin Troll" 👿) (Articles 📚) 10:27, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

This is by the way my last post concerning this in the Village Pump, if it's unsuccessful I'll just patiently wait at the Batch uploading page, but I just wanted to ask "the community" (any interested visitor) just one last time. --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) ("The Chinese Coin Troll" 👿) (Articles 📚) 10:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Schlüter

Hi, anybody hanging around willing to take a look into this file? It is related to the Category:Anton Schlüter München and imo it should be renamed in order to avoid confusion. Thank you for your time. :) Lotje (talk) 12:57, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

  Done Rodhullandemu (talk) 12:20, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

December 22

Remove a duplicate?

I'm surprised I've never come across this before... File:ATS_Search_Light.jpg is a duplicate of a larger version in the same category (90 cm projector). How do I mark it for removal? Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:02, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

It's not considered as a duplicate because it's a cropped, lower-res version of File:The Auxiliary Territorial Service in the United Kingdom 1939 - 1945 H36315.jpg. However, it would make sense to replace all uses of the smaller with the larger, then nominate the smaller for deletion as redundant. For files with the exact same content but of smaller size, see {{Duplicate}}. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 12:12, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
@Maury Markowitz, Rodhullandemu: Please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:ATS Search Light.jpg.   — Jeff G. ツ 03:08, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Classifying filled glassware

Any ideas how to classifly this? It could considered a natural artform. Put some fruits and vegetables in a bowl and you have something beautifull.Smiley.toerist (talk) 20:53, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

  • At least from a US perspective, I wouldn't worry about it until and unless someone starts making a fuss about it. Natural items don't get a copyright; the Copyright Office mentions a polished stone as not being copyrightable. A handful of uncopyrightable items don't usually get a copyright just because they're stuck together, and the less fixed the expression, the less likely the copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:06, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
  • If I understand the OP right, this is not about copyright issues but about categorization. -- Tuválkin 01:37, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I seemed to have thought this was on VP/C, so my response is a bit of a non sequitur.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:39, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

December 23

New Zealand Archives

Thus is just an FYI for anyone interested, but the New Zealand Archives have an account on Verizon's Flickr, this could be a great source of historical documents to watch out for. Also maybe one of us should contact the New Zealand Archives to convince them to make a Wikimedia account and simultaneously upload their archives here. My proficiency of the English language isn't proficient enough to attempt at establishing communications with the institution, so a colleague more well versed than I should attempt so. --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) ("The Chinese Coin Troll" 👿) (Articles 📚) 12:04, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Translations

Hello.What is the reason for inability to:

  1. Change application language?(all projects)
  2. Open or contribute to MediaWiki messages 1-2?

Thanks ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 13:58, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

@ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2: Specific error messages and URLs (for #1) would be helpful.   — Jeff G. ツ 05:08, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: All Wikimedia project applications appear in one language, unlike official websites ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 06:34, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

December 24

"Multiple failed attempts to log in to" alerts getting out of control

My question probably doesn't belong here but I couldn't find a proper forum for it. Anyway, I registered in Wikipedia when there were separate user accounts in each local project and continued like this till the mandatory single user login policy was implemented. At that point I was able to usurp all local accounts with my username in other wikis even though they didn't belong to me (I just happened to be the only active user, all others did not reply to usurpation warning in time). Ever since that time I would get an occasional "Account details on Wikipedia" email stating that someone (probably me) requested password reset in some wiki. It never worried me because I figured out some inactive guy finally decided to log back into wikipedia and wondered why his old username was not working (because I was now the Username and he was renamed to Username~localwiki, duh). But several months ago Wikimedia Foundation started tracking unsuccessful login attempts, and I was able to look at the real extent of the problem. I'm getting alerts about login attempts every week or so, the amount of attempts varies from 2-3 to 6-7. Below is a demo of what my mailbox looks like (collapsed). Is this even normal? That doesn't look like some hapless guy confused about why his login stopped working 6 years after SUL was implemented. It's more like deliberate attempts to brute force a password. Does it happen to anyone else out there? I mean, I sure expected 3-4 of these alerts in a year, but not in a single month.

