Commons:Village pump/Archive/2012/07

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Merge extensions of {{Information}} to it

Templates such as {{Location}} and {{LargeImage}} often are not placed correctly or bots/users insert content in between them. These should be integrated into {{Information}} so that they appear properly where they are supposed to. The fields can be hidden with parser functions. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 16:47, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

There were many proposals over the years to expand {{Information}} template, including some by me, but there seem to be general lack of support for expansion of that template. Also adding extra fields would not be sufficient, some bot would still have to go through few million of images and add values to the new fields. --Jarekt (talk) 18:23, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
I can operate the bot if needed. A carbon copy of "Information" template can be created (Information2, Information(detailed), whatever) which would merge all of these fields. First step is to list all of the extensions, is there such a list somewhere? -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 00:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Technically it is not a big challenge, the issue is usually trying to gain support of other editors and if one gets such consensus than logistics of running the bot. There are 11M files on Commons using {{Information}}. Editing at recommended non-urgent speed of edit every 10 seconds, you should plan for ~10k edits per day. To go through 11M files would take you ~ 3 years. Of course not all images might need an edit, but it still takes time. --Jarekt (talk) 01:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
I'd target files tagged with {{Location}}, {{LargeImage}}, etc instead. Do you have a list of the templates? Can you determine their total transclusions? -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 20:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Here is the list of most linked to templates Special:MostLinkedTemplates. You can also get total transclusions count by clicking transclusion count in Special:WhatLinksHere pages. --Jarekt (talk) 20:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
I really don't want to plow down these. Are all the relevant templates really not covered in a help page of some sort? ---- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 01:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
{{Location}} is one of 4 location templates. If these aren't created/added by bot, users have a fair amount of problems doing them manually.
Thus, I don't think {{Location}} should be included into {{Information}} directly.
For a consistent look, you could go through file description pages and place it directly below {{Information}} (or include this in some other cleanup). Identifying and suggesting fixes for bots and tools that could be improved to place it there would also help. --  Docu  at 15:12, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Oh certainly, normal users shouldn't be inconvenienced. A bot can regularly look for new uses of {{Location}} (and other similar templates) a bot can merge it to {{Information}} regularly. The idea is that {{Location}} orchestrates where the content supposed to appear. Would this be more acceptable? -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 03:48, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't see the advantage of merging them. If you place it right after {{Information}} it already appears as if it would be part information. For bots it should make no difference if they place it within or just right after {{Information}}
One of the ideas of {{Location}} is that users can edit it. It's easier to do that if it's not within {{Information}}
Users already get puzzled if edits of texts in {{En}} within {{Information}} don't work as expected. --  Docu  at 09:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC) (edited)
The thing is they are often not near {{Information}} and people add content in between them. There are bots that add content right after {{Information}}. Dismissing problems does not fix them.
After the migration parameters from related templates would be directly passed to {{Information}}.
Consider this sample usage. If merged you would merely migrate the parameters to {{Information}}.
  • To me {{location dec|50.67413|4.39857|region:BE}} is confusing because the parameters aren't labeled. What is 50.67413? Longitude? Latitude? Some secret code? While what the first parameter does is obvious to you and me, it is not so obvious to a new user. With named parameters what goes where is more obvious.
  • If the goal is to assist new users templates such as location should be labeled and for the sake of simplicity merged with {{Information}}. What is more confusing to particularly new users starts with actually knowing about {{Location}}'s existence, then figuring out where to place it, and then finally figuring out how to actually use it. I don't see how using a separate template makes anything easier even to an experienced user like me.
  • Users nowadays prefers using the upload wizard so new uploads would not be impacted by this, the script merely would need to be adjusted so this is even less of an issue.
  • Segregating the related templates (that must be put near each other) offers no advantage whatsoever.
  • Users can still use {{Location}} and a bot would grab them and merge them with {{Information}} regularly.
-- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 00:26, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't know that users 'prefer' using the upload wizard, they just use what they're given, and if new here probably haven't worked out how to avoid it yet ;-)
  • A version of the location template for new users, which has labeled parameters, may be useful, I think that what would be even more useful would be a wizard (perhaps toolbox entry, or gadget) that assisted users to enter location information (working out or asking them what format their information was in, or getting it from EXIF data (although there is a bot that does that)).
It also occurs to be that unless users normally carry about with them a GPS device, they probably don't know the co-ordinates anyway, so they presumably consult a map (google etc) to work it out, so that function could be integrated into such a wizard (didn't User:Dschwen have such a tool?)
  • For users, merging the templates has no advantage, and just makes things less flexible.
  • The location templates work quite happily where-ever they're put, I don't see that it particularly worries new users. --Tony Wills (talk) 02:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure that there is an agreed placement/order of templates, but if there is, or we can get a consensus then that is a good job for a bot. When the location template is rendered adjacent to the infomation template the surronding box merges into one info box - so you can get a nice standardised effect without having to merge templates. Normal practice seems to be to have a bot that watches for newly edited image pages and updates them then - that saves embarking on an exercise to update perhaps millions of files at once.
  • Also good if the bot checks that it hasn't edited the image recently, to avoid getting into edit wars with other bots ;-)
  • Getting an agreed order of templates (perhaps it could be in a file that relevant bots automatically consulted) would be a good idea if we want consistancy in presentation (mind you adding {{Information}} templates to all images first would help :-)
  • Editing the {{Information}} template will invalidate the caching of every image page using it (11 million?), not something to be done without pressing need.
--Tony Wills (talk) 02:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  • There was a sweep before to standardize (internationalize) image headers so that they became {{int:filedesc}}. This is a similar shift but with a more noticeable impact in terms of improvement.
  • An agreed list is pointless because any user or bot can break the order. This happens frequently enough. No one can tell me the list of templates relevant to the {{Information}} let alone tell me the order they should be in.
  • Only pages that have {{Information}} and some other related template (such as {{Location}}, {{LargeImage}} etc.) would be affected so the number should be a lot fewer than 11 million. This has been said before. Not all uses of {{Location}} has {{Information}} on them.
-- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 09:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
The use of these templates is not mandated anywhere, they are used by convention and because people think they are useful. People sometimes create new versions of this template for particular uses. Perhaps the easiest path is to create a new template with useful features that people want (perhaps including features others have wanted to add in the past) and promote its adoption. At some point in the future the community may decide to merge the templates.
I'm not sure what relevance the reference to {{int:filedesc}} is, apart from recognising that some things are standardised by bots?
An agreed order simply gives bots (and people) a standard to use when there is no other reason to place the templates any other way. It will not enforce only one way to order them. There are no stone tablets from above describing how image pages should look, it is a continuosly evolving thing (which is why we can even consider adding more fields to a standard template). The only important thing is that the images be described in ways that are useful to people wanting to use them. Unlike bots, humans are pretty flexible when it comes to formatting, they can recognise the information whether the location is put before, within, or after the information template - exact placement is really a rather trivial cosmetic thing. --Tony Wills (talk) 22:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
How about using the other_fields parameter for {{Information}} for this? We can create a version of {{Location}} (and others such as {{LargeImage}} maybe) that return only a row (instead of an entire table - with {{Information field}}) and simply pass it to |other_fields=. That way we also don't need the CSS hack to let the templates look like one table (in MediaWiki:Filepage.css). Also this way we keep {{Information}} from becoming too big, and as far as bots go, it does make it so that the Location things are within the {{Information| * ... *}} transclusion. –Krinkletalk 22:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
I was thinking of suggesting that, but it appears that you can only have one "other_fields" entry (it seems to just use the last one it finds in the template), so that you can only use that for one extension to the info template. I like the way the CSS hack looks, it is a very flexible approach. I'm not sure how messy and universal the code is, but it seems to work fine and is a neat way to extend the info box. I think that for some images it is actually appropriate to have location ahead of the description, eg photographs of a location (landscape, streetscape etc) where the most useful information and major descriptive item is actually where the photograph is of. For a lot of other images, location is rather inconsequential information and might as well be tacked on the end of the info box. --Tony Wills (talk) 03:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Standards please. It is very unhelpful when the bar moves around so much. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 05:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Please explain. Unhelpful to who? Yes, it is nice to have all the image pages looking the same, but it is rather arbitary where any particular item is placed. Humans have little problem scanning down a page to find what they want. --Tony Wills (talk) 22:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Updating {{Information2}}

Template already has a filed for location. Perhaps "Large Image" field could be added to it. And a bot can apply it to pages with {{Information}} and {{Location}} and/or {{LargeImage}} -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 22:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I think having a special purpose information template is fine if there are a set of images that have extra specific info that we would like to know for every member of that set. Eg the info template {{Artwork}} for art-works. You can then have extra fields that prompt people to add the missing important information. So I support having this sort of template that reminds people to add location information where that is an essential part of the description, eg landscapes, cityscapes, streetscapes. --Tony Wills (talk) 03:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
One thing I will suggest is this be integrated into the upload wizard so that if user specifies coordinates {{Information2}} is used instead of {{Information}}. Also would you support expansion of {{Information}} to include {{LargeImage}}? I already implemented code for this at {{Information/sandbox}}. The thing is unlike {{Location}}, {{LargeImage}} is a binary question and {{Information2}} extends {{Information}}. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 05:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Some time ago, someone went through some of the alternatives to {{Location}}, replaced them with {{Location}} and then deleted them. {{Information2}} seems a recent experiment and just seems to undo all that effort. --  Docu  at 06:14, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
I did it once (although most of the deleted templates are still around categorizing images into Category:Media with erroneous locations). I agree that recent experiments by user:Zolo with {{Information2}}, like moving {{Location}} template inside, are still in experimental phase (no documentation, not tests or examples). I think they waited for resolution to this discussion. I think they can be performed while using templates from {{Location}} family (possibly modified), so they might be still compatible with the current system. --Jarekt (talk) 13:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes this was mainly because I found it made more sense to have the coordinates next to the name of the place, but since it is unlikely that we will change all files to a new format, I guess we can get rid of the (and probably merge {{Information2}} with {{Photograph}} too). --Zolo (talk) 08:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
So who would merge them? The code behind location appears to be quite complex. Also empty fields should be hidden from view. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 22:07, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Define location for {{Location}}

Rather than bothering users with having to edit templates within templates, could just agree on a location where to place {{Location}} in relation to {{Information}}? Somehow I thought the agreed place was just below {{Information}}, but it seems that this isn't mentioned on {{Location}} or {{Information}}. --  Docu  at 06:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

 Agree I think we can add it to both. --Jarekt (talk) 12:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 Disagree This is unenforceable. Numerous times the two are no where near each other and/or content is added in between. Why can't we unify templates? I honestly do not see the harm. Instead of using weird CSS hacks, why aren't these merged as they are meant to be near each other? According to devs performance is not an issue provided the code is thoroughly tested before-hand. {{LargeImage}} can be integrated in with trivial ease (I already have placed the code for this in the sandbox) and {{Location}} can be integrated in with some effort (template seems complicated due to auto-translate). -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 21:33, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Ordering of information gives us something that looks nice, and makes information easier to find if there is a lot on the page. What is this talk of "enforceable", who wants to enforce file description formatting? If we can agree on normal ordering of templates, then bots can be modified to respect that and give us some uniformity rather than working against each other.
I see no reason or advantage to merging anything into {{Information}} that is not essential information for every image. {{LargeImage}} and {{Location}} are not relevant to every image, whereas 'Description', 'Date', 'Author' etc are.
I much prefer having simple, self contained, autonomous, independant building blocks (the various templated information boxes), that can be re-arranged or swapped with another innovative idea. For instance there may develop a variety of ways of presenting location information (eg maps with annotations), merging {{Location}} into {{Information}} just tends to add inertia to such changes.

June 3

Name usurpation

Hello! I was renamed on cs.wiki and I would like to usurp and rename on commons too. Can anyone give me a link to the related page there on commons? Thank you --Mates245 (talk) 00:30, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Changing username/Usurp requests. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Watchlist problem

I asked a question at the Commons Help Desk, and as I added the section, I ticked "watch this page". The page is apparently on my watch list (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:EditWatchlist), but when I go to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Watchlist (currently set to show all changes in the last 7 days) I don't see the edits that answered my question on the list of changes. I don't see my original posting in that list, but I do see my most recent. All posts were within the last 7 days. Is there a problem with the watchlist or am I doing something wrong? In case it matters, I'm using Firefox 12.0 on Windows 7. Mitch Ames (talk) 01:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Check your preferences -> watchlist -> "Expand watchlist to show all changes, not just the most recent" checkbox. MKFI (talk) 07:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Template:Additional license instead of Template:Noncommercial

Hello all, to better support Commons:Multi-licensing I've created {{Additional license}} and {{Additional license error}}. There are currently a number of redirects in Category:License redirects to speedy deletion which redirect to {{Noncommercial}} - i.e. mark the file for speedy deletion. But per Commons:Multi-licensing such licenses are acceptable as long as the licenses are in addition to a standard license acceptable per Commons:Licensing (a fact Commons:Creative Commons copyright tags incidentally seems unaware of).

So I'd like to propose that such redirects be converted into licenses, protected from inappropriate use by the Additional License template approach. Basically, such licenses mark a file for speedy deletion if not used via {{Additional license}} - which I think makes the purpose of the license clear enough. These licenses can be placed in a new category, Category:License tags non-commercial, with appropriate category explanation there. NB I would do the same for Nonderivative licenses, but I'm not sure such licenses are much use to anyone as an additional license. Comments? Rd232 (talk) 17:06, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I do not understand how your templates will work (the docs did not tell me).
Technical issues aside, generally I don't really like the use of those licenses also in addition. Makes such licenses common here. Also it may lead frequently to uploads with base license that is as restrictive as possible (nearly unusable) plus another usable license (but noncommercial-only). Our files should be usable for everyone. That "non-commerial in addition to another license" stuff is quite contradictory to that goal/philosophy. Cheers --Saibo (Δ∇) 18:05, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, on the first point: {{Additional license error}} provides the code in its documentation to placed on a license template (eg cc-by-nc-3.0), while cc-by-nc-3.0 would then be applied on a file simply by {{Additional license|cc-by-nc-3.0}}. (And if cc-by-nc-3.0 were applied directly, it would nominate the file for deletion.) Rd232 (talk) 19:48, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
On the second point: (i) I don't understand what COM:L-compatible base license is "nearly unusable". It'll certainly still have to be usable on Wikimedia projects, which is the core of Commons educational mission. (ii) if the alternative is no upload, that's still better than nothing. Rd232 (talk) 19:48, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Saibo is probably referring to the GFDL. -- Liliana-60 (talk) 19:55, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
I guessed that. And whilst the difficulties with GFDL are noted in COM:L and of course led to the license migration in 2009, GFDL-only remains acceptable and perfectly usable by most Wikimedia projects, which is the core of Commons' educational mission. GFDL-only is better than not having the content at all, and adding NC licenses to GFDL-only doesn't change that. Rd232 (talk) 21:02, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, GFDL (1.2 only for hardcore enthusiasts) which is perfect if you want to create traps for reusers ("blablabla you have done a copyvio since you did not host the GFDL on your server, pay 100 € now!") or if you want to prohibit use in nearly all print products. Or some exotic licenses which are hard to understand, not translated, have strong copyleft which renders them incompatible with other commonly used licenses here (effectively forbidding collages, ...). I feel that the addition of noncommercial licenses is against our spirit - so I am not sure if I would not prefer "no upload" (as you coin it). Maybe in your opinion the spirit of Commons is more Wikimedia projects centric - mine is not (COM:L: "Wikimedia Commons accepts only free content, that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, anytime, for any purpose. "). I hope that is somehow understandable. Cheers --Saibo (Δ∇) 22:55, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
I am not happy about the GFDL licence because of some problems with it. For example, it would not be economically feasible to sell postcards with GFDL-licensed images since it would cost too much to distribute printed copies of the licence with each postcard. However, the main issue I see here is that someone presumably would find a way to add a non-commercial licence without adding a free licence. Of course, such files would be subject to speedy deletion, but if the file information pages contain a licence template which looks like a standard CC template, then there is a risk that people viewing the file information page might overlook a , or icon, and so we might end up having a lot of unwanted files that no one discovers. It seems better to restrict the NC and ND licences: if anyone wants to use them, create a custom template in your own userspace and use that template. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:17, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, there are two issues here. The first is marking any additional licenses very clearly, and ensuring that they really are additional. I'd actually considered already whether it wouldn't be better to have an approach like {{multi-licensing|Base license|additional license}}, so you could only use additional licenses when a valid base license is specified, and the template would ensure clarity on the additionality. (But I didn't want to bother setting that up at this point without some support for the general idea.) On the second point, I don't think people selling postcards has any relevance to Commons' educational mission, so scratch that. But in general use of GFDL-only images in print is a problem and may be in other situations too. In which case, why don't we address that? COM:L already addresses this in a "please don't use only GFDL/GPL/LGPL" way (Commons:L#Well-known_licenses). What's to stop us going beyond this and requiring dual-licensing under a more suitable license? If we did that, then for the multi-licensing we're talking about, we'd know that any Additional License would apply to files that also have a usable license. In practical terms, we'd have to grandfather in old files, but for new uploads, I don't see why we couldn't require this. Rd232 (talk) 09:51, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

It's kinda a philosophical question whether additional noncommercial-licenses are a good thing. However I would strongly suggest that this is implemented in a way that automatically detects a missing base-license. Otherwise this is going to be a backdoor to add unfree content. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 16:41, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

July 1

Technical issues with mobile main page

I'm trying to configure Korean mobile main page for Commons. But I'm encountering a problem. I intend to include picture of the day, media of the day, and today in image in mobile home. (if necessary, language links will be also included.) The part of media of the day seems to be invisible. Well, I think it can be solved by giving a direct link to the video. However it should be hidden in desktop view. Your ideas are appreciated. Thanks. – Kwj2772 (msg) 12:31, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I can't see any media files at all using mobile Mediawiki. Take a look at the English Wikipedia page about the OGV format and you will see that the media files in that article can't be displayed either. I would guess that this is a limitation in the mobile Mediawiki software. It is not possible to view the media file if you go to the file information page either, so it might be better to skip the "onŭr-ŭi midiŏ" section altogether from the mobile version of the website.
Another thing: "today's picture" is way too big (much bigger than in the desktop version), which is inappropriate for mobile phones. Consider using a smaller size. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Image hoster picplz.com is about to go down tomorrow (just as a reminder: license review is important!)

As we saw in the section above a image hosting site (and iphone app) which offers uploaders to license images with free licenses is about to go down tomorrow (that is, of course, no problem in the eyes of Bastique - but probably only for WMF-related works). Now, license review was correctly done (just the one WMF-related upload was missing a review) for all 22 images which I could find by searching Commons for picplz.com (21 uploads from flickr [uploaded at flickr using that app] and 1 from that site).

Help for all people uploading images which are freely licensed from other websites: please put {{LicenseReview}} on a file page to request a review (license confirmation). For some sites there are specific templates, please see the intros of the subcategories of Category:License review needed. --Saibo (Δ∇) 13:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Saibo (Δ∇) 13:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

My first experience with Flickr streams

I found this stream of images on Flickr about Canada, dated prior to 1923 and released by the UK National Archives Colonial Office collection. Can I upload these images if they are not yet here on the Commons?

Each image caption includes the following statement: "This image is part of the Colonial Office photographic collection held at The National Archives. Feel free to share it within the spirit of the Commons." Are they referring to the Wikimedia Commons? — User talk:Ineuw 00:27, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

More likely this: w:Commons. Targaryen 00:33, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
More to the point, this, which is Flickr's explanation of "The Commons". Specifically: "By asserting 'No known copyright restrictions,' participating institutions are sharing the benefit of their research without providing an expressed or implied warranty to others who would like to use or reproduce the photograph. If you make use of a photo from The Commons, you are reminded to conduct an independent analysis of applicable law before proceeding with a particular new use." That means that the chances are good any individual image is usable by us here, but we need more evidence for that fact than simply "No known copyright restrictions". Powers (talk) 01:11, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
There's no reference to Wikimedia Commons so most likely the more general legalese is implied. Targaryen 23:03, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. — User talk:Ineuw 17:49, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

It looks like they all came from picture books published by the Queen's Printer in 1963. They may all be public domain as works of the Canadian government or all copyright by the same. See how each sub-set has the cover of each book?--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:54, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_copyright#Canada you have to wait until 2013. 50 years after creation.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:05, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Ooops. I was looking at the 1963 set. I think all images created before 1949 are copyright expired in Canada, so they should be okay to upload using Template:PD-Canada--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

However, they are also {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} if created after 1945, so they may not be added here. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:19, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
According to Template:PD-1996 they qualify. It seems that the discussions that I just went through are in limbo until WMF makes a decision. In the meantime uploads are allowed if they are PD in the source country and will only be deleted with a formal take-down notice. Commons:WikiProject Public Domain is working on it in the meantime.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:00, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
The template PD-1996 is explicitly and only to tag works that are in the public domain in the United States under the URAA-related provisions of the U.S. Copyright Act. It is the part of that template where it says: "[this work...] was in the public domain in its home country on the URAA date". If the country of origin is Canada, photographs created in 1946 or later are not tagged with PD-1996, as they were not in the public domain in Canada on the URAA date of January 1, 1996. (1946=1996-50 years, which was then the duration of the Canadian copyright after the creation of a photograph other than Crown-copyrighted.) -- Asclepias (talk) 19:01, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I am confused. Is the Template:PD-Canada stating pre-1949 wrong then? Are most images in public domain in the source country copyrighted in the US between 1946 and later years in source countries then? I still don't understand how the US can claim copyrights for an image that was never even published in the US. I doubt the Crown has any presses there.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Every country in the world determines what copyright status is enjoyed on its own territory by all the works existing anywhere in the world. (This is not the same thing as countries claiming copyrights on works.) Per the Commons internal policy, each work hosted on the Commons must be accompanied with information about its copyright status in at least: 1-the United States, and 2-its source country (if different from the U.S.). When an unlicensed non-U.S. work is tagged on the Commons as being in the public domain, the information about its copyright status in different countries can sometimes be provided with a single tag, but more often it needs to be provided with at least two tags, i.e. one tag describing its public domain status in the U.S. and another tag describing its public domain status in its country of origin. That is to say, on Commons, some public domain tags are used to describe the public domain status of the works in the United States (those tags are often referred to as "PD-US" tags or "US-specific" tags), whereas other tags are used to describe the public domain status of the same works in another country (those tags are sometimes referred to as "non-US" tags or "[country]-specific" tags). The template PD-Canada is of the latter category, it is a non-US tag, it is a Canada-specific tag, it describes the copyright status of the works in Canada, and as such it states correctly that non-Crown photographs created before 1949 are in the public domain in Canada under the Canadian Copyright Act. The template PD-1996 is a US-specific tag, it describes the copyright status of the works in the United States under the U.S. Copyright Act, and as such it states correctly that works that meet the URAA-related provisions are in the public domain in the United States under the U.S. Copyright Act (which has the consequence that non-Crown Canadian photographs created before 1946 are in the public domain in the United States under the U.S. Copyright Act). The case of the Crown-copyrighted photographs is slightly different, as their copyright expires 50 years after their first publication, not after their creation as was the case with the non-Crown photographs, so in the case of Crown photographs it is their year of first publication that must be documented. But, of course, publication can't occur before creation, so, in any case, photographs created after 1945, Crown or non-Crown, are not in the public domain in the United States. All non-Crown Canadian (non-simultaneously-U.S.) photographs created before 1946 are in the public domain in the United States, whereas Crown Canadian (non-simultaneously-U.S.) photographs are in the public domain in the United States if they were published before 1946. For more information, please see Commons:Licensing. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:05, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
You are missing one thing here. {{PD-1996}} only applies to photos which were published without a copyright notice before 1 March 1989, or if they were published before 1964 without a copyright renewal. Unpublished photos, or photos published with notice+renewal, may be copyrighted in the United States even if they were created before 1946. In particular, see the warning about photos by en:Yousuf Karsh at en:WP:Non-U.S. copyrights#Subsisting copyrights (so Category:Yousuf Karsh might need a purge). I would guess that few Canadians bothered renewing copyrights, so pre-1946 photos are presumably rarely copyrighted in the United States unless they are unpublished, in which case the US term is either life+70 years or creation+120 years. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

visualisingchina

Is it OK for wiki? Can we upload one by one? --Алый Король (talk) 09:04, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Our Lady categories

Hi to all; is better the actual Category:Churches of the Consolation of Mary by country or Category:Our Lady of Consolation of Mary churches by country (or Category:Our Lady of the Consolation of Mary churches by country)??--Threecharlie (talk) 09:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Easy in English. --Foroa (talk) 11:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
I see nothing wrong with the current name; the last would also be fine, as long as we are consistent, but why mess with it? "The" is mandatory, so the second suggestion is wrong. Any change should include a parallel change to Category:Churches of the Consolation of Mary - Jmabel ! talk 15:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
I asked user:NeverDoING, but I would be inclined to say that Category:Consolation of Mary churches would better fit the others at that level, and equally "Saint xxx churches". --Foroa (talk) 15:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
? As en:Basilica and National Shrine of Our Lady of Consolation change the categories to Category:Our Lady of Consolation churches ?--NeverDoING (talk) 04:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
There was a long standing Category:Churches of the Consolation of Mary. I merged. --Foroa (talk) 17:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Categories and being logged in

Two files, File:Gees slough effigy mounds 2.JPG and File:Gees slough effigy mounds.JPG, are assigned to Category:Effigy mounds. If I am logged in, they show when I go to that category; but if I'm not logged in, they do not. What gives? --Orange Mike | Talk 15:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd say that this is normal. Page display for logged-out users is not always up to date since it is cached (with a bad cache control, though). Both files' categorization are just two days old. It can take some days to refresh (you could also force a refresh by calling action=purge on that page). PS: I have edited your nowiki comments to make them clickable. Cheers --Saibo (Δ∇) 16:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
calling action=purge??????? --165.189.32.4 19:04, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
!!!!!!!! --Saibo (Δ∇) 19:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
This is bugzilla:24575. (When things differ between logged in and logged out users, its the squid layer). Bawolff (talk) 16:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Hotlinking of Commons "porn" and other most popular files

(First brought up at [1] where it was hatted)

One of the hottest downloads on Commons

There's been some indication from things like http://stats.grok.se/commons.m/top that "porn" is more popular on Wikimedia Commons that anything else. Now it's true, usually when a kid gets into an adult library, even in the old days, that's one of the first things he'll look up. But I don't think that's actually the reason. I suspect the reason is sites like http://acomocliticism.wordpress.com/category/wiki/ which link directly to Commons images, and that this traffic is driving up the numbers. To illustrate how this can be the case, consider popular non-sexual items that we can be sure there's no way are people looking up here often, like hit #23, File:Mortdale trackplan.png, which comes up right after "Vagina" and "Penis". And #35, File:Pierogi frying.jpg. I don't think it's the popularity of articles about w:Mortdale railway station and w:Pierogi that drive those numbers - I think it's off-wiki links (in the second case, cornishpasties.org and WebMD's forum; I'm not so sure about the first case, though - all I found was this site which doesn't seem believable as the source of all the traffic).

