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.


Artworks of recent artists for Wikiquote

I am placing artist-quotes on Wikiquote and like to make relations between quotes AND images of their art-works. So I place images of their art, at the right side of the quotes-page. Sometimes with a part of a related quote under the image!

But, I can not find many images of recent artists. I need for instance images of the paintings of Max Beckmann, Dali, Gabriele Münter, Otto Dix, George Grosz, Erich Heckel on WikiCommons. Is there somebody who wants to make them? And place them on Commons? kind regards, FotoDutch (talk) 13:00, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

@FotoDutch: The issue here s copyright; works of those artists are almost always still in copyright, and nor are they available under an open licence. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:15, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: A Pity!! No other ways??
— Preceding unsigned comment added by FotoDutch (talk • contribs)
Well, we have: Category:Max Beckmann, Category:Gabriele Münter, Category:Otto Dix, Category:George Grosz and Category:Erich Heckel. --Túrelio (talk) 14:41, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
We also have Salvador_Dalí and its category. This includes some works by him. —Justin (koavf)TCM 00:47, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
@FotoDutch:I have added a title to this topic, feel free to change it if you don't like it. The images you ask for can probably be found on English Wikipedia where they can be uploaded under fair use rationale, typically with a low resolution. I don't know if you can do the same thing on Wikiquote. You may be able to link the quotes with Wikidata, but that doesn't give you the thumbnails you want. If the quote is really relevant, you could add it to the Wikipedia article which could have the image included as fair use. - Alexis Jazz 18:15, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
@Túrelio: The Categories are there, indeed... with many grave-stones, house-facades etc.. and very little or none pictures of their art. See yourself.FotoDutch (talk) 18:55, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: Thanks for adding a title. Wikiquote has much more strict rules than Wikipedia has. I don't know why. On Wikiquote it is only allowed to use Commons-pictures.FotoDutch (talk) 18:55, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
@FotoDutch: The same is true of Simple English Wikipedia. :(   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 01:20, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

February 01

Two ongoing deletion discussions for one image file

There are two discussions ongoing relating to the deletion of the image file File:20170314 155712 Kristina Pimenova 384x512.jpg. One discussion is for the image itself, the other for its talk page:

This is causing the !votes to be fragmented across the two. Can an admin address this? I'm much more active on English Wikipedia than on Commons and am uncertain of how to proceed other than flagging it as I am here. TJRC (talk) 01:27, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Dealt with. - Jmabel ! talk 05:14, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
    • I know that this section is resolved, but may I remind "the community"that deletion requests aren't votes, even if 100 people "vote" keep for a copyrighted image that image should still be deleted, and if 100 people vote "delete" based on a false copyright claim and a single keep "voter" notes that then the image should be kept, deletion requests aren't elections and shouldn't be treated as such. --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) ("The Chinese Coin Troll" 👿) (Articles 📚) 09:22, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
      • Donald Trung, agreed; hence my use of "!vote" rather than "vote". TJRC (talk) 17:33, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Jmabel ! talk 05:14, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Blog post on GLAMs, Commons, and Structured Data


There's a new Wikimedia blog post up, "What galleries, libraries, archives, and museums can teach us about multimedia metadata on Wikimedia Commons.". The post contains insights learned from research with GLAM institutions about challenges that exist without structured metadata, and how the situation can be improved. It's interesting reading, I recommend giving it a look. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 22:55, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

For those wanting to cut to the chase, the blog post is essentially a trail for m:Research:Supporting_Commons_contribution_by_GLAM_institutions, that people may have already seen, posted a couple of weeks ago. The collation/summary of the GLAM views is under "Research themes" -- be sure to click through to the actual breakout page for each section. From this, the team identified some observations, challenges, and recommendations, presented at "Key findings". Jheald (talk) 18:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
TBH, I looked through the blog post when it was mentioned on an email list, and I thought its title over-promised. Posts about project progress are fine, but they are better billed for what they are. Thanks -- (talk) 15:34, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

January 31

Seasoned wiki warriors

I don’t have a prejudice against people ejected from other wikis. But I found evidences of certain grossly uncollaborative attitudes and a considerable effort to whitewash own user_talk when examined contribs of one of Commons users. All within the last four months.

Should I simply leave this user alone with their ruined reputation, or some positive undertakings are warranted? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:42, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

It is impossible to answer unless you provide more specific information. Ruslik (talk) 20:27, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Krzysztof Machocki, RIP

Krzysztof in 2014

I must sadly relay the news that my friend, our fellow Wikimedian Krzysztof Machocki, User:Halibutt, died on 31 January, 2018, aged 36, after a couple of weeks of illness. Messages of condolence may be left at pl:Wikipedysta:Halibutt/Księga. Our projects will be poorer for his loss. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:45, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

February 02


Cat-a-lot doesn't work... Isn't it? --DenghiùComm (talk) 21:19, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

@DenghiùComm: should now be fixed, thanks to @Perhelion:. Mike Peel (talk) 21:55, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you very much. --DenghiùComm (talk) 07:52, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: -- User: Perhelion 22:28, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Over 10,000 hi-quality, PD images from the LOC

Example 1876 poster, the USA as a "porcineograph" in the LoC PGA collection.

Popular Graphic Arts. —Justin (koavf)TCM 08:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

@Koavf:, I presume there is no "bulk download" option? Artix Kreiger (talk) 14:21, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
I have a script for loc, I'll take a look next week. -- (talk) 15:40, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
@: Thanks! —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:52, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

@Koavf: These will be appearing (slowly) at Category:Popular Graphic Arts, with no other categorization. Do pick out the interesting ones and add some categories. However due to changes on the LOC servers, I am unable to get SHA1 duplicate checking to work properly as I get 403 errors. I'm carrying on with the upload on the presumption that nobody else has done a mass upload for this LOC project, it's a bit naughty but I want to ignore standard errors that get flagged by uploading jpegs and TIFFs with the same filename. If this leads to any unnecessary duplication, hopefully someone will waive a red flag and I'll look at the error traps in more detail. Thanks -- (talk) 11:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll poke thru a few. —Justin (koavf)TCM 17:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
File:Friendship love and truth LCCN2001699760.jpg is the same as the first-uploaded version of File:Friendship love and truth.jpg... -- AnonMoos (talk) 10:37, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
@AnonMoos: Thanks for highlighting the image. It's a duplicate of sorts and can probably be marked as such. I'm probably not going to fix this issue specifically, however there is a second pass over PGA files to upgrade to higher resolution images where possible, this might change this particular image. I have also had to rewrite how the metadata is generated, refer to the project page for details.
Update This file has now been overwritten as an automatic update, and the TIFF version has also been significantly updated here. As the jpeg is the official LOC copy, while the larger alternate jpeg was user generated, we probably should keep both versions and cross link them. -- (talk) 11:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
OK, it was superseded as of January 16th, but no longer superseded as of Feberuary 3rd, so I removed the tag (no problem with that). The other one should still generally be used on Wikipedia and other projects, though... -- AnonMoos (talk) 13:44, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

January 15

Artworks of recent artists for Wikiquote

I am placing artist-quotes on Wikiquote and like to make relations between quotes AND images of their art-works. So I place images of their art, at the right side of the quotes-page. Sometimes with a part of a related quote under the image!

But, I can not find many images of recent artists. I need for instance images of the paintings of Max Beckmann, Dali, Gabriele Münter, Otto Dix, George Grosz, Erich Heckel on WikiCommons. Is there somebody who wants to make them? And place them on Commons? kind regards, FotoDutch (talk) 13:00, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

@FotoDutch: The issue here s copyright; works of those artists are almost always still in copyright, and nor are they available under an open licence. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:15, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: A Pity!! No other ways??
— Preceding unsigned comment added by FotoDutch (talk • contribs)
Well, we have: Category:Max Beckmann, Category:Gabriele Münter, Category:Otto Dix, Category:George Grosz and Category:Erich Heckel. --Túrelio (talk) 14:41, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
We also have Salvador_Dalí and its category. This includes some works by him. —Justin (koavf)TCM 00:47, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
@FotoDutch:I have added a title to this topic, feel free to change it if you don't like it. The images you ask for can probably be found on English Wikipedia where they can be uploaded under fair use rationale, typically with a low resolution. I don't know if you can do the same thing on Wikiquote. You may be able to link the quotes with Wikidata, but that doesn't give you the thumbnails you want. If the quote is really relevant, you could add it to the Wikipedia article which could have the image included as fair use. - Alexis Jazz 18:15, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
@Túrelio: The Categories are there, indeed... with many grave-stones, house-facades etc.. and very little or none pictures of their art. See yourself.FotoDutch (talk) 18:55, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: Thanks for adding a title. Wikiquote has much more strict rules than Wikipedia has. I don't know why. On Wikiquote it is only allowed to use Commons-pictures.FotoDutch (talk) 18:55, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
@FotoDutch: The same is true of Simple English Wikipedia. :(   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 01:20, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G.:Good to know! You know the reasons of these differences?
Fair use is complex, and Wikimedia, in its push for w:Free content, prefers to avoid it except in limited case. Using photos in encyclopedias to illustrate the things in the article is considered reasonable; using an illustration in Wikiquote is much more decorative, and generally not considered a necessary use of fair use.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:32, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

FotoDutch, we are lacking images released under copyrights compatible with Commons requirements for a lot of subject, for example photographs of well known people, images related to companies, etc. There is no way around it other than either learning copyright exceptions that allows an image to slip into public domain and matching them with actual photographs (see Commons:Hirtle chart for example) or contacting family or other copyright holders and asking for releasing of some images (see com:OTRS). --Jarekt (talk) 13:03, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

@FotoDutch: in 2009 I worked on an image release of contemporary art, see User:Multichill/WLANL/toestemmingen ing. It was a lot of work and I'm afraid some overzealous admin might have deleted some of them. Multichill (talk) 23:18, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

February 01

WikiProject Numismatics

WikiProject Numismatics

I would like to announce the creation of Commons:WikiProject Numismatics, this WikiProject covers any area in the field of numismatics (including notaphily) and exonumia (think of token coins), anyone is free to join and collaboration is encouraged.

The project is a start-up and anyone may alter the concept(s) of the WikiProject as they wish, if you can add {{User WPNumismatics}} to your user page to raise awareness. Note 📝: I am not 100% familiar as to how to create userboxes so if I failed with this one please correct any parameters. --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) ("The Chinese Coin Troll" 👿) (Articles 📚) 09:06, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Photo challenge December results

Theatre Buildings: EntriesVotesScores
Rank 1 2 3
Title WienOperaFotoThalerTamas Theatro del Lago in Frutillar at Lake Llanquihue with the volcano Osorno. Burgtheater Luftaufnahme
Author Thaler Tamas Ermell Anna Saini
Score 23 18 12
Traditional Professions: EntriesVotesScores
Rank 1 2 3
Title Fisherman on Danube Tannery workers in Morocco (Fez), in their tough task of dyeing
the skins that will turn into beautiful pieces of leather. The
environment is unhealthy and the smell unbearable.
Worker in tannery, Srinagar, India
Author Janusz Recław Fbrandao.1963 Pdobrovsky
Score 30 18 12

Congratulations to Thaler Tamas, Ermell, Anna Saini, Janusz Recław, Fbrandao.1963 and Pdobrovsky -- Jarekt (talk) 04:09, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

February 04

Wikimania 2018 call for submissions now open

On behalf of the program commmittee of Wikimania 2018 - Cape Town, we are pleased to announce that we are now accepting proposals for workshops, discussions, presentations, or research posters to give during the conference. To read the full instructions visit the event wiki and click on the link provided there to make your proposal:

The deadline is 18 March. This is approximately 6 weeks away.
This year, the conference will have an explicit theme based in African philosophy:

Bridging knowledge gaps, the ubuntu way forward.

Read more about this theme, why it was chosen, and what it means for determining the conference program at the Wikimedia blog. Sincerely, Wittylama 08:22, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Misuse of {{Artwork}} and its derivatives

Look at this Summary section ridden with “do not rewrite” warnings – which kind of image do you expect to see above? A 77-years-old photo from U.S. National Archives, right?

IMHO placing these templates on derivatives of historical images (restoration not counted) should be strongly discouraged. And all bluff like “the metadata on this page was imported directly from NARA's catalog record; additional descriptive text may be added by Wikimedians to the template below with the "description=" parameter, but please do not modify the other fields” should be expunged from such File pages on sight. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:12, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Do you have a proposal? -- (talk) 11:29, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
  1. Compile a list of users who ever uploaded a media now bearing {{Artwork}} or its likeness. Via Quarry or similar.
  2. Segregate users who uploaded genuine historical works. By examination of said media.
  3. Warn all “floppers” that they have some time to make repairs in filedesc. Manually if not very numerous, but bots can be employed otherwise.
  4. Nuke all the bluff, taking anything of value under {{Information}}. By bots, likely.
  5. Take some precautions against recurrence.
Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:51, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Template migration might be useful, so long as nothing of value is lost. A SQL script would give the report you want, asking at bot work requests might find you a willing helper. It would be smart to make this non-confrontational, better chance of collegiate work with a spoon of honey. -- (talk) 12:21, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Have you had a closer look at the "incorrectly oriented derivative", specifically the numbers on the trains? The original scan was mirrored for some reason, which can easily happen with slides or large-format photographic plates. The derivative only fixes the error introduced during digitization. It's the "original" files that should be in Category:Flopped images, not the derivatives. --El Grafo (talk) 12:48, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for this observation. After examination of File:Photograph of President Truman and members of his party lounging in the sun on the after deck of his yacht, the... -_NARA_-_199033.jpg I reached the same conclusion. François de Dijon made a good job fixing the mess (compare against e.g. this photo of Rear Admiral Donald J. MacDonald). Should a parameter be included in {{Artwork}} and likenesses to warn a consumer about incorrect orientation? Noone should be compelled to conduct investigations. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:18, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
I think placing {{Original}} e.g. in the notes= field of {{Artwork}} would be sufficient. Parameter 2= of {{Original}} could be used to explain that the "original" has been mirrored during digitization. --El Grafo (talk) 13:48, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
@El Grafo: can you show an example usage? Also, please, see Commons:Flopped, a draft. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:58, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
why don't you have a discussion with the editor you take umbrage with, before fulminating, and warning editors. it is not a functional process of quality improvement. the essay is a start in the right direction. next develop a standard of practice to detect, tag and correct, reversed images. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 23:53, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
It seems to me that a lot of historical images can be found on the internet in flopped and unflopped version. If they are uploaded here we often have no easy way to tell which is which. Occasionally knowing if someone is right handed or left handed can help or looking for any writing, car steering wheels, etc. can help. I think we should assume good faith of commons contributors and assume that nobody is uploading intentionally flopped versions of images. I do not think it is a problem, we should spend much energy on. --Jarekt (talk) 20:22, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
@Jarekt: what, what did you say? Such example as File:PregnantWoman.jpg#filehistory demonstrates that designer’s predilections together with some traces of dickery easily result in intentional uploading of flopped images, moreover, in edit warring over it. And I utterly don’t assume bad faith for it. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 22:29, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
I stand corrected. File:PregnantWoman.jpg#filehistory is bizarre. --Jarekt (talk) 03:44, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
i think it is great you have found some examples of edit warring over orientation. do you have an action plan other than "nuke all the bluff"? Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 14:15, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
@Slowking4: first of all, to obtain community support for definition of Flopped images – they are photographs or similar media with improper orientation. Or, the same, images which underwent a 2D reflection odd number of times. Any thing which underwent a reflection even number of times—see beginning of the topic for example—should be ejected (possibly to a special hidden category, if one wants to track such things). Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:42, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
that's great - now you have a collection of works to put a maintenance category on. you could propose an inclusion criteria, and then start a wikiproject to curate them. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 14:48, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
@Slowking4: do you speak of some existing “maintenance” category, a new one to create, or? Give links and explanations, otherwise your discussion style is tiresome. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:06, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

UK Prime Minister's Flick photostream

Hi everyone, In the official website of the UK Prime Minister Office, it is said that the images are "not normally available for re-use without permission". However, the actual copyright status of images on Flickr , some being under (non-free) CC-licences sur as this one, others under PD-Mark. Just to be sure, according to Template:Flickr-public domain mark, it means only images under CC-by or CC-by-SA can be imported on Commons, and not the ones with a PD-Mark ? Léna (talk) 15:20, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes. -- (talk) 15:56, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
i would not quibble about confusion about licenses on PD items. you can always email the PM # 10 if you want to school them about what license to use. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 17:25, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
I sent a query via the Number 10 website more than two years ago, to confirm their intended copyright status of images being released. Still waiting for a reply. However it may be worth emailing the Flickrstream owner using Flickrmail. -- (talk) 17:28, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
i was afraid of that. there is a general lack of interest in license nuance, which presents the problem of how to interpret. yet another case of PDM where PD is indicated. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 17:35, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Pigeon photos

Hey folks! I work with the Wikimedia Foundation's Communications team. We've embarked on an experiment this week: we put together a blog post and infographic to encourage pigeon photographers to upload their images to Commons. The accompanying social media outreach is heavily focused on Craig Newmark, a long-time donor to the Foundation and a lover of pigeons. As in the past (thanks for your help there, Commons community!), we're deliberately limiting our push so we don't flood Commons with poor-quality photos, and/or make life difficult for anyone here. More information is available in this Wikimedia Blog post, and two of the inforgraphics we're using have been uploaded to Commons (1, 2). If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to respond here or send us an email at digitalmedia Ed Erhart (WMF) (talk) 19:45, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

People are being asked to use Category:Unidentified pigeon breeds if they're not sure of the species; more eyes there would be helpful. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:56, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Ed Erhart (WMF): As in the past, I made the UploadCampaign Campaign:wikipigeon for this. Jean-Fred (talk) 20:36, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-06

20:51, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

February 06

Category name

I created Category:Photos from by Hamed Malekpour. But now I'm not sure this is the right name. Maybe "Photos from Hamed Malekpour" would be better? Or "Photos from Hamed Malekpour for Tasnim news"? Or something else? I suppose it's better to get this right before adding 1000+ images. - Alexis Jazz 06:03, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

The last one sounds the best to me, with the name of the agency rather than the site, although “by” would be better than “from“ there. At any rate I’d avoid using slashes, because they make the names look like sub-pages.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 06:40, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
@Odysseus1479: thanks, I've moved the category to Category:Photos by Hamed Malekpour for Tasnim News Agency. I think it actually was a sub-page. - Alexis Jazz 07:08, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by MissKaB

A deletionist dismisses self-made paintings as merely “heavily edited photographs”. IMHO needs a broader discussion. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 22:08, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Kostomlaty_nad_Labem_nádraží_2018.jpg surely isn't just a self-made painting. File:Obecní_dům_at_night_2018.jpg is clearly based on [11] (people standing in the same places) which is "© 2011 by pingallery" but not credited in any way. Even if they were fully original, it wouldn't matter for Commons because @MissKaB: is not a well known artist. Making these out of scope.
File:TGM_statue_poděbrady_park.jpg is an odd one. (this is not on the nomination list btw) The stated date is 3 february 2018. (same as the upload date) I wonder how likely it is someone is walking around with a LG KP130 in 2018. - Alexis Jazz 23:30, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Renaming files

An editor is requesting (and the kind volunteers are responding to the requests) the addition to file names of the words "on London to Brighton VCR xxxx". It seems to me to be wholly unnecessary. I noticed one case where a renaming request was refused. I don't think the kind being requested should be accepted. Perhaps this is a good faith misunderstanding by the editor concerned. Only harm done is more work for the file renamers. Eddaido (talk) 23:55, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

This particular renaming also drops the unique Flickr number which is very useful indeed to avoid uploading duplicates. Eddaido (talk) 00:59, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

February 07

Would small Wikidata-enabled infoboxes be useful on category pages?

