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

Contents

Multiple non-free images

A message has been posted on Catalan Wikipedia about a group of pictures that have been uploaded and they seem to have been taken from the Internet without due permission. I copy the list here, with pairs of file in Commons and the pages of origin.

List of files

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vicente_Lopez_Rosat.jpg https://www.todocoleccion.net/fotografia-antigua-albumina/fotos-exposicion-ninot-lonja-1973-alcalde-vicente-lopez-rosat-fallera-mayor-encarnacion-folgado~x50367373

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Torre_del_compte.jpg https://www.hoteles.net/teruel/torre-del-compte/torre-del-compte-turismo-rural-teruel.html

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ubieto.jpg http://www.culturavalenciana.es/tag/antonio-ubieto/

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Falla_Vicente_Luna.jpg http://www.vicentelunavalencia.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/FOTO-PORTADA.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Toril_y_Masegoso.jpg http://www.turismoruralsierradealbarracin.com/que-ver/localidades/toril-y-masegoso/

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Saldon.jpg http://www.turismoruralsierradealbarracin.com/que-ver/localidades/saldon/

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rubielos_de_la_C%C3%A9rida.jpg http://www.descubrejiloca.es/pueblos/rubielos-de-la-cerida/

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rillo,_Teruel.jpg https://www.foro-ciudad.com/teruel/rillo/fotos/4561-rillo.html

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Moscardon.jpg http://www.turismoruralsierradealbarracin.com/que-ver/localidades/moscardon/

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Monteagudo_del_Castillo.jpg https://www.google.com/search?q=Monteagudo+del+Castillo&client=ubuntu&tbm=isch&tbs=rimg:CcOTNSkeeiLZIjiyY_1ZoqV6oooYj2Wm4PPRmTQwX3bT5bjp0pogRjnObPV5nZmSkRuHAtKrJpthO4PgzdHRNBST4nCoSCbJj9mipXqiiEZ1szZxj5geoKhIJhiPZabg89GYRzIaQjvGx7wcqEglNDBfdtPluOhFwB0Q343kJqSoSCXSmiBGOc5s9ES5wtryoX5iRKhIJXmdmZKRG4cARxL8WbX8JbtAqEgm0qsmm2E7g-BEv9mL7DmUPzioSCTN0dE0FJPicESThvwXxcSKi&tbo=u&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjiosPHpLLhAhWHzYUKHZnoBFAQ9C96BAgBEBs&biw=1472&bih=732&dpr=1.3#imgrc=e8Yu0K6qiupwVM:

B25es (talk) 16:24, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

@B25es: You may tag copyvios in multiple ways as per COM:CV, Help:QuickDelete, and COM:VFC.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 17:09, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
It seems these have now been deleted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:42, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:42, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

"Depicts" statements ready for testing and release

After the resolution of some technical blocks, the Structured Data on Commons team is ready to test and release support for statements on Commons, starting with the depicts property on the file page. Depicts statements are meant to be some of the simplest possible descriptors for a file. For example, File:Square_-_black_simple.svg contains what can be considered a depiction (P180) of a geometric square (Q164). I would like to emphasize that this first release of depicts statements is very, very simple and there is much more to come to build out the feature. Further support for depicts statements, such as in the UploadWizard and with qualifiers, will be released within the next few weeks after the initial support goes live here.

The development team is looking to make sure of design and functionality for adding, editing, and removing statements. The current plan is to test depicts on Test-Commons for a week to find potentially breaking bugs, do a systems test on Test Commons to discover configuration discrepancies, and then release live into production here on Commons. Once we release the software, there will be bugs that show up here on production Commons that did not or do not show up in testing; the team will work to document, triage, and fix these bugs. If all goes well, depicts will be turned on next week, during the week of 1 April'. I will post in advance which particular day the software will be turned on once that is determined.

Please help test depicts before it is released here. Testing information is available on this page, and you can leave your feedback on the test talk page. If your testing finds no major concerns or flaws that you'd like to comment on, please let us know that as well. Even a simple “Looks good to me” is helpful feedback. You must be logged in to test depicts; Test-Commons is tied to CentralAuth so your account here should work there without any action from you.

Additionally, any thoughts or concerns about gadgets or tools that might break because of this launch are appreciated so that the issues can be sorted out to be fixed. These community-developed resources are especially vulnerable to problems when new software is released live and we'd like to make sure people are looking out for them.

Thanks, let me know if you have any questions about the testing and release process. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 16:40, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Keegan (WMF):, could you give a link to a proposal and consensus for this change?
Where can we find the proposal and consensus to allow additions to Wikimedia Commons that force users to release their work as CC0, rather than with attribution as has been our norm since this Wikimedia Commons was launched?
Will the rollout out be after "depicts" are added to the search engine, so that we can better manage vandalism?
Thanks -- (talk) 16:51, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
@: thanks for asking. Here's the proposal, check out the talk page. As such a major undertaking the proposal was put in its own space, but it was advertised in the appropriate notification spaces on Commons. As to your second point, no one is being forced to release work under CC0. Commons's traditional file page, with traditional Commons licensing, is still the primary "forced" way to contribute with all structured data fields being optional. There is no formal proposal around SDC licensing being CC0 because WMF Legal advised the development team to make it so, and the development team is following their advice. As for the last point of search, all things search are being improved and we look forward to releasing them. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 18:51, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
A project page is not a proposal to the community.
"Advice from WMF Legal" - ...really...? Okay, please publish the legal advice. Then the community can have a vote on whether we think it is good advice, or... something else. Last time I checked, WMF Legal do not tell the community how to provide their content. If that has changed, then we need a WMF board resolution that puts WMF Legal fully in charge of managing our project communities and our content, and we can stop wasting our time writing policies for our WMF Legal's project. Thanks -- (talk) 17:55, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @Keegan (WMF): Will this be, like captions, one more bit of data pertaining to a file that’s not visible nor editable in its file page’s wikitext? -- Tuválkin 17:49, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @Tuvalkin: Statements live in wikibase and not in wikitext, so no they are not edited in the same way. They accessed from a tab on the file page, where you edit them with ease. They are not immediately visible when a file page loads, and are separate from file information. You can try it out yourself. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 18:46, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @Keegan (WMF): Thanks for your swift and concise explanation. Unsurprisingly, we do no share the same definition of "with ease". As with captions, I wont touch this with a three yard pole. -- Tuválkin 19:13, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
    • What is so difficult about implementing a serialization/deserialization approach available as an option to manipulate the relevant content in WikiText? Yes, it would require discipline and should not be rolled out to everyone, but plenty of power users (including doubtless Fæ, Tuválkin, and myself would find it tremendously easier than editing in two different places. - Jmabel ! talk 19:46, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
As a "power user", I am never going to use this rubbish. It makes a true nightmare of doing batch uploads. Total crap compared to posting a single page of Wikitext, and being able to handle vandalism by using simple searches of Wikitext source. The answer to having someone post "bollocks" in captions is that you have to search it out using special "label" options, what a pile of ****, completely degrading the current project and making it unusable, un-user friendly, totally hostile and confusing for new users.
This is rapidly burning through volunteer goodwill on Commons, in the WMF/Wikidata evangelists' aim to turn Commons into an "CC0, free for randomly scraping content" annex of Wikidata. -- (talk) 19:52, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
@: the whole point of serialization/deserialization would be to let us deal with this content as wikitext. I actually sketched out a proposal for this last year at the Wikimedia conference in Berlin; a few of the Wikimedia Deutschland Wikidata people seemed interested and felt it made some sense but, presumably because I'm on the opposite side of the world & don't have funding, it went nowhere. - Jmabel ! talk 01:33, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Tentative release the week of 8 April

Thanks to all who participated in testing and reporting back. Originally scheduled for this week, the team plans to launch simple depicts statements next week after taking time to fix bugs found during testing. I'll keep everyone updated on the release plans, and please help continue testing and leaving feedback. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 18:54, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

March 27

Category:Istanbul Pride Solidarity Demo Berlin 2018

From category Category:Istanbul Pride Solidarity Demo Berlin 2018 all connections to Istanbul Pride have been removed. First people of Turkey, even though many of the participants are from Turkey, now Category:Istanbul Pride 2018. The solidarity demo took place as a solidarity event to Istanbul Pride. All referrences to Istanbul Pride have been removed. In my opinion Commons is for people to find relevant media. I have tried the best I can to do a good categorization, but I give up on this matter. --C.Suthorn (talk) 16:53, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Commons just passed 1 million audio files!

Looks like Commons passed 1 million audio files last week! We're now at 1,005,308 files. Thanks to everyone who has contributed (especially for the mass imports)! Any bets on how soon we'll hit 2 million? Kaldari (talk) 20:32, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly which file was the 1 millionth, but it may have been File:De-gabt_frei.ogg, a pronunciation of the German word for "released" (or more literally "gave free" or "set free"?) by User:Jeuwre. Seems quite fitting doesn't it? Kaldari (talk) 21:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi Kaldari, nice information for me. To be exactly the conjugated verb (infinitive: 'freigeben') is used with the pronoun second person plural 'ihr' (-> ihr gabt ... frei) and it is past tense. Your translation is perfect, the main meaning is 'released' (e.g. a person from prison), there are some more: b) declassified (e.g. a paper), c) unblocked (computing), d) floated (exchange rates) e) opened up (e.g. a street after roadworks). Pronunciation hero for me is Marcel, he's really industrious and I like his voice. Many thanks to him! Where can you see on commons how many audio files are uploaded altogether? Have a nice day --Jeuwre (talk) 07:24, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

April 02

File:UP Activists during Martial Law.png

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:UP_Activists_during_Martial_Law.png

The are no more student activists in the Diliman campus who openly challenged the authorities during Martial Law, not even the UP Police Force. I suggest the owner of the photograph change the caption, like, UP Activists Before Martial Law.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.215.118.87 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 19 March 2019‎ (UTC)
@203.215.118.87: everyone is free to edit any caption in the way they like and I am not aware of unregistered users being prohibited from editing captions so you could also do it. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 07:25, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

March 20

Can I use an image (map) from Google Earth on the Commons?

I poked around the Commons and I can't find advice on permission to use Google Earth captured images (maps, not street view).

GE says free to use but does that meet Wikimedia standards? I'm sure this is a question answered before but I can't get close to an answer with searches I've tried. --BrucePL (talk) 19:58, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Short answer is no. Long answer is that Google does not allow for commercial use. --HyperGaruda (talk) 20:23, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
If it is not street view, but maps, you can use the maps from open streetmap (and actually you will find many uses of osm in wikipedia: many categories in commons show this in the infobox, on wikidata all coordinates are visualized with an osm map). --C.Suthorn (talk) 06:12, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Both answers seem contradicting. The GE web page on permissions and subpage on web use seem to permit use of images for education purposes. Wikipedia qualifies?--BrucePL (talk) 17:03, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
No. All content on Commons must be freely usable for any purpose by anyone. ViperSnake151 (talk) 18:49, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
It wouldn't be illegal for Commons to use images from Google maps, but it would be against our policy because images here are intended to be available for reuse. - Jmabel ! talk 21:44, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Adding to the above, @BrucePL, the same is true of Wikipedia (the English version at least). Although usage in any article is almost certainly educational, in accord with the general purpose of the site, it is enWP policy not to host content that can’t be freely shared, repurposed, & republished. (Exceptions are made for images that can’t be adequately replaced by any free illustration, and only at low resolution—see en:WP:NFCC—that certainly wouldn’t apply to a current map.) Commons also is dedicated to educational purposes but equally to serving as a free resource, not just as a host of galleries.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 22:29, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
"No. All content on Commons must be freely usable for any purpose by anyone" = hopelessly idealistic and false. see also commons:personality rights , bur yeah, the "education purposes" is false also; as we see with the EU directive, carving out wikipedia exceptions harms the wider web, on which wikipedia is based. -- Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 23:32, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
You could use https://www.openstreetmap.org for maps. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:16, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. I need to show sea floor features in an article. OSM does not have these. Only Google Earth as far as I know. For potential articles on ocean sciences for Wikipedia the lack of access to Google Earth sea floor images is a major problem. --BrucePL (talk) 16:25, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
@BrucePL: When you answered to my mention of openstreetmap, you said nothing about sea floor maps?? And are you sure OSM doesn't offer what you need? Because Osmand~ offers sea deepth maps for download. (and by the way: what did you mean by "contradicting"?) --C.Suthorn (talk) 05:02, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
I think what Osmand offers is an add-on to what OMS offers by itself, just like they do with hillshading and elevation lines. The go-to source for deep ocean en:bathymetry data would normally be GEBCO, but they are not 100% about what you can and can not do with their data. They have a copyright statement for the GEBCO Digital Atlas that excluides commercial use, but in how far that also applies to the raw data hosted at gebco.net is not clear to me. --El Grafo (talk) 08:05, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Question, because I am not sure myself: How is it with Satellite Geodesy at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California San Diego? Not that good usable, though. — Speravir – 00:58, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

@BrucePL: Apparently, Google Earth uses SRTM15_PLUS as their foundational bathymetry layer. That's public domain U.S. Government Work data, so you could always just download the original netcdf file and render them yourself with GMT or some kind of GIS. --El Grafo (talk) 08:12, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