Now, Commons:Hotlinking explicitly allows this kind of hot-linking to our images. Increasing the educational use of our content is encouraged and part of the basic mission. But what bothers me in the case of porn are a few factors:

  • We're taking a beating in the press on this point, with Fox News calling us a "virtual porn hub"
  • This is something where we've already been less-than-pure on our own server. Users who collect huge galleries of pretty women on their userpages get hassled and the galleries censored; even uploaders of the content like Max Rebo Band have been hassled for keeping galleries of their own content, with them shut down if not by hook then by crook.
  • The off-wiki sites can dump the server load and the flack for all these pictures on us, but take all the revenue for ads, and all the site traffic, for themselves. I would far prefer that users interested in browsing pictures of pretty women do so from Commons user pages than from off wiki sites, let's put it that way.

Because I resolutely oppose image rating schemes, I shall not consider such options, which are a red herring. But we could look at taking some simple criterion to prevent hotlinking of images that are overused from external sites - for example, affecting images with more than 5000 page views (somewhere over 1000 images, mostly sexual in nature). I don't know all the details - it could be based on site-referrer data; there might be a way to suppress serving the images themselves (on upload.wikimedia) to someone who hasn't accessed Commons first. All that would take programming, and judging by Jimbo Wales' non-interest I doubt that's going to happen, but the crudest measure could simply be to rename and move some of the most popular images back and forth now and then, so that the upload.wikimedia links stop working.

Of course, I could be wrong, and in any case, it would require some kind of explicit change to the hotlinking policy to even permit such hostile actions. But I'll throw this out here as an idea to see what the thinking is about it. Wnt (talk) 13:47, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, are you bored somehow, need to invent some problems? ;-) (Oh, right, that is a spin-off from the bay of bullshit, aka Jimbo's talk page, I see). However, note that the stats page says "page views" - I doubt that hotlinked image (the file - not the page) views are counted. --Saibo (Δ∇) 14:00, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm not seeking to "invent" a problem, but to delay having something incredibly humiliating imposed on Commons by a faction which is growing in power by leaps and bounds which is intent on "solving" any and every problem by means of censorship, to the exclusion of any other method, including those that work. You can pretend they aren't there if you want, but they are purging Wikipedia's admins, threatening even an ArbCom clerk with bogus off-wiki claims of malfeasance and torpedoing his RfA (like nearly any other), winning spots as checkusers and edit suppressors, and imposing a hierarchy of editors by Pending Changes. Once they have enough power; once the only people who feel comfortable editing Wikipedia are the ones who think censorship and a heavy right wing spin on every political article is just hunky-dory, they'll have no trouble getting the remaining users to put them in charge of WMF entirely, even if they haven't wangled a way to meta:global ban all the good Commons admins before then. Wikimedia is a sinking ship, almost precisely at the point where it is time to stop trying to save it and instead time to abandon it, and this is one of the places where it's leaking.
As to the statistics, I have the following text from [2]: "Each request of a page, whether for editing or reading, whether a "special page" such as a log of actions generated on the fly, or an article from Wikipedia or one of the other projects, reaches one of our squid caching hosts and the request is sent via udp to a filter which tosses requests from our internal hosts, as well as requests for wikis that aren't among our general projects. This filter writes out the project name, the size of the page requested, and the title of the page requested." I can't say I really understand that, but I think that sounds low level enough to be showing the hotlinked requests. Wnt (talk) 14:15, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
"Wikimedia is a sinking ship", oh, really? ;-) Thank you for explaining your motivation. However, I do not agree that reacting to these threats is the right solution. If you do then they already won - since they got influence.
The explanation explicitly mentions "page". AFAIK a file's thumb/full is no page. They are also served from a different subdomain (upload.wikimedia.org). Anyway, my comments above lead to an irrelevance of that question. Cheers --Saibo (Δ∇) 14:34, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
"Page" could mean webpage - I don't really know. I also don't know whether the tool could or should be modified to exclude hotlinking results. Wnt (talk) 16:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm not really convinced by the whole idea of allowing hotlinking (even if we didn't have the rather substantial problem of Bugzilla:35721 - Moving files breaks hotlinks). Leaving completely aside the question of which images are much-used in hotlinking, I would suggest that it would make sense to conserve Wikimedia resources by limiting hotlinking in some way. Doing that in a way that works well is likely to be resource-intensive in itself (in developer time terms at least), so by far the simplest solution is to end hotlinking. Give 3-6 months notice of the end of hotlinking, and then block non-Wikimedia requests after the cut-off date. Rd232 (talk) 15:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
I will not comment on the the problems with technically enforced hotlink prohibition. -- You do not know at all if hotlinked images are a problem (server and traffic resources) but propose a solution. That I meant by inventing problems. Allowing hotlinking certainly has benefits: e.g. it spreads the use of Commons images since it is simple to embed an image e.g. in a forum posting - hopefully with attribution. We want more spreading, don't we? If Commons is more visible more people will also find to Commons itself. So a certain expense for that promotion is fine, isn't it? --Saibo (Δ∇) 15:10, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
The ability to hotlink from my own site is one of the many things that motivates me to contribute to Commons. I imagine I'm not alone in that. - Jmabel ! talk 16:17, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
That's an interesting point I hadn't considered. Rd232 (talk) 16:42, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Hotlinking certainly uses resources. What the cost is and whether it's worth the cost isn't clear to me; some data would be nice. hopefully with attribution - but almost certainly without license-compliant attribution, if any, the vast majority of the time. Rd232 (talk) 16:42, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree that ending all hotlinking is too drastic a solution, especially when as Saibo correctly points out, I don't even really know there's a problem. But moving 50 or 100 files to annoy the worst hotlinkers isn't impossible, and it wouldn't greatly bother anyone else. Wnt (talk) 16:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Why do you want to be evil? (sorry, was reminded of google's [untrue] claim "don't be evil"). I mean, yes, that is theoretically possible (contradicting COM:RENAME) - but we allow hotlinking. And why is some hotlinking bad if it generates much hits? That also means much usefulness (for other people and for us, as I said above). Is annoying other people (and mostly ourselves - think of our links...) your goal, not really I guess? Could we please let the WMF run the servers and we do the rest? :-) Cheers --Saibo (Δ∇) 16:53, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

In case it is not clear: Hotlinking is a feature and not a bug and breaking file links without a good reason which this one is not is a monumentally stupid idea. Anything else? --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 17:43, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, so, the users that like to talk about very very important real problems like this one can continue this discussion at where it came from. --Saibo (Δ∇) 17:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment This problem is for developers and Wikimedia staff to worry about. This isn't a call community can make since it does not concern the content and merely how servers are run. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 18:20, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Fox news will always hate us, because we give away stuff for free which people used to sell. Pornography is educational, if it promotes positive attitudes towards sexuality. We should host as much educational material as possible, and make sure that other sites liberally link to us. The reason why erotic images top that list is probably more to do with the shortage of pornography here rather than their content. Less files, same audience => more hits per file. --Claritas (talk) 20:57, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm not aware that anyone has suggested that the bandwidth spent on hotlinking is problematic. We always knew some of our hotlinked uses were not going to be educational or compliant, and there's no effective technical way to differentiate them from the kind of uses we wish to promote. If the file is in scope, it has legitimate potential educational uses, and hotlinking of it should thus be permitted. If the file is not in scope, it should be deleted. Dcoetzee (talk) 03:55, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you really, really think that rate limiting hotlinking would make Fox "News" suddenly declare that Wikipedia (because Fox obviously doesn't know the difference between P and M) is "no longer a virtual porn hub" and love us forever? Besides, given that watching Fox makes people misinformed,[3] we must be doing something right as long as they claim that we're doing something wrong. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

To be clear, no - I'm sure that those pushing for censorship will continue no matter what. My concern regards the people who watch or read these reports. I don't want them to encounter points that they are more likely to think are valid; I want to take any live ammo out of Fox's guns and restrict them to the usual dreck that many people will just ignore. Wnt (talk) 20:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
And do you think that the misinformed Fox viewers will think that the points made on Fox are any less valid if we rate limit hotlinking? Do you think that they will ever find out about us doing so? Do you think that they would understand what that means? All rhetorical questions, of course. :) —LX (talk, contribs) 21:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Extracting an image without loss

I found a useful PD image from 1870, but I don't want to simply print screen it, is anyone able to extract it in another way? http://collections.tepapa.govt.nz/objectdetails.aspx?oid=779065&page=223&imagesonly=true&term=unknown FunkMonk (talk) 03:03, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

In short, yes, there are custom software solutions that can extract this image at full resolution automatically and quickly. Tiles of the image are available at [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9] and these can be stitched together to obtain the original image. Dcoetzee (talk) 03:09, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Cool, thanks! Zoomify? FunkMonk (talk) 03:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity ... why can't you print-screen it? Now, to be clear, when I look at these pieces like " http://collections.tepapa.govt.nz/ZoomifyCache/218/061/MA_I219608.640x640/TileGroup0/2-0-0.jpg ", despite the name, they are 256 x 256, not 640 x 640. So the image as displayed is in fact quite small in resolution, only about 640x460 for the grey rectangular region and contents. When I try moving a square from one of these files into a printscreen of the full image, it fits perfectly and without visible boundary.
Other question is... why would this museum, indeed, the government of New Zealand, be engaging in such an absurd copyfraud? Do they actually try to enforce copyrights on simple copies of PD works? Wnt (talk) 04:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Good question. Te Papa is quite protective of their collections, to the extent of prohibiting casual photography of any displays in the museum.[10] NZ govt agencies still vary a lot in their policies regarding making information freely available. --Avenue (talk) 08:01, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Notification of DMCA takedown demands

Wild-sheep-model-1

In compliance with the provisions of the US Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA), and at the instruction of the Wikimedia Foundation's legal counsel, one or more files have been deleted from Commons. Please note that this is an official action of the WMF office which should not be undone. If you have valid grounds for a counter-claim under the DMCA, please contact me. The takedown can be read here.

To discuss this DMCA takedown, please go to Commons:DMCA#Notification_of_DMCA_takedown_demand_-_Wild-sheep-model-1. Thank you! Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 18:14, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

link service: File:Wild-sheep-model-1.jpg, log. --Saibo (Δ∇) 19:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
That user's uploads should probably get a second look. That is a lot of different cameras! —LX (talk, contribs) 20:01, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree, and I've already tagged several other files by the uploader as copyright violations. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:46, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
We should probably nuke every upload from that user, I do not trust any of his upload to be {{Own}}, i.e. even if the images were under the specified free licence (which would need to be proven and which is very doubtful) the attribution would not be correct. --PierreSelim (talk) 10:03, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. Too many different camera models. When I searched for images yesterday, there were several files which I couldn't find elsewhere (at least not uploaded prior to the Commons upload), but as many files were uploaded 1-2 years ago, this doesn't really have to mean anything; the source might have gone down since then. --Stefan4 (talk) 11:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
At some images the user mentions in the author field: "LACAS Admin". That could mean that he is employed in the administration of Lahore College of Arts and Sciences (probable abbr. LACAS). So the photos could be collected from LACAS employees/members - legally or not legally. Guess confirmed: Having a short look at the user's talk page yields User_talk:Farjad0322#Own_Work. So he has been uploading works by other "club members". Mayme the other club members also found some nice pics in the internet? Or maybe the blog owner (DMCA takedown requester) gave the "club" some of his images?! Or maybe not. ;-) Possibly the "club" is just related to the images prefixed "LACAS" (early uploads). More comments by the uploader would be helpful. Otherwise it is hard to judge where to believe own and where not. I guess WMF sent an email to the account - did they get answer? --Saibo (Δ∇) 14:05, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I found many, many more clear copyvios among this user's uploads, from all over the web - including several that were clearly not reverse copyvios. The user's claims of own work absolutely cannot be trusted, and I have purged them all, except for PD-text ones and one simple pie chart which is credibly produced by the uploader based on the description and its low quality. I also issued a final warning. Dcoetzee (talk) 13:07, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

C. atratus gliding diagram

In compliance with the provisions of the US Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA), and at the instruction of the Wikimedia Foundation's legal counsel, one or more files have been deleted from Commons. Please note that this is an official action of the WMF office which should not be undone. If you have valid grounds for a counter-claim under the DMCA, please contact me. The takedown can be read here.

To discuss this DMCA takedown, please go to COM:DMCA#Notification of DMCA takedown demand - C. atratus gliding diagram. Thank you! Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 18:47, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

link service: File:C. atratus gliding diagram.png, log. --Saibo (Δ∇) 19:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Status: the deleted image was actually a derivative work that used the photograph [11] as a prominent component (copied three times). Although User:Bugboy52.40 appears to have an incomplete understanding of permissible derivative works, diagrammatic elements of their uploads appear to be consistent and original. I found other copyvios of photos, e.g. File:Syntomeida_Epilais_NC.jpg is an unattributed copyvio of [12]. Further investigation is needed. Dcoetzee (talk) 15:01, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Check for other (problematic) files by the uploader accounts

Someone might want to do this (↑) - note that the DMCA takedown might be wrong claims and the uploader was right. Please document here (or better on COM:DMCA?!) if done to prevent duplicate work. --Saibo (Δ∇) 19:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

July 3

Strange licenses

Why this is under copyright?

Rest of the discussion from here was moved to Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Wikinews jingles#Wikinews Opener Theme with © license and not source+author. Please continue there. --Saibo (Δ∇) 21:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Saibo (Δ∇) 21:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Purge not working?

Re File:Starling chicks Clarinbridge.jpg I uploaded a new version of this cropping the fancy border. The upload history and the full resolution both show the new version, but the page itself http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2d/Starling_chicks_Clarinbridge.jpg/1024px-Starling_chicks_Clarinbridge.jpg is still showing the old version with the border, despite clicking 'purge' about 10 times, Ctrl+F5 about 20 times, a second re-upload, and ten more Ctrl+F5. What's going wrong? - MPF (talk) 22:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Works for me (I see the 800px thumb on the file page). Usually (since some weeks, ...) you need to purge after a reupload. And then fight against your browser's cache - or just leave it. --Saibo (Δ∇) 22:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
"you need to purge after a reupload" ... Did that, repeatedly. And cleared my computer's cache. Yet it's still showing the old version. - MPF (talk) 23:10, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
It happened in the past that not all servers were reached by the purge. It may also happen that your ISP caches the image (especially if you use a proxy). Did you try with another browser to exclude a problem with your browser cache? --Saibo (Δ∇) 23:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Haven't tried a different browser, no. Thanks for the info on servers / ISPs, if so, then it's out of my control. - MPF (talk) 23:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
If someone with a different ISP (preferably from a different country) confirms the problem, then it might be the Wikimedia servers and we can open a bug report for the technicians. Without this the bug report is a bit too early, in my opinion. --Saibo (Δ∇) 02:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Fine for me (from India). Yann (talk) 14:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Update - it's sorted itself out now, the pic is appearing as it should - MPF (talk) 16:44, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

July 4

Spam in source field, false claim of own work

User Special:Contributions/abbybilanin has converted three images to png format, then listed the source as "Own work" plus a link to calculatormortgage.co.uk (blacklisted site) or just the link. How should this be undone?-unsigned

  • convenience link: abbybilanin (talk · contribs) - Jmabel ! talk 18:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm guessing just delete this user's work, undo the tag saying that the global JPGs are superseded, and globally substitute. The alternative would be, since changing format does not introduce any rights, keep the PNGs but change the attribution to reflect that they are simply copies of the respective JPGs. I'll leave the choice to someone else. - Jmabel ! talk 18:22, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Template:Object photo

Hello,

A user don't like this template (see history). Is it allowed to let a template categorise files ? As I'm an heavy user of this template, I will not change my method with only one comment. More comments are welcome. ~Pyb (talk) 12:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

This discussion has been held tens of times, very shortly because it is so obvious, and always with the same consensus: templates should not generate topical categories. Such categories cannot be renamed by bots, hotcat, cat-a-lot and other bot operations fail on such constructs. Moreover, the template is used on single files, so a rename needs manual edition of each single file. I am tired of spending more time on template edition than on actual category moves. Just add the category by hand. --Foroa (talk) 12:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
As you can see here and in Commons:Categories#Major_categories first bullet: Topical categories shouldn't be included through templates.. --Foroa (talk) 12:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
There may be some situations where it can make sense for a template to include categories, but it should be a situation where the fact that it is going to break all the automated category reorganization tools, category renaming tools, etc., is less important than the benefit. I don't think there are many, and if you are passing the entire category name as a parameter to a template, then it's a really bad idea because there is no benefit at all. If someone wants to rename the category, then all of the images in that category via this template are going to be lost (or remain in the old category). Such tools cannot be expected to search for every possible template argument syntax, and that kind of thing. And that is just one tool; there are by now quite a few category-related tools, and you'd have to update them all so that they know how to find these one-off category references, if someone wants to reorganize into to a subcategory, and that kind of thing. Those are the main reasons behind the policy Foroa mentions. I suppose the template is built around having a single category for a particular object, but if we ever get enough photos of the object and want to subcategorize, the template really hampers that. It's also confusing for users who edit the image page and can't tell where the category reference is coming from, if they are used to seeing the explicit "Category:" there all the time. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your explanation. The first argument from Foroa was just "I don't need more work" (sic) ~Pyb (talk) 13:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Sometimes it might be smarter to categorize through templates than let bots making thousands of edits. This is especially true for large bot uploads from the same source. Of course passing a different argument each time that is directly transferred into an own category by a template is not nice as Carl noted. -- RE rillke questions? 22:45, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I can see why you might not want this template to add the images to the category, for example if you want to subcat a particularly large category for a particular work, but the category name is still needed as a parameter because the category description page is where all the data it uses is stored. Dcoetzee (talk) 12:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
An example in Category:Madonna della Vittoria by Mantegna: it is not possible to isolate the details in the detail subcategory. --Foroa (talk) 14:18, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Autocategorization should be removed. <off-topic>Object photo currently sortkeys details of the artwork with "zz", so that they all clutter at the end of the category, I kind of like it better than having a special "details of" category. </off-topic>
As pointed out by Dcoetzee, the template transcludes info from a category. That may make it a bit problematic (and calls for ugly onlyinclude tag). If a bot removed autoatcategorization from files using this template, should the artwork description be moved to the template namespace ? I must say I do not like much any of these solutions, nor do I like copying the whole description on each file. To me, the real nice solution would be to transclude the description on m:Wikidata. As it sounds likely to be doable in about 6 months, I would suggest to keep the template as is for now (apart from autocategorization). --Zolo (talk) 14:56, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
The only thing that need to be done is that the template does not generate categories. This can be simply done in a first time by adding a "normal" category to the image with the same name as the object name. The category invocation in the template has to be removed. The move to m:Wikidata has nothing to do with this fundamental problem. --Foroa (talk) 17:39, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Foroa, I am not sure you have understood what we were saying~, nor how the template works:
  • the "|object" parameters does not only add a category, it transcludes the artwork description from the category.
  • Transcluding info from either template or category is not super-great. Transcluding from Wikidata would probably be much better. --Zolo (talk) 18:01, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
I know, the current version does it properly I guess. --Foroa (talk) 18:23, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
This one ? Sure enough, but now files are no longer categorized. I would rather wait for bot categorization before removing autocategorization from the template. --Zolo (talk) 18:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Many thanks to Jarekt that has added the categories as requested, so the template is decoupled from the category generation. Further maintenance is now the job of the author and users of the template. I'll make some suggestions on the template talk page. --Foroa (talk) 06:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

July 5

Database error

Trying to submit changes I got this error message: 

A database query syntax error has occurred. This may indicate a bug in the software. The last attempted database query was:
   (SQL query hidden)
from within function "SqlBagOStuff::set". Database returned error "1114: The table 'pc170' is full (10.0.6.50)".