Upload media
Instance of monument
LocationVale do Anhangabaú, Central Zone of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil
Located at street address
  • Parque do Anhangabaú
Date of official opening
  • 1992
  • 16 m
  • 8 m
23° 32′ 43.3″ S, 46° 38′ 11.62″ W
Authority control
Drusas (en); Drusas (pt-br); Monumento Drusa (pt) monumento na cidade de São Paulo (pt-br); monument au Brésil (fr); Denkmal in Brasilien (de)

I've been testing out a small Wikidata-enabled infobox, like the one on the right for Category:Monumento Drusa, on a few category pages. The aim is to display some basic information about the content of the category, such as the type of thing shown in the category, the location, and a small embedded map - or for people, the date of birth/death and some useful identifiers - in a way that doesn't get in the way, but is there to provide a bit of context if needed. You can see it in action at the categories linked to here - and you can try it out on other categories by adding {{Wikidata Infobox}} . It should work on any category page that has a site link in a Wikidata entry, and it should work natively in any language.

Is this something that would be useful? It's still under construction - suggestions for improvements would be very welcome! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:57, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

They are useful. I'd prefer a horizontal template instead of a vertical one (for obvious reasons aka wasting empty spaces). We already have, as far as I know, {{wikidata person}}, {{wikidata place}},... Probably it would be cool integrating those ones into a single wikidata template (maybe two, even three, but no more). strakhov (talk) 21:08, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi Strakhov, I find horizontal templates getting too much in the way of the images on the category, which is the main purpose of categories, and the main reason we use them. There are cases where you have a pile of them, cluttering the category, and forcing you to page down to see what is there, which I find not nice at all. A vertical template on the corner, like this one, does not steals much space and it's not too intrusive, it's to the side, so you can immediately start seeing what actually is in the category. I find this kind of template very useful as a guide, especially if it's discrete and non intrusive. If it could integrate with some of the horizontal templates we already have here, as you suggested, it would be even better.-- Darwin Ahoy! 21:30, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi, DarwIn. I do not get what you mean with "intrusive". I open the category and I see, in my computer, an enormous empty space with this template at the right side. Then, if (only if) I scroll with the mouse wheel, I see "images". That's intrusive to me. strakhov (talk) 21:40, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Maybe it's related with having a Reasonator gadget activated showing a link to the wikidata item, because in the very first milliseconds of pageload, it's OK. Then, when category is fully loaded, it appears the problem I described. strakhov (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Yeep, it's that. This script enters in conflict with {{Wikidata Infobox}} template. strakhov (talk) 21:51, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
@Strakhov: Ouch, that's not a nice conflict. this edit would fix it - @Jheald: would you consider making that edit in the gadget please? I didn't know about the existence of the other templates, thanks for pointing them out, and I'll look into integrating their functionality into this template (it should be possible, but there's some complexities like auto-categorisation that I need to look into). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:59, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
@Mike Peel, Strakhov: Done. Nice fix -- it actually now makes it look better on regular categories even without infoboxes, I think. Thanks! Jheald (talk) 21:51, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Maybe the Reasonator link could be included at the foot of the infobox? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:27, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: Reasonator's now included. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:03, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. And what about Scholia? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:55, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
I can't see the relevance of lists of publications to a media repository - can you make the case for its inclusion please? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:22, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
There's much more to Scholia than that; it has page-types for people, taxa, journals, publishers, funders, (other) organisations, awards, chemicals, diseases, and more. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:29, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: OK, how do I call it with a given QID? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:54, 29 January 2018 (UTC) - it will magically determine the correct page-type to display. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:26, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: OK, done. Although Category:Plzeň Region seems to break Scholia - see [12]! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:43, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Looks good, but it would be nice to have something to click to make it go away. - Jmabel ! talk 23:36, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
@Jmabel: There are several options for doing that. Do you mean make it go away while on that page, or go away on all pages? Maybe a show/hide link would work, or a css ID that could be set to display:none in user css if desired... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:59, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
"show/hide" is what I had in mind: shrink it to a single line on "hide". - Jmabel ! talk 02:05, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
@Jmabel: I've now added that functionality, how does it look?
Looks good, though I'd have worded it "show/hide". But that's a quibble. - Jmabel ! talk 03:23, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
@Jmabel: Aah, I figured out how to do that in a multilingual way, so I've now changed it to use show/hide. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:07, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
BTW I also designed such a thing which already has some (very limited) service. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 21:10, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
@Incnis Mrsi: Nice! Would it be useful to merge that in with this one, or would it be better to keep them separate? Watercourses are kinda tricky when it comes to coordinates... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:05, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
IMHO nothing can be gained from actually merging (with #REDIRECT, eh?) templates for very different classes of objects. But a united guideline for usage of navboxes (syntax of parameters, relation to {{Interwiki from Wikidata}}, etc.) will be beneficial, and some specific design solutions can be ported and shared. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 22:12, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
This is good idea. some minor comments:
  • If this template is to be used in categories of files, consider to remove the image from the template itself to it make smaller (the image shown in the template would probably appear also in the category itself), and consume less space.
  • The wikitext code generates empty space because of #if - see in Category:Lovell Telescope with "Country" where there is br following UK.
Eran (talk) 21:49, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
@ערן: Thanks for the comments! On the first, I'm not sure: I included it as it might be useful to see the 'best' image in the category - or if not the best, then the one that's shown in Wikidata-enabled infoboxes elsewhere (which might encourage changing that image for a better one). Or if no image is available, then one can be added. But you're right it does take up space, and it is likely to be repeated. What do others think?
On the second, to be honest, I'm not entirely sure how to fix this. If I comment out the linebreak before the #if statement, then the table row break doesn't work. If you can figure out a way to fix this, please implement it (or try it out in the sandbox). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:05, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
I say keep the picture. Good to see what wikidata has; good opportunity to replace it if it's no longer the best choice. - Jmabel ! talk 02:07, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
I like this very much! Please can we make it display the Wikidata QID? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:20, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Also, it doesn't work on Category:Pica pica, presumably because d:Q25307 is associated with Pica pica. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:25, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: Thanks! It should be multilingual by design, please let me know if anything isn't multilingual. Where would you like the QID to be shown? I'll look into the Pica pica problem. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:29, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, I think we ec'd! I'd put the QID in a table row, probably underneath the "creator" row in the above example, with the label "Wikidata", linking that label to Commons:Wikidata. BTW, see Category:Synalpheus pinkfloydi for a minor layout clash with {{Taxonavigation}}. Category:Eric Ravilious shows a comparison - and redundancy - with {{Creator}}. better handling of cases where Wikidata has no images would be good; that case is sometimes legitimate, for example where we have an empty category for an artist, with sub-categories for their work. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:40, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: Handling of no image available should be better now. With the taxonavigation clash, I think the easiest thing to do is to put this template second; it's either that or ask an admin to remove "<div style="clear:both"></div>" from the taxonavigation template. On QIDs, I've been thinking about this and I'm not sure it helps to display the ID, as it's just a number that doesn't mean much to readers/editors and takes up space - for the same reason the template doesn't show VIAF numbers and so on. With the creator template, I was thinking it would be one or the other - or is it desirable to show both, and if so do we need to remove the redundancy in those cases? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:02, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
If we don't display QIDs, then this template cannot replace {{Wikidata}}, such as at Category:Twi. I've never had anyone complain about the display of a QID in that template. I'm ambivalent about the use of an infobox alongside creator. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:33, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: The link to Wikidata is shown at the bottom, I just can't see the benefit of showing the QID as well, since apart from a few cases (e.g. Q42) the number doesn't mean anything, so I can't see the added benefit. Can you make the case for its inclusion, please? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:22, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
I thought I had; It will obviate the need to also include {{Wikidata}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:29, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: OK, now added, and I'm also showing the ID numbers for other IDs, but in the hidden suggestion suggested by John below. How does that look? If anyone has an objection to showing the numbers, please say so! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:05, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: On Pica pica, there's several possible solutions here. One would be to change the sitelink from the gallery to the category. Another would be to create a Wikidata category item and use P301 to link through to the main topic (this template will follow that through). Or you can manually specify a QID if absolutely needed, but I tend to think it's better to keep the solution on Wikidata if possible. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk)
@Mike Peel: Just wondering, can the template follow a sitelink and then a category's main topic (P301), if the sitelink is to a wikidata category-type item, rather than an article-type item? Jheald (talk) 23:47, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
My internet connection has died, and I can't reply much on mobile. But it should follow P301 already. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 00:01, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
@Jheald: The simple answer is yes, an example in action was at [13] (although @Gbarta: has since removed it, I'm not sure why). It also auto-includes {{Interwiki from wikidata}} in cases like that. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:23, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I like this, I like User:Rama's job too with User:Rama/Catdef, example used in Category:Jar depicting combat-ETHAM 036790 Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:55, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
    @Christian Ferrer: Nice - but that's huge! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:08, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
    User:Rama/Catdef is a Wikidata-based implementation of {{Category definition: Object}}, which is 1) aimed at categories about specific objects (all images in the category are of the same object) and 2) used in conjunction with {{Object photo}} to split object-specific and photograph-specific information in file descriptions. It is not quite the purpose you have in mind to enrich categories, I think. Rama (talk) 10:44, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Super stuff Mike, would it be possible to display the interwiki links for that language only? e.g if I'm in English it only shows me the links for English Wikipedia, English Wikivoyage etc? One thing that may be useful is to display any external IDs in a collapsable (and collapsed by default) section, this would provide links between content on Wikimedia Commons with knowledge of the subject on other websites. Please keep it up :) John Cummings (talk) 10:01, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
    @John Cummings: I'll have to investigate the interwiki links. The external IDs are now in a default-collapsed section - how does that look? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:05, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
    @John Cummings: I've removed the default-collapse thing as @Pigsonthewing: objected to it, please discuss which way looks better! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:43, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
    @Mike Peel:, thanks very much, how do I see the different options? John Cummings (talk) 11:11, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
    @John Cummings: For uncollapsed vs collapsed, just try pressing show/hide next to 'authority control'. ;-) It's easy to make either the default. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
    @John Cummings: The infobox now displays interwiki links for the language in use. These don't seem to be completely straightforward here, so please let me know if you spot any errors, or if you know of any better way to do them! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:42, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
  • @Mike Peel:, really great, looks good and works for every category I tried. I found a small bug, if I have my language set to a British dialect e.g British English then the articles don't show up e.g Category:Prague. John Cummings (talk) 13:47, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
    I'm not sure how to solve that one at the moment, apart from switching to 'English' rather than 'British English'. Sorry! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:08, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
    @Mike Peel: You could use {{#invoke:string|sub|{{Int:Lang}}|1|2}} which gives en regardless of dialect. --RexxS (talk) 19:12, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
    @John Cummings: @RexxS: came up with a good solution here, at {{BaseLang}}, that is now implemented in the infobox. So hopefully this bug is now fixed. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:43, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
    @Mike Peel:, @RexxS:, great, very glad you guys are able to do this stuff. John Cummings (talk) 14:50, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

There's a bug in the instance on Category:South Staffordshire Tramway Generating Station, perhaps because the Wikidata item has two images? On the same page, it can also bee seen that the {{Object location dec}} template could be rendered redundant if its contents were included in the infobox. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:54, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: Fixed, by fetching a maximum of 1 image. I've re-ordered the templates to avoid the whitespace issue - do all horizontal templates here insist on using clearing linebreaks..? I hate to say it, but I think the question with the location template again comes down to 'do we want to show the number?' - the functionality's already available by clicking on expand icon in the map. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:35, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks, great work. I'm not OK with always showing the Scholia link, even if empty (as it happens in most potential uses): Showing project links (wikisource, wikiquote as such) when they exist would be way more useful. Wrt authority control links I'm not OK with linking only "VIAF / LoC / GND" and combinations as such because of systemic bias. Maybe "only Wikidata" or "only Wikidata + VIAF" would be OK enough. If not, maybe a more-generous-collapsed-by-default-approach should be considered. strakhov (talk) 11:23, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
@Strakhov: Which aspect(s) of this alleged systemic bias led you to oppose 'linking only "VIAF / LoC / GND" and combinations as such'? If there are other authority control links you would like to use, are they in Wikidata? If not, why?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:37, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Do I really need to list you every authority identifier existing right now in Wikidata as a property? Do I really need to explain how biased towards English and German Language is only including for people the VIAF + LoC + GND" combination? strakhov (talk) 11:52, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
@Strakhov: I'm hoping @Pigsonthewing: can answer about Scholia and the collapsed-by-default bit. I've been steadily adding more IDs, e.g. see the example one in this discussion that includes a Brazil-specific ID. I will look into adding the project links soon - I'm not sure how to code them up yet, otherwise they'd be there already. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
@Strakhov: E.g., Category:Tower of Baño de la Cava now includes Bien de Interés Cultural (BIC) code (P808). I'm happy to add more, although I might need to find a more optimised way of checking these at some point. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:46, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. There is an enormous quantity of identifiers and the not-collapsed-view is a no go in the end. IMHO keeping a reasonably short box is important. strakhov (talk) 11:52, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
The "not-collapsed-view" is most definitely not a "no go". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:31, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Could you say why is a "yes-go"? A vertical column with endless numbers and codes is not aesthetically viable. strakhov (talk) 13:48, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Why are you asking me to defend something I didn't say? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:18, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
We're rapidly getting into Bikeshed territory. I suggest we decide what we want this template to do, rather than what specific data fields we want to include. For example, do we want to replace some or all of {{Wikidata}}, {{Authority control}}, {{Object location dec}}, and the Reasonator sister-link box? Or keep them? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:31, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
I'd suggest removing the identifier part from {{Wikidata Infobox}} and keeping {{authority control}} (or "external links") as an horizontal bar. And drop the rest. strakhov (talk) 13:48, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Great idea but needs a few changes. Just tried it on 'Wales' (of course! ;-) and it says that Wales is an "instance of Countries" (!), and located in (amongst others) the "Kingdom of England"! I suggest we just add "suppressfields =" as is usually on cy-WP and others so that this kind of stuff doesn't appear. The Wikishootme also gives a pocket full of places in the center of Wales. But I think it will be a really valuable addition, when it's refined a little. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 16:20, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

@Llywelyn2000: I've made a slight tweak that fixes most of the location issue - if you set values as preferred on Wikidata, then it now uses those instead of all values. Hopefully that functionality also helps in other parts as well. The code can support suppressfields, but I'd rather not use that unless it's absolutely needed - it's better to improve things on Wikidata instead. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:31, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Mike! It looks much better. UK still down twice though and it would be good to include Europe after UK! Best regards! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 18:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
@Mike Peel, Llywelyn2000: Do be aware that setting values as 'preferred' can be really annoying for people writing queries based on the other values. Query writers almost always use the simple wdt: form of properties in their queries. This only returns values that are top-ranked. That's usually not a problem, because usually normal rank is the top rank, and if deprecated items get ignored then so much the better. But if somebody comes along and sets one of the values to preferred rank, that has the effect on such a value of making all the other values silently disappear -- a rather nasty 'gotcha' that writers of most queries (myself included) will most of the time never even realise they've just been bitten by. So do ask yourself, "is my preferred rank really necessary?" Cheers, Jheald (talk) 22:55, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Maybe Wikidata infoboxes could be either bot-added or automatically linked when instances of Wikimedia Commons categories are added to Wikidata, this way we can see which Wikimedia Commons categories do and don't have an entry on Wikidata, and there has been several proposals to add Wikimedia Commons categories to the Wikidata "Notability" policy, so this could eventually help with structuring Wikimedia Commons. --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) ("The Chinese Coin Troll" 👿) (Articles 📚) 12:05, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

@Donald Trung: Definitely - I would like to see this happen, and I've been thinking through some ways to do this in the longer term. One thing I've been finding is that there are a lot of interwikis here, or commons category links on Wikipedias, that it would be good to migrate to Wikidata automatically at some point, and something that copies P373 to a commons sitelink might be useful too (Dexbot already does the reverse). There's a lot of potential here, but it needs some thinking through / planning on what order to do things in. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 12:32, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, @Mike Peel: It looks great. Several months ago I proposed a new feature in es.wikipedia for "infobox building": Adding a buttom to switch between "normal image" (P18) and "night view" (P3451). It somehow didn't flourish, probably due to a lack of technical hands at that moment. P3451 has been an underused property in Wikidata so far, but I see potential here in Commons and IMHO this template using that property would be cool. What do you think? strakhov (talk) 18:13, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

@Strakhov: Sounds interesting. Fetching the image from P3451 is straightforward, but having a switch is more complex. If you can point me to an example of the switching you're thinking of, then I can have a go. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
@Mike Peel: The only switching example I'm aware of around here are fr.wikipedia infoboxes wrt to maps, but I always thought about something more minimalist, even with little "clicking-icons"   &  . strakhov (talk) 18:52, 31 January 2018 (UTC) PS. the words "[default]" / "[night]" would also do the job
@Strakhov: OK, it's possible - see User:Mike Peel/Sandbox2. However, to see it working you'll need to add this to your common.js file - and if we want it to be viewable by all, that needs to be added to commons' default javascript file. So I think this might need a separate discussion on the topic of 'do we want a switchable image template?'. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:54, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
It works awesome. Thanks! Well, maybe it's a too long step, I do not know what other guys will say about this stuff being implemented. Anyway, if possible, I'd put three switches in-a-row instead of the vertical stacking. Thanks again. strakhov (talk) 21:19, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
I've just discovered Commons:Village pump/Proposals! Now that this is a working tool, and given that it's steadily being rolled out to categories by a number of editors (myself included), I'm planning on posting a proposal there to more widely roll it out at some point in the near future. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:43, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

January 28

Cleanup Common.css

It seems there is a general misunderstanding how central CSS works. Every selector rule on this declaration (more or less) slows down the browser. Not only on every page load (which would be alone wasting enough), but on every browser reflow, "Reflowing is very expensive, but unfortunately it can be triggered easily." (short said, every live operation on the layout, which is much more as we expect, e.g. a simple mouse-hover could be). This is also the reason for the new MediaWiki feature: mw:Extension:TemplateStyles (which become deployed soon to all WMF productions).