And if 15'' is too high-resolution, there's also a 30'' version somewhere. The 1' ETOPO1 also includes bathymetry. --El Grafo (talk) 13:19, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
@El Grafo: NOAA has an open source world bathmetry portal. I coorepsonded with the help desk there and all is open source. http://maps.ngdc.noaa.gov/viewers/bathymetry/ --BrucePL (talk) 17:00, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Oh, nice: looks like you can even get the measurements from individual surveys. --El Grafo (talk) 07:21, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

(Problematic) File rename request

File:PikiWiki Palestine 16398 Settlements in Palestine.jpg ---> File:PikiWiki Israel 16398 Yamit, Sinai.jpg

File:PikiWiki Palestine 18561 Geography of Palestine.jpg ---> File:PikiWiki Israel 18561 Yamit, Sinai.jpg

File:PikiWiki Palestine 36696 Settlements in Palestine.jpg ---> File:PikiWiki Israel 36696 Yamit, Sinai.jpg

File:PikiWiki Palestine 36697 Settlements in Palestine.jpg ---> File:PikiWiki Israel 36697 Yamit, Sinai.jpg

File:PikiWiki Palestine 37026 Settlements in Palestine.jpg ---> File:PikiWiki Israel 37026 Yamit, Sinai.jpg

File:PikiWiki Palestine 37027 Settlements in Palestine.jpg ---> File:PikiWiki Israel 37027 Yamit, Sinai.jpg

File:PikiWiki Palestine 37028 Settlements in Palestine.jpg ---> File:PikiWiki Israel 37028 Yamit, Sinai.jpg

File:PikiWiki Palestine 37029 Settlements in Palestine.jpg ---> File:PikiWiki Israel 37029 Yamit, Sinai.jpg

  • All these request require name changing from Palestine to Israel, I am not comfortable approving this request, I need more input.--AldNonUcallin?☎ 05:15, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
"PikiWiki Israel" is the name of the joint project for the uploads, and is not a statement of location.
I checked it now, and it seems that the name of the (Israeli) project is just "PikiWiki". Hence, if the word "Israel" should be an obstacle, I see no problem in renaming the files to names like "PikiWiki XYZ Yamit, Sinai.jpg". Just remove "PikiWiki Palestine" since that is a nonsense. The same applies to the recent set of rename requests:
--Shlomo (talk) 20:26, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Huldra controversially changed these, and it makes sense if they were the one to correct the filenames rather than leaving it to others. -- (talk) 14:19, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
I ask Huldra twice to do it, but I didn't get any reaction. A user who did so many controversial renames without previous discussion and doesn't accept responsibility for them IMHO shouldn't have file-mover rights.--Shlomo (talk) 20:26, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  • To clarify, the location of these photos is on the Egyptian side of the Gaza-Sinai border. -- Tuválkin 15:59, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Well, Shlomo, you didnt specify which files. I suggest we move them to

File:PikiWiki Palestine 16398 Settlements in Palestine.jpg ---> File:PikiWiki 16398 Yamit, Sinai.jpg

File:PikiWiki Palestine 18561 Geography of Palestine.jpg ---> File:PikiWiki 18561 Yamit, Sinai.jpg

File:PikiWiki Palestine 36696 Settlements in Palestine.jpg ---> File:PikiWiki 36696 Yamit, Sinai.jpg

File:PikiWiki Palestine 36697 Settlements in Palestine.jpg ---> File:PikiWiki 36697 Yamit, Sinai.jpg

File:PikiWiki Palestine 37026 Settlements in Palestine.jpg ---> File:PikiWiki 37026 Yamit, Sinai.jpg

File:PikiWiki Palestine 37027 Settlements in Palestine.jpg ---> File:PikiWiki 37027 Yamit, Sinai.jpg

File:PikiWiki Palestine 37028 Settlements in Palestine.jpg ---> File:PikiWiki 37028 Yamit, Sinai.jpg

File:PikiWiki Palestine 37029 Settlements in Palestine.jpg ---> File:PikiWiki 37029 Yamit, Sinai.jpg

    • Does anyone object? Huldra (talk) 20:33, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
I was sure that the range of problmatic filenames was clear enough from the context of the respective discussions, but if it is not the case, I'll try to be more specific now: Please remove the reference to Palestine from all filenames you changed in the last 3 months, if the picture is from the time after British Mandate of Palestine and the depicted object is not in Palestinian-governed territories (i.e. Areas A and B of West Bank or Gaza Strip).
And doing this, you can kindly change your "PikiWiki Palestine" references to "PikiWiki Israel" or just "PikiWiki", whatever you prefer. I haven't asked this before, but according to recent discussion, it seems to be a reasonable demand also.--Shlomo (talk) 21:37, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Area C is also Palestinian territory, but I have no objection to changing it all to just "PikiWiki". I assume you are ok with me doing the above changes, then? (eg File:PikiWiki Palestine 37029 Settlements in Palestine.jpg ---> File:PikiWiki 37029 Yamit, Sinai.jpg) Huldra (talk) 21:41, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
No, it's not. It is Israeli occupied territory, which had been annexed by (Trans)Jordan and later seized by Israel, but places like Beit El, Gush Ezion, Kiryat Arba or western part of Hebron have never been administrated by Palestinian Autonomy or State of Palestine. My point is, there is no more reason to call these places Palestinian than to call them Israeli. Until some kind of agreement is reached, they are “disputed territiories” and Commons:Disputed territories should apply here.
As for me, your changes of Yamit picture set seem to be OK. You can go on with the rest of “PikiWiki Palestine” files.--Shlomo (talk) 22:20, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
The point is, that it is not Israeli territory (not even Israel claims that Beit El, Gush Ezion, Kiryat Arba is part of Israel.) However, I will change those places in East Jerusalem which I see from "Pikiwiki Palestine" to just "Pikiwiki", as Israel claim them to be in Israel. Huldra (talk) 22:29, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
I thought we had settled this issue already. Nobody (AFAIK) questions your removing of references to Israel from the file names. But the fact that Israel didn't declare some place it's territory doesn't make it automatically Palestinian territory.--Shlomo (talk) 07:49, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
If y'all want to continue your pointless argument, please do it on your talk pages. Thanks. Kaldari (talk) 20:03, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Pick a place to establish a consensus that is not someone's talk page, or starts off being a complaint on AN. If it does not exist, create a formal Wikimedia Commons proposal that pins down exactly the controversy and the evidence for specific dates that are relevant. Without a credible consensus this will go round and around. With the consensus anyone can make these changes, refer to it in the edit comment, and if someone starts reverting, independent administrators know what to do based on the simple consensus, without spending a month reading through past cases or getting shot down for not being an expert in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. -- (talk) 20:13, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

April 03

Quality control

I have speedily kept the image as it is obviously within scope; it is the only photo we have of that livery, and while not perfectly composed it is more than adequate quality. Voice of Clam, thanks for your work documenting these trams. Tony May, you're on thin ice for your repeated insults - calling a photo taken by another editor "incompetently composed" is unacceptable (to say nothing of the irony that you don't even upload any photos that you create). You would do better to actually add categories to your uploads rather than criticizing those of others. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:32, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why does Wikimedia Commons have no effective quality control process? Tony May (talk) 03:17, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

@Tony May: Insufficient time allocated by the unpaid labor forces of Editors and Patrollers (as inspectors) and Admins (as enforcers). OTOH, you may be interested in COM:QI.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 03:31, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Well I agree. Promoting quality images is part of it, but why does COM:QI arbitrarily exclude content not generated by Commons users? This isn't obvious to any casual observer. Tony May (talk) 03:44, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
@Tony May: I hope you get a good answer at Commons talk:Quality images#Why.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 03:56, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Well I do too! And how to politely ask for removal of "quality image" status? Tony May (talk) 04:02, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
@Tony May: I suggest you read COM:SCOPE if you haven't already done so. Commons is a repository of educational media, not necessarily media that meets a specific quality level. Also note that "It should be stressed that Commons does not exist to editorialise on other projects – that an image is in use on a non talk/user page is enough for it to be within scope" - something you seem to have overlooked when you removed my image from Wikpedia articles before nominating it for deletion. O Still Small Voice of Clam 08:28, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
But the problem is that the image that you took is not illustrative precisely because it's honestly, incompetently composed, and therefore has zero educational value when better alternatives - taken by people who know what they are doing - are available. Sure, it's not the only one, but that's irrelevant. Tony May (talk) 08:37, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
You are welcome to your opinion (though I don't like the implication that I don't know what I'm doing), but the deletion request implies you are in a minority. O Still Small Voice of Clam 08:40, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
I do not think Commons is a democracy. But we're drifting off-topic now by looking at a specific problem image which is a mere symptom of a wider property. Say why there is no quality control of poor images', and why this is important or essential, if it is indeed important or essential. Tony May (talk) 10:33, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
If you are discussing this in so public a place, would you please indicate what picture or pictures you are talking about? Jmabel ! talk 15:37, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I'd guess it's Commons:Deletion requests/File:Midlands Metro Tram 31 - 2018-07-18.jpg. clpo13(talk) 15:55, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
@Jmabel: File:Midlands Metro Tram 31 - 2018-07-18.jpg.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 16:00, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
"No quality control of poor images", that's true but that's how Commons is. It's a repository of free images, not a repository of the best images, or even a repository of the best free images. --ghouston ( talk) 23:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

"Why does Wikimedia Commons have no effective quality control process?" - the reason why there is no effective quality control or quality improvement process is because this is a broken place where the "leaders" prefer battleground, and game of thrones, to professional standards of practice, and teamwork. a profound culture change would be required to get to effective processes. but then, deletion is not a quality improvement process; rather, replacement in use of lower with higher quality is. the existence of train-spotting or cute photos is not a sign of a lack of quality. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 02:59, 4 April 2019 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

URL shortener for the Wikimedia projects will be available on April 11th

Hello all,

Having a service providing short links exclusively for the Wikimedia projects is a community request that came up regularly on Phabricator or in community discussions.

After a common work of developers from the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia Germany, we are now able to provide such a feature, it will be enabled on April 11th on Meta.

What is the URL Shortener doing?

The Wikimedia URL Shortener is a feature that allows you to create short URLs for any page on projects hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation, in order to reuse them elsewhere, for example on social networks or on wikis.

The feature can be accessed from Meta wiki on the special page m:Special:URLShortener. (will be enabled on April 11th). On this page, you will be able to enter any web address from a service hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation, to generate a short URL, and to copy it and reuse it anywhere.

The format of the URL is w.wiki/ followed by a string of letters and numbers. You can already test an example: w.wiki/3 redirects to wikimedia.org.

What are the limitations and security measures?

In order to assure the security of the links, and to avoid shortlinks pointing to external or dangerous websites, the URL shortener is restricted to services hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation. This includes for example: all Wikimedia projects, Meta, Mediawiki, the Wikidata Query Service, Phabricator. (see the full list here)

In order to avoid abuse of the tool, there is a rate limit: logged-in users can create up to 50 links every 2 minutes, and the IPs are limited to 10 creations per 2 minutes.

Where will this feature be available?

In order to enforce the rate limit described above, the page Special:URLShortener will only be enabled on Meta. You can of course create links or redirects to this page from your home wiki.

The next step we’re working on is to integrate the feature directly in the interface of the Wikidata Query Service, where bit.ly is currently used to generate short links for the results of the queries. For now, you will have to copy and paste the link of your query in the Meta page.

Documentation and requests

Thanks a lot to all the developers and volunteers who helped moving forward with this feature, and making it available today for everyone in the Wikimedia projects! Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 11:51, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Drawing of an insect, based on someone else's photo.

Hello everyone in Wikimedia Commons. I'm creating the design and colors of a beetle, based on a photo here on the Internet. The drawing is in the same position as the image in the photo, but the drawing is totally mine. Could a totally new drawing about a photo of another person be linked to copyright? Mário NET (talk) 20:42, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Commons:Derivative works explains the issue. Basically both you and the original photo owner would need to agree to license your drawing. --GRuban (talk) 20:44, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
The original owner does not know my drawing. I do not know him. I am simply redesigning the image with pens and pencils. If I modified the position of the beetle a bit, it would not be the same image. Mário NET (talk) 21:21, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Knowing each other isn't the issue. It's still derivative work.
For example, the New Yorker magazine, which generally prefer drawings to photos, routinely acquires a license to a photo to have someone do a drawing based even loosely on the photo. Otherwise, they could be sued for a copyright violation. Probably wouldn't happen but see Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle. - Jmabel ! talk 22:29, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
I understand the situation. Probably, if I wanted to put a drawing based on an image, I would have to be creative enough to not make the image look alike, but only a drawing with the same animal. Mário NET (talk) 22:41, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
@Mário NET: This is actually a contentious area of copyright litigation. Sometimes the courts rule that a new artwork based on an existing work is "transformative" and doesn't need the licensing of the original work,[1] and sometimes they rule the opposite.[2] It depends heavily on how substantial the copying is in relation to the original work and whether the new work adds a new expression or meaning not present in the original work. If your drawing is simply an attempt to duplicate the photograph in the form of a drawing, both you and the original photographer would be entitled to copyright over the drawing. If your drawing is only loosely based on the photograph or substantially changes the nature of the work (for example, turning a photograph into a sculpture) you would probably be the sole copyright holder. Hope that helps. Kaldari (talk) 22:43, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Analogous to the paraphrasing & summarizing that’s done with text in WP articles, the best approach might be to study as many different photos as possible and then, from the composite mental image you’ve formed, begin to sketch the subject. Having done that, refining specific details based on individual photos would scarcely reflect those sources’ creative expression, putting you in a better position to present the result as your own work.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 22:59, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
I would like to thank everyone for the help. I'm sad that I can not show the image for comparison, just to show how it looks. Mário NET (talk) 03:47, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Libre Graphics Meeting 2019 in Saarbrücken

This is just a reminder about the upcoming Libre Graphics Meeting 2019. The Libre Graphics Meeting (LGM) is an annual international convention for the discussion of free and open source software used with graphics. However, I can say for sure that not only software will be covered but generally a broader spectrum around visual content. Do not expect the Wikimania-Luxury but it's usually still a well-organized meeting, maybe worth a visit, during which you could tell everyone about Wikimedia Common's project scope and that there is no upload limit, compared to, for example Flickr and that this platform is perfect if you love open source licenses, because this is what it was built for.