Ari (talk) 01:00, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ari. I've looked into the logs relating to these. I think the most likely explanation is that "Ari" is a commonish name, and really short, so its easy for people to accidentally type and there are lots of users who have names that are variations on "Ari". Usually if someone was trying to bruteforce, you would get a lot more notices than this - they would be trying hundreds of passwords an hour. The attempts seem to come from a wide variety of countries, and a wide variety of devices (e.g. Some from desktop, others from mobile phones, and others using various "apps"), which I think suggests that its just a variety of different people accidentally thinking that their username is your username. BWolff (WMF) (talk) 19:31, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, I have got some fans who presumably try to break in my account on a regular basis, every time it is about an hour, resulting in up to several hundred attempts.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:54, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
I dare say Ymblanter is a well-known person so I'm not surprised at the amount of "attention" you're getting. I, on the other hand, am no more than an ordinary user, not even active lately, so 6-7 unsuccessful login attempts a week was not what I expected. BWolff gave me some peace of mind though. Ari (talk) 00:56, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
@Ari: Just wanted to mention that the notification can be disabled in the preferences if it's annoying. Unfortunately, there isn't currently a way to do this globally, although we should be enabling Global Preferences within the next few months. Kaldari (talk) 19:51, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
fwiw, I looked in logs, Ymblanter definitely was the target of a bruteforcing attempt, although it appears the attacker was not particularly competent (Woo, I guess). BWolff (WMF) (talk) 04:25, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, this was indeed my guess.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:05, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Categories by year as the only location

My photo File:Tower Bridge from London City Hall 2015.jpg has just been moved from Category:Tower Bridge to Category:Tower Bridge in 2015 by User:Morio. Now to find this image, if you try to find a photo of Tower Bridge the category is virtual empty. Where can I find a decent photo of Tower Bridge, our users might ask? Which sub-category should I look in? I want a current photo, so Category:History of Tower Bridge does not seem promising (I'd expect old b&w photos). But it is there. Then I have to decide whether to look for a decade or year. I just want a current photo so don't care exactly which year, so I pick Category:Tower Bridge by decade. Still no photos. I try Category:Tower Bridge in the 2010s. Still no photos. I now have to click in each of the seven year categories, plus Category:Tower Bridge open in the 2010s looking for a decent photo. But since the icons in a category are only 240px wide, it is really hard to tell what is a good photo or a bad one. So this is a lot of work. Why are we making it so hard to find photos? The year a photo was taken is just one attribute. We also have "at night" and "open" for the bridge, with all those permutations of years too. I suppose eventually it will be put in Category:Tower Bridge, Mid afternoon, September, Autumn, 2015, Closed, Viewed from West, Viewed from City Hall, With Blue Sky and Clouds. When can we please ditch categories and go for a tag system like everyone else uses? -- Colin (talk) 12:54, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure I would have narrowed "Tower Bridge" categories to single years, but given the general consensus around here, that's unlikely to be overturned. Probably the right answer is that if it's a particularly good photo of the bridge, likely to be reused, it should be one of the images used in the gallery page, Tower Bridge. - Jmabel ! talk 17:50, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, you should look at the gallery page – Tower_Bridge. Ruslik (talk) 19:24, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
It's not very good, and there are probably plenty of Commons users who never look at gallery pages. I think deleting Category:History of Tower Bridge would help a bit, since then Category:Tower Bridge by year‎ would be visible at the top level. Category:Tower Bridge by decade doesn't seem very useful either. --ghouston (talk) 00:05, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
  • @Colin: My suggestion is, Category:Exterior of the Tower Bridge (in addition to already existing Category:Tower Bridge interior). Both may be on the top of the page (using sort key like "!" or similar). The already existing categories "at night", "open", "remote views", "detail" should be included in "Exterior", same for all the bridge exterior photos which cannot be sorted into more specifical like "at night" etc.. The advantage would be, that anyone viewing Category:Tower Bridge may quickly proceed to Category:Exterior of the Tower Bridge and browse through its standard photos, while COM:OVERCAT is not violated, because the year's categories may be added to any photo independently. And yes, I'm one of the users who never look at gallery pages on Commons. --A.Savin 14:10, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
A.Savin, the interior/exterior split just ends up moving the vast majority of Tower Bridge photos into the exterior sub-category. Presumably someone will think that is just too big just like they did with the Tower Bridge category, and so we end up with Exterior in 2015 and so on. The subject of a photo and the year the photo was taken are two separate attributes. Commons should make it easy for someone to find "subject: Tower Bridge, London" + "image created: 2015" and add other attributes if they want such as "camera location: City Hall, London". The current system not only hides our photos in unnecessary and arbitrary sub-categories, but prevents creativity in adding other useful tags because it is just way too much maintenance: attribute tags must be turned into category permutations. I just wonder if, until this category system is totally replaced by some other system, people should perhaps spend less of their precious time on earth making it worse. What percentage of people looking for images of Tower Bridge need to find one taken in 2015. My guess is that it is smaller than 1/100th of a percent. Essentially nobody. So rather than having to browse through a handful of pages in a big category, they are forced to wade up and down arbitrary sub-categories looking for images, some of which appear several times in each sub-category. I really feel this is a waste of Commoner's time and a waste of our users time. -- Colin (talk) 17:05, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