So concretely: I want to remove all the class garbage (from simply enWP import), the huge amount of mbox/ambox/tmbox/imbox/cmbox/ombox/fmbox/dmbox blocks and finally the prettytable.@TheDJ: The box classes are pointless on Commons because they use simply inline CSS here and also not all templates exist or are used! So these things are pretty clear but nobody cares about it (because recourse wasting is not visible, on Chrome you can make reflows visible with --show-paint-rects). If no objection, I'll go ahead. -- User: Perhelion 12:03, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

@Perhelion: I think that seems wise. Removing things like prettytable seems sane. I would go slow however, and remove things piecemeal. That makes it easier to undo when needed. Ideally, you'll also want to use insource: search to check if a class is in use, before removing it. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 12:41, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Any ideas of what the changes might break, or are these truly redundant? I'm thinking that some users might have custom CSS which created unexpected (or even unwise) dependencies. Even if they are relatively trivial, a staged rollout might help find ways of identifying these in advance. -- (talk) 12:51, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
First I would wait until the extension feature is deployed on Commons (it doesn’t get that clear from your posting). prettytable is still used 641 times today, cf. all: insource:prettytable. This should be probably replaced with wikitable, but could afterwards be deleted. And {{Fmbox}}, {{Mbox}} and {{Tmbox}} do use the classes, as far as I see. Hence the templatestyle css should be created first, then you could delete the rules in Common.css (from my understanding there could even only one style created for all message boxes together, it just needs to be somewhere in template namespace, here below Mbox should be fine). ({{Ambox}} and {{Imbox}} are redirects to Mbox in Commons, {{Cmbox}} is declared as deprecated and uses Mbox in background.). User:Fæ|Fæ]]]]: As long as there is replacement with a template style there should be no difference. The user css should still overrule this, but to be honest I do not know this. — Speravir – 01:06, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Related: {{Notice}} does use class messagebox, also from Common.css. — Speravir – 01:39, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
@prettytable: After 12 years of depreciation, someone with bot-replace knowledge should simply replace the small rest of usage.(like Steinsplitter?)
@messagebox: this class I'm not directly talking about, so we leave these still left, resp. replace all the mbox classes with this (if really needed).
@mbox. I simply inserted the subclasses (mbox-empty-cell, mbox-text, mbox-imageright, also messagebox) by myself Special:Diff/159647363/159697824 only for code cleanup reason.
But if we look closer on this classes, they all can be used only once on each template and also each template is used only once on a page, so there is truly absolutely no reason to put a global class for each (also if they are would be used twice or three times). So we should simply replace them with inline CSS again.
I also don't think that any user uses customization for this classes.
@Extension:TemplateStyles: So in all this has nothing to do with this (it was only an example for methods against resource wasting of CSS).
I opened a similar request 3 years ago (on the Common.css), but no meaningful response/objection came (though pinging the still active inserter). @Speravir, , TheDJ: -- User: Perhelion 21:40, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
It's worth putting these facts in a Phabricator task for later reference. Plus it would be a good way to track issues, in the apparently unlikely event any arise. Thanks for the analysis. -- (talk) 21:42, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Good idea, so this could maybe also used as future task for the EnWP. -- User: Perhelion 21:51, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
OK. I just noticed the messagebox accidentally by short looking into the code. But I also think, if there will a cleanup in action then could be done more – for instance very probably all the infobox rules could be moved into a template style, as well. — Speravir – 23:24, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
I wouldn't get rid of the mbox classes yet. The centralisation of that CSS makes it a lot easier to maintain and much more readable and there is value in that. I'd just wait for template styles to be delivered and then move it. But you can easily get rid of the unused parts of the mbox family. I do think we need to be clear on one thing. While YES, this is adding bytes to every request, with compression and HTTP2, the overhead of some of those lines is rather minimal and the performance impact on reflows too. We have SOO much CSS, that just these few elements are not gonna be what tips the iceberg. TemplateStyles WILL make a big impact and as soon as that lands, we should focus a ton of community effort to rewrite templates and stylesheet additions to make optimal use that. I already used it on the main page of where it has been running for half a year or so now, without a single person noticing it really :) —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 09:34, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Notification when your upload gets used?

Hey there! I myself would like to know when somebody decides to use something I've uploaded and I've seen other people make similar requests. Is there some easy mechanism in place? I think this would encourage people to upload more good quality stuff. (cuz that's what people will use) --Palosirkka (talk) 06:33, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

  • @Palosirkka: There is Commons:MyGallery which will show you your files in use on various Wikimedia projects, and I believe at least one other similar tool. I agree it would be nice to be pinged or notified when an image is used. Animalparty (talk) 00:07, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
  • This sounds like a great idea for a bot request. —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:18, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
  • This has been a frequent request in the past and there already is a ticket on Phabricator for it. Doesn't look like anybody is actively working on it right now, though. --El Grafo (talk) 12:24, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Improvements to Upload Wizard

There has been some discussions on how to improve Wizard Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Is_Commons_broken?. As WC has grown in popularity and Wizard has succeeded in making it easier to upload, it has attracted many newbies that have previously only contributed to Facebook and Twitter etc. They assume that 'copyright' is only something that companies have to concern themselves with and not to individuals like themselves. So, as they are uploading on their own behalf and not as part of an organization they assume their upload is their 'own work'. This creates a lot of work for other editors to do in checking then removing these copyvios. So it is proposed that a modification to Wizzard will help both the WC image checkers and the newbie up-loaders, who often give up when they find all their images keep getting deleted simply because they don't understand how to do it correctly. Therefore, with the help of Alexis Jazz we have made a start at Commons:Upload Wizard proposals. Any suggestions would be most welcome. P.g.champion (talk) 14:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Please invest in a series of amusing 2 minute long educational videos, specifically aimed at Wikimedia Commons newbies and those that are likely to be attracted by upload campaigns. The cartoon intro for the wizard is quite old now, and it is complicated to read through. There is a backlog of informative videos, so the challenge is also to make some of those easier to find when a newbie starts with the wizard. Very short videos, or animations, made attractive enough for a 12 year old to watch to the end, could make a big difference. Off the top of my head: "Choosing the right license", "Is my photograph in-scope", "Respecting privacy", "Where to find help and information". -- (talk) 14:59, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Maybe the intro should be re-worked/modernized, File:Licensing tutorial en.svg. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:12, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
@: @Steinsplitter: Now that you mention it, my proposal (the questions) also replaces most of the cartoon. I'll take another look to make sure everything from the cartoon is covered. The cartoon is really TLDR for new users, it doesn't look like an amusing read (and it isn't, it's just informative) and most people will treat it the same way they treat any ToS: "next". - Alexis Jazz 23:06, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Agree. It is not that WC guidance has in anyway short comings. In fact I think it is very comprehensive. It is that many new up-loaders are so computer literate now, that by-habit-of-repetition on other sites, they don't see the point of having to read WC guidance (aka ToS). They can succeed in uploading without reading it. An improved Wizard will take the 'blinkers' off by getting them to think about WC's requirements for valid contributions. Thus, saving us from deleting their wasted efforts and putting off people that 'want to' contribute -if only they only knew how to do it properly. Some newbie contributors are in the position to get OTRS for good and worthwhile images but having dipped their toe-in-the-water by uploading the easiest first (which are inevitably copyvios), get put off by having all their first efforts deleted – when in their mind- they have clicked all the right boxes. A improved formatted Wizard would save them from this frustration. Think we should step aside from our own frustrations of the constant stream copyvios that are being uploaded via Wizard and concentrate more, on helping the newbie up-loader. A better Wizard would be wizard. P.g.champion (talk) 13:43, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

File rename?

Hi, anybody here to give an advise on whether to rename File:Tiscornia - panoramio.jpg? (#2) I tried to fit it in the correct category, but the filename seems somehow out of scope. Lotje (talk) 14:11, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Etnografiska Museet

There are literally thousands of images of Chinese numismatic charms to be found here, can someone with a bot and an interest in the subject import these? I just sharing the information here as Baomi brought my attention to this museum 🏛. --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) ("The Chinese Coin Troll" 👿) (Articles 📚) 14:46, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Shahi Palace of Sultanate-e-Uzma.jpg

Hi, I'd like some advice please on what to do with File:Shahi Palace of Sultanate-e-Uzma.jpg. It's obivously a mirrored version of the first image on this page. The name and description would first have to be corrected, but then we are still left with such a tiny image that it is hardly usable anymore, while there are plenty to be found in Category:Lahori Gate (Red Fort). --HyperGaruda (talk) 21:30, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

First of all, try to determine which orientation is correct. If the one from, then overwrite boldly – flopped images are considered educationally inferior. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 21:39, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Nevermind that anymore, I just found a proper version here on Commons: File:The Lahore Gate, the Palace, Delhi (5710954051).jpg. Now I can just nominate the other file for deletion as a duplicate. --HyperGaruda (talk) 06:30, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

February 08

How to categorize uncategorized images; talk page suggestion needed.

Hello, When I present Wikimedia in a workshop, I want to demonstrate a light-touch edit, such as adding descriptive text to uncategorized images. The home page invites help, [[14]], saying to add a comment on the talk page. The images do not have talk pages. The Discussion tab is red, as it could be created, but does not exist. Is there a different way to describe the actions to help categorize images? My apologies if I missed the instruction page that explained this. Thank you for your time. --JenniferNM (talk) 06:45, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

@JenniferNM: When a talk page does not exist, you can click the red "Discussion" link and then click "Add topic". When an image is uncategorized, the best thing you can do is to add a category! Go to the bottom of the page and click on the (+) link. An input box will appear. When you start typing, it will make suggestions for possible categories. On User talk:JenniferNM you will find a welcome box that includes links like Commons:First steps. - Alexis Jazz 07:35, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you.--JenniferNM (talk) 07:57, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

February 02

Blacklist filter for artwork overwrites

Example file containing "artwork" in the description, where Faebot could not automatically uncrop the image due to the filter.

I experienced an issue with Faebot being stopped from overwriting files with the word "artwork" in the description, even though I'm the original uploader, and the action was requested is a long term maintenance task. The has been a chat about it on IRC, so notifying here for a wider audience.

The filter is defined at Special:AbuseFilter/176. At the moment any editor uploading from their browser that runs into this blacklist filter can choose to ignore the note and carry on with the overwrite. It's pretty much only automated tasks that halt when they see this error.

This can be fixed in a couple of ways:

  • Bot flagged accounts can be an exception to the filter
  • Users with various rights, like license_reviewer could be added to the exceptions
  • The filter could be changed from a text search for "artwork", and instead be triggered by use of the Artwork template
  • The overwrite filter could be redesigned to be both more specific and cover more cases than "artwork" appearing in the text, for example any image with cross-project usage, in use on several Commons pages, where newbies are overwriting sensitive political maps or photographs of living people

My view is that it would be better to rethink the filter, it's a bit of a bear trap for scripts and our various blacklist filters get in the way quite frequently for batch upload projects (like the filter). As this filter is currently a fuzzy text search, we could do with tightening this blacklist rule, or maybe switching it off if it's not a current problem.

Discussion and suggestions welcome. -- (talk) 20:42, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Note that Zhuyifei1999 has tweaked the filter so that it no longer will affect bots. Platonides (talk) 21:11, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
The filter is for humans, not for bots so it's good that bots are excluded now. Multichill (talk) 21:16, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Any thoughts on making it less fuzzy? A free text search seems, haphazard. -- (talk) 21:35, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
  • All four suggestions above seem to be spot on and are should be implemented, in my opinion. -- Tuválkin 11:39, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
    • The worst offenders were established users. Multichill (talk) 16:26, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
It is/was stopping at least some users. I just found it extremely confusing. I thought I was caught in some strange kind of loop where the file would just be rejected over and over again. It wasn't clear at all it was possible to override the block. - Alexis Jazz 16:35, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Creation date templates

While categorizing this watercolor, I wondered: Is there a dating template akin to {{Taken on}} but intended for generic artworks, not just for photographs? -- Tuválkin 13:29, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

You confused me. An installation can be completed in 2017, its photo can be taken on January 2018, retouched yesterday and uploaded now – that’s why one needs to distinguish “taken on” from creation date and other dates. Which case do you envisage for a watercolor – the date of digitization vs creation date? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:48, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
I'd like to get rid of most of these templates, they are arbitrarily applied and get in the way of analysis. They are not part of an architecture. -- (talk) 16:03, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth, instead of the regular {{Information}} box, you could use {{Artwork}}, where the date field is intended for the artwork's creation date. --HyperGaruda (talk) 16:17, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
@Tuvalkin: Use {{Flickr}}, perhaps, although it’s a similar problem? Green Giant (talk) 17:13, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

February 09

Administrator User:PumpkinSky has engaged in sockpuppetry

It is with great regret that I must inform the community that an administrator User:PumpkinSky has engaged in illicit sockpuppetry.

He has for several years clandestinely operated the sockpuppet account User:HalfGig, which has been used to double vote on a featured picture candidate on 99 96 separate occasions. In some instances, the illicit second vote provided the critical swing.

List of feature picture candidate double votes

Please note that PumpkinSky is an alt for User:Rlevse, who was globally banned and had his administrator bits removed. Nonetheless, this user was able to get his administrator bit back in 2012 without another request for adminship: Commons:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 1#User:PumpkinSky.[15]

The evidence for the sockpuppetry is clear; there is no room for doubt. In case anyone is unclear on the evidence, administrators can check Special:Undelete/File:Ruger American 9mm LR.jpg, where PumpkinSky accidentally provided the signature for HalfGig, and then quickly deleted the file to try to hide his tracks.

In the interest of impartiality, I will not be blocking any accounts or taking part in any discussions about ramifications for this user. I am here simply to provide the evidence to the community and let you all decide how to handle the matter. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:59, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Yet another admin sock... Time for de-adminship? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 03:10, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
you should take this to COM:AN/U - we need a code of conduct, and standard of practice for for admins. it is all about the winning, and not about the enforcing community consensus and norms. when will the admin culture change? Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 03:33, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Totally. 03:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
and who may you be? Artix Kreiger (talk) 04:47, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
For anyone who doesn't get this: click for answer. (also this) No, probably not, I mistook Slowking4's signature for a link. - Alexis Jazz 06:02, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
i love the personal attack. it makes the point of how tonic the discussion is here, i was going to say that i do not object to the socking per se, but the vote stacking, which is an abuse of community consensus. as opposed to working around admin abuse, to get encyclopedic work done. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 13:12, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
And that is exactly the reason why I keep a link to my sockpuppetry in my signature, I saw how User:Carolus got harassed here because of a 7 (seven) year old sockpuppetry block on another project. Anyhow I completely agree with Slowking4 here, sockpuppetry isn't bad per se as I would not object to a person blocked for copyright violations a year ago to return to Wikimedia Commons and not make the same mistakes to become an accepted member of the community (remember that blocks should be preventive, not punitive), but double voting on FI nominations is a different beast entirely. --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) ("The Chinese Coin Troll" 👿) (Articles 📚) 11:02, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Just to make Commons (and Wikipedia) policy really clear. Sockpuppetry is bad per se. It is defined as "improper uses of multiple accounts including attempts to deceive or mislead other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, evade blocks, or otherwise violate community standards and policies". If it is not improper, it isn't sockpuppetry. There are only a very few proper reasons to have multiple accounts, and restrictions on sequential undeclared accounts. Sockpuppetry is at its heart a belief that the rules that others have to play by don't apply to you. That it is acceptable to deceive your companions on the site in order to achieve your end, regardless of what that end is, good or bad. Please have a good read of Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. The community is more important than the content. Some people get this backward, including some who are quite vocal on noticeboards. -- Colin (talk) 15:59, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
thanks for the doctrine. but when admins are giving out perma-blocks for "not following direction" and "leading a class", it is hard to muster much reverence for policy. the quality of my work across all projects stands as a sharp rebuke to admins and their bad blocks. but then i would not expect you to "hear" any criticism of your class. as this case demonstrates, the admin class in general does not value community, but rather power. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 17:47, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: I do not have access to the evidence in this case, but I want to clarify for the record that the Rlevse account was closed at the request of the user, not due to any finding of wrongdoing. (He also has disclosed his previous account openly on his talkpage) This editor is a valuable contributor to the community and I am concerned that he is being unfairly targeted. Montanabw (talk) 04:20, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment. That is 6 out of 99 discussions. First step could be de-moting the images and re-evaluate them. Artix Kreiger (talk) 04:52, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Block logs show the following:
03:07, 4 February 2018 (UTC) PumpkinSky (talk | contribs) blocked PumpkinSky (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (what good would it do to defend myself) (note: emergency desysop would be required to make this permanent)
03:13, 4 February 2018 (UTC) Zhuyifei1999 (talk | contribs) blocked HalfGig (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (Abusing multiple accounts: Special:Permalink/285160421#Administrator_User:PumpkinSky_has_engaged_in_sockpuppetry)
  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 05:10, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment This is just sad. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 05:26, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment Too bad they blocked themselves. Now we will never know why. - Alexis Jazz 06:02, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Procedurally there are benefits to have a desysop vote on record, especially if policy for the conduct or award of sysop tools is to improve. Resigning is not per se a reason to dismiss the vote, especially if the same user may have a clean start. -- (talk) 06:36, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
The user clearly resigned from positions of trust – what for to count votes or arrange enWikipedia-style performances now? Demote fraudulently elected images and move on. I hope Wikimedia admins will be reasonable enough to remove sysop without further drama. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:01, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Now opened a thread at COM:AN/U. --Túrelio (talk) 10:14, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Rlevse & Socks
"Consistently deceiving the community since 2011"

I am rather concerned that PumpkinSky regained Rlevse's admin bit without any community discussion and for the apparent reason that since their crime was not on Commons (it was on Wikipedia) then it did not concern us. Let's be clear, HalfGig is Rlevse's second clandestine sock account, with PumpkinSky the first. Both accounts were created to deceive the community, both accounts started out pretending they were newbies who didn't know their way around [which is rich considering Rlevse was an arbiter, admin on both projects, and highly experienced contributor to both projects].

Rlevse resigned and exercised his "right to vanish" when it was exposed that his Grace Sherwood article had major copyright violation and plagiarism concerns -- and this was only discovered on the day it ran on the main page. It is ironic that Rlevse became an admin on Commons (with just seven support votes), claiming to have good knowlege about copyright. Clearly Rlevse couldn't actually bear to leave but rather than honestly come back, he created PumpkinSky, in violation of the Right to Vanish. I was active on Wikipedia at the time and remember when his deception was uncovered. PumpkinSky went on to cause an awful lot of grief to those who ran the Featured Articles project. My guess is that his name had become so toxic at FA that he decided to create HalfGig in order to have an account that didn't have PumpkinSky's toxic baggage. As HalfGig, he took Curcubita to FA (what is it with pumpkins and this guy?) Once PumpkinSky became active contributing images at Feature Pictures on Commons, he used the HalfGig account to cheat with voting.