Palosirkka (talk) 13:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

It's a known error and happens across all Wikimedia projects. A bug is filed on bugzilla and the people on #wikimedia-tech are informed: bugzilla:38202. Trijnsteltalk 13:29, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Note that the edits and uploads still work - just the page reload afterwards does not. --Saibo (Δ∇) 13:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. Palosirkka (talk) 16:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I just experienced the message: [api-error-internal_api_error_DBConnectionError] while uploading two different files. Both filenames are reported as already existing: File:Tour de France 2012 - Etappe 12.png and File:Tour de France_2012 - Etappe 14.png. How to proceed? --Maxxl2 (talk) 13:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Solved --Maxxl2 (talk) 14:45, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
After 4 hours the 2 files dont show in their category and a search doesnt show them. Seems the files arent properly registered. --Maxxl2 (talk) 17:29, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
I confirm that they were not shown on the category page (also while being logged-in). Purge of the files and the cat page did not help. Fixed it by applying a null edit to both files. The search usually takes some hours or even days to find new files. --Saibo (Δ∇) 19:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
This workaround also helped at the apparently same case with other files. --Saibo (Δ∇) 20:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

administratieve divisions of Svalbard islands

On my map it is not clear if Ny-Ålesund and the Kongsfjord area belongs to James I land or Oscar II land. It would help to have a map of the regions. Does it make any sense to classify by administrative area, as the overwhelming majority of the pictures are off coastal areas, not inland areas. Smiley.toerist (talk) 20:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Could someone help me by uploading a few images

I would like to illustrate a few articles on Wikipedia with the images found within the following article, which is under a CC license. Would someone be willing to help me by uploading the images from the article to the commons? See: [13] Thank you in advance for your help. ---My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 14:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

  • You should be able to do this yourself. Click through to the largest available image. Save that to your computer. Then upload just like any other image, providing source, author, and licensing information. (By the way, something like this is probably better asked at Commons:Help desk, since it doesn't really require broad discussion.) - Jmabel ! talk 18:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
You have just to copy the images to your computer and then upload the images from your computer, using the upload wizard. But is the licence really also for unlimited commercial use...? The licence states that one may print copies only in small number for personal use. --Havang(nl) (talk) 18:18, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
"Copyright: © 2011 Yamamoto T. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited." From the top of the page. It clearly says CC-by but not NC ND. I assume this means they are CC-by and C an D are allowed.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
But why is there the sentence: "as well as the right to make small number of printed copies for their personal use"? [14] That does look like a restriction concerning commercial use.--Havang(nl) (talk) 22:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
That seems to be a statement that covers the whole site, not just the article. The article appears to have a broader license at the top set by the author. I can't see how they can specify a CC-by license and then change the rules of CC on another page.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
As I read it, that statement is part of a general discussion of open access. The policy of this particular open access journal (given on a different page) appears to be CC-by-2.0. Besides the brief statement at the top of the article, see the rights and permissions link in the right-hand column. That page specifies Cretive Commons and the link there is to CC-by-2.0 Dankarl (talk) 03:35, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
The pages showing higher resolution versions of the images (that appear when you click on the thumbnails) don't mention any license. Would the CC license displayed on the article page apply to them too? --Avenue (talk) 08:14, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I would say yes. "The OMICS Publishing Group applies the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) to all works we publish.." is the statement from http://www.omicsonline.org/license.php that was mentioned above. My bold.--Canoe1967 (talk) 11:36, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Link to on each category to the GLAMorous tool disappeared ?

Link to GLAMorous on categories and on user pagesnew

The link on each category to the GLAMorous tool disappeared (Gadgets). I use it very often and I miss it dearly. --Foroa (talk) 13:53, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

That is likely related to this edit yesterday. I also don't see it. I also don't see the watchlist notice (even if I would look at my watchlist ;-) ). Firefox13, Monobook, German, no JS-errors. Strange thing is: I have "ExtraTabs2" also switched on (that is where the Glamourous gadget got integrated into).
Note at Rillke, I rather switch single features off or on. That extratabs collection clutters the pages with loads of tabs which I don't need. Cheers --Saibo (Δ∇) 14:07, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
  1. The watchlist message was only visible for users with English interface and the GLAMorous gadget activated.
  2. The integration into ExtraTabs allows:
    1. Easier maintenance.
      1. There are edit-requests for each single gadget-translation, …
      2. If something is MW-core/ jQuery changes (in a few months, we'll get gadgets 2.0), we have to review 60 gadget code files
    2. Easier translation.
      1. One translation file for multiple link texts
      2. One translation for one gadget
  3. The old link label (GLAMorous) was unintuitive for new users and visitors. Therefore I changed it into what it actually does ([Show] File usage).
  4. I reverted. I am not sure whether there is the need having a gadget for a link to each single toolserver tool instead of having them together. I have to admit that ExtraTabs is not an intuitive name for a link in the toolbox. I know that you like a checkbox for each link, Saibo, and I understand that, I would even endorse that if the gadget-page (Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets) could have an improved format, would allow grouping/collapsing.
  5. "collection clutters the pages": This is the problem of Monobook and using the tab-bar (p-cactions). IMHO links to tools should go into the toolbox but changing this would perhaps create new confusion.
  6. "Why you changed it without community consensus?" — Where was the consensus for this gadget to be added? There was one user who asked for it at Commons:Village pump/Archive/2010/04#Glamorous link/tab gadget ? and Krinkle who decided to put it into an extra gadget that he did not edit since creation.
  7. I admit, I did't expect this change would cause problems therefore I just asked here some time ago: Commons:Village pump/Archive/2012/05#Glamorous link/tab gadget ?
Still have a worse feeling, not convinced?
I could offer asking Krinkle to comment about maintenance efforts.
I could offer asking a few new users whether he/she understands where he/she can activate gadgets and whether he/she understands what GLAMorous is and whether Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets is clear and if not whether this is perhaps related to a whole ocean of checkboxes.

-- RE rillke questions? 20:40, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Rillke! Note that not one said anything about "consensus" (that citation you made is invented, right?). It is perfectly okay to do stuff without documented consensus, really! You know what you are doing.
@1: Why do you make a notice which is only visible for English? That is useless. Also that it is just in the watchlist. I do not use my watchlist. Make it a top-of-page-notice or something.
@2: Regarding checkboxes for each link: well, e.g. Krinkle does want to have one Standard interface with no options, apparently. At Glamorous there are not translations. ;-) If you do not want to have so many gadget code pages make a single gadget just change a boolean variable (with a RL dependency) and place the code centrally for a group of gadgets.
@3: I searched for Glamou... "File usage" is bad. There is already "global usage" which uses the MediaWiki special page Special:GlobalUsage. Yes, I have the link in my toolbox now (with the old text).
@5: Clutter in the toolbox is still clutter (although with less pain, yes).
@8: Well, not my problem.  ;-) It is MediaWiki's. Btw: one who is not interested in options does never go to the gadgets or even the options page, does he? So it does not matter for the stupid newbie if there are 50 gadgets waiting for individual choice - he will never see them and just use the ones which are on by default. Cheers --Saibo (Δ∇) 23:16, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, Saibo. The consensus-question — It was a phrase that I expected sooner or later.
@1: Having a sitenote is unnecessarily disruptive. I suggest the following better approach: When hovering the old link, the new one is highlighted.
@2: The tooltip has to be translated, the gadget-descriptions, the link-label. Making a new gadget with a "boolean variable" would just create new work (descriptions). As for Krinkle, it's paradox that he used a new gadget here but is against too many options in general.
@3: Fine. What is the problem? The GLAMorous does exactly what global usage does, just for multiple files.
@5: Do you think it would cause serious confusion changing the position? I never found it intuitive having a link to orphan images or the gallery in the tabbar and discovered them very late. The invoked pages are neither another view of the page or an action (delete, move, purge, ...) I would be really interested in what new users prefer. Unfortunately there is no way for anonymous link-tracking without the use of non-wmf-servers.
@8: One could easily loose interest when seeing the gadget-jungle. It's hard to find what you are actually looking for. Advanced grouping and sorting would be required.
What about automatically disabling the GLAMorous gadget for the ones who have it activated and enabling ExtraTabs2?
Or what about a settings-wizard for ExtraTabs2, allowing easily inserting links but also disabling them? This is BTW, something I miss for each gadget: There should be a way to customize them through Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets: Either a dropdown with controls or, if there are too many options, a dialog. But Site-JS is disabled on this page.
-- RE rillke questions? 09:06, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
@1: Sounds like an idea for this case (switch to another gadget). The only question: how long will this dead gadget stay listed?
@2: Well, right - I thought of the the old link "GLAMorous". That needed no translation. Re. description work: Eh, well, you need to tell your users what they can expect from a gadget also if the GLAMorous tool is integrated in the ExtraTabs gadget?!
@3: ✓ Done-- r 20:08, 7 July 2012 (UTC) Hmm.. okay, then use this info; maybe that: Usage of all files (mind the plural)
@5: I am not alone with the "clutter" problem - see this comment: "hidden' in a drop-down menu burried in the far left column with a crapload of other links & stuff." (by Lx 121 in #abusing anonymous ip about the location of the "nominate for deletion" link). Regarding position: yes, it is a tool (and not a view) - I am not opposed to change the position.
Yes, the gadgets page is not nice (without JS). Or we have to find some other way to group. It is somehow a choice where you want to have a jungle: Do you want to have a jungle just once in the prefs or on each page view in the toolbox? ;-)
Gadgets could customize (sadly that is public, heavy and error-prone) themselves by setting userscript variables (like your VFC does). Cheers --Saibo (Δ∇) 13:39, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
@2: The old link also had a tool-tip but that was just English. "A bunch of links to toolserver tools added to your toolbox and to the tab-bar dependent on the page you are on" :-)
@3: Ok.
@5: This is about copyvio tagging at file description pages. There is no glamerous link in the toolbox in namespace6.
Should I go to request some private memory for gadgets-settings at bugzilla (there is also no need for a revision history)? Will this work, or will the gadget then fight for the remaining memory? All in all it would be great having a js-gadget-object (.turnOn([callback]), .turnOff([callback]), .getState(), .getSetting([callback]), .setSettings({…}[, callback]), .reportError(…), …) -- RE rillke questions? 09:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
@5: Well, yes, but it is about clutter in the toolbox which prevents from finding the useful functions. That is transferable to cat pages.
Memory for gadgets (stored privately with the user's settings) would be nice - sure. Those are user settings and storing them in the browser (cookies or some storage) is restricted to one browser and dependent on the browser's capabilities. Cheers --Saibo (Δ∇) 21:23, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

July 2

Saibo maliciously tagging work with clear licenses

I am requesting a third opinion, as Commons admin Saibo is repeating adding malicious tags to work licensed as CC-BY-SA 3.0 by Foundation staff and contractors. All content created staff/contractors for the Foundation is licensed CC-BY-SA 3.0 as a matter of default, which has been stated previously here and in other places. It's completely irrational to suppose that the Foundation would license work under a non-free license if it did not include a trademark, so this tagging is totally inappropriate. (I'm commenting with my staff account instead of my volunteer admin account here on Commons, because this is a WMF-related issue.) Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 01:14, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

You are wrong here. You need to go to COM:AN/U. Regarding the content issue: I have answered on your talk page. Cheers --Saibo (Δ∇) 01:18, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Just posting to verify what Steven said regarding WMF work: it's done under cc-by-sa 3.0, with very few exceptions. I think it's fair to say that work done for the WMF should be assumed to have permission. Requiring that our contractors write in for each photo is a bit process-wonky, isn't it? The point of the writing is to prove that the photographer wanted it licensed under cc-by-sa. If the WMF says the photographer is on contract with us, I think it's safe to assume, so I - like Steven - would suggest that this tagging is being done because Saibo is upset with the WMF and wishes to prove his point. Philippe (WMF) (talk) 01:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Please see User_talk:Saibo#permissions. --Saibo (Δ∇) 01:26, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
If this page goes down, how can you then prove that File:Wikimedians at Maker Faire 2011.jpg really was taken by a Wikimedia Foundation employee? The {{Licensereview}} proves not only that the licence is correct, but it also proves that the external web site lists the same photographer as Commons. I don't think that a WMF employee would lie about a source, but I would be more suspicious about unknown editors and I don't think that it is wise to apply different rules for different users. Additionally, the explicit CC-BY-SA licence on that page avoids any questions on whether the WMF employee was working (and thus producing CC-work) or whether he was there on his spare time (and thus potentially creating "all rights reserved" works). --Stefan4 (talk) 01:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
That is a strawman argument. This is an unreasonable requirement. We would not actually make the same demands of non-WMF employees, because the expectation exists that the person uploaded has legitimate authority to upload it unless we suspect otherwise. The fact that it was uploaded and tagged is evidence enough. Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 02:26, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
OK, so who is going to create an explanatory template for reusers ("This image was uploaded by a WMF employee, so using it without {{Licensereview}} is safe." / "This image was not uploaded by a WMF employee, so if this is not uploaded by the copyright holder and neither has {{PermissionOTRS}} nor {{Licensereview}}, then it is not safe to use the image.") so that reusers know whether it is safe to use the image? The file information page contains no such statement (you have to click on the uploader's user name to find a statement that the uploader is a WMF employee). --Stefan4 (talk) 10:14, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Bastique: That's better, hmm? --Saibo (Δ∇) 13:03, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Because Bastique is not even an employee of the WMF, he is certainly not authorized to license the work as an agent of the WMF, even if they are the copyright holder, which is an open question depending on the nature of the contract between the WMF and the photographer. If the contract did not transfer copyright to the WMF, then the photographer is the copyright holder and Bastique also cannot act as an agent on their behalf. OTRS permission is necessary, per standard procedure, whenever the uploader is not the copyright holder or an authorized agent thereof, so it seems necessary in this case, unless we're making some special exception for WMF works. The precautionary principle does not allow us to assume that any work produced by the WMF is CC-BY-SA unless they have made a public license statement to that effect, and I'm not aware that they have - even Steven's statement above suggests that some of their works are not so licensed. I believe this matter could be conclusively resolved if the WMF issued a public license statement specifying that "all works owned by the Wikimedia Foundation, now and in the future, that do not contain Wikimedia Foundation trademarks are released under the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike 3.0 License". Until such a statement is issued I would stand with Saibo. (Regardless, Jay should not be listed as the "Author" if he did not author the work - the photographer should be, or if their identity is unavailable, "Wikimedia Foundation" is acceptable.) Dcoetzee (talk) 02:49, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Firstly, as I was an employee of the WMF at the time, I was in fact, entitled to license the work as a agent of the WMF. Secondly, the question is not whether or not Jay Walsh is the author, which he is, regardless of whether he was standing behind the lens of the camera or in front. Jay took the picture and therefore he is the author. The controversy that Saibo is creating is whether or not people can upload images on behalf of others. There is no requirement on Commons that people must upload pictures for themselves. That is not always technically feasable. Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 03:18, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Also, you are assuming that Jay is not the photographer. There is no suggestion here that someone else was standing behind the camera, that the image was taking for him under his direction. Most cameras today are equipped with timers, and many are equipped with remotes. Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 03:27, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
I didn't know Jay Walsh was a photographer, sorry. In any case, Saibo is correct - people are not authorized to upload images on behalf of others unless they also submit permission through OTRS, or unless a public license statement by the copyright holder is made that we can verify. If WMF is the copyright holder of the work and you were an employee at the time of upload then it's possible you licensed the work as an authorized agent, which is permitted. It's possible that Jay's general employment contract stipulates that all his works as an employee are assigned to the WMF, which would result in WMF being copyright holder of the work (provided he did it as part of his work). If Jay is the copyright holder of the work on the other hand, not the WMF, OTRS permission is still required. Dcoetzee (talk) 03:39, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Derrick, please point me to the rule that people are not authorized to upload images on behalf of other people. Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 03:52, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
This is de facto policy and a consequence of Commons:Precautionary principle, enforced via deletions. If the uploader is not the copyright holder or authorized agent thereof, and we have no evidence that the copyright holder released the work under the license, then of course we must delete the work because he have no clear evidence that the work is free. The precautionary principle does not permit us to make assumptions based on what other works have been released by a particular entity in the past, or on their personal philosophies. I can point to a large number of deletions that occurred for precisely this reason - and the very existence of COM:OTRS is based on this policy. This is all irrelevant in this case though - as long as the WMF is copyright holder of the work there is no problem, because you were acting as their authorized agent. Dcoetzee (talk) 04:00, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
One cannot have de facto policy, the policy is specific and clear; what you are talking about is the practice developed through an interpretation of a principle. I believe that WMF is clearly stating on this circumstance that they now have explicit permission which should override a practice. Though one way to fix this would be to have an appropriate OTRS permission that explicitly states this, and those uploading images specifically reference the relevant OTRS.

I understand the need for thoroughness and particularity, however, there are some who seem to be making a practice of belligerence and scratching blackletter law into rock with piece of chalk.  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflicted) There is no de facto policy addressed here, or consequence of the horribly misapplied Commons:Precautionary principle when we can objectively assume good faith of the uploader, especially given our knowledge of the conditions at the time that the license was in fact valid when he/she uploaded it.
Additionally, enforcement by deletion is irresponsible at best, and a horrible way to treat our end users. Responsible user, especially admin, behavior on a question of this would be to do our best to keep the image. OTRS permission is not required. The demand of Jay's permission is required is unreasonable. But I have not the time nor the wherewithal to fight someone who is playing games with the rules to promote his own personal vendetta against the Wikimedia Foundation. Just to cross all t's and dot all i's, in hopes that this will go away, I will ask Jay (since he has an account of his own) to post a note on the image page or the talk page stating that he did in fact authorize me to upload this. The OTRS demand (in this particular instance) is process-laden and unreasonably burdensome Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 04:22, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Asking for a statement of release by the copyright holder is "unreasonably burdensome"? Silverseren5 (talk) 09:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
The reason we don't accept uploads on behalf of third parties without written permission goes back to Commons:Licensing#License information: licensing information must be verifiable. The upload process is designed so that uploaders must acknowledge that they agree to publish their work under a specific license. When it comes to third-party uploads, it doesn't take much experience working here (with OTRS, the help desk, undeletion requests or latest uploads) to see that uploaders usually have not obtained permission for a specific license from the copyright holder, but have only asked for "permission to upload to Wikipedia" or "to use in an article." In many cases, they've obtained the {{Wikipediaonly}} permission from the subject of a photograph rather than the photographer. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Seeing as Jay is only an email or IM away, has anyone actually asked yet? Instead of, you know, speculating all the possible answers or situations. Blurpeace 03:47, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Steven, whatever the background, such an inflammatory heading personally directed at a contributor is not helpful or becoming of the Foundation, and I urge you to change it. Furthermore, if you're going to accuse others of malicious behaviour (as a WMF representative or otherwise), you'd better provide some diffs rather than a link to a contributions list with 43692 entries. As of this writing, Saibo's latest contribution in the File namespace is this edit, in which Saibo added source information, geographical information and confirmed that the licensing information matches the information on the external sources, in case those sources change or go offline (see Commons:License review for further information about why we do this). That hardly seems malicious. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:29, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello, This seems an overblown affair for a trivial issue, Can't we just have a generic template for all works made by WMF which would solve this silly dispute? Yann (talk) 04:22, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Couldn't they just use their (WMF) account to upload? --  Docu  at 05:39, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
No. Reusers do not necessarily know that an account ending with "(WMF)" is a WMF employee account, nor do they necessarily know that works created by the WMF are licensed by CC-BY-SA automatically. A template is needed to inform reusers of this (but WMF accounts could be used to avoid any doubt). Also: CC-BY-SA requires attribution. Who should be attributed for a WMF employee work, the employee or the foundation? --Stefan4 (talk) 10:21, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Few questions and remarks:

  • first of all, copyrights problem are not always a matter of assuming good faith but assuming knowledge of a complex internation concept with very few jurisprudence to interpret the law. I.e. when someone uploads material not created by himself it's not an easy conclusion that he has the permissions (WMF or not).
  • do we have a statement somewhere that really say "All works by WMF and subcontractor are under free licence (e.g. cc-by-sa-3.0)" with specific and specified exceptions (i.e. one can tell easily if the free licence applies or not) ?
  • can we store that in an OTRS ticket that would solve things ?

If the answer to my second point is "yes" I do believe all this issue would be easier: it has been said many times apparently that the work is free, it has never been recorded in a template or OTRS (I guess that's ironicaly WTF?). The only thing it requires is to be clear about which work at WMF is free and which work is not (we have the logos for example). --PierreSelim (talk) 10:58, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you all for your comments, great that there is some insight. I had the same thought as here first mentioned by Dcoetzee above: If really all WMF employees' works would be (you are saying yourself that this is not the case) really really licensed Cc-by-sa-3.0 per default then we can make a shiny Custom CC license tag (which should include a OTRS tag!) and we can tag all that unclear WMF uploads with that. --Saibo (Δ∇) 12:30, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Saibo, wtf is wrong with you? I'm really appalled by you actions. Edit warring and even have the nerve to leave this message. You should be ashamed of yourself. Multichill (talk) 22:21, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for appreciation, Multichill. Cheers --Saibo (Δ∇) 16:19, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Steven Walling committed a personal attack in his naming of this thread, and Bastique is edit warring with a Commons admin over the a missing information tag. I recommend that both have their access to Commons suspended until this can be worked-out, as their actions appear to be hindering resolution of the issue. Cla68 (talk) 04:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
There's a difference between personal attack and criticism. Looking over this I think the title of the thread is more or less justified or at least reasonable. By the standards of the Commons it's pretty much par for the course. Of course so is the activity that is being complained about.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Just from a cursory look at this, the WMF employees above are going far beyond their remit, attacking users and edit warring. We should treat them just like any other user and follow the proper procedure of what would be done if anyone else was doing as such. Furthermore, I don't believe that the WMF gets a free pass on ignoring copyright rules on Commons just because they're WMF. Nor do I think they should get such a pass. Silverseren5 (talk) 06:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
If we were to treat the WMF employees just like any other users then we'd conclude that... they haven't done anything wrong. That's what generally is done in situations like this. At least here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Apologies if I don't trust the word of someone who's here to call Saibo "out on his shit". Silverseren5 (talk) 09:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Fine the reality remains that they haven't done anything wrong. Treating WMF employees like everyone else is in any casse not a valid option since it is critical that we retain a good working relationship with them no matter how annoying certain people find them to be. While a case could be made that we need to improve the copyright situation around the WMF, Saibo with his known issues with the WMF is not the one to do it and his approach is not one likely to produce useful results.Geni (talk) 11:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Nice bunch of non sequiturs. --Trycatch (talk) 11:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Feel free to provide a justification for your position.Geni (talk) 12:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
"Retain a good working relationship with them"?! What the heck does that even mean? They should be held to the proper method of uploading just like anyone else and to the same sorts of copyright requirements. I couldn't care less about how the WMF feels about this, they don't get to break the rules just because they have some sort of affiliation with the projects. Silverseren5 (talk) 21:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Are you in all seriousness asking me to explain what "Retain a good working relationship" means? And since the WMF has root access to the servers they can in fact break the rules if they want to. The trick is to make sure they don't want to enough to actually do so while at the same time keeping them within our copyright framework. This is where the good working relationship stuff comes in.Geni (talk) 22:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but your answer just confuses me. It should be the WMF that does its best to maintain a good relationship with us, since we're the ones that make Wikipedia and, thus, make them their salaries. Without us, the WMF collapses and all of its employees lose their jobs. So, they should be more concerned about following the proper process with us, rather than us catering to them. Silverseren5 (talk) 23:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Why we keep all these WMF corporate crap at all? Why it's in scope? It's not in use, it seems it's not going ever to be, and of course there is nothing educational in it. Commons is not a WMF dumping ground last time I checked. --Trycatch (talk) 11:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Its part of the common repository for the various projects of the Wikimedia Foundation. One of those projects is interacting with various other groups. Being able to pull up a pic that shows yes we are doing X is apparently useful. There has also been a historic community demand that the foundation release the various images it creates in the normal course of its operations as a demonstration of its openness.Geni (talk) 12:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't care if the WMF images are kept or not, but Saibo has been trolling the Foundation for the past year (with a brief respite during his "retirement"). Personally, I don't believe Saibo is acting in good faith anymore and I'm surprised his actions are being so vociferously defended. In the interest of full disclosure, I am a WMF software developer, although I've been a Commons admin for much longer. Kaldari (talk) 17:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
User:Saibo/WMF may be helpful for those unfamiliar with Saibo's most recent axe. Before that, his axe was mostly about WMF "censorship".[15] Kaldari (talk) 17:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
He even tagged a few WMF people's official staff photographs under the argument there was no proof the photographer had released the rights![16][17] This follows a long history of accusing the WMF of "copyfraud",[18] attacking the good faith contributions of anyone who works for the Foundation ("That is so 'facepalm' and typical for WMF people."[19] "...‪notify you here of another case of 'WMF vs. Commons'"[20]), comparing the Foundation with "short-sighted prostitutes",[21] claiming that the Foundation's actions on Commons are illegitimate.[22][23], and coming up with absurd reasons to nominate WMF files for deletion.[24] It's getting a bit old. Kaldari (talk) 18:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, Kaldari (WMF), for the detailed valuation of parts of my work. In case it is not obvious to you, you could just ask Phlippe (WMF) to just lock my account (no reason must be provided). :-) Cheers --Saibo (Δ∇) 19:27, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm using my staff account because this kind of bridges my role, but what I have to say is heavily influenced by my years working copyright on Wikipedia and, occasionally, Commons as Moonriddengirl. :) I'm not speaking on behalf of the WMF at all and haven't consulted with anybody there about what I'm about to say. :)

OTRS routinely accepts copyright releases from employees of companies so long as we can be sure that the email address is issued by an employee of the company. If an employee of General Electric sends us an image to use, our form at Commons:Declaration of consent for all enquiries asks for name and authority. Name and authority is transparent on our sites when it comes to WMF employee addresses; we know who they are and what they do. There is no reason to ask them to write to OTRS to verify their identity because their identity is already verified. The license they place on the image holds the same declaratory purpose as the license they would select for the "Declaration of consent". If Geoff Brigham commits copyfraud and uploads an image to which he has no rights, it is my opinion that users and reusers will be sheltered by the reasonable expectation that Geoff had authority to release the image.