LGM 2019 is taking place from May 29 to June 2 in Saarbruecken, Germany. -- Rillke(q?) 21:00, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

April 04

Revert changes of a historical image

Please somebody revert the changes made at this historical image. The user even painted the window green. --88.78.7.47 23:28, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Appears to be dealt with. - Jmabel ! talk 00:24, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Jmabel ! talk 00:24, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Does anyone recognize this catalog numbering scheme?

Does anyone recognize this catalog numbering scheme? I am trying to locate the original source for the image. RAN (talk) 01:17, 16 April 2019 (UTC)  

Google told me it's the National Archives of Estonia.--Roy17 (talk) 09:53, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
You get a gold star for working this out. Great puzzle. -- (talk) 10:42, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Excellent thank you! RAN (talk) 15:43, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Speravir 22:23, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Public domain, but scanned with watermark

Moved to Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Public domain, but scanned with watermark —-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 15:14, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Speravir 00:40, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Image of New York City from Space

Ping @. I noticed this because a duplicate from Pixabay has been uploaded, cf. New York City - Free photo on Pixabay.
How to deal with this? We have an image here named On top of the world (Unsplash).jpg (bad name IMHO, but presumably created automatically) with Unsplash as source (On top of the world) and licensee CC0, where the NASA is given as origin (“HD photo by NASA (@nasa)”) which made me curious and let me doubt. So I researched and found (a) the real source for this image in this resolution: #NYC last night. | NASA (the dates are misleading) citing a twitter message which is this: Scott Kelly, 18 October 2015 - Twitter with the in my opinion important text “My cosmonaut colleague Oleg Kononenko took this incredible picture of #NYC last night.” Apparently the image was taken on ISS Expedition 45.
The issues I see here:

  • Shouldn’t we better give the true credit?
  • Aren’t NASA images public domain, not CC0?
  • But as the real author is Russian can we use this rule?

— Speravir – 00:03, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Ooooh, there is also ISS-45 New York City night view.jpg. — Speravir – 00:07, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

It's also at [3] with © Oleg Kononenko / Roscosmos. The copies here should probably be deleted, along with any of the other images on that page that may be on Commons. --ghouston (talk) 05:52, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I notice that it is taken with the same camera as the rest of Category:ISS Expedition 45 Crew Earth Observations. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:07, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, we should apply the correct NASA license and add alternative sources for verification. I have no view about photographer rights, apart from a release statement by NASA probably has more credibility than any hypothetical claim.
It is not unexpected for reusers to be confused about a commercial reuse allowed license vs. CC0 vs. PD. There is no harm in us putting that right when we notice the inconsistency.
The 30,000 photographs from Unsplash were effectively a salvage expedition, in the light that licensing was changing and photographs often vanish from that source. We presume the photographers post their photographs there in good faith, and generally the licenses are not problematic, but we can expect some human error in any batch upload project, even for famous national archives, let alone individual collectors or curators who may lack copyright experience.
Duplicates are a whole separate issue, you may be interested in the case studies and discussion at User_talk:Fæ#ESA_duplicate_pictures. Those same techniques could apply to the whole hierarchy of 'space' related images on Commons, which might be a worthwhile project. Image hashes is something I might revisit in a month or two, depending on Summer commitments. -- (talk) 08:26, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
As stunning as the photo is, we must delete it until we have permission from photographer Oleg Kononenko, who is not an employee of NASA or any other unit of the US federal government. Roscosmos employees are not exempted from Russian or US copyright. The photo was taken in US airspace, thus US copyright rules apply.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 10:04, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, we probably have to delete it. However, the ISS is not in "US airspace", even when it is above the USA. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:09, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
@Yann: What copyright laws (if any) apply on the ISS and in space generally?   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 10:14, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I am not sure what applies inside the ISS. The modules were built by different countries, so different laws could apply. And space is another issue altogether. But it is the place of first publication which matters for copyright law, not the place where the picture is taken. So far, the pictures were always first published on Earth. When we have a colony on the Moon and Mars, and pictures get published there, we will need another law... Regards, Yann (talk) 10:28, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: According to en:Airspace#Vertical_boundary the ISS is decidedly outside of United States airspace. BMacZero (talk) 15:38, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
https://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Human_and_Robotic_Exploration/International_Space_Station/International_Space_Station_legal_framework --Roy17 (talk) 16:42, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Thx at all. Jeff or Yann could you as (near) native English speakers ask the NASA about their position? Or should we ask WMF legal? Apparently it’s a general problem with these international ISS expeditions. — Speravir – 00:13, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, Ghouston that I forgot you. I always mix you up with another German speaking user, don’t ask me why. — Speravir – 00:18, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure that there's any real doubt about NASA: material produced by its employees is public domain, but they do sometimes republish material from other sources. The photo has been attributed by NASA at [4] to Oleg Kononenko, and there's no reason to think that he was ever a NASA employee. One thing I don't understand though is why they put a CC by-nc license on all the images on that Flickr stream, apparently regardless of the source. --ghouston (talk) 00:35, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
@Speravir: The person to ask for permission appears to be the photographer, cosmonaut Oleg Kononenko.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 00:40, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Eehm, yes, Jeff, but I thought of a potential special copyright, but at least in Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Russia there’s nothing. — Speravir – 00:36, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
See Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:ISS Expedition 45 Crew Earth Observations. Yann (talk) 05:37, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Speravir 23:32, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Russian sudmarine Volk 1914.jpg: A rename request gone wrong

Hello
I don't know if this is the right place to bring this up: I placed a rename request on this file for a couple of reasons, but the preview gave the message "Looks like this image was renamed already. Please remove the rename template". There's nothing in the move log to show it's been moved recently (or at all!) but the template won't display, so how do I request a rename for this? Xyl 54 (talk) 01:01, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

@Xyl 54: I fixed and renamed it for you. You had left the old name in the rename template by mistake.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 01:11, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Ahh! That's what comes of editing unfamiliar pages at 2 o'clock in the morning! Sorry for the mess; and thanks for sorting it out. Regards, Xyl 54 (talk) 23:23, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
@Xyl 54: You're welcome.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 00:19, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Speravir 00:40, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Not getting into Google Earth

When I look in File:Albert E- and Emily Wilson House 2012-09 jeh.jpg and other files and click to view on Google Earth, I get a page saying "Toolforge" and "No Webservice". OSM works okay. What's broken? Fixed soon? Jim.henderson (talk) 03:46, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

No.
Maintained by Para, who has not been active on any project since 2017.
Most tools will permanently break within 2 years of their creator vanishing from the projects. Once broken, most tools will never be repaired.
This is one of the reasons that going through the slow process of proposals and consultation with the Wikimedia Commons community for system changes remains critical, yet is constantly skipped and excused for new development, because "breaking stuff" is still considered a rewardable behaviour in Silicon Valley, and hence the WMF. Volunteer created tools do not make it on the radar.
-- (talk) 04:29, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Try clicking on the coordinates, there's a different style of link to Google Earth in geohack, e.g. at [5]. Maybe that still works? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 06:27, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Commons NewFiles, another Para project, also no longer works. Is there a replacement somewhere? --Morn (talk) 14:07, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
It all suggests to me it will only be fixed after a delay of months if ever, so the templates ought to stop showing the option until the part that has stopped working is repaired, replaced, whatever. Jim.henderson (talk) 12:41, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

New logo template

Hello.

I am would like to create a new template which in the mold of {{Depicted person}}, {{Depicted place}} and {{Label}}. This template would be invoked like this:

  • {{logo|Q3146488}}

And the output would be this:

  • Firmenzeichen: InterActiveCorp (if uselang=de)
  • Logo: IAC (if uselang=en)
  • Logotipo: IAC (if uselang=es)
  • etc.

The problem is that Template:Logo is already used.

What does the community think I should do? Should I hijack the existing template, or create a new one? If a new one, what should I use for the name? Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs)`

{{Entity}}? Ruslik (talk) 08:13, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
It seems {{Logo}} is only used once and incorrectly in VT logo1.png (OK, actually a not existing template is called there), cf. search all: hastemplate:"logo". So you probably would not cause any harm. But note this Ivrit named template: {{לוגו}}, it’s another redirect (search: all: hastemplate:"לוגו"). — Speravir – 22:56, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Magog? — Speravir – 18:43, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Category:Eva Rinaldi

Hi.I think all images in this category and subcategories are not useful (Out of project scope), In addition, the person has no article or data ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 12:59, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

There are a lot of very usable photos of celebrities in Category:Photographs by Eva Rinaldi and sub-categories … --El Grafo (talk) 14:01, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
I hope someone reviews photos in these categories ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 14:51, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
What are your specific objections? There are amazing photos of art exhibits and of celebrities, I am not aware that you need a Wikipedia article to have a photo of yourself here at Wiki Commons. You are allowed to have Wiki Commons host a photo of you for your user page ... and you are expected to have a photo of yourself for your Wikidata entry.

Pixabay user "WikimediaImages"

Is this something WMF Legal should be dealing with? And if so could a natural English speaker write them? On Pixabay there is a user named WikimediaImages. Under this account as of today 5818 images have been uploaded. My concern is that Pixabay does not license anymore under CC0, but a proprietary “Pixabay license”.
Have these over 5000 images to be checked which license they have in Commons?
BTW I noticed this with this potential circulus vitiosus case: File:504KingAtPortland.JPG points to a Pixabay ressource, but the uploading account is “WikimediaImages”. @Alexis Jazz: Why did you set the cat Files from Pixabay without Pixabay template? It is clearly not given as source, but as another version.
— Speravir – 22:31, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

@Speravir: That Pixabay user needs to be blacklisted. Every one of their photos I checked has been licensed here as PD or CC-Zero, and then was copyfraudulently given a Pixabay License 9 January 2019. https://pixabay.com/photos/andrea-velasco-actress-chile-women-876130/ was a copyvio uploaded here as File:Andrea Velasco Actriz.jpg 03:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC), deleted here 00:53, 14 January 2015 (UTC), and yet mysteriously uploaded there 7 months later, "Aug. 13, 2015". Something is rotten there.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 23:45, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
So, you think the same like me, Jeff, it seems. But how did you find this image? It was deleted here 4 years ago … From the name in Pixabay (but actriz versus actress)? — Speravir – 00:01, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
@Speravir: I looked from Pixabay's end using URL https://pixabay.com/images/search/user:wikimediaimages/ and did reverse image searches with Tineye. There are many ways to skin a cat, so I'm told.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 00:08, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Ah, Tineye. I noticed myself just an hour ago or so, that the show (sometimes?) also images already deleted in the linked source. — Speravir – 00:17, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
It seems like all the uploads from that user are from 2017 or earlier, before the Pixbay license change? --ghouston (talk) 03:11, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
If we can believe the sorting from latest then yes. But the general question is whether CC0 and PD images can be alternatively set to a proprietary license. — Speravir – 18:41, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't think you can issue a valid license unless you are either the copyright holder or have a right to sublicensing. CC-0 places works in the public domain, so there's no valid copyright if the work is unmodified. CC-0 also offers a fallback license, but it's "non sublicensable". I don't see that WikimediaImages has done anything wrong, uploading CC-0 files to a CC-0 website, but the relicensing doesn't seem valid. --ghouston (talk) 03:34, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Category with endpoint

Hello Wikimedia. I made a small mistake and created a category with endpoint is there a way to eliminate this category, there are another without endpoint. :( Mário NET (talk) 00:42, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

@Mário NET: Sure, just tag it {{G7}}.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 01:06, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
ok, I will made these suggestion. Mário NET (talk) 01:24, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

PDF

Hi, lacking every experience with uploading PDF I need some help. I have a copy of the current Cuban constitution, it consists of 16 pages of the size approx. 28 × 38 cm. It might be of interest to get it into Wikimedia? Wikisource has the text but doesn't have any picture. -- sarang사랑 08:42, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