Feature Pictures is not just about collecting gold stars, as some might think. There is an active community of photographers who offer advice on improving technique with the camera, what equipment to get, and how to process it afterwards, as well as discussion on what makes a great image. I have learned loads from others at FP and can say it helped me greatly. PumpkinSky was no exception and he went from being a newbie who simply pointed his camera at a pretty flower and went 'click' to someone who could take a featured picture. PumpkinSky asked for and received advice from all of us at FP, myself included, and so this is very hurtful to find out that he is a cheat.

I hope the de-admin is little more than a formality. We don't need cheats at FP, and it appears deception is ingrained with this person. So I don't think he'll be welcome back under any account any time soon. -- Colin (talk) 11:04, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I re-blocked PumpkinSky's account. The blocklog should reflect that he is blocked for severe abuse, not some vague discribed self-block. Natuur12 (talk) 12:33, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
While the double-vote issue should be reprieved and is a clear reason for de-admin, I am not sure whether community block should be indef here. Ankry (talk) 14:07, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
There is no assurance that there are not more sock accounts. Indef just means an unblock request is needed. At least that gives the opportunity to put some questions and expect some answers before unblock is appropriate. -- (talk) 14:13, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
You think six years of deceptive socking is ok? I'm currently going through the list of FPC double votes, and keep reading support vote comments where his second-self sings the praises of the first-self in a desperate attempt to get his FPC nom more support (example). This socking is an betrayal to the whole community, not just the FPC forum, and demonstrates a belief that the rules apply to other people. I think indef block is entirely the appropriate response. -- Colin (talk) 14:16, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Nobody said that this is OK. Nobody said that they should not be blocked. I am just raising a doubt whether a user who has some positive contribution to Commons should be initially treated as a blatant copyright violator or LTA. Maybe, they should be able to get a 2nd (3rd?) chance some day. However, I accept Fae's explanation above. Ankry (talk) 18:56, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
PumpkinSky already was Rlevse's "second chance". But yes, indef is not a permanent ban. It is hard to see them coming back as any of these accounts. I'm pretty sure they will be back, dishonestly, just like before. Don't you? -- Colin (talk) 22:20, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  • FYI, PumpkinSky and HalfGig accounts are now both indef blocked on Wikipedia too. -- Colin (talk) 14:16, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Whoa buckos, let's not conflate different issues. I was on WP during the Rlevse issue and you don't have it quite right. The problem there was a featured article (thus that had been through three reviews by other users) that had about one paragraph of too-close-paraphrasing, discovered the day it was TFA. The article was pulled from the main page, the content scrubbed, and a few years later it was renominated and back up as a TFA. The incident triggered a large CCI, in which I was a part of the cleanup crew, and a review of the hundreds of articles Rlevse had worked on (and he also cooperated with that process) revealed only a few additional minor close paraphrases here and there and NO "major copyright concerns". The incident also helped spur development of copyvio checking tools that help editors review their own material. The Rlevse account was abandoned via a right to vanish (contribs and such are now mostly located under a "vanished user" username), and the PumpkinSky account appeared a while later, I believe with disclosure (there is clear disclosure here on Commons). This is not a user who has engaged in years of "deception" as to the Rlevse and PumpkinSky accounts. They were sequential and disclosed. I will not comment on the admin process here, and I do not have the CU on the HalfGig question here, and will not comment on that, but I want folks to put down the pitchforks on the Rlevse account. Montanabw (talk) 18:06, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
The problem, Montanabw, with "alternative facts" is that on wiki it is quite easy to show one way or another.
  • The degree of copyvio/plagiarism can be debated, but the fact remains that Rlevse not only resigned but exercised a Right to Vanish. As User:DGG said "Were I to be shown to have done the like, my feeling would be such acute embarrassment that I would probably want to retire just as he did.". While there was increased checks on copyvio after Rlevse, the community already knew about the issue, as there was a major Signpost article here the year before, and well publicised in the FA community. So there was no excuse for being ignorant.
  • PumpkinSky was not a declared alternative account of Rlevse when created. His deceptive socking was uncovered by the community: Here is the AN/I report. He was blocked for abusing multiple accounts by Moni3. He admitted socking "I apologize to the community for presenting myself as a new user". In response to the plagiarism charge, he said "I honestly thought putting a valid ref at the end was enough. I accept responsibility for not knowing better." It was only when unblocked did he agree to declare both accounts. We see the same with HalfGig who claimed to be a newbie here "Thank you for welcoming me. You're the first to talk to me. How do I find pictures I can use in an article? The picture in Cucurbita pepo is not that good. There's bound to be a better around.". The person writing this is Rlevse, who has been active on both sites since 2005, was an arbiter, admin on both sites, and very very experienced at writing articles and uploading pictures. You defend that?
  • As HalfGig, as well as supporting 19 of PumpkinSky's own photo nominations, he makes comments like "I intstantly noticed three things about this photo: 1) it's very sharp, 2) it's very colorful, and 3) you can see the teeny tiny tips of the flowers at the top rear even at thumbnail size. This photo has lots of small parts to bring together and I think the photographer did an excellent job." and "Since more opinions were requested....Focus, contrast, lighting are excellent. I went to the photo file page and saw this old farmhouse has its own category. It's clearly in a serious state of decay and not being maintained or lived in. It looks like PumpkinSky did some sort of full exterior documentation." and "This almost looks like it was taken looking up to the sky but I'm pretty sure it was taken looking into the fallen snow.". We aren't just seeing "*Support -- HalfGig" but nauseating deceptive commentary about how wonderful this other photographer is while pretending to be someone independent.
  • Montanabw, I see you were appointed a mentor at Wikipedia after the Rlevse/PumpkinSky deception. I suggest you failed. Not only that, I'd expect that discovering your wikifriend was a cheat and was engaged in deceptive socking once again, that you'd be upset and sad, rather than what we see here. Did you know already? -- Colin (talk) 19:13, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Strike mentorship comment, which was only about plagiarism in his writing and not about socking. -- Colin (talk) 22:49, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, and to the earlier question, no, frankly, I'd never really paid any attention to the HalfGig account. The issues on were sequential accounts and RTV issues, and a simultaneous socking case was not the issue there. I'm an editor, not a babysitter: ( humor) Montanabw (talk) 23:40, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Stop it Colin. Montana is making a distinction between this and the situation with Rlevse and the Grace Sherwood article. I helped edit that article and what happened there was witch hunt. I have no explanations for what happened after that. But the sly accusations of involvement on Montana's part is disgusting.(Littleolive oil (talk) 21:55, 4 February 2018 (UTC))
      • Out from the woodwork comes the PumpkinSky cheerleaders. Littleolive oil, Montanabw was fully aware that Rlevse dishonestly socked as PumpkinSky, as they were present at the various discussions at the time, and was appointed a mentor. You don't get several mentors imposed on you as condition of being unblocked if you haven't done something wrong and have nothing to learn. So either Montanabw has forgotten this, or are not being truthful when they claim his accounts were disclosed. I'm waiting for Gerda Arendt to turn up and tell us what an Awsome Precious Wikipedian he was. PumpkinSky is a cheat and cheated for months, and deceived for years. Some self-reflection needed from those who continue to be under his spell and sing his praises. -- Colin (talk) 22:08, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
      • You r not yet another Pumpkin account, r u user:Littleolive oil? - Benh (talk) 22:36, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Please read my post. I delineated between the Rlevse debacle on Grace Sherwood and what ever happened after that. In fact I am no cheerleader for anyone. But I do like clarity in comments and fairness, and that clarity and delineation is what constitutes fairness. The snide comments here and accusations aren't useful to anyone nor is the confusion created out of twisting different events together. I'm sure that the only person who can pay whatever debt is owed is the editor in question. I am as sure that coloring anyone else who questions clarity in some of these statements by attacking them is an example of muddy reasoning. Please be clear about the multiple and complex events that led up to this point. No one is singing praises, and how I feel about this is no one's business but mine.(Littleolive oil (talk) 02:54, 5 February 2018 (UTC))
        • Since 2007? It seems to me that many users here think that Wikimedia Commons is English Wikipedia. I still hope it is not. Ankry (talk) 23:00, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
          • No idea where you get 2007 from. The Rlevse/PumpkinSky/HalfGig accounts deceived both projects, over similar timespans. These projects are all part of a big happy WikiMedia family with common logins and common people behind those logins. The reason PumpkinSky was able to gain Rlevse's admin bit, was precisely due to the faulty thinking where some users believe the projects are entirely separate. Wrt users, they are very much not, and a bad egg on one project often smells on another one sooner or later. I do hope User:Juliancolton's actions wrt admin bits are not ever repeated on this site. We saw it before with INC, where his bit was restored all too readily. Admins who leave/resign in anything other than bright sunny happy conditions should not automatically get the bit back. Admins who sock, as Rlevse did and as PumpkinSky did, and as INC did, should never get the bit back. As HalfGig, PumpkinSky lied repeatedly to me and to every other participant at FPC, for their own pathetic gain, just as they did on Wikipedia when Rlevse pretended to be the newbie PumpkinSky. -- Colin (talk) 08:41, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
            • Colin, the Rlevse and PumpkinSky accounts did not edit at the same time on as far as I know, it was an RTV situation. Please understand that I am making no comments here on the current situation, I only want to point out that RTV as exercised in 2012 was a different situation; for one thing it was a gray area about disclosing a prior account (which that case actually served to clarify, if memory serves). Also, the PumpkinSky account assisted in the CCI, ( which turned up a few minor paraphrasing issues here and there, all fixed, see the CCI ) as was requested, and when drama erupted, he made appropriate request to return, which was granted. So, my concern is only that we not mischaracterize the past. If Commons restored his admin tools at the time, there was, then, no reason not to do so. As for now, if CU has shown there are two accounts currently being used, I am not going to argue the present case, only to ask we not compare apples and oranges. Also, to say "Consistently deceiving the community since 2011" is a bit over the top and that really should be redacted. Montanabw (talk) 21:01, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

@W.carter: what are you doing in Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tianjin Grand Theater Concert Hall.jpg, which “critical swing vote”?! PumpkinSky is recorded to vote   Oppose. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:20, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

You are quite right, that is problematic, missed that one. My bad. I got it from the list above to remove HalfGig's votes and since that account voted   Support that's the way it ended up. Actually not quite sure how to do this one, Colin suggested that the last vote by PS/HG should be crossed out. If others agree with this, I will of course fix it. Or... we could strike both votes since they cancel out each other, that also ends in keeping it as FP. --cart-Talk 20:30, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Incnis Mrsi and Colin, I found out that the closing was wrong from the beginning. PumpkinSky closed the nom without waiting for the FPCbot to close it, only he didn't count the votes properly (he wrote 10-5 = featured when the real result from the original votes was 10-6 = not featured). Please, please someone else check this too since I'm going cross-eyed with all the mess this guy made for us here. So now it's even more important which vote should be striked: PS or HG? This also makes me wonder if there are any more faulty closings he made out there. I know I have corrected some previously. --cart-Talk 21:38, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Cart, if we remove PumpkinSky's oppose, because its their second vote, then I count 10/5 which passes. They are both the same person, and neither one account nor the other has more right for their vote to be kept. So deleting the second one seems the fairest. -- Colin (talk) 22:13, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Ok Colin, so votes are the opposite of last will and testaments where the last one is legit. ;) Anyway, this file gets its FP in the end. Ok by me since I'd rather have some happy endings in all this. I'll fix it. --cart-Talk 22:20, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
@: for what it's worth, I found no evidence of any other accounts. These were the only two, at least recently. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 20:25, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
mind if I ask, what led you to check? Artix Kreiger (talk) 21:25, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

  Comment it would probably be best to see where the votes were "tie-breakers" and only re-assess those. --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) ("The Chinese Coin Troll" 👿) (Articles 📚) 11:04, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Proposal for closure

It has been 3 days since the last comment. Close? Artix Kreiger (talk) 21:22, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

February 05

Wikidata-Templates for People by name

Hi all, I still create people categories the old way, which means to set defaultsort, basic biografical categories an interwiki link manually. This is mostly because I´m old and conservative but the second reason is a lack of clear guidance: Commons:Category scheme People still recommends manual insertion of categories and ignores Wikidata almost completely while I see that some collegues make use of Wikidata-Templates like Template:PeopleByName or Template:Wikidata person or Template:On Wikidata. The relationship between these templates is not explained and there seems to be some double functionality/redundancy, nor do I see a community consensus that those templates are the ones that should be use. As a large number of Peoplebyname categories are involved I´d appreciate if someone with sufficient knowledge about wikidata, templates and the category scheme would

  • look at the templates and optimize or merge them (e.g. why should birth/death year be put in one of the templates when the other template already uses wikidata to query this information?)
  • launch a proposal that favours the main Pbn template as recommended solution for all new individual people categories
  • update the Commons:Category scheme People to reflect the current best practice
  • depict a solution how to migrate the existing Pbn categories to the new template (preferably something with a bot)

(Sorry if this sounds like a work order - it shouldn´t. I don´t speak English and it´s difficult to get to tonality right. Please read it as a soft-tongued suggestion said with a smile) Thanks, --Rudolph Buch (talk) 09:52, 9 February 2018 (UTC) (Pinging User:NeverDoING, User:Blackcat, User:Themightyquill and User:Jarekt as they did a lot of work on the templates)

Well Rudolph, I can speak for myself. I made a big effort in unifying MenByName and WomenByName in {{PeopleByName}} and centralizing there all the useful wikilink. Someone created also {{Wikidata person}}, not the best solution in my opinion, but nonetheless a reasonable attempt to collect all the information about a biographical subject in the category. Still I find it doubtly useful because Commons is not Wikipedia, and a topic here must be categorized and not explained with the style of an encyclopedia . Templates anyway should only help to achieve the basic categorization like ie birth year, death year, and little else. The rest should be manually made. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 10:01, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
And I wrote {{Wikidata person}} which does provide {{Creator}} template based infobox with {{Authority control}}. The template also adds Category:People by name, death/birth categories and interwiki links all based on Wikidata item ID (q-code). I wrote {{Wikidata person}} mostly because of laziness, as I was faced with creating few hundred people categories where I had the item IDs and someone already placed images in the categories but there were no category pages created. For categories linked to Wikidata, I do not think it is necessary to be filling the template with inputs (name, gender, dates of birth/death, etc) when they are already known. --Jarekt (talk) 12:51, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

AHW Umzug Magaritentag

Hello, anybody here who knows what this is all about ? Thank you for your time. :) Lotje (talk) 16:36, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

  • "Mageritentag" is a typo for "Margeritentag". Oddly, we don't have an article, not even in German (we should), but once you've got the word spelled right you can Google it. - 17:02, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
See de:Blumentag (in German). --Joostik (talk) 20:43, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
@Joostik: Ah. Shouldn't there be a redirect from de:Margeritentag? - Jmabel ! talk 23:47, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
@Joostik: and @Jmabel:. Thanks a lot! In the meantime, I referred to the image on the German wikipedia, see what that brings   Lotje (talk) 07:39, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

February 10

Jaguar MENA

{{edit requested}} There are many good images in Category:Photographs by Jaguar MENA, yet my attempt to upload more from their Flickr account just failed with the error message "User:FlickreviewR/bad-authors|blacklisted]] Flickr user".

The Flickr account is indeed listed at Commons:Questionable Flickr images, with the allegation "Uploads picture of Jaguar Cars under CC-BY-2.0 without regard to copyright owner (which is shown in the EXIF data", but there is no supporting evidence - no deletion discussions, for instance.

Can anyone shed any light on this? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:24, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: @Steinsplitter: added that information in this edit.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:08, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
here is the minimal discussion at talk Commons_talk:Questionable_Flickr_images/Archive_5#Jaguar_MESA Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 18:15, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Fine, pinging @Elisfkc: too.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 21:43, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
I remember that there was a discussion, but I'm having trouble finding it. --Elisfkc (talk) 02:46, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Absent any evidence, I request that the account be removed from the backlist. Is there a particular forum for this, or will this post suffice? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:29, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Can anyone advise, or assist, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:51, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

February 01

What is in Scope?