It is my opinion that if we start requiring permission from the photographers or challenging the basic premise of "work for hire", we are not treating WMF equally but holding them to a different and more stringent standard than we hold other companies. We don't tell the employee of General Electric who writes us saying he is authorized to license an image that we need evidence of permission from the photographer. :) We trust that GE has photographers on payroll and understands "work for hire." We don't challenge them on that. This should be true of WMF as well.

That said, copyright is complex and unlike with GE we have the opportunity to help make sure that WMF employees understand copyright (because we're all part of the same community). With the assistance of the WMF attorneys, I wrote a "how to" guide for staff some time back on copyright that includes the following guidance on uploading photographs:

When it comes to photographs of you, it's best if the photographer uploads them. Most of the time, this will eliminate any community concern about their copyright status. If they are self-portraits, you can upload them yourself and say as much in the description. If your photographer isn't able to upload them, or would prefer not to, please have them email a release statement to the volunteer response team. The statement in this link covers all bases, including giving the proper address to mail the release for images hosted on Commons. Whoever uploads the photograph, it will need to be freely licensed; Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike 3.0 is a common choice. (You should be aware, though, that any of the acceptable licenses permit reproduction elsewhere and modification.)

I was thinking, obviously, of staff portraits, since this is the most common image upload issue I've seen. I'd be happy to expand that with further guidance on when it's okay to upload an image taken by a colleague or a contracted agency and when it's not (for example, when the picture was taken in private capacity or no formal work for hire relationship is established). If you think that's a good idea, I'd certainly welcome suggested language, keeping in mind that the target of this document is generally going to be those who are not already experts. (Experienced Wikimedians already know). In other words, simple and clear is better than overly nuanced and too complex to follow. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 13:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for looking a bit into this. However, "this" contains many different types of cases - your comment is just about one type (uploading not-own work). You mentioned GE: we require processing through OTRS. So why is WMF is not treated equally? Also why shouldn't adhere WMF to higher standards themselves? Like a kind of good example. Currently the standard for WMF is much lower - my correct problem tags get reverted (like they were vandalism) by WMF employees and I get attacked by them.
It is important (due to our goal of freely usable files) that the permission is clear on the file page; clear that way that the father of your neighbor could re-use an image (that includes the copyrights assessment: [why] is the uploader allowed to license this image?).
"If Geoff Brigham commits copyfraud and uploads an image to which he has no rights ..." - then we will delete the image. "sheltered by the reasonable expectation" and as far as I know they are not sheltered. Maybe they can try to legally attack Geoff to get back the money they lost due to the unlicensed re-use. That also may depend on the country.
Could you please comment on the (my coining:) "all work by WMF is cc-by-sa-3.0 licensed" thingy (mentioned in the comments above)? --Saibo (Δ∇) 13:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
The reason for requiring OTRS is for situations where images are first published elsewhere, and we have no real assurance about the identify of an uploader, meaning it could be anyone. If photos are not available elsewhere, we generally assume they are here with permission of the photographer, otherwise how did the uploader obtain the photographs. We do not require OTRS simply whenever the uploader is not the photographer. In the case of WMF employees, the identity of the account owners is really not a question, so the reason for needing OTRS really goes away. So yes, I do think we should assume blanket good faith on any of their actions in regard to uploads. If a photographer comes along and contests it, or if someone thinks there is a scope question, then sure, re-evaluate at that point. It's like any other image where we assume good faith. Tagging their images smacks of just being antagonistic to me rather than any genuine concern about copyright status. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) The main difference between General Electric and the WMF is that WMF employee status easily can be recognised by the username of the uploader (as long as the uploader uses his WMF account). If someone creates a WMF account without being a WMF employee, I assume that the account quickly will be globally locked, so that possibility is no issue. However, just as we have a special template for US government works which are in the public domain with a reference to the exact section in the United States copyright law, I suppose that it would make sense to create a special template for WMF staff works which are licensed as CC-BY-SA 3.0 with a reference to some policy where this licence rule is documented. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) That's my main point here: the identity of the account owners is really not a question. :) We need processing through OTRS for GE because without it we have no way of being sure that the uploader is GE ... unless they put it on their official website. We don't have any other means of confirming identity on account creation. Similarly, we sometimes grant blanket permission to an account to upload on behalf of an organization, if the organization has provided clear approval via OTRS. Once the account is confirmed, we don't ask for OTRS permission each and every time. With a WMF account, identity is already confirmed.
In terms of "then we will delete the image", that's certainly true, when we discover it - but we have no hard-clad guarantee that any agent of any company that has ever written OTRS has authority to release the images they say they do. There are never guarantees--not when a company put a release on a website (how do we know it wasn't hacked? how do we know if the webmaster for the company had proper authority to do that?) or when somebody uploads an image they claim they took to Flickr (how do we know they really took it?). We do not guarantee to users and reusers that content is properly licensed because we can't; that's why Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia says "While the copyright and licensing information supplied for each image is believed to be accurate, the Wikimedia Foundation does not provide any warranty regarding the copyright status or correctness of licensing terms. If you decide to reuse files from Commons, you should verify the copyright status of each image just as you would when obtaining images from other sources." Our system says "This is the license asserted for this image, and this is the person who asserts it." A WMF employee's upload of an image is verifiable to the source, which is the main purpose of OTRS. The license tag selected is the same as the license options offered when we upload images.
It occurs to me that maybe part of the confusion here has to do with what OTRS does? Under current OTRS practices, there is nothing to stop me - as an employee from the WMF - of writing to OTRS with an image taken by, say, Jay Walsh and saying, "I'm an authorized representative of the Wikimedia Foundation, who own this image. I'm licensing it thusly." There are no requirements at OTRS that Jay Walsh be the one to write. Similarly, anyone with an email address verifying their connection to General Electric can write in to claim that an image published by GE is being licensed. As long as we know they work for GE and they claim they have authority, we accept the release. We don't require that the release come from the photographer. The employee is acting as a spokesperson for the company, and if the company's own employees are claiming fraudulent authority, we have a pretty strong defense against infringement charges.
In terms of commenting on "all work by WMF is cc-by-sa-3.0 licensed", I'm not entirely sure I follow. We don't require that General Electric license all their work under CC-By-SA 3.0 in order to accept what they do donate. We accept the word of a GE employee that a given image is donated; why should we have a different standard for the WMF? --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 14:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
@Carl's "We do not require OTRS simply whenever the uploader is not the photographer.": Well, no, see "If you're not the author you have to forward the author's permission to permissions-commons at wikimedia.org" and Commons:OTRS#If_you_are_not_the_copyright_holder. As somebody else already said here (I think it was here): a purpose of OTRS is to be sure the permission is not just "for Wikipedia". --Saibo (Δ∇) 14:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
@Maggie, Stefan: This thread is getting distracted without clear cases, but, well. I know what OTRS does and what it not does. And I know that people may not tell the truth - thanks for all that needless explanations. But at least it says on the file page that the photographer gave permission. We are talking a bit in the blue here ... at some uploads there is just given different name from the uploader account (possibly the same as "source"). How should some WMF-outsider know that this means there is permission?
Regarding "all work by WMF is cc-by-sa-3.0 licensed" - we had the question in the thread above if that is the case (because someone form WMF said something - it would be mentioned in the employment contract). If that would be the case we could have life a bit easier. We did not say that this must be like that. --Saibo (Δ∇) 14:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Whose work is this photo? Matthew (WMF), Victorgrigas or Heather Walls? ;-) Unless the uploaders got an undocumented permission from the original photographer to use without attribution all those are copyright violations and once again an example of how not to do it. No, I did not dig in the WMF category - I just clicked on the image at someone's (WMF) user page. --Saibo (Δ∇) 14:41, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry if my explanations are needless. I don't really know what you already know. :) Certainly, it would be easier if all WMF content were licensed under CC-By-SA (just as it would be easier if all content was regardless of origin), and I can communicate that suggestion as Community Liaison. I can foresee some major challenges, however. And if it were to be implemented, it certainly wouldn't be quick. But just as we take the word of agents of other companies that the material they send us is licensed, we should be able to safely take the word of WMF employees that the material they upload is. If your primary concern is that "at some uploads there is just given different name from the uploader account (possibly the same as "source"). How should some WMF-outsider know that this means there is permission?", then it seems the problem is that WMF uploaders are giving too much information, since they generally do name the photographer instead of as with most companies generally attributing the organization. :) But that's a good point. Perhaps the solution is a template for WMF staff to be able to use indicating that they are authorized to upload an image because it was created by a WMF employee in the course of his employment. Or perhaps the solution is to communicate to staff that they need to be more clear in describing "source" how they relate to the photographer and what that relationship means in terms of their authorization. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 14:45, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Is is fine as long as the file pages will then be more clear (to a potential re-user) than they are commonly now.
Please could you get those wiki wall ball images fixed - or do you want the WMF give negative examples of how to create derivative works of free images? ;-) --Saibo (Δ∇) 15:09, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Sure. I'll find out who took the actual photo and clarify that. I've already marked Heather's. She clearly identified it as derivative, it seems, but didn't know how to adjust the templates. Speaking of which, I wonder if it would be helpful to create some kind of section maybe at Commons:Derivative works or somewhere easily located identifying which tag to use when? I couldn't remember what {{RetouchedPicture}} was titled and had to find it by tracing through a derivative picture or two. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 15:31, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. See my comment at the end of the section: Commons_talk:Derivative_works#derivative_works_of_files_from_Wikimedia:Commons_-_always_allowed.3F. --Saibo (Δ∇) 16:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I have reached out to legal with a question about what kind of language might work in creating a template describing a situation where one staff member uploads an image owned by the WMF, taken by another staff member in the course of his or her duties. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 15:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
@Sabio: responding to your comments on attribution: there is no inalienable moral right to attribution in the United States. If the copyright holder of a work is the Wikimedia Foundation, then there is no requirement to attribute (or even mention) the original photographer unless the license selected by the WMF requires it. The question is: 1. was copyright transferred to the WMF in the first place; 2. does standard CC-BY-SA in this case require attributing the original author or the organization? We also don't require OTRS from the photographer if WMF is the copyright holder, only that the uploader was at the time an agent authorized to license work on WMF's behalf (it'd be helpful to have evidence for this but I'm not sure that's absolutely necessary). Dcoetzee (talk) 04:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Regarding point 2, Commons:Press says that when reusing the CC-BY(-SA) licensed photos there, "you have to credit the author", not Wikimedia. These photos include some of those queried by Saibo, e.g. File:Jay Walsh May 2008.JPG and File:Erica Ortega May 2008.JPG (for which the authorship info has subsequently been corrected).
On point 1, the image description page for these two photos still doesn't make the copyright status of these photos clear to me. If anything, the license tag seems to say that the uploader (JayWalsh) is the copyright holder, which I don't believe is likely. I think a customised CC licensing template for Wikimedia-owned photos would be useful here and in other cases.
When the photographer is evidently a WMF employee, OTRS seems unnecessary to me, but I think OTRS would be helpful to re-users when the photographer is not an employee (e.g. a contractor or volunteer). --Avenue (talk) 07:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

to get back to the core issue, we may separate the pragmatics & technicalities from the policy here. whether or not every case is/was completely transparent to anyone was, is and will be a casuistic question and should be handled accordingly. however, on the policy issue:

  • the wmf's uniqueness regarding hosting of non-free stuff on its own wiki's rests on the identity protection argument.
  • the argument has been established a very long time ago, it ever applied only to wm identity related material produced by the wmf, entitled entities or affecting the wmf as an entity or the movement as such; it still was a decisive argument back in the trademark policy reform up until february 2010; it played its part a long time in the movement roles debate thereafter (and will continue to be); it was deployed non-controversially in the swedish case in march 2010, and - to my knowledge - it was never revoked or quietly abolished.
  • thus, it seems to me that to deploy the precautionary principle against representatives of this entity - whose whole existence is about the promotion of free content and that in a way known to all parties involved in this exchange - requires a considerable and well above-average amount of dialectics on both relevant levels, in principle as well as historically.
  • considering this, community members are justified by default to take the set of material in question as cc-by-sa 3.0 by default (until this wiki switches to 4.0, or whatever), because this material does not fall under the scope of the identity argument (where the precautionary principle in turn would indeed kick in along the line Derrick outlined above).

said that and returning to the pragmatics, i do support that we look at drafting a page to explain this as well as the context of it (preferably in plain english); so that it could be put/linked in a template to make it transparent for all stakeholders in all cases without giving every new wmf actor an in-depth education regarding this issue going back to the middle ages, regards --Jan eissfeldt (talk) 05:52, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. At some point common sense must prevail - the wiki is community run, but we're talking about the organisation which hosts the site and pays the bills being allowed to put its own stuff on here for the benefit of the community that they facilitate. I think that's a point that some are missing here. Orderinchaos (talk) 11:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
We're talking about not misleading content reusers - of course WMF is free to host any content they like here, but if these images are non-free copyrighted by the WMF they should be tagged as such, not as released under a free license. If their license is accurate we require some evidence to that effect, unless we've agreed as a matter of policy that license statements by WMF employees are to be trusted unquestioningly. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Classifying a strange vehicle

I took pictures of this vehicle (from 01 to 04). Unclear what it is. Does anyone have any information about this strange experiment? Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Well it looks like a hovercraft however the part of this vehicle which would be touching the water appears to be a solid hull rather than an air cushion.
Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 11:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
It could be an airpropelled sledge. It would be a very bumpy ride. Or it could float on water as a speedboat and maybe continue on floating ice? Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I believe it is a en:hydrocopter or an en:airboat. MKFI (talk) 11:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Some sort of airboat? It would have been made to travel on ice and water. The thing seems to be one of the local attractions on the Barentsburg dock. You'll find other photos of it on the web. Was there only one? If so, it seems to get repainted from time to time. There and there with the Aeroflot mark and with white and blue stripes. There and there in red and green. On your photos, it looks to have received more fresh paint in red and blue. -- Asclepias (talk) 11:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I would say en:airboat. en:hydrocopter is just a variation it seems but has more hulls and wheels.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:52, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Do categorize it under[ Category:Unidentified vehicles until we figure out more. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
✓ Done. This category can be cleaned upp tot to subcategories. (I moved the trams) Smiley.toerist (talk) 23:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be fine in Category:Airboats. It doesn't have a 'down fan' that hovercraft use and hydrocopter just seems to be a variation of an airboat. Even the word seems similar. Hydro = boat, copter = air type thing. If you want to see a category that has 1000's of near duplicate images, check out Category:License plates and all the sub-cats. Canada - Alberta is the one that I looked at.--Canoe1967 (talk) 11:58, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I think that's pretty clearly an airboat. They are used in swampy areas, like the Florida Everglades and Louisiana, where you can't have anything to stick down into the water. But I guess it would make them very effective on ice as well -- here is a video of one in Canada. It does look like a flat-bottomed boat, which I guess is the distinguishing feature between those and hydrocopters (from reading the en-wiki articles). The rudders are off to the sides a bit instead of directly behind the propellers, but I guess can still be bent into the airflow enough for turning. The w:Contra-rotating propellers are interesting too. We do have Category:Counter-rotating popellers for those, but the article w:Counter-rotating propellers indicates that that term is for propellers on two separate engines rather than two propellers on the same engine, so it appears our category is incorrectly named, in addition to its typo misspelling. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:28, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
I think I see the difference between the two. One is done with gearing from the same engine and they are in line with each other. We may not need a Counter-rotating category, but we may need a Contra-rotating one. Counter-rotating is hard to tell from a still image and probably video as well. If we had a diagram type image of Counter-rotating then it may fit in that category. There are a lot of images that need to be re-categorized then. It may be easiest to have a re-direct from a Contra-rotating page and just explain the difference at the top of the existing Counter-rotating category with two sample images and state that both can go in this category?--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:47, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
In looking, I think every single example in our counter-rotating category is actually a contra-rotating engine. So I think we could just do a straight category re-name. We could have a counter-rotating category; the images don't necessarily need to show that exactly -- for example, Category:P-38 Lightning could be a subcategory. But they should be separate categories as they are separate concepts. They could have a "see also" to each other, but I think that's it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Will a re-name move all the contra-rotating images into the new category, or does it need to be done manually at each image page?--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, see Commons:Rename a category. Commons:Delinker handles changing all the pages. Admins can enter requests directly; users can add requests at User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:38, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Sounds fine to me then. Now we just need an admin that is looking for something to do. I doubt we need consensus since most of the category is wrong as it is.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Frescos vs frescoes and other problems

Hi to all.In my categorization work I noticed that the category of the frescoes is sometimes a subcategory of the paintings but if we read the en.wiki article a fresco is one of the various techniques of painting. I think that is correct then all categories of the frescoes also become subcategories of paints. Also I would understand if the term Category:Frescos is a syntax error or is a term still accepted in English. Thanks for your attention. :-)--Threecharlie (talk) 11:32, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Wiktionary shows both wikt:frescoes and wikt:frescos as being correct. As for the other, Category:Frescos is already a subcategory of Category:Paintings by technique, so I don't know what the problem is. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 13:32, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Nice, when I find a cat of frescos move this from Art in (name of municipality in Italy) to Paintings in (name of municipality in Italy). Thanks :-)--Threecharlie (talk) 14:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
If possible. In many areas, frecos existed well before paintings. --Foroa (talk) 18:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
The problem is not so serious but at the same time it is not so easy. It's true: frescos are a form of painting, and so in that sense they are a subcategory of paintings. But it is true - and Foroa reminded it - that the frescos existed much more time before (oil-) paintings. So ancient Roman frescos would be a subcategory of which Paintings? We must create a system that is as consistent as possible, but at the same time also the most correct possible. If we apply tout court that frescos are a subcategory of paintings, then this would not work more precisely with the oldest frescoes, the Greek, Etruscan, Roman, and whatnot. So I propose a Solomonic solution similar to that adopted for Architecture. Given that the overcategorizations must always go dismantled and never encouraged, in some cases, however, we turn a blind eye because they are the only solution. E. g. I find that Architecture is almost always a subcat of Art (at least in our categories of Italy; the rest of the world I don't know), which is not entirely correct. If it is true that - at least by us in Italy - most of the architectures of the past are artistically relevant, at the same time it's not true that all architectures are artistic (think at defensive city walls, towers, castles, harbours, canals, docks, but also simple modern buildings or skyscrapers). While a time - for this reason - I took off the architectural categories from the art cats, but now I leave them there and - if missing - I put them back; but at the same time I make them directly subcategory of the place (city or region that is). In other words, I make the architecture a subcat at the same time of the art and of the place (city or region). One thing is the architecture, another thing is the art. Even if the most of our architectural categories have an artistic character. For the frescos I think that we can do the same thing: make them a subcat of Paintings and at the same time a subcat directly of Art. So there will be no problem for the ancient frescos. --DenghiùComm (talk) 10:12, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
If Solomon wouldn't have existed, you would have invented him here ;). --Foroa (talk) 15:13, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

July 8

I'm experiencing technical problems, others as well?

I'm having some technical problems, see File talk:Zuidtangent near De Kwakel former station.jpg, and pictures take a long time to load, or then do not show up. Am I the only one? Regards, MartinD (talk) 08:40, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Same problem here. Example File:A Wayfarer in China fp 80b.jpg--Keith Edkins (talk) 11:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
I have got the same problem, seems to appear more often with longer filenames.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Both are working well for me, minutes later. Jim.henderson (talk) 12:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Works OK now. Thx! MartinD (talk) 14:57, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Can I take photos inside - Guide Book -Tenth edition 1974 use on the blog?

Wynw628 (talk) 06:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC) Book name [Guide to London Museums and Galleries - by Standing Commission on Museums & Galleries]. Anyone know the answer in this case. I take few images from the book cover and inside for use on blog. is that Ok to use or not? Please have any advice. Thanks.

They are probably copyright in UK unless the publisher released them for other uses. I doubt the copyright has expired since 1974. I don't know what the law is there, but images of some older museum pieces may not be eligible for copyright.--Canoe1967 (talk) 11:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your advice.

You are very welcome. I will mark this section resolved for now. You can still post to it though, or start another section if it is hard to find in the archives where it will probably go after a while.
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Canoe1967 (talk) 23:09, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

It is resolved for this Book. I did deep study found out other countries Copyright are in different length of years to be expired. So I think only take front and back cover photos for the description of what this book is that should no problem. By the way, I want to say wikipedia is beautiful site with beautiful people like you. Thank you again.