In my POV, date cats and location cats are different ways that don't overlap, so COM:OVERCAT is not violated by using the location cat Tower Bridge and the date cat Tower Bridge in 2015. From my personal experience, blind, fanatical, exaggerated following of the COM:OVERCAT rule (e.g., pigeonholing), is far more damaging that not following it at all.-- Darwin Ahoy! 15:11, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

It is still violated because all date categories are subcategories of Tower Bridge. So, they are not different ways and they do overlap. Ruslik (talk) 17:42, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
And what is the big fuss about "violating" COM:OVERCAT? COM:OVERCAT is terribly designed, and way, way, overestimated, and too overly and badly used here, and really should get some kind of reformation. I very much agree with Colin that the pigeonholing habits of many commoners here do hide a lot of useful stuff under layers of categories of doubtful utility whose only purpose seem to be to comply with the infamous COM:OVERCAT rule. Moving stuff into "exterior of [building]", IMO, is one of those cases, as generally those categories are useless, and unneeded, as in most situations the main category can be used to house those files with advantage on the easiness of use, and no loss of organization.-- Darwin Ahoy! 18:11, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
In COM:OVERCAT there is an exception for images with more categorized subjects, wich I think applies here. The date is, in most cases, not the most relevant aspect of images. Therefore it's wrong to remove the image from the main category if only this side aspect has been categorized. The "by year" tree should be added alongside with more relevant, descriptive categories before the image is removed. BTW., in this case Colin's image can be found via the "Good pictures" link at the top of the category page since it's a featured picture. --Sitacuisses (talk) 00:53, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
One of the problems with the way COM:OVERCAT is presented, is that something of mere good sense and logic as that is classified there as an "exception", and "temporary", when it is the general rule, and in many situations there is nothing "temporary" about it.-- Darwin Ahoy! 12:12, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Upload proposal?

Hi, I know this might a be a long shot but is there any way the upload system can be changed in that when you upload images you don't lose what you've uploaded regardless of whether something goes wrong or not (Similar to Youtube where you can reupload a file and it'll continue from where it left off),

I've been uploading images since 2pm today - I should've been done by about 4-5pm .... however thanks to Google Chrome randomly reloading the page I know have to reupload the 2nd batch of images from scratch which means another 2 hours!,

Having some sort of saving point would be a huge help especially for those that have crap internet connections or for those that for instance like this case where for whatever reason the browser reloads,