@Sarang How does it relate to https://walterlippmann.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/draft-cuban-constitution-2018.docx.pdf?   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 10:50, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
It is an official document of the Cuban government, with the complete text in Spanish language. Your link shows an English translation. -- sarang사랑 11:02, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
By the way, rendering of PDFs currently offered for default Wikimedia user is currently abysmal. See category_talk:PDF_files #MediaWiki_improvements (and also phab:T38597). Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:17, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Sarang, you can upload the PDF here and then "transcribe" it at the Spanish Wikisource, if it's a scan of some official edition. But why does the text need pictures? Nemo 12:46, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I do not know how to generate a PDF document that can then be browsed through; and I have not the equipment to scan papers of that size. I just have the document of which I think Wikimedia should have it - but I do not know how to manage the transfer to the encyclopedia. Help or ideas are welcome! May be that for some money I can get it digitalized, and somebody else will bind it to PDF? -- sarang사랑 15:32, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
@Sarang: If you can scan the document and upload the images, either here or some other place, someone else can create a PDF file. You can take the pictures either with flatbed scanner or a good camera. If you use a camera, be sure that the papers are flat. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:40, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Yann, I did not believe that copies with a camera are as good as with a flatbed scanner - but I can give it a try, with high resolution, a tripod and good light. When I have uploaded them, I'll ask there again.
Does somebody know, which is the best license? -- sarang사랑 16:20, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
s:en:Help:Official_texts#General_license recommends {{PD-EdictGov}}. From {{PD-Cuba}} it looks like there is no limitation to copyright for laws, is there? Nemo 16:28, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
@Sarang: It is tricky, but it can be done. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:40, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
@Sarang: do you have access to a smaller scanner that could capture ‘tiles’ of A4 size or thereabouts? Those would be fairly easy to splice together in an image editor, and given the high resolution & consistency of illumination would almost certainly be easier to get a reasonably presentable result than with photography.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 23:30, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Commons Video Convert

Please help I can't upload on Commons Video Converter, it says "internal server error". Blackedhaze (talk) 18:02, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

In german: Commons:Forum#Video_geht_nicht_zum_Hochladen. --Nightflyer (talk) 18:52, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

iNaturalist mass uploads to Commons?

iNaturalist is a website where people " Explore and share your observations from the natural world". On Wikidata people have been linking up taxon items to iNaturalist on a quite massive scale using iNaturalist taxon ID (P3151) (over half a million links). Quite a few of the images on iNaturalist are available under a free license. They also have a quality control system in place for the identifications where the highest level is "research grade". When it's research grade it has a date, location, species is identified, etc. (check one of the research grade observations for details). So decent quality images, free license and excellent metadata. Just browse through these examples. I'm considering setting up a bot to upload these photos to Commons. Do you think that's a good plan? Would this be appreciated? Multichill (talk) 20:06, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

  • @Multichill: You can do it? great! I'm favorable at 200%! this will be very much appreciated! I sometimes already do it manually for some images, but a bot would be the luxury! Please do it. Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:15, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • This can be valuable, as long as some important caveats are taken into consideration. Like any user-generated site (Flickr, etc), the image quality, data reliability, and level of confidence in species ID can vary wildly. I've used and examined iNaturalist a little bit, and while "Research grade" is an important filter for data quality, it only takes two high school students 'agreeing' on the wrong species to make an observation Research grade, which will persist until someone else (presumably more knowledgeable), suggests a correct (or at least more probable) ID, which will then remove the "Research grade" status until a new consensus is established. There are also many small-sized, low-quality, and/or blurry images that may be identifiable and thus even research grade but out of COM:SCOPE as not realistically useful for educational purposes (see e.g. this observation or a blurry photo of a blue jay that's recognizable to birders, and thus useful to iNaturalist as establishing an organism at a place and time, but that as an image would never realistically be used to illustrate anything else). The scope of iNaturalist (i.e. recording any natural history observation, with or without a photograph) is quite different from that of Commons, which is not intended to be a database of biodiversity. Thus I think some amount of discretion and restraint should be urged over purely blind mass transfer, at the risk of importing large amounts of poor-quality images among the good ones, even if 'good' images are still the majority (just as caution and discretion is urged when using Flickr2Commons).
Also, have you considered contacting any of the admins at iNaturalist? A head's up might help prevent snags down the road. And logistically, for mass imports to Commons a bot should automatically add a {{LicenseReview}} and confirmation at the time of upload, similar to FlickreviewR 2 bot (perhaps Template:Inaturalist, which I just learned existed, could be modified/co-opted). Tangentially, I believe Research grade observations and their metadata are eventually imported into Global Biodiversity Information Facility, where they can be used by other researchers, e.g. this rattlesnake observation is represented at this GBIF occurrence, but that's probably of more interest to Wikidata than Commons. --Animalparty (talk) 23:13, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • A follow up: Some consideration to the number of existing files on Commons might also be prudent. For instance, Category:Sturnus vulgaris already contains over 350 files in the top level category alone. On iNaturalist there are over 800 Research grade observations of that species with free licenses. Even putting aside questions of educational use (e.g. these 17 small files vs this single closeup image), it could be asked do we need more images of Sturnus vulgaris, or those likely to end up in Category:Sturnus vulgaris (low resolution)? Certainly, high-quality images that currently lack representation on Commons should be prioritized. --Animalparty (talk) 23:33, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • +1: we already have about 1k random snapshots of feral pigeons in the main Category alone – do we really need another 11k? I'd prefer a cherry-picking kind of approach to this. --El Grafo (talk) 15:11, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
@El Grafo: Yikes! Looks like we need to get the Sporty Thievz involved! (seriously though, is there a warning template we can put on very crowded categories saying something like "Whoa! We have a lot of this subject. Think hard before uploading more and/or try to illustrate aspects not yet documented."?) --Animalparty (talk) 18:59, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • And another logistic/legal issue: within a given observation, users can apply separate licenses for observations, photographs, and sound files within. If you have an iNaturalist account you can see this in Account settings. For example, this handsome beetle has {{CC-0}} for the observation (as indicated on the lower right of the screen), yet the photograph itself is {{CC-BY-4.0}}, which is not readily apparent from the main observation page. I'm assuming, but not positive, that "observation" here refers to the (optional) descriptive text and comments, and/or the other non-photographic data (date, time, location, etc. although the question could be raised if such data is even copyrightable). When observations present different licenses, seemless and faithful License compliance might be challenging. --Animalparty (talk) 00:23, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Another point to consider: while the ability to import geographic coordinates would certainly add to the value of images, the accuracy of the coordinates vary, and it would be helpful to include that in metadata. In many cases the accuracy is within a few meters (common when using the smart phone app or in-camera GPS sensors), but in other cases the resolution is several kilometers: coordinates of threatened/endangered species are automatically obscured and placed randomly within a range of ~20-30 km, and individual users have the ability to obscure locations even for common species (see e.g. [6]). As a result, one can find plenty of apparent "misplaced" observations (e.g. salamanders in the ocean). Users can also manually indicate the uncertainty in their location by drawing a circle on the map. I know I've done this when all I know is that I took a photo somewhere within a national park or along a trail, and draw a radius of uncertainty encompassing several dozen kilometers. I note that {{Location}} includes an optional precision field: anyone know how widely that field is used? --Animalparty (talk) 22:25, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Most of the images we've imported from Geograph Britain and Ireland now have precision (set to 1, 10, 100, or 1000), which would account for about 15% of the files that use {{Location}}. --bjh21 (talk) 11:43, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • At least in past iNaturalist used Flickr as image storage and I used site that way. It'll be reasonable if bot will check for possible duplicates from Flickr already copied to Commons. In my particular case iNaturalist was secondary project and all photos were uploaded on Commons. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:42, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  • There are some details to take care of, as evidenced above, but in general this is a good idea: we have a good collaboration with iNaturalist, but they don't give as much prominence to copyleft material, so it's a global good to surface it on Commons. All the better if the classification system, to match photos to categories and data about species, can be created and maintained without redundant work via Wikidata. Is it easy to start with species which don't have (high resolution) photos on Commons? Does iNaturalist convert the uploaded images in any way, so that they would stop being bit-identical to the same photos uploaded to Flickr as EugeneZelenko mentioned? Nemo 16:14, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback, much appreciated. I'll see how I can incorporate it. My general approach to Wiki projects is that our on limited resource is community time so I always try to optimize on that. We have two models when it comes to third party websites:
  • Pull: Hey, found a nice image to illustrate something, let's upload it to Commons. Amount of time spend per image is relatively high, but the usage of these images is also very high
  • Push: Hey, I found a nice collection of images, let's put them all on Commons so it's easy to use them. The amount of time spend per image uploading is minimal (just writing some robot). Community time is spend on curating the images (mainly categorization) and in the longer run hopefully by illustrating things
I really don't care about spending disk space on 1000 photos on one particular bird species, I do care about community team being wasted because you have to wade through these 1000 photos. So in this case we should probably see if we can find a middle ground. Let's assume structured data on Commons is live with the depicts. That means it's easy to count per species here how many photos we have. We can probably think of a couple more criteria either on our side or on iNaturalist that would influence if and what photos get uploaded. Multichill (talk) 20:40, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
@Multichill: I agree with the sentiments expressed by others. It would be wonderful to import photos from iNaturalist, just not all of them :) There is a huge range in image quality, including images that are so tiny or blurry that they are barely recognizable. For example, here's a research grade image of a Common Hoopoe. It's a great image for verifying a sighting, but it's a terrible image for illustrating the bird (if you can even tell that it's a bird). What would be really nice is a Tool Forge interface that lets you search images on iNaturalist and choose good ones to import (along with the metadata). Also, I'm sure you already know this, but iNaturalist has a nice API for accessing observations. For example, here's an API call to see all research grade observations of Common Hoopoe with a Wikimedia-preferred license. Kaldari (talk) 02:38, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
@Kaldari: that is making the pull model easier. I don't do pull, I only do push. That doesn't mean it's not a good idea, but probably someone else should probably work on that. Best to add it as yet another source to existing tools.
Their API looks nice. I wonder how many of these do have an image on iNaturalist. Multichill (talk) 10:22, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

pixnio aka public-domain-image

I think uploads from https://pixnio.com/ (formerly http://www.public-domain-image.com) should be discouraged in the future. Pixnio is similar to maxpixel in that they pull photos from the net and try to trick you into paying them by putting donation links beside images. Fortunately, Pixnio seems to try preserving author/source information (only in textual forms, without actual weblinks), but accuracy is questionable. Here are two identical images: File:Tuomikirkko building the dome of Helsinki.jpg "by Andrew McMillan" and File:Tuomikirkko the dome of Helsinki.jpg "by Mark Kelley". You may also check my recent contribs to see the pictures of Walruses that I had to dig up their real sources online, overwrite them with better versions, and review licences. I've tried checking dozens more in Category:Public-domain-image.com but I couldn't find their non-Pixnio sources.--Roy17 (talk) 11:31, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Another pair: File:Looking towards central Helsinki from espoo.jpg vs File:Looking towards central Helsinki.jpg.--Roy17 (talk) 16:40, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Well, it is always be possible that Public-domain-image/Pixnio is the original source. Especially for heavily used images your are quite often lost in finding the real source … which may also meanwhile dead. — Speravir – 18:47, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Per the 2013 discussion here and the comments in the public-domain-image category, the compiler seems to have done a reliable job in checking that the sources they were harvesting images from were definitely public domain. To date, despite many source checks, duplicate removals, image upgrades and so forth, this collection remains quite reliably public domain material.
There is no intention to mass import from Pixnio, and (as the uploader from 6 years ago) I agree that we should avoid mass importing from any 'aggregation' websites rather than importing directly from original archives wherever this is possible. This includes more institutional sites like Europeana, where in almost every case it should be possible to take original images and verify the metadata we use at the original publication source.
The rationale is different for collections where there the original source has been removed from the internet, or is disputed. Those should be handled on a case by case basis. -- (talk) 10:35, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Do we have list of scam sites? I had a conversation with Simon from Pixabay in 2017 and one reason they changed their licence was the creation of clone websites that scraped images from Pixabay and had the "pay for a coffee" icon which went to the clone site owners, not the photographers. Majora has found one in this DR. It would be useful if Commoners were warned away from them. -- Colin (talk) 11:36, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Files reviewed by the uploader

Was it allowed that human reviewers review their own uploads/transfers before say 2008? I just saw dozens of such Flickr files.--Roy17 (talk) 17:05, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

  • I seem to remember it was, but I'm sure someone else can be more definitive. - Jmabel ! talk 17:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
    @Roy17, Jmabel: If you are talking about license review that rule came into effect on February 21, 2012 per COM:LR#Instructions for reviewers. In 2008 it was allowed for uploaders to review their own uploads (however ill advised that may be). --Majora (talk) 20:50, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Read-only mode for up to 30 minutes on 11 April

10:56, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Speravir 02:35, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Strange loading of this image

I have not found any copyright reference in this image upload. To make the mention that the author is unknown only makes the reference worse. I'm crazy to use an image of this beetle in the article I made in Portuguese, but I do not think that this is in the policies of Wikipedia. Recently I was here to offer a drawing that was not approved by copyright. This move in my article is because, now, the great media of my country is presenting this species to everyone. Whoever did the loading not know how to put it. Mário NET (talk) 15:25, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Photographer is not unknowable, and the photograph is available at higher resolution at https://g1.globo.com/sp/bauru-marilia/noticia/2019/04/03/besouro-venenoso-que-pica-e-encontrado-no-interior-de-sp.ghtml with the attribution to Antonio Sforcin Amaral. Their Flickr collections are all rights reserved. -- (talk) 15:34, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes. According to one of the major media in my country, the photo is by Antonio Sforcin Amaral / Personal Archive. Mário NET (talk) 15
43, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Speravir 02:35, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Photography advice wanted on Wikivoyage

Wikivoyage (the travel guide) has a short article on voy:Wildlife photography. If anyone's interested in the subject and wants to provide travel-related advice, then please feel free to Wikivoyage:Plunge forward and expand the article. (No need to directly cite sources in their articles – the focus is on good advice, written fairly.) There are probably several photography-related articles that would be easy to improve. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:30, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: Not much I can add there, just noting that our best wildlife photographers are probably best reached through Commons talk:Featured picture candidates. Also: how can it be that Category:Wildlife photography does not exist under Category:Photography by genre (or anywhere else)? --El Grafo (talk) 08:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

old bot tasks that might have caused trouble

File:TRAW-railcar-entrace.jpg led me to find out some problematic old bot tasks. As in this case, uploaders uploaded some own works, hence putting a self template, but also put flickr as its source and/or let it pass flickrreview. User:Nilfanion's User:NilfaBot was fixing flickr licenses. It removed the flickrreview template (because it detected a self template I guess?). Many years later, the file was tagged for flickrreview again, and ended up in Category:Flickr images not found.