Judgefloro (talk · contribs) appears to be going way out of scope. To be in scope the images must be realistically useful for an educational purpose. Yet he has uploaded many tens of thousands of images that differ only slightly from each other in each series of uploads. I feel I may be nit-picking here but 920,000 images! Sure, today they probably only take up half of a terabit drive but what about the accumulative effect of all similar mass uploaders? It is duplicating Google Street View, so is this what WC's new mission is?. P.g.champion (talk)

We can't delete files from the hard drives, and I don't know what Wikimedia's constraints on disk space is, or what's actually taking up space, so I see that as a red herring. The problem is letting people find useful images, and not stopping people from uploading useful images. It is not duplicating Google Street View, because Google Street View is not free; I do not have the right to take a photo from GSV and publishing as the picture of the place where the massive drug raid or fire or other news story happened. The files as is don't have the structure to make them useful in a GSV manner; maybe it should be a Wikimedia project to make careful coverage of areas usable in a Google Street View type manner.
I believe in recording us, that maybe people can look back on now and instead of having the progression of photography from rare and important (usually staged) events, to covering the ubiquity of modern life in all those details that are obvious to us but won't be obvious to people from a different time and place.
I don't see it as an easy problem. Clearly that's a mess of files that will be hard to find things in and use. But the files that never left my hard drive are impossible for anyone to use, and at least they've been cherry picked of a few things I thought Commons might care about.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:52, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes: surprisingly, I am sure that Wikimedia techs can and will move files out of the main database if overwhelming majority of Commons users agreed that such motion is warranted. Will not discuss photographic qualities of pictures as a mediocre photographer myself and a person not familiar with locations. But rubber-stamped {{Information}}s with the description field stuffed with info mostly irrelevant should be strongly discouraged. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:11, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm sure that Wikimedia techs will be quite pissed if the overwhelming majority of Commons users started to want to micromanage their database. If they have a problem with space, they will probably try to deal with it without interacting with users in any way. Yes, the information fields being unhelpful is a problem, and I didn't notice the geolocation was basically worthless. Still, I think we should encouraging uploads picturing reality.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:38, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
These images are a good upload/s in My opinion. Oxyman (talk) 18:09, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Judgefloro's + Ramon FVelasquez total uploads are 4,824 + 531 GB = 5,355 GB in size. That would cost me about $150 to buy a hard disk to store on, with probably a cost of $50/year to keep the images live on my home network indefinitely. Naturally those costs are decreasing year on year as technology moves on. As a pinch of reality, the cost of maintaining Wikimedia Commons, is a tiny fraction of the Wikimedia Foundation's stated income and the Wikimedia Foundation's income is a tiny fraction of that made by image hosting specialists like Flickr.
Should anyone want to do a similar calculation, feel free to reuse this Quarry report. -- (talk) 18:34, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Messy mass uploads, yuck... I am already annoyed by the unchanging geotag coordinates between pictures that have clearly been taken from different locations. Not to mention the pain of scrolling through hundreds of marginally different images just to find something useful. Honestly, it gives me the impression of being too lazy to sort out one's camera roll. --HyperGaruda (talk) 20:32, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Obviously it would be best to have these well geotagged, but in general if someone wants to create a free equivalent of Google Street View, I'm all for that, especially for places where there may not be a ton of available images. I certainly would be glad to have an equivalent of this for 50 or 100 (or even 20) years ago for several cities I'm interested in. - Jmabel ! talk 21:46, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
      • I think I agree with most of what's said here. If these files are clogging up existing categories, just create new categories, e.g. "Streetscapes in PLACE" as a subcategory of whatever PLACE category they're in. And I agree with Jmabel; Street View's images would be in scope for this project if they were copyright-okay, and I don't see a reason to treat these one significantly differently. Good geolocation is important, but I suppose the worst thing to do here is to delete the bad. Am I missing some other problem? Nyttend (talk) 16:27, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Censorship of Article Concerning Ranjit Naik

Recently an article for the person Ranjit Naik was severely pruned under the claim that there weren't suffcient citations to keep it on this site, but there are several made in hard-copy form. An admin has determined they do not exist because they have been unable to confirm their existence via the Internet, but this is because access to these articles was never made available through an online vendor. The point in making a Wikipedia article on the topic was to compile a short summary of the works in a location that any person could access to learn more about them, but without properly discussing this with the writer, the article was reduced to a fraction of its content. If necessary, hard-copies of the sources can be provided to anyone who needs to see them, but without the freedom to write without censorship, this site will be unable to maintain its function. I have copied the article in the space below. Please help restore the article to its former state. Very little information about the finer details of Indian History are available online and an effort like this was meant to support its spread.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Osmostrix (talk • contribs) 04:59, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
First of all: wrong venue, this is Wikimedia Commons, not Wikipedia. Second: Osmostrix is blocked on Wikipedia as a sockpuppet. --HyperGaruda (talk) 06:47, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
@HyperGaruda: there are no accounts “blocked on [the] Wikipedia”. There are globally locked accounts (that’s not the case) and blocks on specific Wikimedia sites, of which about three hundreds bear the label “Wikipedia”. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:08, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
You know that, I know that... To put your soul at ease, we are talking about en-Wikipedia in this case... --HyperGaruda (talk) 10:02, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Journal d’un correspondant de guerre en Extrême-Orient

Hi, someone hanging around who is able to put all of these files into the Category:Journal d’un correspondant de guerre en Extrême-Orient (1905) in one go. Thank you for your time. :) Lotje (talk) 11:47, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

@Lotje: try asking in Commons:Bots/Work requests - Alexis Jazz 12:39, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Done. Next time try to use Cat-a-lot (it works in search results too). It took me four clicks. strakhov (talk) 13:38, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Mass uncategorization of currencies-by-country

Made by user:Tigran Mitr am. I managed to salvage Category:Portuguese escudo, but there’s a lot of work to do about other currencies. -- Tuválkin 18:46, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Really a rampage, rather unexpected from an experienced guy. I intervene due to necessary language skills. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:13, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

February 12

Serbian Wikipedia 15th Birthday

Hi all,

Serbian Wikipedia is going to be 15-year old. They put a message on international list (here) to say how happy they were and how much they would enjoy to receive "Birthday photos" by photographers and contributors from all over the world. They created this category: Category:Serbian Wikipedia 15. The anniversary date is approaching quickly, I thought maybe I could post here to get people participating. (If it's not the right place, sorry and thanks for moving my message elsewhere, on a more adequate one  ) -- Wikinade (talk) 19:20, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-07

21:59, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

February 13

Dbachmann vs Jcb and JuTa

A week ago, Dbachmann (talk · contributions · Number of edits · recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) was blocked for disagreement with Jcb and JuTa over what to with files with bad license tags, for example File:Alhazen, the Persian.gif (histlogsabuse log). Edit-warring against two sysops should not be considered a good thing, really. But I ask the community to:

Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi, could you please just start following proper procedure as clearly explaned at your user talk page, instead of wasting our time with pointless questioning? Jcb (talk) 14:05, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Jcb, are you contracted for keeping “various maintenance categories” clean? I expect you are not, hence in any time you can step back from quarreling with me and Dbachmann and spend your time for things more productive. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:13, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
You are frustrating my work on 'more productive' things by counterproductive deviation from the processes. If you disagree with a license, don't remove the license, but nominate the file for deletion instead. I really don't think we ask to much if we request that you don't do counterproductive editing. It was not without a reason that Taivo declined the unblock request of Dbachmann. We are heavily understaffed, we can do without such stubborn actions. Jcb (talk) 14:18, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
All these accusations are very vague. I do not see any wrongdoings of Jcb or JuTa. but I see a very bad thing: removing licenses by other users. Taivo (talk) 17:01, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Again, where are regulations which castigate removal of forgeries in critically important fields as “a very bad thing”? This might create some overhead dealing with problematical files, but combats license laundering rather effectively. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:23, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
If Taivo refers to Incnis Mrsi specifically, then how many Commons members won’t really entrust me removal of rubbish made by causal uploaders? I can untangle cases even more complicated, see File talk:Zubr 002.jpg for a fresh example. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:46, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

@Taivo: thanks for your sane-minded intervention, but could you also wipe out the rest of fraud (namely “date=” and “author=”) please? I am unwilling to wage an edit war in the same page because it could be used as a legitimate pretext for block. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:47, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Incnis Mrsi, if your concern is simply the question of best prcatice, I´d recommend you don´t mix it with a personal conflict. The basic question seems to be whether "If you stumble upon an obviously inapplicable licence or author information and can´t fix it, remove the information and leave the field blank" or "If you stumble upon an obviously inapplicable licence or author information and can´t fix it, don´t remove the information but nominate the file for deletion" is the better solution. Personally, I think that Jcbs logic sounds plausible. --Rudolph Buch (talk) 18:45, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Which personal conflict? And again, File:La bandiera.jpg is not about to be deleted, it just needed fixes in {{Description}}, which Taivo eventually accomplished. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:46, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I hadn't even seen this discussion. JuTa abuses the minor edit mark and has been warned before about that. They should stop using the minor edit mark when reverting by more than one version and ideally also add a cleanup template that puts the page in a category for pages of which the history should be checked. If they don't stop, there should be repercussions but I hope and even expect there will be no need for that.

Jcb should have asked an uninvolved administrator to deal with the issue. Jcb's response above "Hi, could you please just start following proper procedure as clearly explaned at your user talk page, instead of wasting our time with pointless questioning?" shows absolutely zero respect for the community here. The people in this community are not your slaves. Instead of being open to a discussion about the shape and form of "the proper procedure", you just start slapping and blocking people who don't follow it.

The solution to all this shit (I'm pissed, can you tell?) is rather simple. And I'll once more waste my time explaining the solution, which will be completely ignored and everyone will simply continue banging their head against the wall until the whole building falls apart. There needs to be a cleanup-tag or something similar for this issue. "Nominate for deletion" should only be used when a user actually wants a file to be deleted/when the file is suspected copyvio. When this is not the desired outcome, it should be tagged. Preferably in a way that specifies what part needs to be cleaned or added: license/author information, layout, description and adds it to a category for this. There should be no time limit on this. When a user tags the file as needing license/author cleanup, a warning should appear on the file page that the license/author information has been tagged as possibly not fully accurate by at least one user and extra care should be taken to verify the license is valid before reuse.

In addition, to reduce the load on admins/OTRS/etc some serious changes need to be made to the upload wizard. I had started on a proposal, but the attitude I keep seeing from those in charge killed my enthusiasm. Have fun banging your head against the wall. - Alexis Jazz 21:20, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

So buddies… you (except for Alexis Jazz) weren’t interested in this case. Hence you have another drama now, which could be mitigated by timely reaction on this abuse. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:04, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

February 03

IRC office hour - Structured Commons - 13 February 2018

There will be an IRC office hour for Structured Data on Commons on Tuesday, 13 February from 18:00-19:00 UTC. More information, including how to join the meeting using a browser, is available on Meta. I'll post a reminder a few hours before the meeting starts. Thanks. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 20:37, 6 February 2018 (UTC)


  • Friendly reminder that this is happening tomorrow. See you there. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 22:41, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Special:Upload prepending...

Why is Special:Upload now prepending "== {{int:filedesc}} ==" to uploads even if that is already the first line (so you get it twice)? - Jmabel ! talk 01:56, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

It may be related to this. Ruslik (talk) 20:07, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
@Steinsplitter: any insight into this? - Jmabel ! talk 21:03, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
@Jmabel: Not related to my fixes/changes to the form script. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:46, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
It's reported to be since some days. Special:Contributions/OgreBot_2 Cleansup this. I've looked in relevant code and could not find something. Is the line inserted after or before submiting? (as the summary shows the line only once, which is strange too). PS: The first affected upload I found is from 2018-02-07T20:37:02 -- User: Perhelion 22:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Line appears in the file without being any part of what is submitted; appears twice if it is th start of what is submitted. - Jmabel ! talk 00:42, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Filled bug report. -- User: Perhelion 10:27, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Visible WikiWomen Project

Hello team,

This is May Hachem, I am a wikipedian for almost five years now and project coordinator for Visible WikiWomen project. Kindly check here We will be expecting users to upload their images starting from March in accordance with the International Women's Day and for one month. I would appreciate if you could help us creating a category for the project and an upload wizard to make things easier for new comers. Please let me know if you have any questions. And Thank you! --May Hachem93 (talk) 16:54, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Dismissal of deletion requests from “bad” sources

Wrote an essay (or a draft guideline) on dealing with requests from banned persons. Related also to this thread. Please, assess (especially such troll’s survivors as Guanaco and A.Savin). Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:04, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, I actually agree 🤝🏻 that their edits should still stand on their merits, and we probably shouldn't hurt 🤕 Wikimedia Commons in order to enforce bans so I agree that we should still process copyright violations as normal. Anyhow good luck with your propositions. --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 14:15, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
this is good, but assumes that the deletionists (the same ones you interacted with) will actually abide by consensus. as we know, they are prepared to block people, or sock, to delete a file (with impunity) so not much hope there. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 14:25, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
@Incnis Mrsi: I agree. Now what?
You might also want to take a look at File:Ameily Radke.jpg. The file is in widespread use now, so it won't be deleted. (according to the text on User:Slowking4) It was once kept by INC after nomination and another time had a troll nomination. What I find funny is that it would at least be questionable this "Ameily Radke" created this account. Actually after some digging I'm just gonna nominate it. Fourth time's a charm! - Alexis Jazz 13:59, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
here are the previous discussions: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ameily radke es vato!!.jpg; Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Selfies; Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Ameily_Radke.jpg why don't you stop and nominate it the right way? do not inject me in your deletion drama, when you should be able to look at the file talk page. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 14:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
@Slowking4: I don't inject you into anything, I was just citing something from your user page. What, I'm not allowed to do that? And what's wrong with the way I nominated it? I just used the link. Did something go wrong with that? And why are you calling it "my deletion drama", what have I ever done to you? - Alexis Jazz 16:24, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Banned users are not permitted to edit. Their edits may be deleted/blanked. It isn't "hurting" Commons to do this any more than one might make an argument that an effective ban of any user capable of making mostly useful edits "hurts" Commons. The reason they are banned are typically social but occasionally legal (e.g. child porn, excessive copyright violations). A crappy out-of-source image was on Commons yesterday and is still on Commons tomorrow. Commons is no worse off than if the banned user had not edited, which is the status we as a community desire. Any action that makes it look like the banned user is "helping" Commons is likely to encourage the banned user to remain and increase the chance of social/legal issues recurring. The crappy out-of-source JPG is just so many bytes on the internet, whereas the social issues that occur when undesirable users edit affect real living people. For deletions with copyright or other legal concerns, the only parties that matter are (a) the uploader (b) the owner/subject and (c) WMF. Admins are never required to act on these concerns and I would not support a policy that appears to compel any volunteer or appears to make them responsible for fixing legal problems. It is misguided thinking that we should try to make use of the good bits of a banned users edits. Doing so simply converts the ban to "we'll let you edit and keep the good bits". It's a ban.
Btw, Incnis, please don't write proposals/essays with terms like "deletionist" and "inclusionist". Language that polarises groups is unhelpful. -- Colin (talk) 15:27, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
@Colin: if you adhere to this radical stance abandoned even by myself (an ardent opponent of blanket bombings for any case except as a reaction to mass uploads), then why didn’t you question actions by Jcb and Taivo which prompted the recent drama? Deletion of File:KKL Fakultas Kehutanan.png by Taivo wasn’t, actually, unique. I reacted angrily to this single case because Taivo overrode my edits to File: siding with INeverCry overtly against a legitimate member. You don’t like my language, but what should I tell if Taivo served INeverCry in less than two days, but essentially ignored my request? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:14, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't think my stance is radical at all. It is what a ban means. You don't get to edit and your sock edits may be deleted. The difference between us is I would discuss with the others and try to come to an agreement, rather than just edit war. And ultimately I have an opinion but there is a limit to how much I care. I would very much like if admins and others would stop encouraging INC with silly ideas about having to honour his DRs. If Jcb starts restoring banned-user edits, and blocking people who disagree, then he will end up like Dennis who lost his bit via WMF. -- Colin (talk) 20:46, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Do you suggest that I would be supporting the presence of INC? I think you should know better. But there is a difference between 'reverting their edits and cleaning up' and 'semi-reverting their edits and leaving a mess'. And while you have continued to suggest that the block of Incnis Mrsi was a means to support INC, you should have known better on this point as well. The story with this user began here on 2 Februari in a case totally unrelated to INC. And what has blaming Taivo for having a real life (10 Februari) to do with INC? The whole discussion at AN/U was so short-sighted. Am I expecting too much if I expect that the people who usually populate that noticeboard look a bit further than the lenght of their nose? Jcb (talk) 22:10, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
How long will you bash me for the communication failure, Colin? Being subjected to overt insults I performed a way worse than more resistant Wikimedians could, but did you see that and this, indeed? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 22:16, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
I see no links to a constructive conversation between you two guys. Jcb blocked the person he was edit warring with. On any functional wiki, he'd have lost his bit for that, or at least be required to agree not to do it ever again. -- Colin (talk) 22:52, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

February 14

Long file names

File:I'm not a fan of this particular product (Mae Ploy FTW), but at least this Trader Joe's knows about lumpia! -Filipino -FilipinoFood -lumpia (15519652412).jpg. A lot of this replicated in the description.Smiley.toerist (talk) 00:23, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I claim my prize. The long filename is longest of my uploads, but there are some very slightly longer... -- (talk) 04:43, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
File:Overview of Independence Street, with Building 1001 (administration building) on right, looking south, Naval Air Station Chase Field, Texas State Highway 202, east of intersection of Texas State Highway 202 and US Highway 181, Beeville, Bee County, TX.jpg sadly is a redirect now.
File:2015-11-05 16 37 37 View north along I-495 (Capital Beltway) crossing the American Legion Memorial Bridge over the Potomac River from McLean, Fairfax County, Virginia to Potomac, Montgomery County, Maryland and Cabin John, Montgomery County, Maryland.jpg is the longest I think. What do I win? - Alexis Jazz 23:08, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Tabs inaccessible / unresponsive

Since today I can not use any tabs on Commons. I can see them, but clicking them does nothing. No problems on Wikipedia with using tabs. It occurs on file pages, user pages, also here in the Village Pump, but not while editing this message. Then the Read and Show History tabs are accessible for opening by right clicking them. --oSeveno (talk) 13:29, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

@OSeveno: Typical troubleshooting steps would be trying different browser/device, restarting them, logging out/in, etc. Also, bug reports generally require specifics, please see mw:How to report a bug for details.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:01, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, I submitted an error report at phabricator. T187463 --oSeveno (talk) 16:47, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Recent changes in Special:Upload

When one tries to upload a new version of a file, among others they get Please mind our guidelines on overwriting existing files. You agree to publish your upload under the same license as stated on the file description page. message. How to translate it? Using uselang=qqx doesn't show the message name but message text in English. Also, wouldn't "bear in mind" (or, perhaps, "remember") instead of "mind" be better wording? --jdx Re: 19:25, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Special:Upload creating empty file pages

Special:Upload is failing to include any information, and instead uploading blank pages. The file itself is unaffected. See for example my recent file upload here. It doesn't seem to be affecting UploadWizard and other common upload forms, just Special:Upload.

A recent test upload that I made displayed the following error message: Error: at line 1609: Uncaught TypeError: UploadForm.saveForm is not a function

I am guessing it's related to the recent Mediawiki rollout, possibly from git #db223bc5 - mediawiki.special.upload: Reorder functions, but I cannot be sure. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:41, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion on how to deal with INeverCry/Daphne Lantier

INeverCry keeps nominating images for deletion, though I have confessed before that I don't mind sockpuppetry if it's done for constructive edits like creating useful educational content nominating photographs for deletion with intimidating templates can be a major demotivator for potential new editors which is why I don't exactly see these nominations as something positive. That aside, INeverCry is currently community banned from all Wikimedia projects and also Foundation banned by the Wikimedia Foundation itself (for reasons publicly unreported) so as long as we keep accepting these nominations (as “a community”) INeverCry will continue evading their WMF ban as long their edits affect Wikimedia Commons. As a remedy to this I would like to suggest moving all nominations made by INeverCry to the user space of their sockpuppet as “User:[Sockpuppet]/Commons:Deletion request/File:[nominated file]” and if any legitimate user wants to nominate those images they can simply check Category:Sockpuppets of INeverCry for new requests. If we all send a message to INeverCry by moving all their deletion requests to userspace and ignoring them then maybe they will finally give up and leave the site alone as they still continue to switch between categorising and trolling. --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) ("The Chinese Coin Troll" 👿) (Articles 📚) 12:43, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

The first step is to stop making noticeboard threads about suspected socks. Take it to IRC and approach an admin that has been dealing with these cases. Alternatively respect WMF's self claim of authority and email evidence to them, they are paid to do it, so if they do nothing volunteers should not be wasting time on it. -- (talk) 13:07, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Admins are happy with this, so why aren't you?
New users need to be demotivated. - Alexis Jazz 13:53, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Why only new? Related: Revision of Commons:Administrators' noticeboard. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:22, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
and another Jcb. Waiting him to make appearance here, after that. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:29, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
The best is to ignore. For one, I don't care who nominate a file for deletion, I decide on the merit of the case. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:13, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
As Yann says, decisions should be made on merit and not necessarily by who has nominated them for deletion. Equally, it makes no sense to delete correctly licensed or public domain images simply because they were uploaded by a blocked or banned user. If they are in the project scope, why should we not keep them? Why should we put ourselves at the mercy of disruptive people? (That’s a rhetorical question by the way). Green Giant (talk) 10:34, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
+1. I agree with Yann and Green Giant. Jianhui67 TC 10:42, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Green Giant about "Equally, it makes no sense to delete correctly licensed or public domain images simply because they were uploaded by a blocked or banned user. If they are in the project scope", but plenty of images have been deleted solely as "sock uploads" as can be seen here,, and personally I would welcome a content-centric change, but it's mostly the double standard that when I look in article history I find that many images were deleted by INeverCry for the exact same reasons that we are defending his actions now. I personally am neutral on letting INeverCry's edits stand if good edits in general would be based on the merit of the edit and not the editor. --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 11:51, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
+1 - looking for merit, rather than tilted "4th times the charm" and "i doubt your license". when you have a cadre of admins, who appear to be here only to delete files, by whatever means necessary, it does not support confidence in merit. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 14:46, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
@Yann: this looks to be a precursor of ideas of your compatriot Christian Ferrer, but I already explained – this demonstrably doesn’t work as envisaged by you both. Commons has no pool of sysops qualified enough to cope with this DoS attack with delreqs. Can we move the focus of discussion from the troll himself to the problem of processing banned content on the site? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:18, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Spelling: anonimus --> anonymous

Hi, anybody hanging around who is willing to take a look at this list? There are 955 left with the "anonimus" spelling of which I guess most of them could be corrected in one go. Thank you for your time. :) Lotje (talk) 13:49, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Semper Anonimus pseudonymum est – nihil corrigere. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:01, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
@Incnis Mrsi:, indeed, that is one of the few that need not to be corrected. :) Lotje (talk) 14:38, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Internet research agency indictment.pdf unreadable, but original upload isn't

The pdf file File:Internet research agency indictment.pdf is unreadable as presented from Commons but the original uploaded file is perfectly legible. Does anybody know how to access the document as uploaded so that the file can be viewed on Wikipedia?