As I said I know it's a long shot but it's worth a shot, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 18:52, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Sometimes you can recover in-progress uploads at Special:uploadstash. Support on the backend for what you want is mostly there, but front-end support is lacking. Bawolff (talk) 03:56, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Right now, on Christmas day, I'm borrowing a connection that may drop out several times a day and when working has a max upload speed of 0.01 MB/s according to my app. Folks in rural locations live this way all the time, yet may have super photos and videos to donate and would be happy to leave an upload tool running overnight if necessary as they are charged for a connection, not for data or duration. If the WMF doesn't think robust mobile uploading is worth improving, it would be a great grant proposal. The past response of "go to a school or library to upload" is patronizing and a bit daft.
Back to wrapping presents. -- (talk) 12:29, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
  Support, I keep experiencing this on Microsoft Edge on my wireless telephone all the time, editing on a mobile telephone is a nightmare, uploading is next to impossible. --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) ("The Chinese Coin Troll" 👿) (Articles 📚) 14:49, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

December 25

Incorparated images in glass

This information is very unusual as there is no box of any kind. Look at the corresponding backside. What kind of screen is this?Smiley.toerist (talk) 20:25, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

@Smiley.toerist: Looks like an OLED screen. Could it be the case there?-- Darwin Ahoy! 21:07, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
The glas support is semitransparant. Look at the glass from the blackside. The image is stil visible but weakly. it is clearly projected to the outside for the incoming passengers. Either the information is put on the glasplane directly, or maybe some type of beamer is used. (but than not the usual one)Smiley.toerist (talk) 23:01, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
A translucent OLED screen produces that effect - see here, for instance. I would bet it's some transparent adhesive OLED screen applied over the glass surface. -- Darwin Ahoy! 13:07, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

December 26

Help needed with Template:Wikidata person

This template seems to be assigning an incorrect defaultsort sometimes. For examples, see the entries in Category:People by name that are sorted under a left parenthesis. One of these is Category:Josef Richard Vilímek (1835). That category even has a defaultsort, but it seems to be getting ignored. Please discuss at Template talk:Wikidata person. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:56, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

How to upload highest quality video screen grabs?

Hi! I've been uploading some screen grabs from CC-BY-3.0 videos. My method so far has been to simply expand the viewer to full screen, pause at the correct time, take a screen shot on my laptop, and crop/edit as needed. Thus, my uploads appear to be limited to around 1,366 × 768 at full screen (e.g. File:Horatio Sanz on Behind The Velvet Rope TV.jpg and File:Ian Roberts UCB 00.44.jpg). However, others have uploaded higher resolution images (see File:Aidy Bryant.png and File:Vanessa Bayer at LOL for LLS.jpg). Is there a way to extract/download the "raw" or original file resolution, such that screen grabs are uploaded with minimal distortion, or am I limited to the dimensions of my laptop? Thanks. Animalparty (talk) 19:22, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes. I'd download them using youtube-dl and use mplayer to dump the correct segment to JPEGs. I'm a Linux geek, so that's probably not much help; what platform you're using would help us to at least know what type of tools we should be looking at.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:33, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes: Thanks for the tips. I'm using Windows 7, and Gimp for raster image editing. Animalparty (talk) 01:03, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Is {{own}} now required?

I have never liked {{Own}} and have systematically avoided it on my images, partly because I've found it tends to result in messed-up credits when people do derivative images, partly because I simply prefer to be overt and indicate myself explicitly as the source. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Seattle_-_Barges_at_Pier_2_-_01.jpg is one of several recent examples where a bot is imposing {{Own}} on my images. Is Own work now required? If not, a bot should not be making changes to something that ought to be the uploader/photographers option. If so, I may need to reconsider how I do my uploads and use an explicit template that will not get this sort of bot treatment, including retroactively. However, because I have over 40,000 photos of my own here on Commons, I would be loathe to take the time to do that at the expense of other work here. - Jmabel ! talk 17:08, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