Don't upload those to Commons. We can't take anything under a fair use rationale. While countries do have different copyright lengths, it's almost always a very long time at a minimum -- usually at least 50 years, usually 70-100, and sometimes quite a bit longer (since terms are usually based on the death of an author, if they live another 60 years after making a work, and copyright lasts another 50 or 70 years after that... do the math). Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:45, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

July 8

Propaganda in files names and descriptions

What is the policy toward propaganda in file names and files descriptions? in Category:Images taken by Israel Defense Force all Palestinians are "rioters" and some of the file names has no real correlation to the actual image for example file:Flickr - Israel Defense Forces - A Legacy of Diversity, The Israel Defense Forces.jpg. One can remove the propaganda from the description but what to do with file name? יורם שורק (talk) 13:38, 8 July 2012 (UTC) an

If that's the most problematic image title you could come up with, it's not too impressive... AnonMoos (talk) 14:37, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
It just shows the spirit/attitude of the authors and the time (The bird is known by his note, a man by his word) . Sensible wikipedians will not start yet another war on that. --Foroa (talk) 15:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
I'd say the descriptions should certainly be changed to be more neutral (perhaps use {{Original caption}} to indicate the original text, and document the source, so a reader is more aware it may not be neutral). However, if a work has been titled by an author, it is pretty common to use that in the file name, so I'm not sure about changing that. If a file name is very problematic, files can be renamed (see Commons:File renaming). Usually though that is restricted to situations where the name is pejorative, offensive, or something along those lines. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:41, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
For example the Category:Riots in Bilin: riot is defined in wikipedia as "a form of civil disorder characterized often by what is thought of as disorganized groups lashing out in a sudden and intense rash of violence against authority, property or people". This is NOT what happens in Bilin, I would call the category "unarmed popular struggle against land confiscation in Bilin" and a neutral name would be "Demonstrations in Bilin" and change file names accordingly. יורם שורק (talk) 20:07, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, even if the filenames happen to use some particular terminology, does not mean we need to name categories that way. Those should definitely aim to be more neutral and accurate. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:58, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Agree with Carl Lindberg. Some sort of political "spin", if not outright propaganda, is fairly common in Government released photos. While Commons should generally aim for neutral factual descriptions, the spin or propaganda can be within project scope as examples of what a government entity said or who they portrayed themselves. While particularly horrid examples may be inappropriate for file titles, the original title should generally be noted in the description at least. -- Infrogmation (talk) 20:37, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Agreed, a historical work should not be retitled, even if its title is patently offensive. A modern work by one of our uploaders is another matter. Dcoetzee (talk) 04:12, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Categories without discussion

Hi; I proposed some category changes almost 2 months ago, but there has been no discussion. What should I do in this case? just make the suggested move? I'm not even sure how to move a category. --KarlB (talk) 03:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The current "Categories for discussion" process on Commons is completely broken -- very few people know that such discussions exist before changes are implemented, but many people are affected when images on their watchlist are suddenly recategorized as a result of desultory discussions which they didn't know were going on. Commons is still recovering from the "adolescent girls" category fiasco of a few years ago... AnonMoos (talk) 05:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
One of the major reasons is that when you put the CFD on your watchlist, it runs out as a new file is created each month. --Foroa (talk) 08:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, you need to watch each month's discussions separately, eg Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/11 and Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/12 etc. This is quite unhelpful for getting input to discussions! Rd232 (talk) 09:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, let's take the opportunity to link to COM:CFD and encourage people to go have a look, especially at Commons:Categories_for_discussion#Older_Requests. Rd232 (talk) 09:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Update: I've created {{CFD month header}}. This should help a little bit in bringing attention to the scope of the CFD backlog, plus making it slightly easier to watch the month page (though of course that doesn't show up edits to the the CFD discussions themselves, only adding and removing discussions from the month list). Rd232 (talk) 13:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete this shit from internet! Children are searching now!

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ejaculation_Educational_Demonstration.OGG

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Condom_placement_demonstration.ogv

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Male_masturbation_demonstration.JPG

And after this!? You want donates? -- 07:14, 9 July 2012‎ 94.19.204.98

Watch your language; children may be reading. Prof. Professorson (talk) 08:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
May be you are that perverse crazy maniac? I advice also to put attention, my prudent friends, on that mister Prof. Where Wikipedia are looking to. -- 10:48, 9 July 2012‎ 94.19.204.98
I did not have a look at the particular files, as I am currently at work. Nonewithstanding, also children have the right to have a look at eductional videos on sex related issues when they choose to and parents allow. If parents do not want children to see such things, they should install web filters. --ALE! ¿…? 11:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to Wikimedia Commons, a resource of freely-licensed educational media.
As you have noticed, not all of our content is of puppies, bridges and flowering plants. Some things we host may be offensive to some people, and that is unfortunate but necessary. We have a policy that we will not censor ourselves: if something is educational, freely licensed and legal in the state of Florida (where our servers are based) then we will host it. Unfortunately that means we do host things which people may find offensive, this is usually related to images/videos of the human reproductive system.
You may not believe these media have any educational value. However, worldwide, sexual education is very sorely neglected. This can be seen in the high teen pregnancy rate and the prevalence of sexually transmitted diseases. A well-informed person will be better able to nevigate the vagaries of sexual life, and better protect themselves and their partners from unintended consequences. Yes, we have videos of condom placement: this is an important skill which helps make sex safe. Yes, we have videos of male masturbation: teaching people of sexual practices which can be enjoyed without intercourse can help delay a minor's first penetrative sexual experience, and foster mutual affection between the partners. Finally, yes, we have videos of ejaculation, as this is the inevitable outcome of male sexual behaviour, and we believe that anyone engaging in such activities should be aware of what will happen at the end.
Of course, all our media require context - words of explanation, an article to go with them. But that part of it is not within our project scope: we simply collect and sort the media, we are not an encyclopaedia, a blog or a book. Context is extremely important, and preferably should be provided with a parent, guardian, or trusted adult to help. You are right, these images should probably not be viewed by children, but it is the job of their guardian to ensure that they receive age-appropriate materials. Consider a library. If you let your child run free, yes, they might pull down Fifty Shades of Grey, A Clockwork orange, Porno, or some other book which is not appropriate for them. But that does not mean the library should not have these books. A library is for all ages, children and adult, and many adults may want to borrow books which would be inappropriate for children. They should be able to. The problem is not that the book is there, it is that the child is unsupervised. If you are worried for your children, you should supervise their internet time directly, or install content filtering software. Wikimedia Commons provides material on all sorts of subjects, including war, disease, poverty and yes, sex. If you want to protect your children from this, you need to take a proactive stand. If your child is not old enough to see educational sexual content, they should not be browsing the internet unsupervised.
I hope this helps to explain our position, and why we will not be deleting these files. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
There is nothing to add. I fully agree. --Wladyslaw (talk) 13:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Category:Historical photographs of public schools in Boston

I just finished upload of ~350 historical images of schools in Boston, provided by user:Dominic as a part of cooperation with City of Boston Archives. Any help with categorizing those (and subcategories of Category:Public schools in Boston by name) would be greatly appreciated. Especially knowledge of Boston and its current category structure would be helpful. --Jarekt (talk) 13:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Two similar images

What do we do on Commons to cross-reference two similar images such as: File:J C Maxwell with top.jpg and File:YoungJamesClerkMaxwell.jpg? Sometimes the images have a Summary box that includes an "other version" fields. What is the best way to cross-reference two similar images like this, or just handle the situation in general? Jason Quinn (talk) 03:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Yep when there's a few you just crosslink them. When there's more you create a subcat and just link to that in the other versions field. I took care of this one for you. Dcoetzee (talk) 04:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Jason Quinn (talk) 20:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Identify files in use

Is there any way to identify files in use without looking at each file description page? Specifically, I want to be able to prioritise efforts in Category:German stamps review, which has 10,000 files in it. Is there a tool that can run through a category and produce an ordered list from most used to least used, or at least filter out unused files? Rd232 (talk) 18:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Tools#Glamorous is the closest thing I can think of. You'll want to make sure "Show details" is checked to get the list of files, and you probably want "Show limited details" to give you the count instead of the names of the pages where they're used. It only gives you the first 1,000 hits, and the list isn't sorted, but you can copy and paste the table into a spreadsheet software or write a script to parse the XML. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Excellent, thank you. The list is actually sorted, so this is very useful. Rd232 (talk) 19:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, if anyone wants to get involved with Commons:WikiProject Public Domain/German stamps review, it seems we're probably looking at 60,000 files instead of 10,000 that need reviewing... Rd232 (talk) 19:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I have provided the list at Category talk:German stamps review Platonides (talk) 21:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you! How did you do it, by the way? Rd232 (talk) 07:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
#Link to on each category to the GLAMorous tool disappeared ? — There should be a link Usage of all files in each category and on each user page, if the extra-tabs-gadget is enabled. -- Rillke(q?) 10:41, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Ah, right. But I was really wondering how Platonides made it into a table. Rd232 (talk) 11:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

July 10

SVG rendering

Would someone please check File:Icosahedron cell diagram.svg? The code validates at W3C validator, the file renders correctly at SVGCheck but fails to render at Commons.--Gauravjuvekar (talk) 07:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

For about the past year or more, xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" has been required to be in the <svg...> element of newly-uploaded files... AnonMoos (talk) 10:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, I thought that got fixed at some point. Guess not. Bawolff (talk) 13:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Old photograph published in recent book

I thought I'd get some advice on an image before uploading. I want to scan a higher quality image for an article on Paulding Farnham to replace a poor quality but PD image. The image was published in 2000 as part of John Loring's book on Farnham, but the picture is of Farnham's 1889 exhibitor's photo ID pass for the Paris Exposition Universelle (the photo is like this one [25]). Is this old photo regarded as a previously unpublished/private collection photo or since it technically was exhibited in 1889 can it be uploaded? No author is credited in book and I assume the picture was taken in France or in the US shortly before the Exposition. Froggerlaura ribbit 20:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Contributor feedback

I've proposed adding Commons:Contributor feedback to the {{Discussion menu}}. Please see Template_talk:Discussion_menu#Commons:Contributor_feedback. Thanks. Rd232 (talk) 14:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

What license to use for anonymous works?

When the author's nationality is unknown as well. Which template applies? Template:Anonymous work is of little help, as it clearly limits itself to a small body of work; but what to do when we have no clue to the author's nationality? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Older than about 150 years? then: {{Pd-old-70}} ;-) Well, okay, not if it is a US work. --Saibo (Δ∇) 23:15, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
In general, the author's nationality does not matter (it may matter in some special cases). More important informations are the year of the first publication of the work and the country of that publication, sometimes the year of creation, etc. What to do depends on those types of facts. -- Asclepias (talk) 00:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
In European examples you can use
Public domain
This image (or other media file) is in the public domain because its copyright has expired and its author is anonymous.
This applies to the European Union and those countries with a copyright term of 70 years after the work was made available to the public and the author never disclosed their identity.
Important: Always mention where the image comes from, as far as possible, and make sure the author never claimed authorship.
Flag of Europe
Flag of Europe
Warning sign
Warning sign
Note: In Germany and possibly other countries, certain anonymous works published before July 1, 1995 are copyrighted until 70 years after the death of the author. See Übergangsrecht. Please use this template only if the author never claimed authorship or their authorship never became public in any other way. If the work is anonymous or pseudonymous (e.g., published only under a corporate or organization's name), use this template for images published more than 70 years ago. For a work made available to the public in the United Kingdom, please use Template:PD-UK-unknown instead.

. Many postcards have a known publishing company, but the photografer is in most cases unknown.Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:56, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

July 7

My file deleted despite my having sent an e-mail with permission

Hi, I've just got to know that a picture I had uploaded in March has been deleted. But I got a pemission from the copyright holder and forwarded the e-mail to Wikimedia Commons! Ok, errors happen... But how can I undelete the picture now?Galapah (talk) 20:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Please let us know what the filename was. Did you forward the e-mail to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org? If so, you can ask about it at "Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard". — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 20:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

It may be File:2008-ed-trifonov-award-presentation.jpg and the email may not have contained the file name?--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

July 11

rainfall/shower categories

Where can I place this picture? File:Regenbui rond Oslo.JPG The shower or rain categories dont really apply. Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:01, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

NASA: New image of Mars

Hello, Is this already uploaded here? If not, could someone with a decent connection could do it? Thanks, Yann (talk) 14:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we have it already: File:'Greeley Panorama' from Opportunity's Fifth Martian Winter.jpeg and File:PIA15689.jpg. The 100MB file size limit prevents me from uploading the TIFF version, unfortunately. Prof. Professorson (talk) 15:34, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
I see a mention of 34.74 MB. Yann (talk) 13:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Here we go: Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:'Greeley Panorama' from Opportunity's Fifth Martian Winter, PIA15689.jpg. Yann (talk) 13:17, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Weird PDF error

There is an odd error occurring with File:Pathfinder of the Seas.pdf. When I download the file or open it by clicking "Full resolution" I see a PDF scan of a book as normal. However, if I scroll through the pages on the File page (with the "Go to page" and "next page" controls) all I see are blank pages. Over on Wikisource the same happens, just blank pages although the text layer appears to be intact. Does anyone know what could be causing this and, if so, how to fix it? - AdamBMorgan (talk) 22:08, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

We use a program called ghostscript to convert pdf->image. Sometimes its not as good as normal pdf viewers. Bawolff (talk) 13:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

July 12

abusing anonymous ip

here's a thought:

we do not allow anonymous ip uploads.

so why do we allow anoynmous ip deletion nominations (or voting)?

anyone who knows enough about commons to properly create a deletion nomination is NOT a noob.

Lx 121 (talk) 05:38, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Because we do want to put minimal barriers to creating copyright violations, and we don't want to put barriers to tackling them. Occasional problems are acceptable, and can usually be handled without a great deal of fuss. Rd232 (talk) 07:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
2 points: 1) the purpose of commons is not to "hunt" copyvios; this is a minor & relatively trivial job. if we get notice from a copyright holder, then we need to act on it asap; otherwise it's merely a maintenance job; & not the most important of them
2) it's not "easy" to create a DR; anyone who knows how to do them correct, has had some experience @ commons. an established editor who uses an anonymous-ip to do DR's, is hiding (& quite possibly meets the definition of sockpuppeting).
if we really want to make copyvio reporting "easy", here's a suggestion: why don't we have a big, red "report this file" button prominently displayed on EVERY filepage? then it would be REALLY easy for ANY casual viewer to report a copyvio?
does anyone here actually think that would be a good idea for commons? xD
Lx 121 (talk) 08:38, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
also; it's FAR from being an "occasional problem". there are a truly AMAZING number of anonymous-ip editors out there, who show remarkable knowledge of commons' procedures, when it comes to creating Deletion Requests... Lx 121 (talk) 08:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Its extremly simple to create a deletion request using the "nominate for deletion" button on every file page. And thats good, as Rd232 said already. --Martin H. (talk) 08:44, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
TOO EASY(!) now that you're brought it to my attention; but it's still hidden' in a drop-down menu burried in the far left column with a crapload of other links & stuff. meaning you still have to know your way around commons to find it...
why not make an "in your face" button in the "article space" that you can see as soon as you open the page, if we want every user to be able to create DRs at the drop of a hat? Lx 121 (talk) 09:51, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
The purpose of Commons is to be a repository of free media content. Unfortunately, a very large percentage of new uploads is not free content, but copyright violations. Detecting and deleting them is a major job, and it is of central importance to fulfilling our purpose. We are currently abjectly failing to do so for lack of volunteer resources and excessive leniency towards offenders. It is not at all difficult to find obvious copyright violations that have slipped by unnoticed and have been hosted by Commons for years. So your premise that dealing with copyright violations is minor, trivial and unimportant is dead wrong.
Aside from the premise being wrong, I don't see how you would technically enforce your idea. Prohibiting anonymous uploads is easy. Prohibiting a specific type of page editing without prohibiting all page editing is not so easy. We already block IP users who make disruptive deletion discussions and speedily close disruptive discussions. Are you saying we should immediately block IP users who start deletion discussions and close the discussions with no action, even if their arguments are completely valid and the files in questions really ought to be deleted? —LX (talk, contribs) 19:51, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
"a very large percentage of new uploads is not free content, but copyright violations" with all due respect, could you put some numbers on claim that please? because to me it looks like of the 13 million files we've got so far, most of then ARE NOT copyvios.
as regards the important of detecting copyvio, i disagree about the priority-level of this task. IF we get a notice of infringement from a copyright holder, then it absolutely becomes a top-priority time-critical job to deal with that item, OTHERWISE copyvio detection is just a routine maintenance activity. detecting copyvios is a subtask of sorting files, it is not the acme of our of purpose here.
the 2 highest-priority tasks on wmc are i) creation & uploading of media files. & ii) sorting & integration of those files into our database. we are doing reasonably well on item i., but item ii. is massively backlogged (& there are some users who choose to "sort" files by tagging whatever problems they find, but making no effort to fix them, & no effort to categorize or improve the file info; but i digress)
as for the technical side, i can think of multiple ways to achieve this. first & most obviously we could establish a hard rule that anonymous-ip DRs are invalid & should be closed as such. if the closer happens to feel that the nomination has validity, they can "reset" it, with their own name attached. beyond that, would could block unauthorized use of the DR template. we could also adjust the "nominate for deletion" tool to send unregistered users to "create an account" (then return them to the filepage or the DR tool). & that's just "off the top of my head" xD Lx 121 (talk) 07:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree that most of our 13 million files are not copyright violations, but to pat ourselves on the back for that would be setting the bar pretty low. I can't tell you exactly what percentage of new uploads are copyright violations, but I can give you some numbers. On 1 July, there were about 1300 entries in the deletion log. A few of those were undeletions and deletions on non-copyright grounds, but the vast majority were deletions on copyright grounds. I can guarantee that the ones that are not are more than made up for by copyright violations that slipped by unnoticed or that have been tagged but not yet deleted. There were about 9500 uploads during the same time, including deleted files. So those are the approximate rates at which files are uploaded and deleted in a given 24-hour period. That's about 14% or every seventh upload. And just from a quick browse through remaining uploads we missed a lot: File:Athensmunapo.jpg ("own" satellite photo), File:Instagram (ANDROID & iOS).jpg (screenshot of non-free software), File:An Ariel View of Battaramulla.jpg (needs OTRS verification as it's been previously published at http://exploresrilanka.lk/2012/06/colombo-my-home/), File:Sadsadsadsadasdsadsadsad.jpg/File:Gsdgsgsddgdsgdgsdgdsg.jpg/File:Pitushok.jpg (based on non-free photos – the last one is from Getty – also, what the hell?), File:St. Thomas Church Kurichithanam.jpg (from http://www.smcim.org/church/kurichithanam)... And that's only picking out the ones that stand out from a mile away up until about 04:00.
I also agree that uncategorized and badly categorized files are a big problem (I do a lot of work in that area too). But copyright violations are a much more serious problem because every copyright violation:
  • poses a risk to the project, legally and in terms of PR
  • poses a legal risk to the individual uploader
  • poses a legal risk to reusers
  • reduces the usefulness of Commons to reusers because they can't trust us to be a remotely safe source of free content, and
  • hurts our chances of securing content donations from institutions, because it makes it seem (or makes it apparent) that we take copyright matters lightly.
So again: your premise is wrong. And as for your proposed implementations, they sound unjust, ineffective, time-consuming and counter-productive, so I {{Oppose}}. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
JFI: A single IP can't create more than 2 deletion requests/min due to a rate limit set by the server-admins. A DR is not a poll. Not the majority decides but the quality of arguments. -- RE rillke questions? 09:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
"A single IP can't create more than 2 deletion requests/min" -- that means an anonymous user can only create 120 DRs per hour(!). thank-you for helping to prove my point... xD
DRs may or may not be "polls" (as for winning on the quality of the arguements; to me that seems mildly optimistic. at times it's more like random chance in who decides to close the discussion); but in any case, there are currently over 13 MILLION files on commons; AND we have always have a huge backlog of open DR discussions. it's impossible to keep track of every good & useful file that gets wrongly nominated (& wrongly deleted), given the volume of material involved.
when a user is in the habit of using an anonymous-ip to create DRs AND is smart enough to use more than one ip address, then it's impossible to track "problem" deletionists and/or sockpuppetting. it allows people to pursue "agendas" without tying it to their "real" account (assuming they have one, & it's not blocked). that's not good, it makes it FAR easier to abuse the process, and much harder to detect.
finally, the usefulness of truly random, anonymous people at finding & reporting copyvios is pretty dubious (& by the way, the toolbox link DOES NOT actually say "report a copyright violation", it's labeled "nominate this file for deletion").
how hard it is to create an account, & create DRs with your user-name on them? anyone who is willing to spend their time making DRs can spend the extra 30 seconds it takes to create a username.
Lx 121 (talk) 09:46, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It is important to delete copyright violations, so it should be easy to create a deletion request. --Stefan4 (talk) 10:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support I also contribute to non-WMF wikis, which do not enable anonymous contributors. Perhaps allowing anonymous contributors is helpful to dissidents behind the Great Firewall of China -- but I think they can live with the rest of nominating images for deletion. Geo Swan (talk) 18:14, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
it may be "easy" (or not) but it doesn't happen that way very often; DR's almost always go through a "full process" which requires more time lost on discussion at the DR, & also tracking the nominator's actions to search for other bad DRs, etc. (not to mention that different people have very different standards of "frivolity") also, "frivolity" is not the only problem; the anonymity can be abused to sockpuppet, or to pursue "agendas" in other ways. Lx 121 (talk) 07:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Sure, but someone who is intending to abuse the process by sockpuppeting isn't going to be stopped by a disallowal of IP edits. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 07:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose seems like a solution in search of a problem. Yeah, sometimes we get "porn" deletion reasons, but that's with both IPs and inexperienced editors, especially those fresh from Wikipedia, and in either case they get closed quickly. I don't see that IPs are opening a significant number of bad DRs; for July 2nd, I see five or six, about half of which can be quickly closed as invalid, and another half that are good DRs. Just not a real problem.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Support - because this would be a good way of stopping PK's block evasion antics. Very easy to create an account. --Claritas (talk) 13:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Like it or not, retaliatory deletion sprees do take place - while it is true that the IP may be on just such a spree, it is also true that he may be a user who doesn't want one aimed at himself. That fear is, or should be, legitimate privacy reason to "sock".
I would say further though that we should try to work out a general standard for the ratio of bad deletion requests we're willing to accept as "normal". If it's an IP, a new account, someone on a pointy rampage against their least favorite admin, whatever ... if every one of their deletions is actually justifiable under policy, that's not a problem. If every other one is justifiable, I'm thinking that still isn't something we should really act against the person for, because Commons wants to show that it makes serious efforts to solve the problem. But if nine out of ten are bogus, then there's no doubt it is a problem, because there are only so many people who can read those discussions and make decisions, and if we use up all our labor on bogus requests we'll have more bad stuff slipping through unnoticed elsewhere. My guess is that the threshold should be set at about 2:1 - on average, you'd better have a valid objection at least every third try, or it's time for you to stop making so many objections. That might not be the right number, but a number we should have. Wnt (talk) 21:59, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Retaliatory deletion sprees are disruptive. If the nomination is intended strictly to stress another user or admin, it is effectively trolling. We do not want such high level of drama on COM:DR. There are no legitimate reasons to covertly sock, this will remain the case unless such a consensus is reached to revise the blocking policy. We are a community of transparency from the very start. We would loose that if we encouraged users (particularly blocked users) to edit as IPs to hide their identity. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 03:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Please reconsider. We can't adopt a position that we're going to protect known copyvios even when we know about them; it's too likely to draw legal troubles, and besides, it undermines our purpose of providing a pool of open access material for people to use. Now I'll be the first to defend keeping material that we don't know about - I'm willing to assume good faith and not delete files because they were cropped by the user and don't contain the camera EXIF serial number - but if someone's coming to us with legitimate copyvio complaints, that is the top priority, not civility, not disruption, not all that touchy-feely stuff, but whether the stuff on the site is legally legitimate. The only exception I'd make to that is when someone makes so many false complaints that it degrades our ability to spot copyvios - as I've said, I think in practice, that's about a 2:1 ratio of false complaints, given that the volunteer resources to evaluate copyvios are pretty thinly stretched already. Now, it's possible that this is aggravated because Commons evaluates copyright too harshly in some cases, i.e. with the country-of-origin requirements, and sometimes unreasonably strict policies will grate on administrators ... but if so, either they should find a way, in accordance with good legal advice, to loosen the restrictions for everyone, or else suffer under the same regime as everyone else. Wnt (talk) 20:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Sure copyvios can be dealt with - through a fresh discussion if one is warranted. Too often "copyvio" claim diverges from the actual intended point into trolling territory just to distress the uploader. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 07:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment Why not have laser precision. We can restrict dynamic IP ranges only, I would be equally uncomfortable in seeing votes and DR nominations from new users. It of course isn't easy to keep track of all dynamic IP ranges but not impossible either. Static IPs - like accounts can demonstrate good understanding of policy over time. Dynamic IPs will have good and bad edits mixed. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 03:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Rd232. Responding to Lx 121's comment that "the purpose of commons is not to "hunt" copyvios; this is a minor & relatively trivial job. if we get notice from a copyright holder, then we need to act on it asap; otherwise it's merely a maintenance job; & not the most important of them" - I cannot disagree more strongly with this claim. WMF is protected because they are an intermediary and do not provide content, but OCILLA does nothing to protect content reusers, particularly once works enter into print media. All it would take is a few high-profile lawsuits to compromise trust in our database and our mission. Moreover, the claim that established users using IP addresses are "hiding" would be held as deeply offensive to certain established users with thousands of edits who voluntarily do not create accounts, such as en:User:220.101.28.25 - there's even a userbox for such users. Dcoetzee (talk) 03:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

July 6

Adding a 3rd dimension

Do we have any 3d images or videos? If we do where are they? If we don't we should. I am not even sure if we have the infrastructure. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 04:58, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I suggested to support w:en:Chemical Markup Language several years ago. Format is open and there is open-source viewer and MediaWiki extension, but in this regard we are still where we was :-( --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:48, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
See previous discussion at Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2009/05#Other_types_of_media:_three_dimensional_objects_and_videos.3F -- AnonMoos (talk) 14:47, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
See also COM:UNSUPPORTED for the generic-and-hopefully-complete-overview of what Commons is wanted to support but does not. Jean-Fred (talk) 22:20, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Even without a viewer, we do have three-d images: old stereoscopic ones and modern anaglyph ones (Category:Stereoscopy). English Wikipedia even has a "put g;asses on now"-type template for 3d images. See stereoscopy article on EN Wiki. Rmhermen (talk) 02:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
The issue is, I am looking at this or this in awe. Notice how you can switch to different types of 3d vision. Even youtube has this: youtu .be/T9fpI3IzV20 . While it may look blurry and/or wierd to you, with proper 3d supporting hardware and/or glasses (Nvidia stereoscopic 3d, traditional cyan/red glasses, etc.) you can have modern 3d vision. Technology is fairly new so I don't expect a commons implementation in the next week but if there is consensus for it we can create a community supported bugzilla entry. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 08:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Kick the embarrassment out of the project!