The document is part of Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian interference into US elections, and is mainly about an organization often called "Trolls from Olgino"

Smallbones (talk) 19:54, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

A new version of the file has been uploaded and it is readable File:Internet Research Agency Indictment Feb 2018 with text.pdf. Can anybody say why the first file became illegible on Commons and have any suggestions on how to avoid it? Smallbones (talk) 01:19, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

February 17

Template:User extendeduploader

I have made this, but it is incomplete because I am unsure of the rest. Can some people perhaps translate for the template? I had based it off the film mover template and the translations are of the flemover perms and thus need translation into the respective languages. Those are, Bengali, be-tarask, German, Esperanto, Spanish, Persian (Farsi), French, Galician, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Malayalam, Polish, Portuguese, Russian, Swedish, and Ukranian. Thanks. Artix Kreiger (talk) 18:18, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Translations would be good. It would also be nice if it had a slightly different image on the template then the file mover image to keep the level of confusion down slightly. Just a thought. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 20:43, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Sixflashphoto, removed the pic. Artix Kreiger (talk) 20:52, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
      • Well I intended to mean a different photo, not the same one, but it isn't the most urgent matter in the universe. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 20:55, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
I know. I just forgot to remove it. A photo hasn't been created yet. Artix Kreiger (talk) 20:59, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Artix, in my eyes it would actually be much better to delete all not adapted languages or at least to comment them out (did the last myself). — Speravir – 00:47, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

OTRS needed?

I'm just wondering, do we need an OTRS on images such as this? The uploader claims to be the copyright holder, but I can't find any indication that he/she is in any way connected with the publisher, Dark Horse. I've noticed a number of similar cases listed under Category:Covers of comic books and was wondering how to proceed when copyright ownership seems to be unclear. AshFriday (talk) 01:54, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Yes, we need OTRS. - Jmabel ! talk 05:50, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
I emailed Dark Horse Comics about this and am awaiting response. George Ho (talk) 06:01, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

How Google Photos is outflanking Wikimedia Commons

I've uploaded perhaps two thousand images to Wikimedia Commons, and could have uploaded thousands more, except the uploading process via the Upload Wizard is, as everybody knows, time-consuming and slow. I visited Italy and took 800 photos on my Android smartphone (which has time & location data via Google Maps). I clicked on 'share' and Google linked time and place data with each photo, eliminating the description & uploading fuss; Google shares it extensively with whoever it wants, and can use these images for their own marketing purposes. Google emailed me that my shared images were seen over 500 times over a few months. What does this mean for Wikimedia Commons? My sense is that it is both a problem and an opportunity, the problem being that over time Wikimedia Commons may become less relevant as the Google databases quickly eclipse the Commons ones, and also an opportunity in that it may be possible to somehow work with Google to import their images to Commons -- that is, to get Google to share their shared images.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:49, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

You too can do bulk upload to WC without Wizard Commons:Guide to batch uploading. Also, Google images are not free to use. Google is a different horse. P.g.champion (talk) 18:04, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Sheesh I checked out the Commons:Guide to batch uploading and simply trying to read the instructions is intimidating.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:26, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
@P.g.champion: Yes, obviously but there is no reason why in principle we can't have a tool to import freely-licensed work or somesuch. —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:21, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
The weak point is, that there many images on other sites that 'declare' they are freely-licensed when they clearly are not. So we should not automatically import them without human over-sight. P.g.champion (talk) 15:14, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, our goals differ. That said, our goals could be better met by imitating some of Google Photo's software features. For example Category:Media with geo-coordinates needing categories has nearly 200,000 pictures, and similar numbers of pictures could get better categories if Commons were able to convert long-lat to location cats.
I wouldn't recommend imports from GP in the way we get pictures from libraries and museums, but uploaders with accounts at both sites ought to be able to import their own from GP with metadata conversion. Of course, that's a bigger software job than merely reading coordinates and assigning a country or city or Universal Transverse Mercator coordinate system zone. Jim.henderson (talk) 15:49, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
@Tomwsulcer: Forget it. While the upload wizard allows you to upload multiple files, it would have been very doable for it to also allow a zip archive to be uploaded. But it won't accept it. Commons is broken in so many places, I see no way to fix it. Such a shame. - Alexis Jazz 17:56, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
How is it supposed to allow you fill out separate forms for every images in a zip archive? Uploading multiple images with the same description is problematic; uploading so many that not being able to upload a zip file is exceedingly so. And zip files have directories and subdirectories, and various OSs feel free to add hidden files in there, and it's another potential security hole. Between the development work and the UI work, I can't see it being high on the list to do.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:10, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Hidden files and other rubbish are no argument. Any directory structure would be removed and only files with acceptable extension would be shown. Filtering automatically generated thumbnails isn't hard either. If the files already have a sensible filename (or a sensible filename for Commons can be aquired some other way) there is no problem. I do agree in the sense that the upload wizard has such massive problems that anything like this would indeed be at the bottom of the list. If such a list exists at all, I doubt anything has been done about the upload wizard in years. - Alexis Jazz 03:49, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Claim it's simple all you want, but I still see a dozen potential problems. The problems with "only files with acceptable extension" should be clear to someone complaining that .mp4 files aren't accepted. If it's important to you, write the code, or at least a very narrow implementable specification.
And no, a sensible filename is not "no problem". The filename is of marginal importance; all the descriptive text, infoboxes, license tags, etc. are what are really important.
It doesn't really look like a solution for a problem that Commons has. Commons doesn't really need more uncategorized, undescribed images.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:03, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
There was some discussion of adding support for zip file uploads back in 2010 on the wikitech-l mailing list. Some of that discussion spawned the Commons:Restricted uploads proposal, but in the end both ideas seem to have died from lack of interest. Kaldari (talk) 06:53, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Prosfilaes, I apologize - I obviously meant magic number. Or maybe I didn't. The current upload wizard selects by extension, even refusing picture.jpe while allowing the same file if it's renamed to picture.jpg. So if one would simply discard all files from an archive the same (not very smart) way the upload wizard refuses them now, it would take care of most of the issues.
If the files in the archive have a good descriptive filename, that can also take care of the description. License tags are important, but if you want to upload 800 photos that all have the same license, again, it doesn't have to be a problem.
It's not that important to me. It's just something that isn't insanely hard to support, even if it would be made accessible only to trusted users who understand they still need to provide descriptions and categories somehow. I'm personally not familiar with the code base. Say I actually would write that code. Then what? Same reason it's pointless to write any specification. - Alexis Jazz 12:35, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: I have to say, it’s the first time I read that feature request (Uploading a bunch of pictures by sending an archive of them). It’s a bit unclear to me how that’s going to help − could you clarify what root problem you are encountering that would be addressed by this? Typically, if you have stability issues with UW when uploading multiple files, I’m not sure UW would work better with being shipped a ZIP of 800 files (that I expect would weigh several hundreds MBs?) Jean-Fred (talk) 13:14, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
@Tomwsulcer: If Upload Wizard does not work for you, many tools may make your life easier, see Commons:Upload tools − the desktop application VicuñaUploader is, I understand, a go-to solution these days. Also, since you are using an Android Smartphone as your main device, you may be interested in the Android mobile app (I actually have a friend who takes pictures with his camera and uploads them from his tablet using the app − he finds it much easier). Jean-Fred (talk) 11:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
@Jean-Frédéric: Okay thanks Jean-Frédéric I'll try to do the Android app when I get some free time.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:55, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Google certainly abuses its market dominance to push all its products and kill the competition across the board, it's no mistery. Hundreds millions of Android users are enslaved by Google in return of some candy, e.g. to provide photos and other data about businesses to be used on Google Maps, Google advertising and so on. --Nemo 16:35, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't think Google has its own scope (like COM:SCOPE), does it? Also, I am not sure why it's the concern for Wikimedia Commons, whose mission is (way?) different from others, like free licensing and all that. BTW, I use Google Photos and Flickr... but not much. George Ho (talk) 19:28, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

MPEG-2 patents have expired (koavf)TCM 23:28, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Hooray!!! ...Um, the MPEG-2 patents are still active in the Philippines and Malaysia. May we allow MPEG-2 content made in those countries? George Ho (talk) 23:37, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
True. And no, not yet. :/ —Justin (koavf)TCM 08:53, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
In the Philippines, a patent is protected for twenty years; in Malaysia, twenty years from filing date. Still, that's awesome for the US. IMHO, MPEG-2 would be not be appropriate for Extended Uploader rights at this time. How about treating access to an edit filter on MPEG-2 as a separate right, i.e. "MPEG-2 Uploader", for an indefinite amount of time until the last patent expires in each of both countries? --George Ho (talk) 21:12, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't see any reason why we are obliged to reject MPEG-2 content made in those countries. There are policy reasons to generally reject patented formats, and practical reasons to reject formats where patents make them hard to handle; but there's no rule of the shorter term in play, nor is there any relevance to the file; parts of the encoding and decoding processes are patented, but that's not part of the file. We should absolutely not make it a stumbling block on our users that a format now patent-free is restricted in a few places; there's a lot more concern about uploading copyrighted images.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:42, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
To search for "MPEG-2" (with dash) and "MPEG2" (w/o dash), Malaysian Patent database and Philippine patent database are best to find. At the Philippine one, "Abstract" is more helpful to use for broader search; typing "MPEG-2" at ABSTRACT will result in two records. George Ho (talk) 21:45, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't see any reason to do this. It's very hard to tell whether these things are relevant to our implementation of MPEG-2 (which may change), and it's likely you're missing some things that may or may not be (and may or may not be asserted to be) relevant to our usage.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:42, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

February 15

End of Wikipedia Zero

FYI. No clear dates yet, but we're probably talking months or more. --Nemo 13:20, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

That's sad, I know a lot of people in the Kingdom of Thailand that really liked the service, well too bad, it touched so many lives. ☹ --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 15:58, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Looking for examples of alternative business models for organisations considering open licensing

Hi all

I'm compiling a guide for UN agencies on the steps to implement open licensing.

The piece I'm really missing is alternative business models to those which require traditional copyright. This include publishing books, images and other multimedia licensing and also data.

If you know of any existing compilations of information and/or any examples of organisations which have working business models please brain dump below and I will organise it.

Thanks very much

John Cummings (talk) 16:15, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Can you clarify how the business model matters to UNO publications? There are some examples in and other places on There are many publishers using CC or copyleft licenses, but it also depends whether you're thinking fiction, academic, other non-fiction, ... E.g. in Italy . --Nemo 20:28, 17 February 2018 (UTC) --Nemo 20:28, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
There is Pixabay, which hosts user-submitted content under a CC0 license (release into public domain). They have ads and I don't know if they only make enough money to host the site or if it is a profit-making business. Although it does NOT use open licensing (so may not be what you're looking for), a business that doesn't rely on traditional "limited-rights" licenses are the subscription-based websites Storyblocks (images), Videoblocks (for videos, motion graphics), and Audioblocks (songs, sound effects). For a monthly subscription fee, you can download unlimited content and use it royalty-free, in perpetuity, and without geographic limitations, subject to a few conditions: you can't resell/relicense the content (but can use it within other content, like using a clip/image in a video), you can't use content from the site in logos/trademarks, and images with models can't be used in an offensive manner (subject to terms of model release). See this link for details about the licenses (full terms of license). AHeneen (talk) 07:56, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

February 18

Como contactar con los administradores de la imagen

Buenas, necesito ayuda. Quiero saber el origen de esta imagen: Me gustaría saber su origen, quien es la persona de la imagen. Como puedo contactar con el que la publicó?? —Preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 13:50, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Pies de Hombre.jpg es un imagen de ARTPOP-4-6L. puedes contactarlo en User talk:ARTPOP-4-6L.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:59, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: they “puedes contactarlo”, but do you really expect a reaction? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:07, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Incnis Mrsi It's not likely, but it's not impossible.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:12, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Google Images and direct links

It will be curious to see what's the effect of the recent Google Images changes. The agreement with Getty might be used to convey some Google traffic towards "curated" content à la Knowledge Graph, rather than let people visit other websites. The removal of direct links to original files might result in a bigger share of visits going to file descriptions on Wikimedia Commons and other Wikimedia wikis rather than to the files themselves. There might also be some changes to the frequency of copyvio uploads of thumbnails downloaded from Google Images results (though I believe most of those were through the cross-wiki upload). --Nemo 16:39, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Organisations on Wikimedia Commons

Generally speaking accounts operated by multiple people representing an organisation (such as the Swiss National Library) aren't discouraged on Wikimedia Commons, but I have seen organisational accounts get blocked in the past (mostly by INeverCry/Daphne Lantier, but also other administrators) which gave me the impression that such role accounts aren't both actively encouraged or discouraged. Personally I would prefer that if companies want to donate their images to Wikimedia Commons that they should be able to do so, so I would like to suggest this to be acceptable (for non-promotional accounts) by default, but before proposing this I want to know if there are currently any restrictions on these organizational accounts, and if the content they produce follows different copyright rules than those of individual photographers. --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 14:20, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

The advice continues to be that though role accounts exist, the questions and limitations this raises are not worth the hassle for any large upload project.
Past cases raised questions like:
  • Shared accounts where the project means using COM:GWT, which means the account needs to apply for special rights. This raises the question of how will the organization act transparently to ensure only the authorized person uses those rights?
  • How will the role account be managed over time? Specifically if serious problems are raised a year or two down the line, perhaps with mass deletions that need to be examined, then who will be the organizational contact responsible. In practice a year or two later, we find that nobody in the current organization has a clue about the Wikimedia Commons project, and cannot answer questions about copyright because nobody has the time or can get legal permission to do so.
  • Wikimedia projects value transparency, if the role account is shared, will there be a transparent way to log who uses it? Frankly I have never seen this done, which means role accounts tend to be deliberately opaque for reasons that can never make sense for our open project.
I know that the WMF and some affiliates use role accounts. In my view, they should not. The reasons for having them are weak and ill thought out, invariably just a way of avoiding basic ethical accountability and good governance. -- (talk) 14:30, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Well, I would say that User:Swiss National Library is a good example of a role account operated by multiple people, and they always sign with the current operator, maybe a technical feature can be added where edits by role accounts could be attributed to a name. --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 15:08, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, and the easiest way of doing that in the least bureaucratic way, is for them all to have their own official project use only accounts, like User:John Smith (SNL).
With respect to this example, I see 3 named people (not accounts), with access to this account and they are all named as concurrently "managing" it. By looking at this example edit, I cannot tell who made it. That's not easy for accountability, and I don't see why fellow contributors have to spend time investigating a one-off bureaucracy to work out who might have made the edit.
Looking at the history (which I was part of), Emmanuel Engelhart (EE) requested GWT rights for this account in 2014 when he was their Wikimedian in Residence, which was a fine decision by a bureaucrat at the time. The rights have stayed with the account ever since, though EE's name no longer appears on the user page, so presumably they are not coordinating its use any more. This means that Commons has given this important right indefinitely to a group, without any process of review, or expectation that the right would need to be reapplied for at any point in the future. In these circumstances, I would rather recommend that rights like these be granted for a specified project time, which could be extended on request, or expire otherwise. As you might expect, this has been suggested to the Bureaucrats in the past as good practice, it's in the archives somewhere. -- (talk) 15:30, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
corporate accounts work on German wikipedia. i do not see much evidence of abuse. so why all the english drama? it's all very tiresome, and leads to biting of good faith GLAMs and their exit from collaboration. i.e. commons has been harmed by enforcement of "user name", whatever the philosophical justification may have been. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 14:40, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
There are more serious issues around time consuming complexity, bureaucracy and the risk of being publicly embarrassed due to poor copyright review or lack of resources to ensure reliable implementation in their own archives to worry a GLAM employee. When it comes to managing accounts, if we just said "please avoid role accounts", hardly any GLAMs would care, they would just follow the rules. In many ways, giving lots of choices creates more problems than it solves. -- (talk) 15:33, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
"risk of being publicly embarrassed" , you mean for the GLAM for openly collaborating with commons? the GLAMs only care when they get whipsawed by the amateur policy warring, and their items get deleted rather than collaborating to clarify licenses. simplification rarely has a consensus. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 11:56, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-08

22:54, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Mount Cook National Park and Aoraki/Mount Cook National Park

Mount Cook National Park is situated in Queensland, Australia, but if you watch this category you can found there a lot of picture from Aoraki/Mount Cook National Park, New Zealand. Could anyone mark these categories, so that people wouldn't be wrong? There is someone who could clean this up? Tournasol7 (talk) 23:11, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Like on enwiki, make Category:Mount Cook National Park a disambiguation and move the Australian one to Category:Mount Cook National Park, Australia? --ghouston (talk) 04:20, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
@Tournasol7, Ghouston: That should work.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 04:25, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Done. 77 of the 85 files in Mount Cook National Park were from NZ. --ghouston (talk) 02:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