@Aschroet: Stop these changes please, there is no consensus for them. Thanks -- (talk) 17:35, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Given that Fæ's remark here confirms my own prior understanding, I have taken the liberty of rolling these back. - Jmabel ! talk 17:50, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
@Aschroet: In the day since this request, the account ArndBot (talk · contribs) continued to make the same edits User:ArndBot/Jobs. If there is no response here, it must be concluded that the bot account is operating in a rogue and unaccountable fashion and I will be forced to ask that it is blocked. The bot scope includes "many other minor cleanups", no change that has been contested can be considered non-controversial nor minor, so these edits are out of the agreed scope for this bot.
@Krd: FYI, per Commons:Bots/Requests/ArndBot.
Thanks -- (talk) 17:51, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
I have notified the user. I have no strong opinion on the edits itself, but it's the users responsibility to discuss this with the community before eventually continuing the edits. Bot owners should be available to talk when the edits of their bot are contested. Jcb (talk) 18:00, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
I agree that the mentioned edit is nonsense and should not be done. There are cases where Own simply doesn't fit even if it seems to, and not least it would be up to the uploader to decide how it shall look like, when there are two equal variants. --Krd 18:04, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
I noticed that this bot has an emergency brake, see User:ArndBot/Stop, which I triggered. Jcb (talk) 18:06, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Jmabel, I understand the urge to be different, but {{Information}} clearly lists the expected content of that field. It would be nice if we all try to use standard way of tagging images as "own work" --Jarekt (talk) 21:44, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

  • I'm perfectly willing to have {{Own}} added, but not to have it replace. I tried using it a while back and found it was resulting in a lot of misattribution on reuse of my images. (attributed as "Wikimedia Commons" or "Jmabel" rather than to my actual name, "Joe Mabel"). - Jmabel ! talk 01:51, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
  • It's not "nice", it's bureaucratic and officious. -- (talk) 11:01, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I stopped the bot and will not add {{Own}} anymore. However, i wonder why some users have other approaches than the template description describes and than the vast majority of the uploads are using. --ArndBot (talk) 23:06, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

  • @ArndBot: I explained above why I have a different approach: I found that using {{Own}} led to far more misattribution when my work is reused outside of WMF projects. If {{Own}} were adapted (like {{Self}} with an "author" argument so that I could be clear as to my correct attribution (which is not my Wiki account name) I'd be glad to use it. - Jmabel ! talk 00:58, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Dutch National Archives upload

I am currently uploading tens of thousands public domain photographs of Dutch National Archives / Anefo Photo Press Agency. See also http://www.gahetna.nl/en It will take a while for me to do this. Suggestions are always welcome.
Assistance with categorising is appreciated.
Regards, Mr.Nostalgic (talk) 16:53, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

As long as the licenses are right and not sitting uncategorized i'll smile. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 19:12, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
@Mr.Nostalgic: I did the pilot upload. Nice to see the rest coming in too. Improvements:
  • "Nationaal Archief" is not the author, you should put the photographer in there ([22])
  • The photos are not categorized (no topic categories) making it very hard to find them. You should at least add broad categories that people can sort out.
Multichill (talk) 21:20, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
I will try to do my best in catagorizing them, but its hard, so i am planning to do that while the uploads are continueing. I will also try to adjust the program for the part of the authorship.
Problem with Author solved! Regards, Mr.Nostalgic (talk) 13:47, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
i see you are using template:information and dumping metadata in description field. please consider using commons:pattypan where you can manipulate metadata in spreadsheet with template:photograph, which would allow an institution field, accession number, and photographer field. here is an example of photograph template File:De-waxing plant at Mid-Continent refinery, Tulsa, Okla.1a35445v.jpg, or File:105 MSS P 24 B1 F6.jpg -- cheers. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 20:27, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Ambrose Burnside - Flickr - GregTheBusker.jpg

Can anyone tell what is going on here well enough to add categories? Possibly a Civil War reenactor, possibly not. Location indicates the office buildings (or maybe a plaza) south of Union Station in Seattle; the International District transit station is right there underground, too, but I doubt this was taken down there. Anyway, the only category currently on it, Category:Seattle, is pretty useless. - Jmabel ! talk 20:50, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Busker suggests he would belong in Street performers in the United States, and yes, I guess Reenactors (a cat in sore need of diffusion).—Odysseus1479 (talk) 22:31, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
But "Greg" being the Flickr uploader's first name, I suspect that is just his self-identification as photographer, not anything about the subject. - Jmabel ! talk 00:50, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
As I suspected: File:Bed Room Loft 1 - Flickr - GregTheBusker.jpg. So that tells us nothing about the subject of the photo. - Jmabel ! talk 03:12, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