I believe there must be some files that were wrongfully deleted for this reason, because I have seen admins getting rid of flickr maintenance categories with VFC. They would not look at the files carefully.--Roy17 (talk) 19:40, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Corrupt file

Can anyone see what is wrong at File:Strategic Insight Session 1 China The Rising Star (46811736244).jpg? It uploaded as corrupt using Flickr2Commons. It looks fine at the source, and a copy I downloaded to my machine, but the later is also corrupt when uploaded using the upload wizzard. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:31, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: Your second upload appears correctly for me. Probably just a cached thumbnail? BMacZero (talk) 23:24, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you; yes, it seems to have been a caching issue. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:58, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Where is the problem? Perhaps someone purged thumbnails already, but I don’t notice any anomaly. Surely doesn’t Pigsonthewing bother the pump with problems of locally cached JPEGs? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:00, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
There was a period where I was getting LOTS of partially uploaded images which after investigation boiled down to unexplained WMF server errors, but I am not seeing this happening this year. If F2C is giving this error systematically at levels, say, above 0.1% of uploads, then it may be worth raising a ticket for. Error levels much lower than that will be too hard to find examples to diagnose, such as times when WMF servers had known operational problems. -- (talk) 10:55, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Speravir 02:37, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Category:Oostende train station (tram)(Old)

Is this a correct name for a category? (Double paranthesis) I want to split up the old tram station. The new station was built in 1990 about the same time as the 'SNCV' to 'De Lijn' compagnie change.Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:43, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Two parenthesized words or phrases is unusual but some times it could be the best choice. In the case at hand, multiple possible replacements come to mind, though, and none of them with this feature. -- Tuválkin 21:31, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I suggest "Oostende train station (tram, pre-1990)", or if you know the construction date of the original tram station, something like "Oostende train station (tram, 1925-1990)". --ghouston (talk) 00:41, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
For your information: the new tram station, next to Oostende train station, has just been demolished. A new tram station will shortly be built. JoJan (talk) 15:29, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Published crop of a larger unpublished photo

How do we handle when only a crop of a larger photo is published in say 1920, thus in the public domain? Do we consider the larger photo also published? For instance File:Louis Julius Freudenberg I (1894-1918) and Ada Augusta Freudenberg (1885-1957) in a black shawl and Clara Freudenberg (1889-1959) holding a writing box, circa 1915-1917 possibly at 22 Hopkins Avenue, Jersey City.jpg is the larger photo and here is the crop that was published in 1918. This is a general question meant to pertain to all cropped images. In this specific case the larger photo would be public domain because the photographer died more than 70 years ago. RAN (talk) 15:30, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Probably the larger photo remains unpublished if only a part of it is published. Ruslik (talk) 18:46, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
I would tend to agree that the larger photo would not be considered published. If a chapter is published well before the entire book, that wouldn't affect the publication date of the book. GMGtalk 20:21, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
I would agree that the larger image wouldn't be considered published. But in general there might be some gray area depending on the extent of material outside the crop. I previously brought up the question here, without much definitive conclusions. Another example is seen in the file history of this painting. --Animalparty (talk) 18:15, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Detail Karlsruhe station

How do I classify this overhead current break installation? Smiley.toerist (talk) 22:55, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

@Bahnmoeller: Maybe you are able to help? Gestumblindi (talk) 23:45, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Bulk upload for J. Paul Getty Museum's Open Content Program?

Is there a project in the works, or any users working to import more images from the J. Paul Getty Museum Open Content Program? It supposedly has over 100,000 pieces of public domain art ("Open content images are digital surrogates of works of art that are in the Getty's collections and in the public domain, for which we hold all rights, or for which we are not aware of any rights restrictions"). Many of the Open content images are available in very high resolution files, often exceeding 10 MB (example 1, example 2). While there are currently over 2,600 files in Category:Google Art Project works in The J. Paul Getty Museum, there are only some 750 files in Category:Files from the Getty's Open Content Program (i.e. only 750 files using {{Getty Center}}), suggesting there are many more high quality images to be imported. Thus, a guided, semi-automated bulk process seems ideal, to allow for appropriate categorizing, etc. Commons:J. Paul Getty Museum doesn't seem very active nor have much info on current status. While each Getty Open content images I've seen has great meta data, I'm not knowledgeable enough about the API of the Getty website to assess workflow feasibility (manually, it takes a few extra steps to download highest resolution images, including stating your intended use), but hopefully some more code-savvy users could look into it. Cheers, --Animalparty (talk) 05:42, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I have spent a lot of time on the categories of these files, and I have imported a few. Yes, bot-upload might be useful, but beware of not importing duplicates. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:24, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Preferable way to do that would be getting the object/work metadata into Wikidata and then upload the images via Commons compatible image available at URL (P4765) I'd say. The upload would be automatic. And with queryable metadata that would ease categorization of the files. --Marsupium (talk) 20:17, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
@Marsupium: I know even less about bulk uploading of data to Wikidata. Are you saying that Commons compatible image available at URL (P4765) will automatically upload the image from the URL to Commons? I think that property, while intended to be temporary, is somewhat superfluous: if a good image is identified, I think it should simply be uploaded rather than adding a virtual Post-it note saying "an image is out there, it's right here, look at it." --Animalparty (talk) 22:10, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
@Animalparty: Yes, Multichill's BotMultichillT uploads them automatically, but I forgot: “It only uploads images of paintings that are in the public domain due to age”. Don't know whats the portion of those? But that process would probably only work for a part of the images. So perhaps just ignore my comment, idk. --Marsupium (talk) 22:23, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 
example upload
@Animalparty: with Commons compatible image available at URL (P4765) it became possible for me to break a quite complicated workflow into two much easier parts:
  1. Import available data for a painting to Wikidata and add an image suggestion
  2. Upload the suggestion to Commons and add the image to the Wikidata item
I can only do the upload if I'm confident that the image is actually covered by {{PD-art}}. For that I currently use two options:
  1. Painting by a known painter who died before 1923
  2. Painting by anonymous painter created before 1850
It usually takes a while before all the data is available on Wikidata so that my bot can confirm the PD-art and upload. Take the example on the right: The suggestion was added in February 2018, the inception was added a couple of days ago and that triggered the robot to do the upload. The approach seems to be quite succesful, my robot uploaded thousands of files.
Anyway, back to the Getty. Back in 2016 I uploaded the (missing or all?) paintings to get d:Wikidata:WikiProject sum of all paintings/Collection/J. Paul Getty Museum illustrated. I used User:Multichill/J. Paul Getty Museum for that upload and I kept the original upload robot. I recall why I didn't upload all image: The copyright status is a bit blurry: No known restrictions so you have to figure out a real copyright tag for each image. Quite easy for the paintings, but might be harder for other domains. What copyright tag should be added to this image? I'm not sure if their current release wording is enough. Would be better if they just switched to {{Cc-zero}} like the MET and Cleveland Museum of Art.
From a technical perspective it's easy. Just loop over the 65.000 objects and for each object, upload one or multiple images. Of course standard duplicate checking should be done so don't use Pattypan! If people are interested in this, I could probably dust off the bot. Multichill (talk) 10:04, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Can the bot be tweaked to recognize the blanket declaration of "no known copyright restrictions" of {{Getty Center}}? It's similar to the widely used {{Flickr-no known copyright restrictions}} or {{SIA-no known copyright restrictions}}. It's not as precise, but isn't it good enough? (more bots or even humans can always add more specific templates as they become apparent). For the case of this 1st-century mask, the original sculpture is public domain. The photograph of the sculpture has been declared as no known copyrights by the rights holding institution. Also, although apparently automated, the gap between February 2018 and April 2019 doesn't seem like the most efficient way to get things done. But still, thanks for all you've done so far. --Animalparty (talk) 19:06, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
@Multichill: Yes, Getty license is fine for Commons. There are much more than paintings there, so enlarging the automatic upload would be great. For works other than 2D (paintings and photographs), there is {{self|Getty Research Institute-no known copyright restrictions|PD-old-100-expired}}. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:44, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Black hole image

Hello! Is this image compatible with Commons? -Theklan (talk) 13:31, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, see Template:PD-USGov-NSF. -- (talk) 13:56, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
RLY? I am sure that it is copyrighted. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:04, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) @, Theklan: No, this was not created by the NSF, they are just displaying it on their website. Read this. Credit needs to go to the Event Horizon Telescope collaboration [7], I don't know the copyright status of their material. --El Grafo (talk) 14:05, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
We have figured out. The image was published here which is cc-by-3.0. I have uploaded it. -Theklan (talk) 14:07, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Looks almost good, see my comments at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Black hole - Messier 87.jpg --El Grafo (talk) 14:18, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I uploaded the larger images (JPEG and TIFF) from the ESO website. Additionally, the larger JPEG version includes a free license (CC-BY-4.0) in the EXIF data. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:00, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Speravir 02:38, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation Medium-Term Plan feedback request

Please help translate to your language

The Wikimedia Foundation has published a Medium-Term Plan proposal covering the next 3–5 years. We want your feedback! Please leave all comments and questions, in any language, on the talk page, by April 20. Thank you! Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 17:35, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
I have given some feedback on Meta as requested. Because the "plan" is full of undefined jargon and weirdly loaded with management-speak, I had nothing positive to say. Sorry, I am sure that a lot of paid time has been invested in this, but it does not do the job. -- (talk) 12:43, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Category:Albtal-Verkehrs-Gesellschaft by numer

I renamed the category to Albtal-Verkehrs-Gesellschaft by number. However the underlying categories dont automaticaly follow and Cat-a-lot does not work with moving categories. Can somebody help? I question the need for categories for individual trams. The same effect can be reached bij sorting the file bij number.Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:10, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

@Smiley.toerist: I think CommonsDelinker can do this. I've asked for it to do so. --bjh21 (talk) 14:30, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Bjh21, it’s rather Special:Diff/345602590/345781154 or shorter Special:Diff/345781154. — Speravir – 22:34, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Speravir 02:40, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

New Wikimedia OTRS release generator now live on Commons

Selected steps of the release generator

Hi all,

You may have heard of the Wikimedia OTRS release generator (aka relgen) that I developed three years ago – a tool designed to make it easy for copyright holders and Wikimedians assisting them to generate release texts that can be sent to the OTRS permissions team. The release generator living on Tool Forge as a tool separate from Commons itself brought along some design limitations, which is why we have now re-released the release generator as a script-based interface that can be used right here on Commons, at Commons:Wikimedia OTRS release generator.


What are the new features and improvements?

Support for multi-files releases: Previously, only one file could be specified for each release – now an unlimited number of files can be released with a single email; the release generator will automatically identify each file and add file links to the release text.
File existence checks: The release generator will now check if all files specified actually exist on Commons at the time their filenames are entered, in order to ensure OTRS volunteers do not waste their time on releases of misspelled or nonexistent files.
Automatic queue selection: As previously, the release generator not only supports releases of files already uploaded to Commons, but also files to be attached to the release email – now the latter will go to the photosubmissions queue rather than permissions-commons.
MediaWiki design user interface: Bootstrap 3 is great, but MediaWiki's own OOUI design is an even better fit for Wikimedia-related tools – that's why the entire release generator is now based on the familiar set of graphical interface elements from MediaWiki.

What features will be implemented in future updates?

Automatic OTRS pending file tagging: The new release generator is capable of automatically tagging files for which release have been generated as OTRS pending – this feature will be enabled after consultation with the community regarding any potential privacy concerns.
Internationalisation support: We already have a suitable approach in mind for the translation of the release generator, that approach will be implemented in the near future once OTRS pending tagging has been implemented.

How does this affect me?

For the foreseeable future, the old release generator will remain available on Tool Forge. In order to allow copyright holders to benefit from the new features and improvements listed above, from now on please direct copyright holders to the release generator page here on Commons rather than Tool Forge – or just use the shorthand: enwp.org/c:COM:relgen

Where can I give feedback?

Feedback is welcome as a reply to this post – or on the release generator talk page.


Thanks!     FDMS  4    17:07, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Copyright correct?