February 20


In the description under the only mentions George Washington Wilson. I suspect this comes from , but if so the source should be atributed. The date is certainly not in 2012. Smiley.toerist (talk) 21:12, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

It's also found on and - Alexis Jazz 22:13, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
The first one is good, but the second one tries to make money out of PD pictures. Really? Can all the pictures be uploaded from the first source? All are old.Smiley.toerist (talk) 23:29, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Out of University of Aberdeen website:
George Washington Wilson and Co., captured images from all over Britain, recording everything from the natural grandeur of Fingal's Cave on the Isle of Staffa to the bustle of London's Oxford Street. Wilson had a staff of photographers including his son, Charles Wilson, who with senior staff photographer Fred Hardie, toured the colonial townships of South Africa. Dispatched to capture images of Australia in 1892, Hardie also travelled through Queensland, Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide. These tours provide a vivid picture of gold miners and early settlers at work and play, and of the native or aboriginal way of life. The company invested in sourcing independent photographer to capture the western Mediterranean, where they took images of Gibraltar and the south of Spain, Morocco and Tangiers.
Not an original George picture.
Could the UK wikimedia chapter contact the Aberdeen University and maybe ask for picture donation? The picture are public domain anyway, but they can get name recognition that way.Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:42, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Donation is already made in 2012.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Most of the G.W.W. pictures around Gibraltar are sourced from from Neville Chipolina, but this is no longer present and I cant find an archived version. I think these pictures have moved to . Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
welcome to the metadata cleanup fun. there are thousands of PD photos without sourcing, or have general link (not deeplink) and since we did not archive sources, rotted sources. your image source may be here [30] (bing images outperformed google for this one) right size but no archive to see if right time. upload date = date is an upload wizard fault; hard to imput date taken, even if so inclined. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 12:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Does it matter? We have the original source (glass plates) in the University of Aberdeen. You can upload directy but only with limited resolution. I suspect someone uploaded the pictures from around Gibraltar and maybe payed for them (with license conditions?, not our problem). It could also be taken from original prints somewhere in localy. 'George Washington Wilson and Co.' was a business selling prints. I see however see no 'print' defects (discoulouring, etc). Whatever way it comes to us it is PD. From the Gibraltar source we at least get some more precise dating than the university. Maybe the solution is to mention several sources, including the university one. The reader can then get the full resolution picture with payment. I would like more information about the 'independent photographer' the compagny used, but the anonimity (no signature) licences it as compagny work (70 years after publication).Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:26, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
I will stop here. I already have a duplicate file File:1890s+G+Washington+Wilson+-+From+Campamento.jpg with a small difference: 392 kB instead of 396 kB.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

February 19

Images with wrong geo coordinates (panoramio)

I have recently found several images uploaded (by a bot) from panoramio, which have wrong coordinates or assigned municipality, or both. I know they are wrong, but don't know the correct ones. Is there any tag/category/reporting page, where they could be listed in the hope that someone knoweldgeable of that region will fix them? I've found this in the archive: but that doesn't give an answer to this case. Thanks. JiriMatejicek (talk) 09:41, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Good question, and I do not have the answers, but I would probably for now remove the bad coordinates. --oSeveno (talk) 10:20, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Well, there is indeed Category:Media with erroneous locations, but that's more for technical errors in the location templates … --El Grafo (talk) 16:57, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I routinely remove or correct bad geolocation taken from EXIF metadata in filepages of photos from either Panoramio or elsewhence. I never felt any other care needs to be taken. -- Tuválkin 20:36, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
If I don't know the correct ones, I can only remove them. On the other hand, if the current coordinates are near the real location, they may serve as a hint to proper localization. JiriMatejicek (talk) 14:50, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Template {{Camera location}} includes a handy "|prec=" argument (expressed in meters) that allows us to add a precision parameter to the indicated coordinates. I presume other geolocation templates have also this option. -- Tuválkin 15:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Tax offices (duplicate category)

There are two categories which in my view cover the same thing. Should they be unified? And how? Unfortunately, it's not just a different name, they are in different top categories: listed under, listed under JiriMatejicek (talk) 09:45, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

@JiriMatejicek: It's not that simple. Inland revenue office is just one kind of tax office. Here in the US, the Internal Revenue Service and most states have income tax offices; and states, counties, and municipalities have various real estate, school, sales, sale and use, unemployment, etc. tax offices, not all of which occupy entire buildings.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:00, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. In our country, it's not that complicated. However, it seems to me that the term Inland revenue office is specific to the UK ad related countries. So, I would move the Czech items into Tax offices. Is there any way to rename a category (other than moving all its contents to a new one)? JiriMatejicek (talk) 13:10, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
@JiriMatejicek: Yes, please see Commons:Rename a category. Also, please remember that offices are generally smaller than buildings.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Structured Data on Commons - What gets stored where


Another month, another round of feedback needed for Structured Data on Commons. This request is pretty significant, as it deals with what file metadata gets stored where between the three future mediums: text in Mediawiki here on Commons, Wikibase (the Wikidata software) stored here on Commons, or in Wikibase on Wikidata itself.

You can find the discussion by following this link. It will be open formally for two weeks, but no decisions will be made at or by that time as this is part of the information-gathering process.

If you have not subscribed to the SDC newsletter yet and would like to get the new issue going out in March, you can sign up at any time. If you would like to get short talk page messages about new SDC feedback requests, IRC office hours, and other invitations to participate, you can sign up for that as well.

Thank you for your time. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 22:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)


There is one week left for this discussion, so now is the time to participate. Thanks. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

February 16

Does complex collage avoid copyright?

Curious as to whether User:Stephencdickson's [[:]] is permissible under Commons use of copyrighted images. It appears to be an old photo as can be seen at, cut out as a collage on a new background with some pastel effects added over the top. Is this enough complexity and original creation to avoid any copyright problems that would arise from using the original photo? --Lord Belbury (talk) 16:48, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm confused. That page says the photo taken with a Canon EOS 450D. It does appear to be a creative work (not just some photoshop filter), but would it be free from the copyright of the photo it seems to be based on? (assuming that photo is not in the public domain yet) IMHO, this case is right on the edge. It seems like even a slight change to the angle has been made. Out of courtesy it should mention the photo it's based on. One could argue that if a painter had been in the same room where this man was posing for the camera, this could very well have been the result, independent of the photo. Of course, the painter wasn't in that room and it's right on the edge. - Alexis Jazz 17:12, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Not a liminal case, it fails COM:DW. Several past DRs for similar derivative types have come to the same conclusion. -- (talk) 17:23, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
@: By liminal case you mean a case that's on the edge, do I understand that correctly? And by "it fails DW", do you mean it fails to be a DW because it's just a copy and has no copyright of its own at all, or do you mean it fails to be a DW because it is completely original and does not depend on the copyright of the photo? I would disagree with the former, I do believe this work has at least some copyright of it's own. I'm not fully sure if copyrights from the photo would be an issue or not. I'm talking about the legal side though, the rules on Commons may lead to different conclusions. - Alexis Jazz 17:58, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
WRT DW, the digital image may have copyright of its own so long as the process is not fully automated, but the copyright status of the original source is part of the derivative. You would need to absorb DW and have a browse through past cases to appreciate its interpretation. Wikimedia Commons has a conservative but fairly sophisticated interpretation of these legal terms. -- (talk) 18:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
I still don't really understand if you are saying the image is a DW or not. Maybe I'm missing something. Legally the question would probably be: is the work just inspired by the other work or is it really based on it? When I look at it that way, I think it's on the edge. It's either heavily inspired by, or quite loosely based on. I am personally leaning towards being based on, but I do not find it a clean-cut case. - Alexis Jazz 20:24, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

The works are redone as pastel images and the only "collage" is that I use a standard shaded grey pastel background... I would point out that other parties on Wikipedia/Wikimedia encouraged me to use the technique and I do not see it as "borderline! in any way. They are original works of art necessarily based upon what I can find historically as they obviously cannot sit for me. I studied copyright law for three years so if you think this is a breach please point me to the relevant clause in the law. I know it does NOT breach copyright which is ther whole POINT of me using this rather elaborate and time consuming technique--Stephencdickson (talk) 22:45, 18 February 2018 (UTC) As to the "canon" image I photograph eachj work pastel smudges if you scan--Stephencdickson (talk) 22:48, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

If it's based on another work, the copyright of that work applies in addition to that of your derivative. As there doesn't seem like there's any question regarding whether or not it was based on that other work, it's a pretty straightforward case of DW. Regardless, it seems this is probably all moot. Based on this page, it seems highly likely (granted, not quite 100%) that this image is from before 1923 and thus quite likely in the public domain. — Rhododendrites talk |  23:40, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
The question is: is it really based on it or just inspired by? You could make a work that is clearly inspired by another work without it being a DW. The photo was published in this 1924 book but it may have been published before that. - Alexis Jazz 00:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
@Stephencdickson: I imagine there are people who would be able to (perhaps you as well) to make a picture from this person from a completely different angle, just by looking at a photograph. Or with completely different lighting. In such a case, there would never be any question: it would obviously be a completely new original work. I do not judge how creative you are or how much work you have put into this - I just wonder if, were the author of the photograph to sue you, there would be any chance they could win. And I think such a case would not be completely hopeless. I wouldn't say they would win for sure either. This is like rephrasing copyrighted works for Wikipedia. Generally if you rephrase it in such a manner it can't be recognized as the original work anymore you'll get away with it. However, if you rephrase a complete Harry Potter book, you won't get away with it. Even if every single word is different. You get some copyright on your new version, but you will also depend on the copyright of the original. I do wonder who suggested this technique to you and in what context, do you have a link? - Alexis Jazz 00:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
As far as I can tell the on-line image in its own right was a copy of an earlier newspaper image from around 1900... certainly copyright expired if it was ever copyright in the first place (you must remember not every image is originally copyright - see the various British Copyright acts)...the whole point of the technique is that it is created as an art work based on what I can find and SPECIFICALLY avoiding UK copyright (All images are UK created). As said, I have also had specific requests from other wikimedia/wikipedia authors and senior editors to use the technique to "fill gaps". Each picture takes around two hours and there is absolutely no use of photoshop in the method. The finished works are photographed then published on Wikimedia. I truly do not understand why you query this. If you read the law it certainly has NOTHING to do with being in the same room when the work was done. If you look at the history of art "portrayals" are more often than not conjectural, based on whatever information was available. I presume you are not an artist or art historian. The "rephrasing" argument is nonsense and misunderstands artistic copyright. It is original artwork--Stephencdickson (talk) 20:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
"there is absolutely no use of photoshop in the method" - what is your method here? Zooming in on [[:|your John Ure Primrose portrait]], I'm seeing what looks like pixelisation across a lot of the image, particularly the top of the head and the collar. Are you printing a found digital image onto paper and applying pastels over the top? --Lord Belbury (talk) 13:27, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I came across another of these just now. @Stephencdickson: I'm curious about the context of other parties on Wikipedia/Wikimedia encouraged me to use the technique. Could you provide a link? I don't doubt it -- I'm just interested to see the conversation and/or who provided that advice, as maybe they have some insight I'm missing. It's not a crucial detail, though. That said, I'm struggling to see some of these as something other than derivative work that would need to consider the copyright of the original. I think the commitment to the project and the time/skill you put into this are admirable, but I don't see how -- legally speaking -- this would be any different from rotoscoping, animating, applying photoshop filters, or any other more basic technique that creates an alternative version of an existing work. There's enough originality for you to have your own copyright on this, of course, but the original would still be applicable too (unless it has expired, as in my comments above). In addition to the one that started this thread, [[:]] and Ure's portrait, there's also:

this portrait and File:Pastel portrait of Sir William Gray by Stephen C Dickson (after Alan Sutherland).jpg
this and File:Pastel portrait of Sir William Pearce by Stephen C Dickson.jpg
this portrait and File:Pastel portrait of Sir William Bilsland by Stephen C Dickson.jpg
Maybe better suited for VP/Copyright? — Rhododendrites talk |  01:00, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Take down pictures of Old John - highest point in Leicestershire

I think that we should consider taking all these photos down in protest. According to the BBC, Bradgate Park are claiming that the image of Old John is a trademark. They seem very confused over their understanding of the law but they are bullying semi-professional artists to pay 100 pounds but ignoring Facebook, Twitter and other commercial social media aggregators - and Wikipedia. In my opinion this is an unfair extension of UK law to legalise what would otherwise be demanding money with menaces. According to the trust's interpretation of the law we should take down every picture that may include a pic of Old John on Wikipedia in all languages and on commons. I suggest that we comply with their unreasonable request in protest. Discuss this on here and on en:wiki Old John talk page, and then raise an RFC to gain consensus. I am going to check that Bradgate Park mean what they say, but if we allow this example then every chancer in the UK is going to run round trademarking items and removing freedom of panorama. Roger Bamkin aka Victuallers (talk) 08:55, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Usually we "ignore" trademarks (Commons:Non-copyright_restrictions#Trademark_law), i.e. just put a {{trademark}} on the image page. Could you please add a link to BBC's demand. If their interpretation of law holds water, then there's a nc restriction on this tower, at least for the U.K. @Lawyers: how about re-use in other countries? --Túrelio (talk) 09:27, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Searched by myself:
I assume it is this trademark? --HyperGaruda (talk) 09:44, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the trade mark link. This surely does not infringe "our" freedom of panorama. If this were true then I could sketch any landmark and claim a trademark and de facto copyright over any image of it. Surely we cannot allow this to happen. The trademark ownere are claiming that artistic works of a publically viewable landmark (that is owned by the people) cannot be made without permission. IMO this is a claim that we are breaking. They say we are not commercial but we are. IMO we need to stand up to this misuse of the law (that could infringe freedom of panorama - what we rely on in many cases). Victuallers (talk) 10:52, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Commons may be considered to be not commercial, but that's rather irrelevant. Our licensing policy requires absolutely that all uploads have to be free for commercial use. Uploading nc-restricted material to Commons is no-go. --Túrelio (talk) 11:09, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Victuallers, trademark and copyright law are separate things. See this article for discussion of copyright and trademark concerns for buildings. They may have a trademark but that doesn't mean they will succeed in court for any particular usage case. But this isn't relevant to Commons. Lots of our images cannot be used for certain commercial purposes, including photos of identifiable people, and in the US they even have property rights which make it hard to use a photo of a property for commercial purposes. The law is what it is, and I don't think Commons/Wikipedia removing images/articles is a suitable way to protest. -- Colin (talk) 11:27, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. Its an interesting and dispassionate read. It talks a lot about copyright which we I'm used to seeing discussed here and a bit about trademarks of buildings. It seems to say that trademarking the phrase "The Gherkin" can be a trademark but the idea of the shape of a building being a trademark is on the legal frontier. The gherkin may manage it but its a new design, and it will be tricky as novelty will be required. The building in question here was built in 1784 and trademark is merely decades old and has, up to now not been used with such a broad (laissez faire?) interpretation to include any rendition of the building. Interesting about US property rights, but I do not think they exist in the UK. The link you shared makes in plain that the EC still believes in freedom of panorama (although its under threat). The WMF have campaigned to make sure that we do not use this right. You say that some images cannot be used commercially and I can think of a few (clearly stated on the image), but in this case I an concerned about our normal photos of UK landscapes and buildings (e.g. geograph) and they are all able to be used commercially. Thats why its says cc-by-sa - all over them (and why its so tricky to find new images!!). I agree that the law is what it is (as with all a=a or b=b statements).... however I believe that these people are extending the law in a very ambitious way. That is not their aim, but it could be the result. Wikipedians have in the past agreed that withdrawing our services is a good way to protest. Do you have a realistic alternative? Victuallers (talk) 12:46, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
If I stick a "CC BY-SA" on my photo of a building or person or product or landscape, all I am doing is saying that wrt the copyright rights that I, as a photographer, hold, I will permit you to use this photo for commercial purposes. I have not and cannot give away rights that other people hold, if they are a subject of the photo or they own rights to the building/sculpture/artwork/product/etc. So don't read the lack of "-NC" in a CC licence as meaning "you are permitted to use this commercially". It only says that the photographer has given you a permit in so far as their copyright claim is concerned. For the non-copyright concerns, Commons makes it clear that any re-user is doing so at their own risk and should take legal advise as to whether there are other rightsholders they need to clear with. The presence of a template is a friendly reminder but we don't guarantee to add all necessary templates, and the law varies from country to country.
The article I linked is a little out-of-date and there was a time when we were concerned the EU might harmonise copyright law and move towards the French model with no Freedom of Panorama. I don't think it is accurate to say the EU believes in FoP, more that they have given up aiming for harmonious law in this area. I helped campaign against this EU move -- that picture was used in some photography websites and WMF protests and many of us wrote to our MEPs.
People make claims all the time. Have they actually taken an artist/photographer to court over this? Or just made a threat? From a quick look at the news articles, the charity seems to justify itself exploiting trademark law because they think they are a good cause. We saw that wrongheaded thinking with some UK MEPs who initially thought the EU FoP changes were good in that they protected artists works from being exploited commercially by others. But really the "artists" were firms of highly paid architects, who's architectural livelihood is well protected by copyright law, and who, when asked, weren't asking for this extra source of income either. As you say, the charity doesn't morally have any right to money earned images of this historic 1784 building.
If you feel strongly about it, have you written to them to ask them to change their minds? Bad local press could well negate any gains they make. Seems to me that people using the image in their business logo or selling paintings is all ways to get extra publicity for your landmark, and that ultimately will encourage people to visit. -- Colin (talk) 13:54, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Instead of deleting those images which nobody will notice, I will be happy to update all of them to Not Old John tower. As far as I can tell, Not Old John tower does not infringe on any trademark or copyright. This would also notify anyone who hotlinks the image from Commons. - Alexis Jazz 16:20, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I've heard of something similar. The "3-dimensional shape" of the Sydney Opera House was trademarked in 2013, apparently as a way to get a monopoly over various types of souvenirs.[34] --ghouston (talk) 22:51, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
rather than a black out, i would suggest an image for their article which include some white out such as File:Louvre_Pyramid_-_censored_copyright.jpg, with a big controversy section like w:Atomium. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 02:34, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Where is the SVG icon for the Visual Editor pencil

Hi all

I really need to find this pencil icon as an .svg for some instructions I'm writing but can't find it anywhere (its not in the VE icons category), any ideas?