December 28

400 Bad request

I am trying to upload a new version of my work File:Nias_peta_topografi-id.svg but it always ends up in "400 Bad Request" error message with the new version never uploaded. Can anyone help me on this? Sersan Mayor Kururu (talk) 03:12, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Never mind, fixed it. It was my browser's cookies problem. Sersan Mayor Kururu (talk) 16:03, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Fritz Leopold Hennig

four images of works by Fritz Leopold Hennig (died 1951) are listed (manually) at Category:Undelete in 2022, but have not been deleted, and have an OTRS ticket. Can someone check and clean up, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:58, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

@Neozoon:, who added the OTRS template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:59, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Wttv dt2 wttk dt2 cw.png

Tried to put moved files from en.wikipedia and found out source link was blacklisted. --John123521 (talk) 03:52, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

@John123521: Sorry, please see Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Globally blacklisted files.wordpress.com.   — Jeff G. ツ ping or talk 04:43, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Rail transport electrification maps

I have added a new Category:Rail transport electrification maps. There must be more of these kind of maps. Few off the elektrification articles have illustrations however.Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:20, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

December 30

Atlas of Living Australia distribution maps

Inspired by this I want to add distribution maps to a number of plant articles in Wikipedia. I have uploaded this to Commons (and the article about Melaleuca acacioides in Wikipedia). The source of these maps is the Atlas of Living Australia which has the note "This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia License". However this note does not show on their map page or on my upload. I would appreciate advice on whether I have attributed the source of my upload correctly. Many thanks for your work. Gderrin (talk) 23:41, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

@Gderrin: The source seems reasonable, though it's a pity it doesn't get the correct background mapping. The correct license tag for "Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia License" is {{Cc-by-3.0-au}}, and I think that's the default license for ALA map data (see the Terms of Use). I've updated your file to have that tag. You should probably export and upload maps as PNG rather the JPEG though: JPEG gives rather ugly artefacts on this kind of map. --bjh21 (talk) 17:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for that - much appreciated. Gderrin (talk) 19:34, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

December 27

Tool to find unused images

Is there a tool to list images uploaded by an user that have not been used? (Kind of the reverse of Glamorous) Shyamal L. (talk) 08:37, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

  • I would use that too. --- [Tycho] talk 23:26, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
I discovered that the gallery tool has an option to show usage as a red box on the corner but you need to click the "?" once - https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:MyGallery&withJS=MediaWiki:JSONListUploads.js&gUser=USERNAME Shyamal L. (talk) 11:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Submitted Pics