Moved to Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Copyright correct? —-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 15:11, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Speravir 02:40, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Fisheries Building, Alaska-Yukon-Pacific-Exposition, Seattle, Washington, 1909 (AYP 845).jpg

What (if anything) should we do with the filename of something like this? The postcard must predate the exposition. This building was originally intended to be the Fisheries Building, but ended up being used as the European Building (a different Fisheries Building was built behind the U.S. Government Building). - Jmabel ! talk 17:10, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Similar but not identical situation for File:Music Pavilion, Alaska-Yukon-Pacific-Exposition, Seattle, Washington, 1909 (AYP 938).jpg: they simply misidentified the building. This was the Auditorium. The Music Pavilion was a different structure entirely, didn't even have exterior walls, just a colonnade of columns. - Jmabel ! talk 19:24, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
If the actual building on the exposition was not this one then COM:FR#FR3 (error in filename) I guess. And for the second the same criterion for a different reason. — Speravir – 00:28, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
@Speravir: Seems reasonable. So you wouldn't give any weight to the misleading title of the published postcard itself? - Jmabel ! talk 01:04, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Just to be clear (on the first one): that was what the original plan for the Exposition intended this building to be (as can be seen on several early advance maps of the grounds), but it was repurposed well before it opened. - Jmabel ! talk 01:05, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Me, without knowing the fact would not rename at all. In light of what (not) happened a renaming and, also important, description amending would be appropriate. What about something like File:Fisheries Building proposition, Alaska-Yukon-Pacific-Exposition, Seattle, Washington, 1909 (AYP 845).jpg or similar? — Speravir – 01:17, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
By "proposition" do you mean "proposal"? The thing is, the building got built with exactly that exterior; it just ended up with a different interior and purpose than originally planned. - Jmabel ! talk 03:21, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Uumm, yes. But I misread, it was not built at the exhibition (European building → a building somewhere in Europe  ). Apparently this is wrong, so it get’s more difficult. If my suggestion is not enough for you (you still could thoroughly write about the issue in the description) what about File:European Building as Fisheries Building proposal, Alaska-Yukon-Pacific-Exposition, Seattle, Washington, 1909 (AYP 845).jpg? — Speravir – 23:07, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
If we want to go roughly that way, I would word it as File:Building proposed as Fisheries Building, built (with same exterior) as European Building, Alaska-Yukon-Pacific-Exposition, Seattle, Washington, 1909 (AYP 845).jpg. - Jmabel ! talk 00:12, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Do what you think is the best, you can rename yourself …   — Speravir – 00:39, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Speravir 02:41, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Tarqumiyah

There is a picture on ar.wp, here: https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/ملف:Tarqumiyahh.jpg which I would love to see in https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Tarqumiyah ...but I dont know if the license is ok. Does anyone know? Huldra (talk) 23:07, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

It is claimed that the image is in public domain. However it is not clear why. Ruslik (talk) 19:40, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. I wount use it for now, then, as ar.wp has a reputation of not taking copyright too seriously... Huldra (talk) 23:19, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

"December 10"

Why does the top of this page still says "December 10" on April 24th (twenty-fourth)? What caused this error? And could it be fixed? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 02:48, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

  • It should read "March 23" instead, apparently (I didn’t check, though). I fixed it. -- Tuválkin 03:08, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
@Donald Trung, Tuvalkin: This is because the addition of daily headers functionality of @Hazard-Bot is incompatible with @ArchiverBot, ArchiverBot screwed up indentation, and not enough opinions have been rendered at Commons talk:Village pump#Removing daily headers.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 18:07, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
BTW as written in the thread linked by Jeff we do not need the ArchiverBot here. The archiving can be done by the SpBot, the adjustment is easy. — Speravir – 01:59, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
@Speravir: So we would have to start closing discussions here? How would SpBot deal with the daily headers?   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 02:39, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Here in VP we could close because of the discussion on the meta page. I answered there. In addition Tuvalkin fixed the date. — Speravir – 03:02, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Speravir 19:02, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Category:Files moved to Commons requiring review

Hi, This is an old backlog. It would be good if some work is done to check the oldest files. It doesn't seem to be a huge number of files (at least compared to files tagged on the English Wikipedia to be moved here). It is a simple talk which doesn't need any special permission. So if you want to boost your edit count, go!... ;o) Regards, Yann (talk) 08:42, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Immunofluorescence images

I'm trying to upload an immunofluorescence image of cells that I created, but I keep getting this message: "We could not determine whether this file is suitable for Wikimedia Commons. Please only upload photos that you took yourself with your camera, or see what else is acceptable. See the guide to make sure the file is acceptable and learn how to upload it on Wikimedia Commons." How do I upload my original "art" file? Turiya1952 (talk) 23:53, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

@Turiya1952: Are you using the default Upload Wizard or another method at Commons:Upload? Both will walk you through all the steps. It sounds like you may have left a field blank. --Animalparty (talk) 03:50, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
@Animalparty: Yes I was using the default upload wizard, and I filled out all the fields. I ended up hitting the "retry upload button", and it worked out, but I'm not sure why it got pinged in the first place. Turiya1952 (talk) 11:00, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Looks like whatever the issue was was a momentary glitch. Glad it finally worked. --Animalparty (talk) 20:01, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Speravir 00:52, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Shore batteries

I see we have Category:Coastal artillery, but as far as I can see that is for the guns themselves. Do we have a category appropriate to facilities (such as Category:Fort Worden - Battery Kinzie), often within a larger military fort, which are single architectural structures typically containing several artillery pieces? I would normally call these "shore batteries" but I see we have no such article, and en:Shore battery is a redirect to en:Coastal artillery. - Jmabel ! talk 05:08, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Category:Artillery batteries.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 05:24, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! - Jmabel ! talk 05:27, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
@Jmabel: You're welcome!   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 11:19, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Speravir 00:51, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Internet Archive book page images

Is there a quick and easy way to bulk download/upload multiple images from books scanned in the Internet Archive that aren't uploaded to Flickr? My standard procedure tends to be zoom in, right click, and save a page one by one, then crop or edit as needed. But for instance with books like this one with nearly 300 pages of photographs, there has to be an easier work-around. Any tips appreciated, thanks. --Animalparty (talk) 18:01, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Just go to the full list of files or directly download the "SINGLE PAGE ORIGINAL JP2" archive, no? Nemo 19:58, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, the zip archive might be the best option, but it gives a bunch of JP2 files, which are functionally useless to me unless converted into a viewable/editable format like jpeg. Looking for a good free batch converter. --Animalparty (talk) 23:29, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

How to modifie structured data legends

Hello, I cannot modifie the legend in the structured data box. See p.e File:Belles-Forêts (Moselle) entrée d'Angviller-lès-Bisping.jpg where I made a type mistake in name Angviller-lès-Bisping : correcting the file title and the description was succesfull, but the legend not. Why? --Havang(nl) (talk) 19:34, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

If you mean the caption, I just fixed that. Abzeronow (talk) 20:20, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Speravir 18:21, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Temporary rail lines for major construction projects

Do we have a category for temporary rail lines, as used for major construction projects? I wanted to add such a category to File:Looking Northeast on Virginia St from 4th Ave showing regrade work using a steam shovel, Seattle, Washington, October 1909 (LEE 121).jpeg. I looked at images in Category:Construction of the Panama Canal, hoping to find something relevant, but none of the images there seem to have any category along these lines, even though many depict similar rail lines. Not even anything relevant on File:202a-Shifting track by hand.jpg! - Jmabel ! talk 17:47, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Jmabel The German word for this kind of railway is Feldbahn for which surprisingly an English WP article exists: en:Feldbahn. I found images for this kind of railway sorted into Narrow gauge railways in Germany or subcategories. Actually it seems to me, this could be further classified, but what is the English equivalent for “Feldbahn”? “Light railway” like in en:War Department Light Railways? — Speravir – 00:03, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
@Speravir: English has "light rail" and "light railway", but neither implies this temporary aspect (which seems to me to be independent of whether the system is light or heavy rail).
I've got almost no time to look further at this before probably Monday evening, but thanks for that lead, might be useful.
I guess what I'm most wondering is: does Commons have a category specifically related to rail being temporary? Seems we should. - Jmabel ! talk 05:01, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Category:Construction railways seems very appropriate to me. English isn't my first language but afaik Feldbahn and light railway are meant to describe the same concept (LEO confirms) at least in a technical sense. But Feldbahnen on the continent usually didn't provide public passenger service. In british english I also often stumble across the term tramway for lightly built narrow gauge lines mostly running alongside rural roads: en:Croesor Tramway, en:Glyn Valley Tramway. -- Herby (Vienna) (talk) 20:18, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Category:Construction railways looks like what I wanted.
A tramway is even "lighter" than what we call light rail. Tram = streetcar = trolley. - Jmabel ! talk 02:02, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Herbert, das passt anscheinend sehr gut zum fraglichen Bild, aber doch nicht jede Feldbahn dient(e) der Konstruktion. Was ist mit den Bahnen in Tagebauen, in Torfstichen, mit Trümmerbahnen (ist wohl eher Dekonstruktion  ) oder den Halligbahnen? — Speravir – 22:31, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Ping @Herbert. — Speravir – 22:41, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Es gibt passende Kategorien Mining railways und Trümmerbahn sowie für Waldbahnen Logging railways by country. Eine Kategorie Halligbahn gibt es ab sofort! Ich hoffe, die Kategorien passen, ob es außerhalb Deutschlands derartige Bahnen gibt, ist mir allerdings nicht bekannt. Zu den anderen Themen vermisse ich sinnvolle Kategorien. Torfbahnen sind peat railways, dazu haben wir Dutzende Aufnahmen aus aller Welt, aber keine sinnvolle Kategorie, die sind – wie auch die meisten sonstigen Feldbahnen – durchwegs als Schmalspurbahnen in Land oder bei diversen Industriekat. eingeordnet (wenn überhaupt). Maches ist auch bei light rail gelandet, das ist aber das urbane Nahverkehrsmittel Stadtbahn. Der Begriff dürfte im englischen vermutlich auch einen Wandel vollzogen haben. Es gibt also noch viel zu tun... -- Herby (Vienna) (talk) 15:32, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

A new procedure for incomplete uploads

Since phab:T190988 seems to be unresolvable in the near future, I propose that Commons should develop a new procedure for this.

  1. Create a new template akin to {{No permission since}}.
  2. Create a new maintenance category.
  3. Create a new message template, which includes detailed instruction on how to overwrite a file.
  4. Incorporate this in the Quick Delete gadget.
  • When an incomplete file is found, tag it and leave a message on the uploader's talk page.
  • After 30 days, if the file is in use (quite unlikely) or could be somehow useful (being largely intact and depicting someone/some place notable), crop and keep; otherwise delete.

Hopefully this will give new users sufficient time and guidance to retry their incomplete uploads and at the same time ease congestion on DR and CSD.--Roy17 (talk) 20:39, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

  •   Support: I like this idea. -- Tuválkin 21:32, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I agree. Gestumblindi (talk) 23:46, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 03:29, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Good proposal. 4nn1l2 (talk) 14:25, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 15:29, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Blue Elf (talk) 17:02, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support, though #4 would be the hardest part, I guess. — Speravir – 23:32, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Vulphere 14:34, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

  •   Comment @Roy17: This should really be on COM:VPP, though.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 17:12, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
    • I think so, but a pointer here would always be welcomed, also for the other proposals. — Speravir – 23:32, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Well, I don't see any likely opposition to this proposal... Gestumblindi (talk) 21:51, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

candid photos of a living person; friend or colleague

I am not clear about copyright issues for uploading photos of living people into Commons. I want to upload to Commons photos (non-commercial) of people in BLP pages I am writing. The photos are candid spontaneous shots taken of the person by either a friend or a colleague. Does the subject or the photographer (who took the photo on behalf of the subject) own the copyright? If either of them owns the copyright can they transfer that to me? How? The Upload Wizard doesn’t seem to allow a path for this transfer. I understand that whoever has the copyright can upload to Commons but some of these folks are not interested in registering for Wikipedia or Commons and they want me to upload. I don’t see a path in Upload Wizard for me to do this. What is the procedure? --BrucePL (talk) 18:04, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

@BrucePL: Hi,
All content on Commons should be under a free license, which allows any use, including commercial.
The photographer owns the copyright, unless a contract saying otherwise is signed.
All content should have educational purpose, broadly understood, which means that ordinary images of non notable people are usually not OK.
For sending a permission, please see COM:OTRS. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:13, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
You only asked about copyright copyright issues, but in addition to Yann see also Commons:Photographs of identifiable people. — Speravir – 00:07, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

An image used falsely as a flag of a group

This image File:Shiism arabic blue.PNG used as a flag for a group and there is no source whatsoever that says this is their flag. What should I do? I can't remove it from all of wikipedia the image description caption doesn't say that it's the flag of Ahrar Al-Najran group (which is a tribal alliance) but it is used in multiple articles as if it's the flag of Ahrar Al-Najran with no single source. Thanks --SharabSalam (talk) 02:19, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