The reason I'm starting this discussion is lacking of civility in actions and sayings of particular Commons users. Namely they are:

After I witnessed User:Rillke, openly discussing my personality, wondering "why he [i.e. me] was never blocked" and few other things, which are obviously insulting:

I've asked for clarification on the administrators' noticeboard:

Instead of clarification, I received a few more insults from User:99of9, and the section itself has been closed within less than two hours by User:Bidgee.

I suggest for this we had User:Rillke and User:99of9 stripped of admin rights on this project, and temporarily suspend User:Bidgee, to find out the motive of his actions, when he promptly closed the attempt to clarify this obviously insulting incident. It's O. K. to see such kind of talks somewhere in the web. But it's absolutely outrageous to find it here, and even more outrageous that these people are still administrators. We've got to kick this embarrassment out of the project for good! — George Serdechny 14:16, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

If you feel that people should have their admin rights removed you are at liberty to start a de-admin request. It may be worth pointing out to you that you have selected three very hard working and trusted admins so it may be worth your while reflecting before taking action. --Herby talk thyme 14:36, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
It's not good advice to start a de-admin request, since the procedure requires some evidence of prior consensus (or is supposed to, anyway). Rd232 (talk) 18:25, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Rillke didn't mention your personality, 99of9 gave a polite and non-judgemental response to which you responded rudely, and Bidgee closed the discussion after that response of yours (and I would guess primarily because of it). At root here is Trycatch's negative opinion of your activities in relation to copyright, which you haven't really dealt with. Rd232 (talk) 18:25, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
"to which you responded rudely" What do you mean rudely? By copying the text, which I was referring to? Is that, what you're calling "rudely?" User:Trycatch is absolutely clean in this particular case, because he’s not an admin, thus he is not responsible for the disgrace, they had caused. — George Serdechny 08:04, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I meant your replies to 99of9. I didn't know non-admins weren't responsible for their own actions and comments... how convenient for you. Rd232 (talk) 13:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that's my reply to 99of9. It was copied from the talk, I was referring to. So, what's the problem with that? Please don't shift the subject, just answer my question. Where is the "rudeness?"
"I didn't know non-admins weren't responsible for their own actions and comments" I never said that. What I said, and what I meant, is that User:Trycatch is a fellow commoner, just like I am, so he's free to express any ideas in any terms, BUT, his counterpart User:Rillke, who is an active admin, MUST have made a warning, seeing that the talk goes wrong. He didn't do that, instead he supported this misbehavior with adding even more insulting things. The other one (User:99of9) endorsed this piteous mistake, and the last one (User:Bidgee, yet last, but not the least, I suppose,) just backed their ridiculous responds by closing the discussion. — George Serdechny 20:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Even making allowances for language barriers, there is a severe lack of communication here. Your reply to 99of9 was rude, full stop. It doesn't matter if it was copied from somewhere else in whole or in part (I can't see where, but it's irrelevant). Rillke didn't add "even more insulting things" in reply to Trycatch, and 99of9 responded non-judgementally to your complaint. It seems clear that English is not your first language, so take it from someone whose first language is English: your complaint seems to rest on a misunderstanding, and pursuing it is a waste of time. Let it go, assume good faith, and move on. Rd232 (talk) 21:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
"Your reply was rude. Period." Sounds familiar to me. Can you say something relevant, instead of "fullstopping" me?
As for language barriers, I really don't see a severe lack of communication here. And since German is your native, you'd better deliver this message to your fellow admin Rillke, and help him to imrove his AYBABTU-like English a little bit, so he would be able to explain what this suppose to mean: "The conversation but it was not directed to you." — George Serdechny 06:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
The statement is relevant and clear. The meaning of Rillke's statement is also clear. I'm starting to suspect that you're trolling. Rd232 (talk) 07:04, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Likewise. — George Serdechny 07:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Can you please not highlight? -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 07:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I would suggest we are going to discuss this issue either on your talk page or my one. You mentioned that you contacted the uploaders at YouTube before and I've some questions regarding to this. Again thanks for the friendly notification that you complained about me on a board that nearly 2000 people have on their watchlist for a personal issue. -- RE rillke questions? 22:16, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the friendly notification that you complained about me at User talk:Trycatch. If only I knew that you're going to redirect the querry, I would go to Trycatch directly, without asking you anything. He seems to be more proficient in these matters than many of our admins. Now you can discuss anything you like with whoever you want, except me, I received my answers, your position is pretty clear to me. — George Serdechny 20:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
If you have a complaint about specific users I suggest discussing it at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems. Dcoetzee (talk) 04:24, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I already did yesterday, please read the above. There was no discussion, the thread has been closed within a few hours. — George Serdechny 08:04, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
The only thing to discuss is your past actions and Trycatch's opinion of them - though if you keep making a fuss about nothing, that can potentially become an issue in itself. Since you seem willing to work with Trycatch (User_talk:Trycatch#Full-time_partnership_instead_of_occasional_malevolence), I suggest you forget about the rest of this and move on. If you need more help than Trycatch is willing or able to give, there is always the Commons:Help Desk, or COM:VPC for more complex copyright questions. Rd232 (talk) 13:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes I am willing to work with Trycatch, and I WILL work with Trycatch, I don't have anything against this man, and I wish him peace and prosperity. But there's no chance I forget about the disgrace, caused by the three particular admins. When I started the first thread at the Administrators' noticeboard, simple warning was enough. Niether one warned them. At the beginning of the next thread (which is this one,) apology would be O.K. Needless to say, that neither one did apologize. Now, I accept no excuse, and no apology, their adminship is a matter of yesterday. — George Serdechny 20:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment I had a chance to follow Mr. Serdechny contributions in Russian Wikipedia when I was still active there more than a year ago, and I know him as someone rude, incivil, and tending to interpret the copyright laws very differently than it is written in the policies, in particular, trying to consider policies as ethical entities and taking them personally. He is very emotional and able to defend his misinterpretations forever, accusing other users in what he in fact was guilty. If we do not stop this discussion (which is as common based on his gross misinterpretation of the policies) now, it has a potential to grow forever.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Hi, Yaroslaw. I'll appreciate a lot if you provide us with the examples of my "emotional" and "rude" behaviour. Besides, just to let you know, we're talking here not about my rude behaviour. — George Serdechny 15:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
    Well, we are taling about you, since at this particular point you are the only one who is breaking the policies. Well, for the examples, why do not you start from your block log once Russian Wikipedia is up again. As you perfectly know I do not have an account there anymore.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, there are many other external projects where you have/or have not been blocked — that is not my concern. This thread is to discuss whether it's all right for an admin to publicly express his wonder why somebody else was never blocked, and, as you know, I'm not an admin. Taking into account that you have a years-long adminship experience, please try to answer this question without regard to my humble personality. — George Serdechny 16:57, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
    Well, if you really want to hear - yes, I would say discovering that someone has uploaded a number of images which are clearly not licenced properly, it would be appropriate to ask how this happened, and, indeed, why the person have not been blocked before. From what I see, you have not been blocked after this has been discovered, instead, Trycatch started explaining you what is wrong with the uploads.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, it happened in a little bit different way: Actually, it was me, who came first, asking his opinion on my uploads. And actually, after your carefull review, it is clear that only 4 out of 134 files uploaded by me, are clearly not licenced properly (due to a pretty much complicated FoP issue,) which, I presume, is not a big number to wonder why it's uploader have not been blocked.— George Serdechny 05:00, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
    I did not investigate all of your uploads. Five from the first uploads page (10%, there is also a Makeyevka Lenin Monument) were clearly illegal, and most others were problematic, as Trycatch indicated. Even the one for which I withdrew the nomination is still problematic because one needs to prove that it was uploaded to youtube by the performer (otherwise the license is void). The only two which are definitely fine are those made by the US Army (the top two). All others need to have their licenses reviewed.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Although I did not receive notification of this discussion, I suppose I'll bite. You claim "Instead of clarification, I received a few more insults from User:99of9". Please list the comments of mine that you feel are insults. --99of9 (talk) 05:34, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

July 9

Empty cats

Sorry my English is not that good, that causes also that i didn't yet found a sollution for the following problem: On Category:Volvo trucks are (too) many cats and i have put two of them together, leaving empty cats. What message can i place in the empty cats to attention mods that they can be deleted? Geus (talk) 22:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

{{speedy|[state a reason]}}. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 22:19, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, i'll try. Geus (talk) 22:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Mlqmark2jf.JPG and Philippine Public Domain law

Good morning,

Following a DR, Obsidi♠n Soul made an analysis of public domain application in Philippine I would like the the community discuss.

Regarding your deletion of File:Mlqmark2jf.JPG. I'd like to point out this discussion last February concerning works by the Philippine Government, and our policy on non-copyright restrictions. Previously, photographs of Philippine public works were problematic because of a clause in the PD law, which otherwise is identical to US PD law.

I have updated the licensing entry for the Philippines. The file can now be kept under {{PD-PhilippinesGov}} as a non-copyrightable work of the government, rather than treating it as a private artwork. Please restore it.--Obsidi♠nSoul 09:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Please first provide documentation this is a work of the government. --Dereckson (talk) 10:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Have a look at the plaque again. Note that I'm not sure if it's the same plaque as it's not my picture and I can't see it anymore since you've deleted it. But IIRC it's the same. Please note what the seal says: "Philippines Historical Committee 1948". The PHC existed during the American Commonwealth of the Philippines and it's a branch of the government responsible for the preservation of the national history of the Philippines. Shortly after WW2, the PHC installed about 400 of those plaques in historical places in the country.
That committee is now the National Historical Commission of the Philippines (and thus recent plaques generally have "National Historical Institute" or "National Historical Commission" in place of "Philippines Historical Committee", though the general appearance of the plaques remain the same). Have a look at similar plaques by the PHC commissioned at around the same time period for some historical places in the Philippines:
If that's still not enough evidence for you, the plaques and other public monuments are also mentioned in Republic Act No. 841 of the Philippines (approved into law on April 7, 1953) as specifically under the jurisdiction of the local government and under the management of the PHC.--Obsidi♠nSoul 14:57, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
What I don't understand is why the PHC became the copyright holder if they ordered those commemorative plaques to local artists (a sculptor and a writer I guess?). To compare the situation, if a city decides to order a statue to some sculptor, he's still the copyright holder. --Dereckson (talk) 19:51, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
The structure itself are obvious templates that look virtually the same except for minor changes to the PHC/NHI/NHCP logo through the years. Its ornamental aspects are not original and thus can not be classified as artistic. The text likewise can not be classified as literature or poetic. They're functional (though a bit florid). You might as well argue that street signs are copyrighted by the local tinsmiths. Finally:
Republic Act No. 8293, Part IV, Chapter I, Section 171.11. A "work of the Government of the Philippines" is a work created by an officer or employee of the Philippine Government or any of its subdivisions and instrumentalities, including government-owned or -controlled corporations as a part of his regularly prescribed official duties.
Republic Act No. 10066, Article III, Section 7, mentions the addition of official heritage markers as a requirement for designating cultural properties (and thus part of the official duties of the PHC/NHI/NHCP and thus a work of the Government). (An official heritage marker shall likewise be placed on an immovable cultural property to identify the same as important cultural property.)--Obsidi♠nSoul 23:25, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
If nothing is copyrighteable, the file has to be restored in public domain / threshold of originality and not in public domain / work of governement...
When somebody (here a government agency) contract a freelance, it's not an employee, so those provisions don't apply. It's why I don't understand where you see a transfer of the copyright to the government. --Dereckson (talk) 23:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Are your government agencies required by law to erect statues or murals? No. PHC/NHI/NHCP in contrast is required by law to provide such markers to places designated as cultural properties. And thus anyone commissioned for them are making them in the course of their regularly-assigned duties. These are works-made-for-hire not commissioned artworks. So yes, they are both PD by virtue of not achieving the threshold of originality and because it is a work of the government.--Obsidi♠nSoul 00:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I now understand your rationale, but don't share it. I really can't see why because an agency is required to do something, poof they got copyright. Please provide documentation the work for hire contained provision to transfer copyright. Or argue it's below the threshold of originality on COM:UNDELETE (the easiest would be to move this discussion). --Dereckson (talk) 08:33, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

LOL. More hoops to jump through? You know what? Forget it. The picture isn't even mine, nor in my area of interest. I spent hours in the past days just trying to find information for it and the laws pertaining to it while you just sit back and find every single thing that can be nitpicked of a picture of a fucking sign that I know you know full damn well is public property.

What else did you want me do, eh? Take it to ten more noticeboards, fill a questionnaire, and send flowers to a Commons admin of my choice? Maybe book a trip to that city where the picture was taken, pay whatever fees are necessary for getting proof of a plaque built 70 years ago being public property? Hire some private investigators to dig up the original contract if it still exists and find out which local artisan built it in 1948? Arrest the uploader and interrogate him? Maybe I should mail physical copies signed by the president himself with a complementary massage and a round-trip ticket to Hawaii as well?

99% of the time I've spent here is spent arguing against the bureaucratic red tape. And for all the good I've done here, the only feeling I've ever gotten from it is the strong feeling that uploading anything to Commons is universally considered a crime until proven otherwise. I'm a volunteer like you, not the fucking defendant in a court case.

I think I'm finally fed up with Commons. Thanks for showing me that. Because when you think of it really, why did I even bother? Good day.--Obsidi♠nSoul 19:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you to have taken time to read this thread.

I initially asked on IRC if someone could review my discussion, and it has been highlighted this is an issue not for COM:UNDEL, but for a wider audience. --Dereckson (talk) 08:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

With no information about the situation than the above discussion, I agree with Dereckson's concerns. The text of these are not necessarily written by government employees. In many cases, the wording of such a sign might be written by a property owner or other local interest (e.g. local historical society). To offer a case with which I'm familiar, Michigan's historic markers have been written by students at Eastern Michigan University for the last several years, so even if Michigan government works were PD, these would not be. It's possibly worth noting that many of the markers are old, and most (all?) are dated. Did previous Filipino copyright law require notice and/or registration? That may not have been done. What is the term of protection for anonymous works or works of unknown authorship? Perhaps many of the older plaques are PD for one of these reasons? cmadler (talk) 10:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, if these are works for hire, then I think that Obsidian has a point. In most situations, the commissioner of the work gets the copyright. Now, the issue is are they really works for hire? Yann (talk) 11:34, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Name of the category

I want to collect the images from some scientific conference in a separate category. This conference has no official name in English, it was held in Russia and its official name was in Russian language. What can I do to avoid inofficial translations and incorrect, inaccurate category name that doesn't follow the official translation?  Info — an official translation does not exist. Thank you!--PereslavlFoto (talk) 14:06, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

You may make a approximate english category name (something like Category:Russian conference on ...., 2012-06-25 and add the full russian name as texte on the category page, with additional information about whatever is relevant within the scope of wikipedia. That texte may be in russian /cyrillic, with preferentially a description as good as possible in english as well. --Havang(nl) (talk) 15:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
PS, the texte on the category page is searchable, which solves a major problem. --Havang(nl) (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Thus I may use any wrong, inaccurate, erroneous, random, truncated, indirect, distorted, invalid, faithless «name» for the category proven there is correct description on its page? It seemed to me there's no sense in creating such an erroneous category name, that's why I asked here...--PereslavlFoto (talk) 16:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Of course not wrong, inaccurate, erroneous, ....; that seems like a bad faith interpretation of my answer. Your user name PereslavlFoto is not your official name, a truncated and indirect name, but is the right adress to reach you. The category name is not necessarily the full conference name, but has to be such that it is the right adress to come at the conference files. --Havang(nl) (talk) 16:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I see now.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 16:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you Havang(nl). I have some additional comments:
  • If there is no official translation, you version will be the best till someone comes up with a better one. In the end, the best might become the official one.
  • It is a widespread illusion that we can translate a text in something that accurately represents the words, the connotations and the underlying meaning. In my daily life, I need to tap in 4 or 5 different languages to express myself, and even then, it remains difficult to express myself clearly. We can only get that close.
Anyway, if if we don't try, we are stuck. --Foroa (talk) 16:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
yes, I often have the feeling that the translation is not what I want it to be. There is an italian proverb : "traductori - Traditori" (translaters - traitors). --Havang(nl) (talk) 16:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Permission in French

Hi. I am looking for the French version of this permission text. Where can I find it?

I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the work above: <...>

I agree to publish that work under the free license <...>.

I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product, and to modify it according to their needs, as long as they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me.

I am aware that the free license only concerns copyright, and I reserve the option to take action against anyone who uses this work in a libelous way, or in violation of personality rights, trademark restrictions, etc.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the work may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:29, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Messages type#Déclaration de consentement. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:08, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Failed thumbnail generation

ResolvedPi.1415926535

I uploaded File:New London Union Station panorama.jpg last night, and Commons seems unable to generate any thumbnails. The full image loads when I click, but not any thumbnails. When I click on those, it gives this text:

Error creating thumbnail: convert: Insufficient memory (case 4) `/mnt/upload6/wikipedia/commons/4/46/New_London_Union_Station_panorama.jpg' @ error/jpeg.c/EmitMessage/235. convert: missing an image filename `/tmp/transform_14cf3a5-1.jpg' @ error/convert.c/ConvertImageCommand/2970.

I suspect this may be related to this discussion, but those problems resolved quickly. This has been 11 hours, which is far longer than I've ever seen it take. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:05, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

It's more likely the fact that this image is a large interlaced (progressive mode) JPEG. Use baseline mode instead to make it possible for the thumbnailer to work on smaller chunks of the file instead of having to load the whole thing into memory. See Commons:FAQ#What resolution should the images I upload be? —LX (talk, contribs) 18:18, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Just uploaded a new version in baseline mode and it thumbnailed immediately. Thanks! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:32, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

July 15

New Upload Tool - Testers Wanted!

Hi all, I've been working on a new Commons upload tool (Up!) which greatly simplifies the upload process. Up! is currently in alpha release, and I could really use some help testing this tool. If you're interested, please add your name to Commons:Up!#Testers and upload away :] Cheers, FASTILY (TALK) 19:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you could give some clues why anybody would want to use Up instead of Commons:Tools/Commonist? --Dietzel65 (talk) 22:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Commons:Up!#Purpose -FASTILY (TALK) 17:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
But Up! is different from other Commons upload tools in that it allows users to mass upload an entire folder of related media files with by filling out a single file description page (e.g. Using Up!, a Commons user who takes five photos of a flower at different angles would only have to fill out a single upload form whereas a user using a tool such as Commonist would have to do it five times) that's not true, you can do that with commonist when you put the description in the box on the left side of the window. Don't get me wrong, I don't mean to criticize, I just don't understand it. --Dietzel65 (talk) 21:51, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

July 14

Lucien Freud, breach of copyright

A self portrait was uploaded from Flikr and the author given as the person, deflam, who had uploaded it to Flikr in the first place. The actual author is Lucien Freud, British painter, died 2011. The uploader licensed the file with one of the available licenses, requiring acknowledgement of deflam, not Lucien Freud! What absolute cheek!

I have just taken the liberty of removing the license, as, plainly, neither "deflam" nor the uploader has the right to decide whether any member of the public can download, use and change it, simply by acknowledging some uploader!

Can someone fix this! sefl portrait, Lucien Freud Amandajm (talk) 05:49, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Marked as {{Copyvio}}, an admin will take care of it. --LBE (talk) 06:07, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Jmabel ! talk 17:05, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Request a German speaker make a donation attempt for me

Could a German speaker please write to this fellow and request donation of this image?

[26]

Or something like it? I tried, but got no response. But my Deutsch is schlect and I got no response.  :(

Seriously, I would appreciate it if a German speaker could try writing to the lab and asking for the license. It is for an important article:

[27]

Lehrstuhl für Molekül- und Koordinationschemie, Institut für Anorganische und Analytische Chemie, Albertstr. 21, D-79104 Freiburg i. Br., Tel.: ++49 761 203 6122, Fax.: ++49 761 203 6001, E-Mail: krossing@uni-freiburg.de, Secretaries: Brigitte Jörger Tel.: ++49 761 203 97497, Vera Brucksch Tel.: ++49 761 203 6121, Room No.: 343, Fax.: ++49 761 203 6001 , E-Mail: brigitte.joerger@ac.uni-freiburg.de, E-Mail: vera.brucksch@ac.uni-freiburg.de or shorter here.

I wrote for the donation several weeks ago. Please...help the American Wiki. TCO (talk) 02:48, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

You should post that on the German-speaking Commons:Forum. --Túrelio (talk) 17:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm actually going to try to get someone to do a diagram for me, from the photo. That way it will be free, mwahaha. Already submitted a request on En-Wiki Graphics Lab.  :) TCO (talk) 19:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Deleting real name from Meta data

Hi there, long time user of en.wikipedia but my first non-upload post here so I'm not sure if this is in the right place.

I have noticed that unfortunately my real name is included in the metadata of some of my uploads. As I say, this is unfortunate because I have been the victim of some stalking recently (online and in real world; I'm currently going through the process of getting my name removed from the electoral roll to make it slightly more difficult to be tracked when I move next). Is there a way to remove my real name from the metadata? Obviously I'd prefer not to have to delete all the images I've uploaded (although presumably thanks to caches these will be forever stored anyway). Thanks in advance. --Roisterer (talk) 05:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

  • If you upload a new version of each given photo without that particular metadata, it would take someone much more deliberately looking through history to find the old ones; you then could further request on Commons:Administrators' noticeboard that the older versions be deleted from the publicly viewable history. At least you wouldn't have to edit any descriptions, etc. However, I don't really see that much could be done short of that: after all, removing metadata is altering the uploaded file, and I don't believe there is any way to alter an uploaded file on Commons in place. - Jmabel ! talk 06:19, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Now to find out how to edit metadata. I don't suppose there is a "how to" on here? --Roisterer (talk) 07:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
You could use a tool such as exiftool. Alternatively, MAT specifically aims at removing identifying information from the metadata of your files (but I don't think there's a Windows version, at least not a conveniently-packaged one). Prof. Professorson (talk) 07:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
I've used exiftool quite a bit (for work, not for Commons-related purposes). It works well. - Jmabel ! talk 15:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Definition of duplicate

Problem:When is a file a duplicate, when is it redundant, and when is it distinct enough to keep?