John Cummings (talk) 13:47, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I found it :)  


John Cummings (talk) 13:53, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Celebrity photo ID

Can anyone identify this woman? File:Mercedes-Benz Carousel of Hope Gala 2014 (15333164848).jpg. Thanks. Animalparty (talk) 01:31, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

That would appear to be DJ Tanner Candace Cameron-Bure. :) — Rhododendrites talk |  01:39, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! I knew she looked familiar. Animalparty (talk) 02:04, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Sailor NeptuneSMCACT37.png

Not sure how this slipped in under the radar, as it's almost certainly a copyright violation. It's been on Commons since February 19, uploader claims it's his/her own work. Surprised nobody's nominated it for deletion yet. AshFriday (talk) 07:48, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

@AshFriday: I tagged it as a copyvio, and Túrelio deleted it. You could tag the next one yourself.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:44, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Confused about the validity of an applied license on Commons

The file File:Ron-Zacapa-XO.jpg is a Featured picture, Picture of the day and a Quality image here on Commons. The photographer claims authorship and is the uploader of the file. It is a photograph of a bottle of rum with a label. I would normally assume that there is an authorship involved for both the design of the bottle and the design of the label. Also I would assume that the name of the rum is a protected brand name and the use of the name of the producer also being protected by copyright law.

How come the image is licensed as CC-BY-SA-3.0 and has the photographer/uploader as author? Is this image not at least a derivative work? As I understand it:

  • A derivative work is an expressive creation that includes major copyright-protected elements of an original, previously created first work (the underlying work). The derivative work becomes a second, separate work independent in form from the first. The transformation, modification or adaptation of the work must be substantial and bear its author's personality to be original and thus protected by copyright. (Source: w:Derivative work)

Also, I would like to understand how this image meets the originality requirement Shouldn't it contain contain sufficient new expression? Does this image and if so, how? Besides that, how does this image meet the lawful works requirement? Is the authorship of the photographed object in the Public Domain? Is it a case of a submitted OTRS?

Again, I am trying to broaden my knowledge of permitted licenses on Commons. And I am assuming that I just don't get why this photo is allowed on Commons under the license of CC-BY-SA-3.0. So, can anyone help me out? Thanks. --oSeveno (talk) 10:54, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Trademark is non-copyright. However, per Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#Product_packaging the bottle-design may be eligible for copyright. --Túrelio (talk) 10:59, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Just verifying: You mean to say: All trademarks are non-copyright? Right? Okay, I get that. And the logo of the brand is made up of plain font, so that's not protected either. But the design of the bottle may be protected by copyright law. In that case, shouldn't the file page clearly state on what ground the use of the bottle is permitted? Otherwise it could be nominated for immediate removal, right? --oSeveno (talk) 11:13, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
@OSeveno: Yes, the file description page should clearly state on what ground the use of the bottle is permitted.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:52, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Regarding the design of the bottle, COM:UA is probably the relevant section of our rules. No 100% clear answer there, though … --El Grafo (talk) 16:21, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
@OSeveno: a few of things. (1) I think you have misunderstood when you say "All trademarks are non-copyright." More accurately, the fact that something is trademarked says nothing either way about whether or not it is copyrighted (and vice versa). Trademark and copyright are two independent branches of intellectual property rights law. (2) We do have {{trademark}} to mark an image where trademark issues might arise (especially where it might not be instantly obvious). (3) You say, "shouldn't the file page clearly state on what ground the use of the bottle is permitted?" Possibly, but we don't usually say explicitly that each object in a photo is not copyrightable in its own right. For example, if I take a picture of a boy and his dog, I don't explain why the boy and the dog (and the grass, and the tree, and the sky) don't raise copyright issues. - Jmabel ! talk 16:54, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
How does this 3D work apply on this decision tree?
In the case of boy and dog, there is obviously no need for such explanation. However, the image questioned by OSeveno is a photo of someone else's creative work, which very likely _is_ a subject of copyright issues. I'm not an expert to have an answer, but as an amendment to the discussion, see the heading at and duscission at JiriMatejicek (talk) 12:53, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Commons:Licensing/en#cite note-1 (s:Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, Inc.) - Alexis Jazz 21:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Interesting amendment, but a different case - copyright of the photo (Skyy) vs. copyright of the object in the photo (Ron-Zacapa). JiriMatejicek (talk) 12:53, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank for the replies. Personally, I believe the photograph doesn't sufficiently meet the originality requirement, since I believe we need to weigh the amount of originality in the creation of the photograph versus the amount of originality of the design of the bottle. There are (at least) two authors involved. The transformation, modification or adaptation of the work must be substantial and bear its author's personality to be original and thus protected by copyright. How else can the photographer claim artist value of the photograph? Don't tell me that the application of light, contrast and sharpness is sufficient to create a new authorship. Remember, the photographer claims full authorship, a not as it being a derivative work. Or is the bottle an object from the category called useful articles? Also, remember this is a 3D object. Again, I am just trying to gain a better understanding of the matter. --oSeveno (talk) 10:31, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

User Kumgam

I want to bring up Special:Contributions/Kumgam, not sure what is the right thing to do here, but at least it seems prudent to disable the files until we have a proof that the persons are OK with their image being used. Syced (talk) 12:05, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Warning: NSFW, if you are thinking of clicking through. - Jmabel ! talk 16:34, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
@Syced: This is why we have {{personality}}.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 18:41, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Not exactly.. If the woman did not consent to this being published it would be a severe invasion of her privacy. {{personality}} doesn't even come close to covering that. Given the history of the user though, it's most likely just another copyvio. - Alexis Jazz 21:01, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
I searched the web using the Google-Images function, but didn't find hits for the remaining 2 GIFs. --Túrelio (talk) 21:04, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
@Túrelio: I've done the same, I even searched for several individual frames. The GIF was probably generated from a full-length video that either originates from a paysite or thumbnails were not generated for the scenes that we see. - Alexis Jazz 21:12, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
I would say given that other uploads of this user were deleted as unsourced, there are strong suspicions that the uploader took the films themselves, and we do not see any consent of the model, this is a speedy deletion material.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:57, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Globally locked by Tegel for socking and trolling – the local one-month block is now moot. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:40, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Centuries and decades

I'm concerned about the various categories we have for decades and centuries like:

There are two problems:

  1. The 20th century began on Jan 1 1901 and ran to Dec 31 2000, not 1900-1999. The period from Jan 1 1900 to Dec 31 1999 is the "1900s".
  2. "1900s" is ambiguous. Does it mean the decade that started in 1900, or the century? The more common meaning is the century, but it used on Commons for decades.

I'm not immediately sure how to fix either issue.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:21, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

  • There is no consistency as to whether people consider a century to begin in x000 or x001. Obviously, the latter is more technically correct (there was no Year 0), but the former is more common, and I think it's fine that we follow the more common convention.
  • Similarly, as long as we are consistent, I see nothing wrong with "1900s" for the decade. I don't see a clearer way to write it without being awfully verbose. - Jmabel ! talk 00:25, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
    • There may be no consistency in what people believe, but some of them are wrong. Also, a 1999 church is a "1900s" church. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:29, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
      • It is not correct to say the year 1900 was part of the 20th century. It doesn't matter if people believe that to be the case or not ;)
      • "The 1900s" typically refers to a one hundred year period, not a decade. Even more so when you go further back - if you see "1700s" in a textbook, you can be absolutely certain its referring to the century. So why on earth would Commons use it for a decade. That means we really need to add "decade" somehow. Yes its awkward. But its not misleading then.--Nilfanion (talk) 14:07, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

February 24

File:1963 asalto.png

This image is from a train robbery near Caracas, Venezuela, on September 29, 1963. Since the public domain status for pictures and other audiovisual works starts 60 years after its publication, I would like to request the undeletion of the image on September 29, 2023, once it is deleted.--Jamez42 (talk) 20:02, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

It will be PD in the US 95 years from publication.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:15, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

February 25

Category:Media with geo-coordinates needing categories

  • It would be easier to categorize if people could choose photos from regions they know. The map tools should help, but none of them seems to work - the Google tool returns just blank page, the OSM tool opens a map with a note "sorry, no data to show". JiriMatejicek (talk) 10:34, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • There are almost 190 000 images in this category (!). Images without categories are pretty useless. Except for 'temporary state', e.g. when people upload a bunch of images and categorize them later, I consider this an extreme sloppiness. Instead of listing them in this category and waiting for (other) people to categorize them, wouldn't it be useful/possible to send an automated message (say, after a week) to the uploader asking them to please categorize their uploads? The uploaders obviously know the best where the images should belong. JiriMatejicek (talk) 14:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • There are numerous images whose name starts with the name of the place. Therefore, it would be convenient to put them in the respective category as a group. Unfortunately, the Cat-a-lot tool doesn't work, as there is no 'old' category. Is there any other way to put more images into a gategory at once? JiriMatejicek (talk) 15:26, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Cat a lot works, but you need to use copy instead of move. Rudolphous (talk) 15:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. JiriMatejicek (talk) 16:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
The map tools worked before (Google Earth still works for me), so the idea was that you would zoom on areas that you know and sort those images. Another idea was to download all the coordinates, compare them to the country boundaries, assign country to each and sort them into categories like Category:Media of Russia to be categorised, etc. --Jarekt (talk) 19:16, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
I can map all files to countries when desired. Rudolphous (talk) 18:12, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

3D objects can now be uploaded to Commons

Asad Al-Lat statue destroyed in the ancient city of Palmyra

Greetings Commons.

Commons now supports the uploading of 3D objects in the STL file format. 3D files will show a static preview image when viewing, and an interactive viewer will load when that preview image is clicked.

To upload a 3D file, log in (or create a new account) and click the “Upload file” link on the left of the page. When viewing 3D files, please make sure you have the MediaViewer enabled to use the interactive 3D features.

Please help us test the feature and upload your 3d objects. There are a few bugs the team is tracking. One issue we have is that you can't embed models in other wikis just yet. That involves enabling the 3D extension on all wikis, which should be resolved shortly. [35] Other bug reports are welcome. Please ping me if you need help filing a Phabricator task.

For more information on the feature, you can read the help documentation and the technical documentation on how the MediaWiki extension works.

The first object to be uploaded is a 3D model of a Asad Al-Lat statue that was destroyed by Daesh terrorists in the ancient city of Palmyra, Syria along with most of the main world heritage ruins in the city. The image is tagged with #NEWPALMIRA in honor of Bassel Khartabil.

You can search for all uploaded 3D objects by using "filetype:3d" in your searches. [36]

There will be a larger Wikimedia blog post coming up soon to announce this to the rest of the world. :) CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 21:46, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

@CKoerner (WMF): could you remove political slur from the caption, please? I am no more a supporter of the bigots than you probably are, but let’s not turn Commons to an overt propaganda vehicle. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 21:50, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
@Incnis Mrsi: My apologies, I merely copied the description provided unaware of its context. Please edit to your liking. I trust your judgement. CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 21:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
@CKoerner (WMF): Congratulations, and thanks to everyone who's made this possible! I've just uploaded File:WikipediaGlobeOnePiece.stl and File:Wikipedia globe letters indent.stl. They still need better categorization and some more information; probably also some license info corrections! For example, they're very much "derived works". I'll add some information in the next few minutes, including a link to the github repo with source files. --Slashme (talk) 22:13, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Amazing, is there some way to see all the .stl files available on Commons? John Cummings (talk) 23:45, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
@John Cummings:: Special:NewFiles lets you filter to just 3D files: – but that's only going to show "all" 3D files for a short period, once they're being actively uploaded. Same way there's no way to see all JPEGs or all GIFs. Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 23:50, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
@Jdforrester (WMF): It would be nice if we could filter Special:ListFiles like we can Special:NewFiles.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Understood. There's T94709 to add category-based filtering to ListFiles, and T32608 which proposes merging ListFiles with NewFiles, but I don't think there's a proposal to add those kinds of filters from NewFiles to ListFiles yet. Would you like to file one? Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 17:50, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
@Jdforrester (WMF):   Done in phab:T187974.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 04:11, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I think there's a bug, perhaps somebody can confirm? If you enable the preference "Place categories above content, but below image on file description pages" in Preferences, Gadgets, Interface: Files and categories, then go to the an STL file description page, then click any category link just below the image, it takes you to the media viewer instead of the category. --ghouston (talk) 23:04, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Not just the gadget (which BTW, shouldn't insert itself within 'fullImagelink' element, but position itself as a sibling after it). Filed phab:T188102. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 15:00, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
@CKoerner (WMF): I have a minor issue with this otherwise neat new feature: Commons:Village pump/Proposals#God has joined Commons! - Alexis Jazz 22:40, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

February 22

Inferences from metadata?

I want to ease back into doing some OTRS submissions work.

I'm looking at File:Miska Fredman 2.jpg. The file statement claims it is "own work". I think I have seen situations where the metadata will identify that an image was taken using the self timer. I don't see that included in this metadata. Can someone who knows enough about metadata tell me whether I can make inferences from that observation? In other words, does the lack of seeing that, provide evidence that it was not taken using a self timer or is it the case (as I suspect) but nothing definitive can be concluded.

If the subject claimed to have taken the photo, is there any reason to not accept this claim? (for reference ticket:2018021310009617)--Sphilbrick (talk) 20:28, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Asking someone to take your photo does not always mean that the copyright is transferred to the person that operates the shutter. The person that composes the photo gets the credit. US passport photos are not copyrightable since the US government specifies how the image should be composed, demands a specific background, and demands specific lighting, even though you may go to Costco or Walmart to have the image taken. Many professional photographers had multiple assistants that operated the shutter, for instance Andy Warhol, but the copyright went to the person that composed the image, Warhol. RAN (talk) 21:42, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
I am well aware of that, but that's not relevant to this issue. When a person claims to hold the copyright and is the subject of the photo there are two fundamental ways this can happen. They can ask someone else to take the photo and arrange to have the copyright transferred or they can take a selfie, either the usual way with a phone or using a self timer or remote triggering device. In this instance, there is no claim that another person took the photo and transferred the copyright. The subject claims to have taken the photo. If true, they clearly own the copyright — my question is whether their claim should be accepted or challenged.--Sphilbrick (talk) 23:06, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Just to be clear, my question is still unanswered. Does anyone know if use of a self-timer will always be reflected in the EXIF, which would mean that this assertion of copyright should be rejected? I'm inclined to AGF and accept the claim, but I don't want to if someone knows that it's impossible.--Sphilbrick (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: It won't yet on Mediawiki, I have requested that it will in phab:T187322.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 18:00, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

February 23

Media viewer will not die

I recently enabled the media viewer. More fool me.

Now, after I disable it it, keeps being spontaneously re-enabled. How can I be rid of it for good? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:27, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

When I enabled it to check out some of the STL files it did the same to me. Going into preferences/appearance and unchecking it there fixed it for me. — Rhododendrites talk |  18:19, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
So it seems. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:19, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
I think clicking 3D file forces MediaViewer to be enabled. It can be turned off via Preferences, but there's alternative kill command for your Special:MyPage/common.js or global.js:
// No MediaViewer
mw.config.set("wgMediaViewerOnClick", false);
Maybe MediaViewer should be just 1-time-enabled when someone click 3D files, instead of (looks-like) permanently re-enabling them. PS: This was the chunk that caused SuperProtect. — regards, Revi 16:27, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Query about licence

I want to upload some images on commons that was clicked by my friend. He gave me permission to upload on Wikimedia commons. So guide me which license is applicable here? Is COM:OTRS applicable?--Godric ki Kothri talk 10:27, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

@Godric ki Kothri: Please have your friend send permission via OTRS, or they can upload directly or send the images to our photosubmissions queue.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:41, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
What's the "photosubmissions queue"? New to me, and I don't quickly find that with a search. - Jmabel ! talk 16:40, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
@Jmabel: photosubmission --Sphilbrick (talk) 16:35, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Is that documented somewhere? How is anyone supposed to learn about it? I search and that and find nothing; it's not at all clear what someone should send in such an email. - Jmabel ! talk 18:35, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
The only place I know for sure it is documented is at en:WP:Contact us - Licensing. The last paragraph. No idea if it is documented anywhere else. It is a rather low trafficked queue. --Majora (talk) 18:43, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Now I upload 8 files with OTRS tag. So If I want to confirm these as my friend's representative (because my friend said to upload it), So it is possible or not?--Godric ki Kothri talk 09:26, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

@Godric ki Kothri: Which 8 files? Did your friend send permission already?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 10:19, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Yes first my friend send me permission through Whatsapp then on my E-mail. Now I want to be his representative & send permission of all those Files to permissions-commons with my E-mail account. Is this right or not?--Godric ki Kothri talk 11:25, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
@Godric ki Kothri: You can CC your friend on your email message to permissions-commons   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:36, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-09

19:52, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

February 27

Editing text in SVG file?

Newbie question (which I couldn't find an answer to in FAQ, SVG help, other pages - probably because it is so fundamental):

Situation: I'd like to help out by editing text in SVG files. For example File:Endocrine miscelaneous en.svg I'd like to change the 2nd "Atrial" to "Brain" aka fix the 'typo'.

Question: How do I edit the text in SVG files; can I do it directly in the web browser on Commons? Or, do I need to download the original file, edit it using an image editor, and then do the whole upload process? Thank you for all advice, links to help pages, etc! --Treetear (talk) 10:40, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

@Treetear: SVG files are generally text, so you should be able to download, edit in a text editor, and upload overwrite.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 10:43, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you @Jeff G.: I assume even Notepad would work as a text editor for such simple edits? Also, in my example file above, I assume the text is not stored as text but as "path"? Because I cannot seem to edit it the text in the downloaded file, or even highlight the text in the browser.
What is the procedure to convert path --> text, is it manually editing the file in an image editor? --Treetear (talk) 11:03, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
@Treetear: For that, you will probably want to use Inkscape and save as a regular SVG file.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
@Treetear:, if you use Inkscape, you might have to convert the text to paths: from my experience.svg files with text still as fonts results in black bars where the words should be. Animalparty (talk) 05:05, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you both @Animalparty: and @Jeff G.: for the answers! --Treetear (talk) 10:13, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
@Treetear: You're welcome.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 10:17, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Sadly, the illustrations use paths rather than text (the Italian version uses text). The illustrations should be fixed to use text strings (there's nothing significant in the font rendition) and allow easy translation to many languages. AFAIK, there is no easy method of converting paths back to text; delete the paths in an image editor and then re-enter the text. Sometimes, but not always, the original text may appear in the SVG file as an ARIA string. The black box instead of text problem can be fixed by using SVG 1.1 text elements rather than flowed text. Glrx (talk) 22:58, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Other supersets

User has the opportunity to see the superset(s) only according to the Commons version. Is there a tool/template for adding views of other version (for obtaining a unified/single/standard/general/etc model of the world)? For example, for the set Society the user sees only supersets of only the Commons's version: Topics, Structure. Templates like {{Sisterwikidata}} (also {{Sisterwikibooks}}, {{Sisterwikinews}}, {{Sisterwikipedia}}, {{Sisterwikiquote}}, {{Sisterwikisource}}, {{Sisterwikispecies}}, {{Sisterwikiversity}}, {{Sisterwikivoyage}}, {{Sisterwiktionary}}) do not show superset(s) according to their projects version (Wikidata, Wikibooks, Wikinews, Wikipedia, Wikiquote, Wikisource, Wikiversity, Wiktionary, etc.) --Fractaler (talk) 09:42, 27 February 2018 (UTC)