@SharabSalam: As far as Commons knows it's just an Arabic word. Claims on Wikipedia have to be challenged on Wikipedia, Commons has no control over how images are used there. --ghouston (talk) 02:26, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
It is an own work and its accuracy is disputed I have nominated it for deletion. The translation is Shia which is a POV. There is no single source that says this is the flag of Ahrar Al-Najran. Thanks SharabSalam (talk) 02:30, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
That's not how deletion works here. Of course it is public domain/own. It is plain text. Please read COM:Deletion policy. If you want to fight over POV please do it on the other projects. I've closed your DR as kept. Don't import problems from other projects here please. --Majora (talk) 02:35, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Alright, sorry for that. I have a question how can I delete them from all of the projects? I can definitely remove it from English Wikipedia.--SharabSalam (talk) 02:43, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
If you want to discuss it you can use the talk pages of the articles they are used on. The tab to switch to the talk page is found near the top of every page or if using mobile there should be a button all the way at the bottom of the page that should take you to the talk page. They are also prefixed with the word Talk:. So searching for Talk:Article will take you directly there. --Majora (talk) 02:49, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Majora mentioned "plain text". Files that contain nothing educational other than raw text are out of our project scope. --HyperGaruda (talk) 18:49, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
This image can be used on en:Arabic or any other article regarding the Arabic language just as File:Arabic albayancalligraphy.svg is used in such a manner. Seems plainly educational to me. The fact that it is used in dozens and dozens of articles, rightly so or not, indicates significance enough to be here. Lets not purposefully muddy the waters here please. --Majora (talk) 20:19, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your helpful comments. I noticed later that the image is not only used as a flag for Ahrar al-Najran but also for many groups that are identified as Shia. This is like writing "Protestant" in an image and using it as a flag for groups that are identified as Protestant Christians these groups don't have their own flags or their flags are unknown. I don't think that the flag would be helpful. However, many editors have used the image/flag to make it easier for readers to see the sectarian conflict although IMO most of the time the reason of conflicts in the middle East are not sectarian. I have removed the flag that was attached to Ahrar al-Najran group because 1-there was no source 2- no sectarian conflict implying that would be not a NPOV. I will also remove the flag where the implication that a group is Shia is biased. Again thank you all for your help.--SharabSalam (talk) 22:41, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
The image was created as a quick fix to include an emblem or pseudo-emblem for Shi`ite militias in infoboxes and such where an official emblem or flag was not known. See use in the infobox of the en:Sectarian_violence_in_Iraq_(2006–08) article, for example. Obviously it is not the official flag of anything, and should not be presented as such.... AnonMoos (talk) 08:58, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Commons:Photo challenge February results

Lakes: EntriesVotesScores
Rank 1 2 3
Image      
Title The Körbersee with view to the Großer Widderstein Okama crater lake on Mt. Zao in the Tohoku region of Japan
has a circumference of 1,000 m and a depth of 27 m. The
acidic water-filled crater is called "Okama" because it resembles
a traditional Japanese cooking pot of the same name.
Sunset over Houghton Lake, Michigan.
Author F. Riedelio OKJaguar JoannaPoe
Score 16 14 12
Rotational symmetry: EntriesVotesScores
Rank 1 2 3
Image      
Title Water surface hit by water drop CARE International – friendship and love Dome of the monastery basilica St. Martin in Weingarten
Author Jsalatas AntanO Ermell
Score 17 15 12

Congratulations to F. Riedelio, OKJaguar, JoannaPoe, Jsalatas, AntanO and Ermell. --Jarekt (talk) 01:07, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Is it just me or someone confused rotational symmetry for radial symmetry? -- Tuválkin 03:06, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


Depicts statements coming this week

The Structured Data on Commons team plans to release support for depicts statements this week, on Thursday, 18 April. The community's testing over the past several weeks helped identify and fix issues before launch, and the development team spent time setting up extensive internal testing to make sure the release goes as well as possible.

This release is very simple, with only the most basic depicts statements available. There is a significant amount of technological change happening with this project, and this release contains a lot of background change that the team needs to make sure works fine live on Commons before adding further support. More parts to depicts statements, and other statements, will be released within the next few weeks.

A page for depicts has been set up at Commons:Depicts. As I can't actually write instructive Commons policy or guidelines, I encourage those who have tried out simple depicts tagging add a few lines to the page suggesting proper use of the tool. I also encourage the use to be conservative at first, as we wait for more advanced features within the coming month or two as additional statement support goes live.

I'll keep the community updated as the plans progress throughout the week, the team will know better within the next day or two if things are definitely okay to proceed with release. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 21:33, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Depicts coming tomorrow, 18 April

The development team is going ahead with deployment tomorrow, 18 April, between 15:00 and 16:00 UTC. Some community members are working on developing early guidance on using the feature at Commons:Depicts, and I've added some initial information about searching depicts items when they're live. I'll start a new post tomorrow to announce when everything is turned on and is working as expected, shortly after deployment. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 18:26, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

The deployment is delayed for a few hours, due to a bug completely unrelated to SDC (T221368, in case you're curious). We'll resume the release when the bug gets resolved. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 15:18, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Depicts rescheduled for Tuesday, 23 April

Unfortunately the bug blocking the release was not resolved in time to release depicts today. Releases are not done on Fridays, so the team has rescheduled for Tuesday, 23 April from 15:00-16:00 UTC. I'll continue to keep the community posted as release approaches. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 20:45, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the updates Keegan (WMF). Watching this closely so as to see if we could make the Depicts statements a mandatory parameter in our Wiki Loves Earth competition for Sri Lanka. Best wishes, Rehman 02:14, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
@Keegan (WMF): Is this going ahead today? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:41, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
The process of releasing depicts will begin within an hour or so. I have a separate post to make here when it's been live for a few minutes and we're sure everything is working properly. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 14:28, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Working for me. I made a topical addition. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:37, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
working for me as well. Abzeronow (talk) 15:47, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Deletion requests/All uploads by Istkart

Unfortunately all my files (historical maps) were deleted. I noticed the notifications too late. I didn't break Wikipedia's rules. I don't really understand how someone who is not an expert in cartography, history and geography can assess the quality of my maps. Maps have been used in some Wikipedia articles and this speaks to their quality. They are not flash images, but are compiled in a GIS application and saved in svg format. It's a shame that Wikipedia unsales of my years of labor. Of course, I won't share my files with Wikipedia anymore. Istkart User

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Istkart (talk • contribs) 18:04, 22 April 2019‎ (UTC)
  Comment See Commons:Deletion requests/All uploads by Istkart. Looking through the few examples I agree with deletion request: the svg files look like screen dumps with many uncomprehensible maps, graphs, plots and lines. The files in that form did not seem usable on Wikipadia projects. Although, it is unfortunate that the issues were detected after 7000+ uploads and 11k edits over 7 years. One possible issue is that the user never engaged in any discussions on any talk pages, or any previous deletion requests of his files. --Jarekt (talk) 18:19, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  Similar case An even worse example of a mass-deletion of maps are of the files created by WeatherBot~commonswiki, today only a few maps remain (Mobile 📱), but daily weather maps are not only clearly in scope but extremely useful, all they lacked was good categorisation but if we would have a bot for mass-uploading weather maps we could actually benefit a lot of meteorologic projects and meteorologic content on other Wikimedia websites.
Well, these cases aren't that similar, but it's a tragedy nonetheless. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 02:54, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Depicts statements are live on file pages

The ability to add structured "depicts" statements to file pages is live on Commons. When viewing a file page, the first major change you'll see is the introduction of a tab for accessing structured data for a file.

 
Captions, while part of the structured data project, remain editable and searchable on the file information page as wikitext.

Once you've accessed the structured data tab, you'll see the ability to edit depicts statements and the ability to mark a statement as prominent.

 
More than one item can be marked as prominent.

More information about depicts is being developed at Commons:Depicts, including advice for how to use depicts as well as searching for statements. Feedback about the release - questions, comments, bugs found, design concerns, etc. - can be posted at the Structured Data on Commons talk page. The team will do a review of initial feedback and findings after depicts is launched on Commons to triage, develop, and deploy fixes.

A few things to note:

  • It may take awhile for structured data and depicts statements to show up on every file, particularly if it's a file you've loaded recently, as Commons has a very large cache and it takes time to refresh.
  • The same goes for search, it'll take some time to populate the search index.
  • Adding/editing statements is not currently available through the mobile skin.
  • Adding/editing statements may be slow on some files at first.
  • UploadWizard functionality is not enabled yet.

To repeat something I wrote in the pre-release announcement, for emphasis:

This release is very simple, with only the most basic depicts statements available. There is a significant amount of technological change happening with this project, and this release contains a lot of background change that the team needs to make sure works fine live on Commons before adding further support. More parts to depicts statements, and other statements, will be released within the next few weeks.

Thanks to all the community for the help in planning, designing, and testing these new features over the past couple of years. I look forward to reading what everyone has to say. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 15:55, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Where are these data stored? Are they only accessible via this JavaScript interface? —Justin (koavf)TCM 16:06, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
@Koavf: the data is stored in Wikibase, installed on Commons. The concepts are pulled from Wikidata, but the information lives locally. As for the second question, Wikibase MediaInfo is available through an API. I'll see about getting some more human-digestible documentation for that. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 16:24, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
@Keegan (WMF): Is there any way to make this directly editable in the wiki? That will make it much faster and much more likely that editors will do it. —Justin (koavf)TCM 16:41, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
There are not plans on the roadmap to add direct statement editing without javascript. Once other features are in place, I anticipate a number of volunteer-built tools being developed to help people add structured statements outside of the file page utilizing the API. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 16:54, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
@Keegan (WMF): Does that mean that there is no way to browse these statements in an interface like Wikidata? Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:10, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
@Bluerasberry: Do you mean « an interface like Wikidata » (so, looking like the stock Wikidata site) ; or « in other interfaces, like Wikidata allows (meaning, Reasonator or other frontends)? Jean-Fred (talk) 18:16, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Jean-Fred's clarifying questions are helpful - if it is the later, will there be other interfaces for browsing like tools that pull from Wikidata provide, the answer is that I anticipate people building such things, yes. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 18:26, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
@Keegan (WMF), Jean-Frédéric: I meant like the stock Wikidata site. I expected that if there is another Wikibase installation, then probably we would interact with it in the normal way. I am not deep enough in the development of this to understand why anyone might expect otherwise. Is it obvious to you that I am missing some particular insight about this? Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:31, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
@Bluerasberry: you can visit the structured data tab of any file page to interact with Wikibase in the stock manner. It's not going to be available for people with javascript completely disabled, which is what Koavf was initially asking about. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 19:48, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
We need admins to do this, for today's and upcoming featured images, which are protected from editing by we mere mortals. (And we should make sure that the criteria for future featured images include good depicts statements). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:18, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @Keegan (WMF): Can the caption(s) be moved away from the File information tab and onto the Structured data tab, please? -- Tuválkin 17:16, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
    Agree with Tuvalkin (believe it or not). Additionally, I would like to know if it makes any sense in adding these statements to one's own uploads manually (which is obviously not to manage for someone with thousands of uploads), or will a bot do this according to each file's categories. If latter is the case, the changes should be made only "bot-marked", to avoid extreme spamming of watchlists. --A.Savin 17:51, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Captions is intended to be the only part of structured data in the file information tab, and there are not plans to change that. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 18:26, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

@Keegan (WMF): Now that this is live, any idea how long before WDQS SPARQL queries will be possible? It would be useful to be able to analyse how the property is being used, and identify apparent anomalous or suboptimal usages. Jheald (talk) 13:57, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I do not know what the plans are with Wikidata's Query Service, I suggest asking the maintainers. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 16:42, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
@Smalyshev (WMF), Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE): Any updates that you can give on this? Jheald (talk) 09:20, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

What are plans for qualifiers support? They are useful even for depicts statements. For example: sex/activity of animal(s), part (leaves, flower, seed, bark, etc) of plant, architectural element of building/structure, etc. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 17:33, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Qualifiers and deeper statement support is on the way. I do not have the timeframes yet as they're still being worked out, but it's "soon". Things have to be cleaned up from the initial release first. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 17:46, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