Commons:D#Duplicates tells us

If the file is the same file type and you're sure that it is exactly the same content (colours, quality, etc) tag it with {{duplicate|File:example.jpg}} ... Note: if it is a work that is very similar (or identical) to another, but not an exact duplicate, it's a redundant file, which mandates a different procedure.

Redundant files need to be listed case-by-case at Commons:Deletion requests. Crucially, the distinction between "duplicate" and "redundant" isn't clear. The policy actually says (or identical) to another, but not an exact duplicate! (If that's not hedging your bets, I don't know what is.)

The reason I ask is because I've today seen User:Fastily upload many files that are very similar (some indistinguishable, by eye at least). For example, File:PalmTree20120715p14.jpg through File:PalmTree20120715p19.jpg seem identical (and there others in the series which are very very similar, and there a few more series like it). Fastily's explanation was I use an SLR which is capable of burst photography. If more than one of the photos I take on a particular subject turn out to be good, I upload them all. There is no rule that prohibits me from providing such photos to reusers (whom I frequently receive thank you emails from!) and wmf wiki editors; in my three years here, I have found that the greater the selection, the better.

So there are two questions here. One comes up quite often: what exactly qualifies as a "duplicate" so that it can be tagged for speedy deletion instead of DR, as opposed to considering it a probably redundant file that should go to DR. The other question is how different does an image need to be from others to justify keeping it? COM:D doesn't help here; while COM:SCOPE#Discussion says There may sometimes be an argument for retaining multiple images that are (from an educational point of view) quite similar, for the sake of variety and availability of choice, but there is no purpose in our hosting many essentially identical poor quality images that have no realistic educational value. Note the poor quality qualifier: it's basically saying (and the later statement in COM:SCOPE New educational files of exceptional quality are always welcome strengthens it), that if the images are of "high quality" by some reasonable standard, then many essentially identical images are just fine. Is this right? Rd232 (talk) 00:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

If they are not exact duplicates, they should not be speedied, particularly when the uploader is contesting it. That's what "duplicate" means. That doesn't mean that a DR discussion can't be started, of course -- the idea is to have a wider discussion first; don't make it one admin's opinion versus one uploader's. Get more of a consensus that they are redundant before deleting. Those appear to be three different photos but very similar, with two variations of color correction for each. I can definitely understand having multiple shots, but I'd lean towards redundant on those. For myself, I can't see what each one adds above the other, though maybe I could understand two different color-corrected versions -- but even then, it's usually one version uploaded, and a color corrected version uploaded on top of it, unless there are arguments for keeping both available. While we don't like to have hard and fast rules, I think there is some expectation that uploaders do some self-editing. But I know we have kept some very similar photos before (though a bit more different than these), when the uploader was very insistent they saw value in each -- don't want to make it seem like anyone's uploads are not appreciated either. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:31, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Hm - so "duplicate" means "exact duplicate"? To what standard of precision? To address what the policy says specifically: what sort of file pair can be "identical, but not an exact duplicate"? Rd232 (talk) 01:01, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Exact same, or scaled down. It should be a non-controversial deletion if you are going to speedy it. Restored versions, different color corrections, different scales but with different licenses, vector vs bitmap, are all not "duplicate". Open a regular DR for anything else. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but that's not exactly answering my question. Different licenses, vector/bitmap are binary and easy, and "restoration" in practice is probably clear enough. But when is a colour correction "different"? When is a difference in scale or camera angle trivial? Can we not at least nail a definition like: "if by visual inspection you can't tell the difference by looking at the file descriptions and the file previews on the file description pages, they're duplicates"? Rd232 (talk) 01:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
That's why you want to get a consensus by opening a DR. Speedy is for things which don't deserve a discussion. The visual inspection probably is enough, though if they are the same size (width and height) with very different file sizes, it might bear a little investigation to see why. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
The "palm tree" series is a collection of six images of an unchanging scene, taken by putting a camera in burst mode and holding down the shutter for an estimated five seconds. There are slight visual differences in lighting and framing that can be observed by blink comparison (these are likely accidental, resulting from the muscle tremors inevitable in any attempt to hold something perfectly steady), but under a casual visual inspection, the images are identical. --Carnildo (talk) 02:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
They are certainly worthy of a DR. The fact they aren't exact duplicates doesn't mean they can't be deleted -- just mean they shouldn't be speedy deleted. Just get a wider range of opinions than one person wanting to delete (or one person wanting to keep). I'd probably vote delete myself on 4 or 5 of them. Just don't speedy stuff that people have taken the time to upload and donate unless its *very* obvious. A regular DR doesn't hurt anything. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:33, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

A few short(?) answers to Rd232's original questions (which other users may have already answered):

  • {{Duplicate}} is only for the very easy, obvious cases. A file is {{Duplicate}} if the exact duplication or inferior quality is obvious and without question, and is of the same image. If you don't know whether a file is a {{Duplicate}} or redundant, then that file is probably not obvious enough for {{Duplicate}}; use Commons:Deletion requests instead.
  • The User:Fastily examples are not duplicate files of the same photo: They are, instead, multiple photos of the same subject/object. That case is clearly not {{Duplicate}}. Any request to remove multiple versions of that palm tree would go to Commons:Deletion requests.
  • Whether a file is "redundant" or "distinct enough to keep" is the tricky part: That is why there is a discussion in Commons:Deletion requests. My observation is that files are usually only deleted when they are clearly inferior in some way; if there are multiple good photos of the same subject/object, the discussion usually ends with all the files being kept. (This is not absolute, but is the most common.) --Closeapple (talk) 04:09, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I hope this helps. --Closeapple (talk) 04:09, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Free celebrity videos by See Management

The US advertising (or something...) agency See Management has posted some 214 freely licensed high-quality videos of celebrity and model photoshoots and advertisements at http://vimeo.com/seemanagement/videos. I used one, File:Michaela DePrince for Teen Vogue.ogv (now in Category:Videos by See Management), in an article.

My question is, could somebody please double-check that this is a legitimate free video release and not some sort of license-washing? And if yes, would it be worthwile to do a (selective) batch conversion/import? There might be concerns that the agency will likely not have the rights needed to release all parts of the videos under a free license, notably those that use non-PD background music, such as this full music clip by en:Zola Jesus, or commercial advertisements made for other companies such as this makeup ad. Sandstein (talk) 09:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

FOP Andorra

i tok a picture of this sculpture by Dali (similar File:Outside Dali Museum.JPG) in Andorra. Is there FOP in Andorra so i can upload the picture? -- Cherubino (talk) 10:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

thnx, done. -- Cherubino (talk) 18:56, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Two minor issues

File:Andrea Mitchell MSNBC mic crop.jpg I cropped an image from flickr before I uploaded it and the flickr review bot choked on it. Probably because my crop changed the file.

If anyone can help, thanks in advance.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:05, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The image you mention seems to be a copyright violation [28]; I wouldn't trust any of the images on this flickr account. Prof. Professorson (talk) 20:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Okay, strike that, I didn't see that it was uploaded on flickr long before that. They even credit it to the flickr user (they don't mention the license though). Looks fine. Prof. Professorson (talk) 20:24, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes. If that blog site had correctly attributed then it would save hard working volunteers like you from many headaches. Should we email that site to learn a little more about what cc-by means?--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:35, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
No, I was just being hasty, hard working volunteers would have checked more carefully. I guess you could write to them if you want, but honestly, they did pretty good already: credit to the author and link back to flickr, that's more than most re-users would do. Prof. Professorson (talk) 21:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

One issue is ✓ Done. I moved the other below in case it gets further attention.

Category:Pleistocene has 3 sub-categories for ice ages and 3 for interglacials which make no sense as discussed in Talk above. Category:Ice age 410k-380k BP and Category:Interglacial 600k-450k BP are now empty. Can they be deleted? The other ones need more work. PS Why do categories come out blank if I put them in square brackets to link? Thanks. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Because that syntax is being taken to add a category to this talk page. You have to put a colon in front of the word "Category" to indicate it's supposed to be a link, like Category:Pleistocene (i.e. [[:Category:Pleistocene]]). Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I think I fixed the blue links. If they are wrong and empty I would assume they can be deleted.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

How long does it take for a RFC to close?

I started Commons:Requests for comment/Grandfathered old files in March. It seems to have wide support amongst the respondents. How long does it take to close? Targaryen 21:39, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Until an interested admin who is willing to take responsibility for closing comes along... AnonMoos (talk) 15:08, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

July 18

RFC: An Agent template to enter roles into the Author field

Hi everybody!

In order to capture information where multiple people were involved in the creation of a media file (separate publishers, engravers and illustrators, for instance), I've written an experimental {{Agent}} template which uses LangSwitch to support roles in different languages. However, {{Agent}} also uses #ifexists to check for a {{Creator:...}} page for that person; if it doesn't exist, this template provides a link so that it can be set up easily. You can see examples at {{Agent}} (I'll separate documentation out onto its own page once I have your feedback!) or in the "Author" field of File:Britishentomologyvolume8Plate245.jpg.

Apart from its usefulness in defining roles for agents, I think this template might be useful as a way of linking to Creator templates when the uploader/annotator doesn't have time to create or find the right Creator page. It will generate redlinks in that case, but can also be configured to add them to a category so that people interested in fixing metadata or creating Creator pages can find them.

I think this would make this template a useful part of the {{Creator:...}} system, but I'd love to hear what you think about it. Has anyone tried to simplify linking to Creator templates before? Are there other templates which handle roles for agents/authors? Do you think this is a useful template to develop? -- Gaurav (talk) 02:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I do like a lot of features of this template, but I do not like the use of #ifexists to check for a {{Creator:...}} page, and offer to create one if one does not exist. The issue is that many people are known under many alternative names, especially many non-English names might have many versions of their name used in English. Users should be encouraged to search for existing categories or creator pages, before creating new creator templates or categories. --Jarekt (talk) 03:03, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Alternative names would be a good reason for a redlink, as long as it came with an editnotice reminding to check for an existing name, and consider creating a redirect if necessary. The reason not to do redlinks is that not every person in the author field merits a Creator: template - eg when it's a Commons user, we just link to the user page. Rd232 (talk) 12:08, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
I think this is a good idea - but then I would say that, I had the same idea while ago and never got round to it. Now based on {{Copyright information}} I've created {{Author information}}, which is generally better than {{Agent}} I think (eg uses existing localizations where possible). The only problem is that for some reason transcluding Creator templates there messes up the formatting, and I really can't see why; so for now I'm just linking to the Creator template instead. (One way to fix this, probably, would be to use the {{Agent}} approach of using the template multiple times in the author field if necessary, instead of having author1, author2 etc in one template transclusion.) Rd232 (talk) 12:08, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Hum, I was wrong: {{Author info}}, using the {{Agent}} approach of multiple transclusions, had the same problem with transcluding Creator templates. Problem turned out to be fixed by removing the asterisk. (Putting an asterisk before the transclusion recreates the problem, and applies to {{Agent}} as well: eg * {{Agent|whatever|something that has a creator template}} * {{Agent|whatever|something that doesn't have a creator template}} - see results eg here. But that's not the whole problem; Creator template is also messing up the documentation (see {{Author info}}). Plus it always puts in a line break, which has annoyed me for a while, and prevents inline use in descriptions. Rd232 (talk) 15:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

File inclusions

I have possibly made a technical mistake and I am not sure how to correct it. I just renamed the file 685.jpg into File:Self-sacrifice of mayor van der Werff painting by Wappers (1829).jpg (the file was available in the renaming requests category, and I found the request quite reasonable). I checked the inclusions, and noticed that the file was included into about five articles in two projects (I do not remember which projects and which articles). Rather than renaming by using the link from the template (which would also add these files to the Commons Delinker queue) I decided to do it manually, since (i) the proposed name was not exactly the same I wanted (ii) I usually prefer to update the articles manually so that they do not need to wait for Commons Delinker. However, the renamed file does not show any inclusions (not here and not on Dutch Wikipedia, the primary candidate), and the redirect obviously does not show anything. Is there any way to locate the formerly included files other than renaming back? Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:18, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

You can use Special:GlobalUsage - in this case, Special:GlobalUsage/685.jpg. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 07:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Great, thanks. It solves the problem.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:18, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
You can also use the page nl:Bestand:685.jpg. -- Asclepias (talk) 07:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I tried it, but it does not show any usage. --Ymblanter (talk) 08:18, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Trams in Oslo

I have added a few pictures. (File:Oslo line 11.JPG and File:Oslo Line 19.JPG) I find the tram line categories confusing as you have to have local knowledge. I know the linenumbers (11 and 19) but wich categories are they? Can the linenumbers be added as commentary to the tram line categories? Would it be more usefull to have a "trams in the centrum of Oslo" category? Smiley.toerist (talk) 15:38, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Does File:Oslo Tramway map.svg help? Some have names that match the cats.--Canoe1967 (talk) 05:32, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but some tramlines run in several cats. I have added a category: Trams in Oslo city for trams in the city centre.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

July 19

Open Parliament Licence

[29] Is this licence suitable for uploading content to Commons? I note the similar Open Government Licence is already in use. Cymru82 (talk) 15:20, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

A close case, but I'd tentatively say no. It looks generally acceptable - similar, in fact, to a CC-BY license. However, I am concerned with the requirement that

You must (where you do any of the above):
ensure that you do not mislead others or misrepresent the information or its source or present the information in a way that discredits the reputation or standing of either House of Parliament or their members or their officials

A requirement that you not "discredit[] the reputation or standing" of MPs, etc. seems too restrictive for a free license, in my opinion. What if there is a document reused to say "MP1 shouldn't be re-elected, MP2 should instead"? Such would seem to violate this license. I'd welcome the opinion of another user, though. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 00:20, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
I'll defer to Carl on the moral rights stuff; the rest is quite acceptable. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 05:36, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
That bit is not in the OGL, but it pretty much sounds like standard moral rights stuff -- you can't do things with works which harm someone's reputation (presumably via misrepresenting details, as in not specifying a work was modified or something like that). I think the license is basically the same thing as the OGL and is OK. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
But the OGL does include the following:

You must, where you do any of the above: [...] ensure that you do not mislead others or misrepresent the Information or its source

I have no problem with a prohibition on misrepresenting the source of the information, which does seem to fit with moral rights. However, the other conditions in this clause are more problematic. Note that it simply says mislead, not intentionally mislead. I'm sure I have misled many people over the years, despite trying to avoid it. A license that requires I ensure I mislead no one seems very difficult to comply with, at least for material placed on the internet for general viewing. Also, edits that seem like an improvement to one person can easily seem like a misrepresentation to another. These restrictions contrast with the definition of a free license we rely on in Commons:Licensing, in particular the bit that says "the license must not limit the freedom to distribute a modified version [...] regardless of the intent and purpose of such modifications". So it seems to me that the OGL and OPL do not meet our definition of a free license. --Avenue (talk) 06:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, I guess I just disagree -- I think it is similar to "You must not distort, mutilate, modify or take other derogatory action in relation to the Work which would be prejudicial to the Original Author's honor or reputation" which is part of the CC licenses. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:57, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The "misrepresent" part seems fairly similar, but the "mislead" part seems much broader in scope to me. I've never been very happy with that CC clause anyway (although I've comforted myself with the thought that Adaptations probably wouldn't be "prejudicial to the Original Author's honor or reputation" if the changes are properly labelled), so I wouldn't happily accept a license that seems to impose even worse restrictions. --Avenue (talk) 07:32, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
I guess I don't see it that way. The language seems mostly in line with moral rights in European states; for example here is one of the UK copyright law sections, which prevent works from being used in a derogatory manner which is prejudicial to the author's reputation. These are rights that everyone has. Yes, the CC licenses elevated those from moral rights violations to full copyright violations if abused, but we accepted that long ago. Category:OGL has been here for a couple years, and was basically designed to be compatible with CC-BY. The OPL's wording is a tiny bit more troubling, but it seems they are basically just asserting those rights they already have under UK law. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:44, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
So are you saying that if we consider this requirement as unfree, then we should also consider {{PD-old-70}} as insufficient for British works due to similar conditions for British moral rights, is that correct? That would be silly; we have to accept "PD" as a licence. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
That is sort of my point -- moral rights are unavoidable, so I don't think restrictions based on them cause works to be unfree. We've had that discussion lots of times. The question is if the term in the OPL goes beyond moral rights and puts a real impediment on reuse. I read the entire clause as being for situations where a re-user is being intentionally misleading (i.e. a w:misrepresentation situation), but if others think it could prevent normal criticism of politicians, it could be different. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
(e/c) "That would be silly" is the point, I think. If we decline the OPL/OGL because of moral rights restrictions, wouldn't we have to reject PD works with the same restrictions? And if we do accept PD, as you say, even though it comes with the moral rights restrictions; why not accept other licenses with similar restrictions? (en:Modus tollens).--Philosopher Let us reason together. 23:05, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The text of the OGL states "These terms have been aligned to be interoperable with any Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which covers copyright" so I don't think there's any problem there. However this text is omitted from the OPL, which is why I brought it here for discussion. Cymru82 (talk) 17:10, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
There already are a number of files under the license uploaded to Commons by Slytherining Around32, which are tagged OGL but have a link to the OPL. —innotata 21:06, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
I left a note to the uploader about that. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Technical issue: The license does not expose the HTML required by StockPhoto. Please improve. It's also missing i18n. I am going to write Help:Authoring a license-template. Once there were Commons:License template validation and Commons talk:Licensing/Review of license templates but the obviously failed. -- Rillke(q?) 15:39, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

This section is about the Open Parliament License, which still needs a template. —innotata 17:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
  • ✘ with all due respect to the inestimable Carl Lindberg, I'm with Avenue here. The problem clause is

ensure that you do not mislead others or misrepresent the information or its source or present the information in a way that discredits the reputation or standing of either House of Parliament or their members or their officials [30]

Only the final part of that clause is the same as the usual "don't do things that can damage the author's reputation". The first two parts put a responsibility on the re-user to ensure that anyone reading the work understands it as Parliament intended, which is an unspecified burden that restricts modification in ways that are entirely unclear, since it depends not just on the re-user's intention but on the reader's understanding. Strictly speaking, if I use OPL material and 1000 people understand it appropriately and 2 are somehow "misled" then the licence is null and void. The purpose of all this seems to be to sharply limit the ability of re-users to modify the content, which is perfectly sensible but not exactly compatible with our definition of "free content". (Personally, I would broaden the definition, but that's another story.) Rd232 (talk) 19:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I also think that the restrictions of the OPL make it not free. I don't have a problem with the "do not misrepresent" part, which to me means "be honest" and is not an obligation of result that nobody will misunderstand despite the reuser's correct presentation. But I disagree with both you and Carl when you identify the "no discredit" stipulation of the OPL with moral rights of authors. The moral rights of an author are about the author and his work. So, if a stipulation in a license said that a work can't be used in a derogatory manner that is prejudicial to the author's reputation, I suppose one could say that that is similar to the moral rights or to the article of the CC licenses. But that's not at all what the OPL says. The OPL imposes a restriction to the effect that the work can't be used "in a way that discredits the reputation or standing of either House of Parliament or their members or their officials", that is to say, of a lot of people who are not the authors of the work. It's like if a photographer uploaded a photo of a horse, under the restriction that the photo can't be used in a way that discredits the reputation of the horse, or of the owner of the horse, or of the ranch where the horse lives, or of the ranch owner's associates or employees. That is not a free license. -- Asclepias (talk) 00:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
(i) "do not misrepresent" doesn't strictly mean "be honest" (i.e. "do not intentionally misrepresent") - it's perfectly possible to misrepresent accidentally and unknowingly. That's my problem with the clause. (ii) As for the "no discredit" element - that's just because the works are collective works of Parliament; Parliament is the collective author. Your ranch example clearly involves the photographer being an individual author, which is different. Rd232 (talk) 15:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
And to me, I think it does mean intentionally misrepresent, at least to my reading. I can't imagine a license which actually depends making sure 100% of people understand the result correctly -- it would have to follow the standards of w:misrepresentation in English law to me, since I think the term is a reference to that legal concept. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:52, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't see how that legal concept helps with the intentionality issue, since "negligent misrepresentation" is certainly possible. I can imagine a license drafted to try and ensure that any licensees leave content consumers no worse off in terms of understanding than if they'd got the content directly from the licensor. Whether that can possibly work legally is beyond me, but I can certainly imagine someone trying. Rd232 (talk) 00:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
It's just that "misrepresentation" has a specific meaning in legal circles (it's a particular crime, or at least contractual issue), which is separate from its regular English meaning. When referred to in that sense, it means (to me) actions which violate that law, which has its own long legal history, and no more. If there is a sense to that law which is not purely intentional (such as negligent), then OK, those aren't allowed either. Not surprising to me that lawyers insisted, to make very sure that the license did not change the situation in respect to those laws. To me, that clause basically says "this license does not allow you to commit misrepresentation", that's all. Just like the reputation section basically says "this license does not allow you to violate moral rights" (which in some countries can be waived somewhat), to make very clear those rights are not being licensed. The actions referred to are already illegal, and I fail to see how a license could be deemed unfree simply due to a reminder to not violate those other laws, which is what I think it amounts to. It's possible a clumsily-worded clause could cause unintended problems, but I don't think this is really one. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
But the "misrepresentation" is of facts relied on by a party to a contract. There may not be any contract between a licensee and someone consuming their content, but the clause would still seem to apply... Anyway a copyright licence held by one of the parties can't involve a licence for such misrepresentation, any more than it can involve a licence to kill. It makes about as much sense (to me) that if I sell someone a pig and they make some pork mince and accidentally or otherwise misrepresent it as beef mince when selling it, that's somehow my fault unless I specify in the sale contract that any derivative meat products can't be misrepresented in future transactions! ... Oh I don't know, IANAL. I think it's badly worded, and you're trying to rescue it with logic that doesn't really apply. Rd232 (talk) 01:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Speaking as someone who was involved in the creation and application of the OGL and tangentially with the OPL, Carl is correct; this is talking about using items covered by the licence to deliberately, intentionally mislead others. (Incidentally, I think this clause is unnecessary - it's already a criminal act of fraud or civil malfeasance of defamation, but the lawyers insisted.) OGL and OPL are deemed by the lawyers that wrote them and Creative Commons to be directly compatible with (and equivalent to) CC-BY-3.0, UK port. From our perspective in the Wikimedia movement, they're open. James F. (talk) 20:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
That may well have been the intention, and if CC agrees it's a compatible license I suppose that's good enough. But I don't think that's exactly what the clause says; the word ensure steers the ambiguity in the rest of the wording away from intentionality. You don't "ensure" you don't do something that involves deliberate intention, but rather something you might do unintentionally and perhaps unknowingly: eg "ensure you don't shoot him" has unintentionally very strongly implied, where a simple "don't shoot him" covers both intentional and unintentional shooting. Rd232 (talk) 00:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
That would be true of the OGL. The OGL was, I believe, well received and accepted. The OPL, however, is a different animal. As Cymru82 noted above, the OGL includes a paragraph, which states that the terms of the OGL "have been aligned to be interoperable with any Creative Commons Attribution Licence", while this paragraph has been omitted from the OPL. That difference is significant and could suggest that the people who adopted the current version of the OPL were aware that the additional restrictions included in the OPL made it non free and that a statement claiming that it is interoperable with the CC licenses would have been been misleading. The feeling I get from the OPL is that it looks like its writing started on the same canvass as the OGL, and then some politicians stepped in and added the "you're not alllowed to discredit the reputation of politicians or of the political institutions" clause, thus effectively contradicting the notion of a free license. -- Asclepias (talk) 04:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Can someone please help me, an editor called Denniss just deleted all of my images for no apparant reason! The editor has clearly not looked at my images at all and has just deleted all of them even though they were sourced, referenced and attributed to the correct OGL. I don't know what to do as I worked so hard and for along time to upload all of the images, so I think it is unfair for an editor to delete everything that I have just uploaded even though I have uploaded them the correct way, using the correct information. Please i'm begging can someone help me out! Slytherining Around32 (talk) 14:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Not only the sources and the license tag used by the uploader are not the correct ones, but even in the hypothesis that we accepted the OPL, and even if the uploader wanted to use the images that are actually on the Parliament's website, those images are not under the OPL anyway. See their notice. General photos on the website are under a custom permission with non-commercial and non-derivative clauses. Photos of individual members are even more strictly protected, as they require permission before use. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

User:DrTrigonBot and other categorization stuff

Hello all

Some day ago I asked User talk:Multichill#User:DrTrigonBot and other categorization stuff but got no response. I think Multichill is just busy with other stuff, but meanwhile could someone else explain the usage of {{Check categories}} to me? Thanks and greetings ;) --DrTrigon (talk) 10:06, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The template has day, month and year parameters for the date when the automatic category suggestions were made. There are lang1, wiki1, article1, lang2, wiki2, article2, ... parameters to specify in which wikis and articles were used to make the category suggestions, and to categorise images by which wikis they are used. I think gallery1, gallery2, ... parameters are suggestions for galleries where the files may be used (I never used this when checking categories, so I am not entirely sure). Parameter ncat is the number of suggested categories. /Ö 11:49, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your explanations, do you know anything about on how using category parameter? --DrTrigon (talk) 09:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
(Nothing?) --DrTrigon (talk) 19:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

July 16

Image overlaps subcategories

Insertion of a specific image in a category as support of his title, a time not creating problems: subcategories appeared alongside the image. Instead for some time now the image overlaps subcategories like here or here or here. It is possible to correct this error? Thanks to all. --DenghiùComm (talk) 07:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

In which browser are you seeing this ? For me, the images pushes the table below the image itself (Safari 5). TheDJ (talk) 08:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I have Mozilla Firefox. --DenghiùComm (talk) 10:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


IT'S TRUE ! If I use Internet Explorer, then it's all right ! --DenghiùComm (talk) 10:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Any idea....