I have submitted some pictures and user Sixflashphoto seems to not like them, they were submitted according to the theme of whatever page they would belong on and the quality seems to be on par with other photos found in the sets, how do I get ahold of this Sixflashphoto fella and ask him why his opinion even matters?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by AScodilli (talk • contribs) 23:05, 26 December 2017‎ (UTC)
To save anybody looking, AScodilli's selfie dick pics have been nominated for deletion as "Out of scope: no one cares, low quality, only contribution and unlikely to be used in a project.". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:16, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) He has a Talk page. You could ask him there. However, you should be aware of Commons guidelines on such things, i.e. "Commons does not need you to drop your pants and grab a camera". We have much better photographs of much better and more interesting, er, specimens. Meanwhile you could contribute here and see if you can persuade us that we're looking at anything special. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:20, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Everyone's opinion matters to a point. I would simply cite the policies stated above. I must say of all the DR's I file I didn't expect this one to pop up on the village pump this morning but there we go. Thank you to 2 the users who commented above me who directed him (I can tell it is in fact -- a him!) to the correct place to express his disagreement with a DR. Best Regards -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 09:38, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Just the normal reminder about policy, one that I seem to regularly get the saddening experience of getting personally told off by admins who know they are right. DRs are supposed to run for 7 days, not 2 days or 8 minutes. If administrators wish to change policy, then make a proposal and change it, don't just ignore the policies you were elected to follow. Without this there is no reasonable chance for community members with an interest in improving our coverage of these topics to comment. Even where there can be almost no doubt that the photograph fails Commons:Nudity#New_uploads, and yet there is no harassment or misuse, we still have left basic reasons of good governance and community engagement to let these run for 7 days.
As per Andy above, the nomination text was wrong in many ways, and the administrators were wrong to blithely close the DR "as per nomination" without saying exactly why the deletion would be right against policy despite a poor nomination. Specifically:
  1. "we don't care" is not a valid rationale for deletion
  2. "low quality" may be a rationale, but only if explained in the context of the relevant policy
  3. "only contribution" is seriously wrong
  4. "unlikely to be used in a project" is disturbingly wrong, as many contributors to Commons misunderstand project scope in this way
@Ruthven: You closed the first DR and deleted images in 8 minutes after it was created. Why?
I was patrolling the new uploads and was about to speedy delete the files for COM:PENIS (or Butts), when I saw the DR and decided that it was easier to close the DR because 1) files are clearly out of scope, 2) to leave a track of the kind of files this users uploads to rejoice us. --Ruthven (msg) 19:51, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
@Ruthven: I understand the circumstances, and it is obvious to any reader of this thread that these words do not recognize that the action was wrong. The use of admin tools in this way is against policy. Either administrators comply with policy, or they should be held to account. Based on this projects' past cases of removing sysop tools from administrators that are not prepared to comply with deletion policy, I recommend a New Year's resolution to examine the detail of the Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion official policy. There is nothing in our policies that allows an administrator to close a procedurally correct DR 8 minutes after creation, and delete files out of process just because they are likely to be failures against the Commons:Nudity official guidelines.
It would be tiresome for all of us to have to revisit DR histories in 2018 in order to force a change in behaviour when it is written into the fundamental role of administrator. You are a smart person, please take this on board.
Thanks -- (talk) 13:15, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Consider as well that, more than out of scope for nudity (but we have images here of better quality and of nicer asses), it appeared also a vandalism to me. As it was said, the images were both of bad quality, and clearly a bad taste show of exhibitionism. --Ruthven (msg) 15:17, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
The community granted you the privilege of holding sysop rights in 2016. Unfortunately your RFA nomination was by the now blocked INeverCry, and being a popularity vote, nobody bothered to ask you questions about whether you would follow policies correctly or not, in fact nobody asked you any questions. Given your answers here, I think that was a missed opportunity.
Per COM:Administrators you have no choice but to follow policy and guidelines correctly unless you can credibly explain your actions, or ask for your rights to be removed. The uploads were not vandalism, nobody has made that allegation against the uploader in this case. The statements you have made here demonstrate you have difficulty following deletion policy for images with nudity. Sysop tools have been used in this case in a subjective way based on personal opinions rather than demonstrable fact and policy. No administrator should be using the tools to force their personal opinions about "bad taste" on the project.
If your use of sysop tools in relation to nudity creates further issues, this case will be a useful reference marker to demonstrate a pattern. Hopefully someone interested will ping me or email me so I can put aside some time to analyse what is going on and put together facts for a better community view than another popularity vote.
Thanks -- (talk) 15:36, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
I've always taken the view that Admins should follow policy and guidelines, but there is also precedent to be considered. I'm not so obsessed with dick pics that I zealously watch every DR on such a topic, but if it's an obvious case of images having no hope of surviving because the subject matter doesn't advance the purpose of Commons in particular or the Wikimedia movement in general, then I have no qualms about saying "these pictures are self-aggrandising rather than educational", and deleting them unless the consensus is very obviously in the other direction. Meanwhile, Happy New Year and I think we have better things to do here, and I don't think veiled threats of witch-hunting and desysopping are helpful.. Rodhullandemu (talk) 15:48, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
This is a tempest in a teapot. Process may have been imperfect, but these images had no chance of surviving DR. - Jmabel ! talk 18:24, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
@Sixflashphoto: If you are interested in raising more DRs for nudity related images, please ensure your nominations stick to policy, not personal opinions of right and wrong.
@AScodilli: based on experience there are many Commons regulars that are prepared shoot down "dick pics" on sight, and the advice above is correct, in that educational or cultural value should be shown for the uploaded images. It can be easily argued that varieties of cockrings, piercings, ball stretchers, decorative surgery, etc. have realistic educational value; perhaps you can browse through the most relevant Commons categories and decide for yourself what we are short of... you may have some ideas for the New Year. Thanks -- (talk) 16:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
@: I am choosing to take your previous comment as a good faith reminder to the community. For the record I have raised over 1000 DR's I believe. Nearly all for out of scope personal images and copyvios. Less then about a dozen to my memory have been nudity related imaged. I have nominated both a couple "male" and "female" images. Both for the same reasons: they need to be low quality, we need to have better images, and they don't contribute to EDUSE. as far as my "nudity related" DR's, I have passed over many more simply because they were being used and I didn't want into this fight. I am not crusading over commons with my own personal agenda, I'm going by policy. I am not trying to imply that you were saying I am someone who "shoot down "dick pics" on sight" but grouping me into this conversation where others are pinged for the same accusation when I have nominated at most a dozen where it was so clearly cut that the DR (I'm not talking about the timing to closure, I am referring to my actions in this process) was valid can make someone feel defensive and for good reason. Especially when someone says "not your personal opinions of right and wrong." What did you mean by that? Did you feel I was making DR's based solely on my personal opinions and not policy? When you look at my contribution history I can't tell if you're looking for drama, flippantly making unfounded accusations or just have neglected to do proper research into the situation and have your facts confused. I genuinely don't know. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 16:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
I have struck right and wrong, this really meant personal opinions, like "no one cares". The DR nominations were badly worded and appear to reflect personal views, not policy, expressed in a way that is likely to offend the uploader. I have not examined contribution histories, this would only happen if there was some pattern that justified spending time on it; life's too short. As implied by the previous statement, it is worth reviewing deletion policy for the different types of valid deletion rationale, and avoiding saying more in any nomination apart from technical clarification. Thanks -- (talk) 17:19, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
I do appreciate that. Thank you. And I will be more conscious to use the correct wording for each individual DR's. I agree "we don't care" was flippant and should have been worded more along the lines of "Out of scope" or even COM:PENIS. I have in the past generally avoided nude pictures simply because the controversy isn't worth it to me when there are so many other maintenance tasks to do and I'll try to continue to stay in that lane. Thanks -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 17:31, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
That's a wonderful example to be setting. Cheers, and Happy New Year. Rodhullandemu (talk) 17:46, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Extension:CharInsert