"Export to Wikimedia Commons" from en.Wikipedia - licence problem

I am looking at this file on en.WP. I'd like it to be on Commons. There is the "Export to Wikimedia Commons" link at the top. So I click it and I get "The file cannot be imported, because it is not marked with one of the required licences." The file is marked as PD-Australia and looking at the meta-data it all seems consistent with public domain in Australia. So why can't I put it onto Commons? I understand that certain free use file can't be moved to Commons, but why can't a public domain file be moved to Commons? What am I missing here? Kerry Raymond (talk) 06:38, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I have had the same issue. Just change the license to {{PD-old-100}}, and you are fine. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:52, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Hey Kerry. That PD-Australia template ensures it is PD in Australia, but not necessarily in the USA. If it was pre-1946, you can add an additional template: {{PD-1996|country=Australia}}. Anything in the gap between 1946 and 1955 may not be hostable, and should be thought through. --99of9 (talk) 06:57, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
At least, that's what I think should eventually appear on the Commons page. I don't know much about the transfer bots. Here's an example of how I did it in the SLNSW upload template: File:SLNSW 479506 3 Parliamentary Refreshment Room SH 557.jpg --99of9 (talk) 06:58, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
In this particular case, it's sufficient old to be PD in the USA too, so I shall proceed as suggested. But I don't think this should be necessary. As a consequence of various trade agreements, the USA respects Australian copyright law in relation to Australian images (and vice versa), so my understanding is that PD-Australia is always valid on Commons. If I upload direct to Commons, there is no problem with adding anything licensed as PD-Australia so why is there an issue exporting from en.WP? Or to put it the other way, shouldn't PD-Australia be in the list of "required licences"? 07:10, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
It's quite possible for works to be public domain in one country but copyrighted in others. Each country generally applies its own law regarding expiry, even for foreign works. It works both ways, in Australia we can treat photos taken before 1955 as public domain, regardless of where they originate. --ghouston (talk) 07:41, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I am well aware of that copyright varies between countries. Here on Commons, PD-Australia refers specifically to works of Australian origin, and not foreign works. That is, I can label a 1950 photo of the Sydney Harbour Bridge as PD-Australia (because you must have been in Australian when you took it) but not a 1950 photo of the Golden Gate Bridge (because it is not of Australian orgin -- you could not have photographed the Golden Gate Bridge from Australia). Because of our international trade agreements, Australia respects the copyright of the USA (and many other countries) in relation to works that originate in their countries (and vice versa). This is why PD-Australia photos are allowed on Commons even though many of them are later than the USA's public domain cut-off (the USA respects Australian copyright determination for images of Australian origin). And why Mickey Mouse remains under copyright in Australia despite being pre-1955 because it is of USA origin and Australia has agreed to respect USA copyright. Kerry Raymond (talk) 01:42, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
@Kerry Raymond: I'm not sure your answer takes into account the URAA Commons:URAA-restored_copyrights. This is why w:Category:PD-Australia_images_with_URAA-restored_copyright are eligible for deletion on en-wiki. But obviously your particular image is ok. --99of9 (talk) 01:52, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
This is was also discussed at m:Topic:Uxzzzcemwhrycr05.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 02:12, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: That link doesn't show anything. --99of9 (talk) 06:12, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
@99of9: I know, that's why I changed "is" to "was".   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 18:50, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
See w:Rule of the shorter term; many nations treat copyright from foreign nations as PD if they're PD in their home nation, but many nations don't worry about that.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:12, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
As it is pre-1924, it should be {{PD-US-expired}}. If the author's death is known, the best is to use {{PD-old-100-expired}} or {{PD-old-70-expired}}. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:45, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
@Kerry Raymond: Regardless of copyright issues, if you add "PD-Australia" to mw:Extension:FileImporter/Data/en.wikipedia#Good, you will be able to export such files to Commons from the English Wikipedia. 4nn1l2 (talk) 20:20, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Kerry, JFYI, you forgot to add {{Now Commons}} into the description in enwiki, and to adjust the links in Commons. — Speravir – 22:20, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
I didn't forget. The instructions in the import file tool simply don't tell you what to do. There is an instruction about removing templates that propose moving to Commons and adding a template that it has been moved to Commons, but don't tell you what the names of those templates are (something of an omission if you want someone to do something). You mention here "adjust the links in Commons" (which wasn't mentioned in the tool) but again, never having done this before, I have no idea what this is asking me to do. Which links? If there is more to it than than click the button "Export to ..." button, the instructions need to be a lot more explicit. Kerry Raymond (talk) 02:03, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Aha, I see you already fixed the links, which is why I couldn't see any links that needed fixing. I think we really ought to get the Import tool to fix the links (it knows which wiki the import is coming from so it knows where to link back to). While I know how to manually cross-link between wikis, a lot of people don't. Kerry Raymond (talk) 02:11, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
In general you are right, but for the author I used a Creator template which we cannot expect from the tool I think. Ping @Johanna Strodt (WMDE): Johanna, the tool is the File exporter, here from Enwiki to Commons. The description contained some internal English wiki links which should have been converted, and then there either a recommendation should be given to manually add the template {{Now Commons}} (which in dewiki is {{NowCommons}}, but a redirect exists there, see in general d:Q5611625) or this template should be added automatically. — Speravir – 00:40, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Ping @Michael Schönitzer (WMDE), Thiemo Kreuz (WMDE). See directly above starting with “JFYI”. — Speravir – 18:17, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
@Speravir, Kerry Raymond: Thank your for the feedback and the ping. Updating the wikilinks is already on our work board. I also created tickets for the suggestions about setting NowCommons or informing the user about it: T222149, T222150 – we will look into it – feel free to comment. -- Michael Schönitzer (WMDE) (talk) 09:34, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Thx, Michael. (BTW I fixed your links to the Phab tickets.) — Speravir – 18:35, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

«Don't disturb Wikipedia. Thanks.» Srsly?

When clicking on {{GeoGroup}} from this cat page (and from a few others like it, too), I got just now this error message — «Don't disturb Wikipedia. Thanks.» in big bold letters on an otherwise empty, unformatted page. I appreciate that not all functions can be running at all times and I'm always partial to the informal, the witty, the geekish — but this just feels obnoxious. -- Tuválkin 04:37, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

It seems some tool borked. Yann (talk) 16:21, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Tools are expected to get borked, but does the warning that it occurred need to be dickish about it? -- Tuválkin 23:08, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
This is disappointing. It's been like this for nearly two weeks, and obviously they are aware of the problem. osm4wiki is a very useful tool in the work I do, so when it doesn't work it's unhelpful to have to keep a list of backlog checks to do. As a volunteer myself I understand that activities are somewhat by choice, but I do believe in customer service. An eta or at least some indication that the issue is under consideration would be more considerate. Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:17, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
This was also reported on Wikipedia, and looks to be a separate issue. The issue occurs when the link's referrer is anything but a Wikipedia project, even including Commons. I've reported it as a new bug on phab:T222073. As a temporary workaround, if you copy the link into any Wikipedia project's sandbox and click it from there, it will work. Seraphimblade (talk) 14:50, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Tuvalkin, the maintainer has now fixed this issue and the OSM links should work on Commons. Seraphimblade (talk) 22:16, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Seraphimblade, thanks — but let me say, for the 3rd time in this section, that I have no issues with the malfunction itself, as those are expected etc.; my beef was with the obnoxious wording of the warning. Will it be used again? -- Tuválkin 09:16, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm not the dev and can't make promises on their behalf, but I think it very unlikely. The dev stated that they've entirely removed the function, and my testing confirms that it also doesn't happen from browser bookmarks and the like. So I think the end of that. Seraphimblade (talk) 15:39, 30 April 2019 (UTC)


https://pixnio.com/fr/

Hello.

I've discoverd this website : [8]. It contains ONLY image under P.D. With a bot, it's possible to upload it on WikiCommons.

--ComputerHotline (talk) 10:01, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Possible, but against their rules:

You are not allowed to use images from this site to create similar website, be aware that not all text (image file names, titles, tags, description) are in public domain.

You are not allowed to mass download any content from this site using any automated technique: robots, spiders, applications, programs…

--El Grafo (talk) 11:37, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Given that we respect the new pixabay license (compare {{Pixabay}}), we should also respect this. --El Grafo (talk) 11:40, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
The other problem with mass uploads from such sites is that there is usually very little with which to properly describe or categorise the image: just a few random tags that would end up being very high-level categories. Better to just upload content you feel you can identify and find a use for on Wiki. Also beware that some of these sites are scams: they've stolen the images from another "free images" website and created their own website purely to redirect your donations to themselves. That's the main reason the sites disallow scraping content. For the site owner, while each image is free, the database of images is of value to them, and if you just upload that database to Commons, you have deprived them of that value. -- Colin (talk) 13:15, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I don't think Commons is similar to this website, or Pixabay for that matter, so I don't think that restriction should apply. But I agree with Colin about categories and scams. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:55, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Please do not import from pixnio! When this thread was started, Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2019/04#pixnio_aka_public-domain-image was not yet archived and right on top of this page!--Roy17 (talk) 01:20, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Portraits and their context

Hi, I am going to upload a series of portraits of a person all of which are cutouts from larger photos. Meaning that there is a wider context available for the portrait. Though the main valuable content is the portrait. What would be the best way to present these? Upload both the cropped portrait and the wide photo? Thank you for any advice. Svobodat (talk) 06:57, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Two ways to do this, and either way CropBot is likely to be useful.
- Jmabel ! talk 15:54, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! Svobodat (talk) 06:00, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Would someone be kind enough to check whether I got it right? The "Extracted from/Image extracted" version for images File:Domanek Kalavsky Bratrsovsky.jpg and File:Bratrsovsky Antonin 01.jpg Thanks Svobodat (talk) 06:44, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Convenience links: File:Domanek Kalavsky Bratrsovsky.jpg, File:Bratrsovsky Antonin 01.jpg. - Jmabel ! talk 15:36, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
  • One technical fix: [9]
  • Both images need categories.
  • You describe File:Domanek Kalavsky Bratrsovsky.jpg as your "own work". That amounts to a statement that you took this photograph. Is that a correct understanding? I see you have had several uploads deleted as probable copyright violations in the past. And I see, for example, at File:VobeckaM 003.jpg that you have made a similar claim about a photo from 1946. At the risk of a personal question: just how old are you? Similarly File:Josef Sramek 5.jpg (1962). Jmabel ! talk 15:49, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the technical fix. And yes, I am old enough to have taken the photo at my own wedding :-) Svobodat (talk) 08:29, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
@Svobodat: The "how old are you" question was with reference to the 1946 photo. - Jmabel ! talk 15:28, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Fictional Coats of Arms of Mevlüt Kılıç.png

There were a bunch of admin manipulations to File:Fictional Coats of Arms of Mevlüt Kılıç.png, and the current result is that there's an image there, but the corresponding image description page has a length of 0 bytes and no edit history... AnonMoos (talk) 07:18, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

@Ezarate: GMGtalk 14:54, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

locator maps of countries with controversial territorial claims

Category:Bilateral maps of Australia makes me wonder, how should such countries be coloured? Does it matter if, in such cases as bilateral maps, the other country does or does not recognise its claims? Should Australian Antarctic Territory be coloured for all maps, or only if the other country is UK, NZ, France or Norway, or not coloured for any maps?--Roy17 (talk) 20:22, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I'd say, ideally, we should have all versions available on Commons. It's up for the reusers to decide, which one, they want to use. --MB-one (talk) 09:41, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
I agree, and I'd also like to add that the perspective/bias from which the map is created should be noted (ideally in the title, e.g. "Australia Canada Locator according to Australia"). BMacZero (talk) 19:47, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

How can I translate to English

How can I translate to English —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2600:1012:F004:3413:CD6E:3141:3848:EECB (talk) 13:16, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

  • How can you translate what to English? - Jmabel ! talk 15:34, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Ever Siempre

The artist is Ever Siempre [10], [11]. He does not seem to be anywhere in Wikidata or the Commons. Just create a streetartist category? Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:24, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Please

Please rename the File:Dead toad.jpg. This is frog, not toad. --ΓΙΑ ΤΟ ΔΗΜΟΤΙΚΟ (talk) 13:27, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

@ΓΙΑ ΤΟ ΔΗΜΟΤΙΚΟ: Please recategorize the file.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 13:52, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
@ΓΙΑ ΤΟ ΔΗΜΟΤΙΚΟ: I've renamed it in accordance with your request. I'll leave you to update the description and categorisation. --bjh21 (talk) 14:08, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Building an ersatz scanning table

This blog post may be of interest: "Building an ersatz scanning table". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:25, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Cute! (Extra points for the electric typewriter used as dead weight!) -- Tuválkin 09:52, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
    That's no typewriter; that's a BBC Micro! --bjh21 (talk) 11:37, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
  • OMG! (Proud ZX Spectrum user here!) -- Tuválkin 12:10, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
I have a BBC model A sitting in my basement somewhere, it's so old that powering it on would probably blow something. Maybe I should repurpose it, or just hang it on my study wall. -- (talk) 16:05, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
  • My ZX Spectrum worked last time I tried it on, a few months ago. It might well outlive the necessary cassete tape deck and analog TV set it needs to operate unmod. -- Tuválkin 00:17, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Yet another bunch of {{npd}} outrages

Please, look at user talk:Han jinnmon. I have a record of thwarting outrages by certain hyperactive Commons users and hence prefer an involvement by a neutral user. For ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2’s information. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:27, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

To me, Special:Diff/347466804 is unsatisfactory (if not to say “frivolous”). Objections? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:33, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

  Comment I blocked Incnis Mrsi for harassment. As I said on his talk page, while these edits may not be adequate, his threats are not acceptable. This discourages good faith users, and install a very bad atmosphere. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:10, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Incnis Mrsi's point that those npd tagging are not helpful. I don't think Yann's block of Incnis Mrsi is a good one.--Roy17 (talk) 01:20, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
The problem is that I detest making threats which am unwilling to execute. Dyfyd ʿadl …’s stuff is soundly defeated on Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Han jinnmon‎ – good, but may we account it for a “satisfactory settlement”? Or problematical tagging still goes on (with respect to other authors)? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

@Prosfilaes, Polimerek: is this trash still generated, or the disease remitted for some reason? I was mostly out of touch with Commons for a week. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:06, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Incnis Mrsi, I think [12] wasn't as helpful as it could have been. There isn't much of a relation between patroller status and poor npd/nsd tagging anyway. That being said, David (ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2) tags poorly. Also see Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#File:Ervaren lichaamsbeeld, naar geslacht en naar bmi, bevolking van 18 jaar en ouder, 2014 (in procenten).png. While some are copyvio, David simply tagged everything Pbuddenberg had uploaded as nsd.. without even understanding Dutch. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 01:50, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: I deem that the patroller flag greatly adds credibility to a statement that certain file “needs permission”. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:16, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Anyway, is the fresh user_talk:Владислав_Молдован #File:AddFirstMethod2.jpg a sufficient pretext to execute the plan? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:16, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

The user is pretty useless as a patroller nowadays. But, after some meditation, I concluded that seeking editing restrictions would be more effective. Specifically, prohibition against injecting crap like {{Npd}}, {{Fair use}} etc. to file: pages without pointing to the presumed “true” rights holder. Opinions? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:50, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Seems more sensible than going after their patroller status. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 11:26, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

And yet another case: User_talk: Nuton21. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:38, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
And more outrages at User_talk: Kynnap. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:22, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Also Dyfyd infers “interesting” conclusions from other users’ postings – go to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tomáš Hudeček prosinec 2013.JPG. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:14, 13 May 2019 (UTC)