Is there a particular reason that Commons doesn't appear to have Extension:CharInsert available? I use this extensively on other wikis because I find it particularly easy to customise with a <window.charinsertCustom = {...}; entry in personal js. -- Begoon 23:35, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

It is available. Why do you think it's not? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 10:07, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Ah, so it is... I needed to activate "Old Edittools" in preferences-gadgets to get it at the bottom of the window where I'm used to it. I should have looked harder. Thanks. -- Begoon 10:23, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

December 31

Template:KOAL

This is a template that describes the Korean Open Access License for works being uploaded onto Wikimedia Commons. The Korean version of the template is describing KOAL 2.0 Permissive, however the English version of the template is still describing the original license before the introduction of 2.0 license. Would it be a good idea to change the template's English description to reflect the 2.0 license? (Note that translation of the word 허용, as well as other aspects of the licenses, has been previously discussed at Commons:사랑방/2007년.) C933103 (talk) 02:15, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

As far as I can see, English page links v2. Synced en to match ko, and marked for translation. Almost all usage of KOAL was for v2, and v1 without specified version numbers are governed by newer version according to v1 legalcode. (There's no v3 and v2 legalcode specifies v2 without version number are v2 unless otherwise specified, for the record.) — regards, Revi 11:11, 31 December 2017 (UTC)