File:Antoine_Riboud_et_Isaac_Carasso.jpg Why this picture looks this way ? I am helping the person who uploaded it and I can not figure out why it looks this way ? Anyone knows how to fix that ? Thanks Anthere (talk) 00:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Image contains an embedded color profile that results in an distorted looking thumbnail image, the fullres image is fine. Remove embedded color profile and thumb would be fine too. --Denniss (talk) 00:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Voir aussi:
-- Asclepias (talk) 01:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I looked at in gimp. Didn't see any problems then uploaded a copy. That fixed the big one but the thumb still has a bug.

Purge fixed thumb.

no idea how you did that. But it works. Great :) Anthere (talk)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Canoe1967 (talk) 02:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Corrupt files?

Hello, File:Dénicheuse LOGO.jpg and File:Dénicheuse.jpg cant be displayd on my XP with IE8. Could any one check this please. Thanks. --GeorgHH • talk   14:51, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Fine here at full resolution - black text and coloured ribbons. However in thumbnails (including 800x518 preview) the text is white on white! Firefox 13.0,1 under Vista. Finavon (talk) 14:59, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
I happen to know the answer to this because I ran into the same issue at work earlier this week. Apparently, IE8 cannot display CMYK JPEGs, which these are, and displays the infamous red X instead. I'd recommend not using a legacy browser unless someone is forcing you to. The thumbnailer's rendering of the text is probably also a consequence of the colorspace. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:17, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Another example of Category:Images with render problem? And those thumbnails don't dipslay correctly with Safari either. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
I have removed the CMYK color coding from File:Dénicheuse.jpg and everything looks fine in IE. --Túrelio (talk) 17:59, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
This file is displayed on my computer now, thanks. --GeorgHH • talk   18:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
✓ Done: Corrected the thumbnails and full resolution for the other image as well. --McZusatz (talk) 08:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Argentina sculpture(?)

Hola,soy nueva en esta tecnología,y quiero aportar en el área artes plásticas de Argentina ya que soy artista plástica,y mi esposo fallecido en el año 1985 fué un importante exponente de la plástica,se llama Juan Alejandro Lanoël y tiene una gran trayectoria en Argentina,si aceptan ,les puedo enviar su síntesis biografica,ya que no he encontrado información al respecto. Espero una contestación y les saludo atentamente.

Irma Torres Loza

artista plástica -- 00:19, 21 July 2012‎ user:Irma torres loza

  • Commons es depositario de imágenes, etc., no de artículos (para cuales vease Wikipedia). Pero todo en Wikipedia necesita ser basado en fuentes citables, no en escritos no publicados. - Jmabel ! talk 05:15, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Laos

Hi, any chance somebody could bot upload these very beautiful free images of Laos from flickr? We don't have an abundance of Laotian photos.Blofeld Dr. (talk) 09:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

URAA

Which is at this moment the policy towards images that are free in the country of origin but not in the US, because copyrights were restored by the URAA? Commons:Licensing#Uruguay Round Agreements Act says that files are not deleted en masse but reviewed individually. Let's say I review a file and confirm it: it' public domain at the country of origin right now, according to a certain licence, but it was not PD yet at the URAA date, and then not PD in the US. What then? Speedy deletion? Deletion request, explaining things? Leave things as they are for the moment?

If the idea is to start deletion requests, let's say there's a specific group of images that may share the result. For example, all photos taken in X country at Y year, which became public domain at (Y + whatever) years, and that happened in a year somewhere between now and January 1 1996 (the URAA date). Or, more specific, photos of a certain event, of a known date. Is it acceptable to open a mass deletion request on such specific subgroups, or does that go against the policy? I understand that "files are not deleted en masse" means that Category:Works copyrighted in the U.S. is not deleted in a single stroke, which should not mean either to go one by one with identical deletion requests, but I may be wrong. Cambalachero (talk) 03:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

They should be getting deleted, but the process is having a hard time getting started. Some have been deleted. They should be broken up into countries, but I think one hangup is to confirm what the terms were in the country of origin on the URAA date, not necessarily what they are now. Because most term extensions are not retroactive, this can require going back to many previous laws. But if you are sure, then yes, we should be deleting them. It would be helpful to do them in groups -- probably works by the same author, as most terms are based on the author's death. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Review project was begun at Commons:WikiProject Public Domain/URAA review but hasn't got under way yet. The quite similar Commons:WikiProject Public Domain/German stamps review has got a bit further and some momentum. It would be helpful if we could get the URAA review to the same point, at least. Rd232 (talk) 07:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I think that these should not be deleted until there is a copy somewhere else, either in a local project, or on another storage place outside WMF sites. Wikilivres, hosted by Wikimedia Canada, can host these files. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:47, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
There's been seven months when such a backup could be made. I think we need to can the excuses for not following the copyright law that binds us and do what we need to do. If someone wants to copy these files, then go ahead, otherwise that shouldn't be an excuse for not deleting them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
It's an epic fail that we let people upload affected material for years, while the URAA was hanging above our heads the whole time. It's amazing that the Foundation hasn't sound an alarm over the Wikis about the (tens of) thousands of files that will be deleted here -and an alarm at dozens of other affected wikis - say european wikisources for starters? At least to stop people from uploading URAA material until we see what we will do? I am sorry if this post is irrelevant or angry, but now 70 pma PD works will unbelievably have to wait 10-15 more years -at best- to get on any WM project due to their "ressurection" by a US court, and the Foundation and Commons seems to be taking this lying down. If there's a centralized discussion on alternatives or tactics, plese point me to it - Badseed talk 03:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
That would not help. We known for example that images from countries without freedom of panorama can not be accepted; still, people upload it every day, we have dozens of thousands of such images, and the uploaders get angry and react agressively when these images get nominated for deletion.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
This isn't about the occasional FOP picture, dear Ymblanter, or the occasional angry user. These things are more or less expected. We're talking about experienced, copyright-trained users who, as of yesterday, were still trying their best uploading volumes of freshly-70pma works on wikisources, thinking that everything's OK? What will be the reaction of those people when they'll suddenly learn that the URAA was only in the Wikimedia's fine print as a joke until January and suddenly it dawned on us that it is in fact a very real law of the USA, since 1994, and now we have to make a 180o turn and waste their time and effort? Does the Foundation care to organize a response by the community against this attack on PD and free advance of civilization -cause that's what really is, ask the Americans who have building upon and using foreign PD works for 15 years, works that are now again copyrighted- and an attack on its body of work? Anyway these questions are mostly rhetorical I know. It is just way beyond me that there seems to be a "carry on, nothing to see here" atmosphere and today's global notice was "tell us how to spend 10 million dollars". Sorry again for venting steam here. And, I agree 100% with Yann at his above comment - Badseed talk 23:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
We always had deleted stuff based on the URAA, but in 2007 or so, when the legal challenge to it got a favorable ruling (though not in an area which was going to help Wikimedia), there was a community discussion that we hold off deleting such works and instead just tag them with {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}, which should have made clear they are only here pending the results of the court case. That case was resolved earlier this year, and so, we are simply back to the pre-2007 procedures. Everyone was aware of the issues before, and even if some of us disagreed with keeping them (and many did), the end result was to compromise with the indicated tag. The Commons:Licensing page used to show a fuller discussion of the issues (section "Uruguay Round Agreements Act"), along with the clear warning that the files may well be deleted in the future. The original discussion is here. This should not be a surprise, unless someone wasn't looking. The policy has always been to require images to be PD in both the US and the country of origin (unless there is a community-approved exception like PD-Art, or this particular URAA case since there was a slight chance the definition of "PD in the US" would change pending the outcome of the case). Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
There wil always be a strong opposition and non-cooperation from outside the US. Many images have absoluutly no connection with the US and where never published there. It is the imposition US law on the rest of the world. Where in the world, except in the US is the underlying "Marrakech Agreement", as regards to reactivily recopyrigthing pictures applied in local laws? There must be a better legal solution than deleting the images. A separate server outside the US with a website outside the US jurisdiction wich can be linked into. I hope that the lawmakers reverse their stupid law, but the migthy tradelobby is not easily satisfied and keeps trying to impose all kinds of copyrigth restrictions. I am afraid I will wait a long time.Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
The "stupid law" was basically forced on the U.S. by the international community, as otherwise they would have been taken to the WTO courts (quite reasonably) for violating the Berne Convention. It's just normal copyright law, really. The U.S. grants copyright protection to foreign authors, and even if the copyright has expired in their home country, they have every right to sue for infringement in the United States for such works (and there have been such cases I believe). Just like, for example, a U.S. author can sue in certain other countries even if the U.S. copyright has expired (there was such a case in Germany, as even though they normally use the rule of the shorter term, there is a Germany-U.S. treaty which mandates that Germany give the full 70 pma protection for U.S. works regardless, which in many cases will expire well after the U.S. copyright does). Moving servers would just change the problem -- things which have always been OK would no longer be OK, and we'd have to delete many thousands of different images (PD-Art would go away, and some would argue for PD-USGov too, among others). There is no easy solution. As a U.S. institution, the Wikimedia Foundation is always going to be subject to U.S. law anyways if they control the servers -- not sure trying to dodge copyright law is a solution, unless you want to block U.S. access to all such images. I suppose we could host under fair use (may be a dubious claim in many cases) and rely on the DMCA for protection, but that's not necessarily a given if hosting such images is policy, and Commons has been forbidden by the Foundation from hosting fair use images anyways, so that resolution would have to change as well. It's a difficult balance, to be sure. Moving all such images to Wikilivres would certainly be a good idea, but there is nothing stopping that now. Most images marked with {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} would be good candidates to start with. But we can't hold off deletion forever waiting for that to happen. We should have some way of having a temporary holding area for such deletions so that images can be copied elsewhere (such as potentially local projects). I'm just not sure what form that should take. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm confused. I try to find international treaty obligation that demands that national PD's need be overruled by US laws. I quote:

'Although the Berne Convention states that the copyright law of the country where copyright is claimed shall be applied, article 7.8 states that "unless the legislation of that country otherwise provides, the term shall not exceed the term fixed in the country of origin of the work", i.e. an author is normally not entitled a longer copyright abroad than at home, even if the laws abroad give a longer term. This is commonly known as "the rule of the shorter term". Not all countries have accepted this rule.' Why must the US make exception to this rule?Smiley.toerist (talk) 18:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Prior to 1989, foreign works that didn't jump through US hoops didn't get copyright protection in the US. Treaties required us to return those not PD in their home nation to copyright. We did so.
The Rule of the Shorter Term is a bad rule. You complain about the mighty copyright lobby, but it's one of the tools of the mighty copyright lobby. Whenever a US film went out of copyright in Europe even if it might have had a longer term had it been European, copyright maximalists pointed to it and said, look, if we had longer copyright terms we could have extracted more money from overseas. Not only that, but an American in the US, or a French person in France, or a Chinese person in China, should not have to worry about law written in some foreign land in some foreign nation. Nor do I trust a US court to correctly interpret Chinese law.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, we are getting somewhere: As I understand it the law applies the US PD rules as if the foreign works went trough the correct US procedures. Thats why the PD limit went from 70 to 95 years in many cases, while in the original land the local rules apply. It is stil messy: the US court stil has to apply US laws to local conditions and (culture? registrations, traditions, evidence rules etc).

What we have to keep in mind though, is wat kind of foreign works we are talking about: Some old postcard of a local village, taken by an unknown fotografer as an employee of some postcardprint firm. This firm has most likely been taken over or wound upp. The records and original negatives are probably destroyed. The family of the fotografer have no memory of precise works he has done. While PD in the home country, there could in theory be a problem if it is published in the US. I though judges dont deal in trivia. (There is a nice legal term for trivia) This is a very long way from old foreign movies or known artwork wich migth have some marginal commercial value left. I agree we have to apply URAA, but we migth define some strictly narrow categorys where we can safely ignore the URAA rule.Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:13, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Videos and educational scope

COM:SCOPE says files "Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose", where The expression “educational” is to be understood according to its broad meaning of “providing knowledge; instructional or informative”. In this context I find Category:Videos of Roads in San Jose, California quite hard to process. Uploader User:Fastily points out these hundreds of files are split from a much larger video; and suggests "a re-user could conceivably incorporate one of these clips into a movie/film about driving, automobiles, ect." Similarly, Category:Videos of Thurgood Marshall College has hundreds of similarly split files which forms a collection of non-obvious educational purpose (a couple of short videos, sure, fine, but the volume here is rather large).

Well, it's bothered me for a while that "educational purpose" isn't very well defined in practice (by word or example); for videos, which I virtually never deal with, I have very little handle on what is meant, and there's not much guidance I've found. Perhaps we should have a gallery of COM:SCOPE examples, like we have a gallery of threshold of originality examples... So, what do people think? Rd232 (talk) 23:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Whoa, that's almost 3 hours of video, 15 seconds in each segment, with no precise description (name of the road, points of interests, ...) and no geolocation. Seems completely out of scope to me. I cannot imagine anyone being patient enough downloading all of these and sitting through 3 hours of driving around in hope of maybe finding one or two interesting segments. Prof. Professorson (talk) 00:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm with Fastily -- there could be definite uses for them. Several photos giving the sense of what an area is like would be, and videos add another dimension. Identifying the roads would be nice of course, but that is easily possible by someone who is not the uploader (at least we know the city, and I'm sure natives could figure them out). It might be nicer to have them in one video, but it would be so big, given current upload limits and manageable download size, this seems the best someone could do to upload it all. Perhaps someone could significantly shrink the quality and make a whole-video version, which would be easier to look through, with the higher-quality segments available if someone wants (sort of like having a TIFF original and a smaller jpg for typical use). I don't think educational scope is a very difficult threshold to meet. Personal photos containing non-notable people, or of private events not of interest to many outside the attendees, that sort of thing, etc. Works which show larger aspects of the world we live in -- I think those are fine. While due to simple storage, bandwidth, and other technological limits we may not be able to host lots of material like this, it'd be nice someday if we could. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:19, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
given current upload limits - with Commons:Chunked uploads it's 500mb instead of 100mb. Rd232 (talk) 00:57, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Theoretically, that's the new limit, but if you have actually tried chunked uploads with larger files, you might find that it inexplicably fails every four out of five uploads (Try it for yourself with [31]). As I recall, there is an open bugzilla report on this matter, but no immediate fix for it. Unless the success/fail ratio improves significantly, using Upload Wizard's implementation of chunked uploads for big files simply isn't feasible. -FASTILY (TALK) 05:14, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
OK. Rd232 (talk) 07:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Personally, I think with videos there has to be more emphasis on the realistically in realistically useful, or we risk accumulating a collection of millions of videos that (i) nobody can actually use because they lack adequate description and our categories and search can't cope (the more so with videos, which are much harder to browse) (ii) only meet the “providing knowledge; instructional or informative” definition on an interpretation so wide as to include just about anything you can point a camera at (are birthday videos not documents of potential interest to sociology students, students of fashion, language, etc...? are videos of my pet cat not educational? etc). Rd232 (talk) 01:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
This is a collaborative project; someone else can add better descriptions -- it doesn't have to be the uploader (though it helps). If there is no description and only the uploader really could give a meaningful description, then it may be different. I remember an old DR of a random factory somewhere in New Jersey taken from a car or train; it was kept and a couple years later someone actually did identify it and add a description. If we allow photos of someone's pet cat, I don't see why we wouldn't allow videos -- they can show behavior etc. of a breed more than photos can. We have millions of photos here; some day perhaps technological limits will make it easier to deal with videos on a similar level -- it only seems unusual because uploading videos is a chore right now so there aren't many. Chunked uploads are relatively new; not everyone is going to be able to figure that out right away, nor be able to download a 500MB file (which would still only be a fraction of the whole thing). Yes, it would be nice to have a single video (even if lower quality), but these things can always be put in their own subcategory so they don't crowd out others. The video quality seems to be quite a bit higher than we or others can usefully deal with right now, but that may not always be the case. The scope of Wikipedia, Wikibooks, Wikiversity, Wikinews, etc. is very wide. If there were disk space problems and the admins told us to try to watch media size maybe that'd be different, but so far they have not. If there were concerns, several GB of video on that subject does seem like a bit overkill, but I'm always reluctant to delete stuff based on limited imagination (including mine) of how it would be useful. It can be surprising which works turn out to be useful later on, after events change the situation. Most images which are primarily of other random people (or even of random people with interesting stuff as a backdrop) do seem to degrade the utility, and does seem to be the dividing line (not to mention that means we have very public photos of people who are used to being more private, which will occasionally cause problems). Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:31, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, I don't really agree. Space doesn't seem to be an issue (though if everyone starts doing gigabyte uploads on a weekly basis, that might change), my concern is with being able to present videos to users in a useful way, so they can actually serve a purpose. Given the pace of tech change on Wikimedia, I have zero confidence that tools for managing videos will change substantially in less than about 10 years, such that browsing and searching video gets a lot cleverer, tech-wise. Having relatively few videos right now is an advantage: if we think a bit now about what we want to end up with, we can set parameters before the horse has left the stable. We already have the problem that good, useful images can be hard to find amidst a sea of mediocre and pretty useless images; how much worse for non-browsable video! Rd232 (talk) 07:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm aware of another potential use of those films, apart from the reasons mentioned above. If someone wants to write a Wikipedia article about any of the streets or buildings in any of the films, you could take a screenshot from the film and use the screenshot to illustrate the article. Of course, this would require identifying the locations in the first place, but it should be easy to do for residents of that city. --Stefan4 (talk) 11:14, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

That's a stretch: anyone able to identify locations is likely to have physical access to them and can take a proper picture from a good angle, and not make do with a screenshot from a video taken out of a car. It just doesn't seem terribly realistic that anyone would even attempt that (and remember, COM:SCOPE is about realistically useful for an educational purpose, not conceivably useful for an educational purpose). Incidentally, as we're partly talking about the specific videos as well as general principles, does anyone have any comments on how the College videos fit into this? Rd232 (talk) 11:57, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
The only reason it might not be realistic -- to me -- is that they take so long to download. If I could hit "play" and watch them quickly, it would be very different. Who knows when that might happen, but the limitation is technological, not potential educational use. That said, you can always submit them to a regular DR -- if lots of other people agree with you (community consensus), then they could be deleted. As for the college... that may be a bit different. I could definitely see wanting to see shots of the college campus, even video, if I was applying to go there, that kind of thing. But it appears from a quick glance as though the camera was completely stationary through long stretches, and so is just showing the odd person walking around, or maybe clouds as they pass by. Lots of those may well be redundant. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:49, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Active work is underway at the WMF to finalize mw:TimedMediaHandler, which will provide a better player and realtime transcoding (ie providing the video in the actual bandwidth asked and not the full super-high res). It should get better once we have that. Jean-Fred (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

July 17

Can someone add a bit more context to this public domain rationale?

File:C64 startup animiert.gif is licensed as {{Pd-ineligible}} and I'm a bit curious as to why. Is it ineligible because it consists of text? Wouldn't {{Pd-text}} be more appropriate in that manner? At the same time, this appears to be an operating system. Is it impossible to copyright a text based operating system?Ryan Vesey (talk) 21:37, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

PD-text might be more appropriate. It's just not enough text to be copyrightable.
Define what you mean by a text-based operating system. It is certainly possible to copyright the code for a text-based operating system. It's possible to copyright any long text, like help pages. w:Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Borland Int'l, Inc. for the most part says that interfaces can be copied.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Are three total tags going overboard? I just added two more. Feel free to edit.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:52, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Wouldn't solely {{Pd-font}} be necessary here? (I didn't even know that existed) pd-ineligible is certainly unnecessary. I don't really know what I meant by text-based OS. It just seemed odd to me that because the startup menu contained text only that it was uncopyrightable. Is the command prompt menu on Microsoft Windows uncopyrightable? Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I think I see why now. The underlying code would be copyrightable, but the resulting text is not. Is there a chance that this is copyrightable in other countries then? The two specific tags are primarily applicable to the US. I don't know of any other reason for this to be ineligible. Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I would think that the country of origin is Texas or Bill Gates. If they are PD in country of origin aren't they PD everywhere?--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't think so. Consider {{PD-US-no notice}}. The image is published in the US, public domain in the US, but not PD everywhere. Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Not every country has the rule of the shorter term. The US in particular doesn't care when they go PD in their country of origin (except for URAA works), and they've signed a number of bilateral treaties that insisted the signing party (like Germany and Canada) not apply the rule of the shorter term to US works. I don't however see what's special about {{PD-US-no notice}}; if they apply the rule of the shorter term, it should in theory include works out of copyright in the US because of PD-US-no notice.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
It would be acceptable in Germany, at least. Screenshots are right the same case as logos. -- Liliana-60 (talk) 05:11, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Geograph Information boards deletion- Saving the meta data

I have been chatting on Talk) about the issue of retaining the useful information and geotags on Geograph.co.uk uploads- when the imag itself is a clear copyvio. There is no dispute about deleting the copyvio- but often the description or the contents of the image contains 'published' material that may be useful as a reference for a WP:ENG article. In some cases the information boards are so well written that they could become the principal source of an article. I am copying across the post to see if others have ideas to add, or some one with the skills needed would like to do a python script, that could allow us to retain the geotag and the link to the geigraph page where the copyvio info could be read. --ClemRutter (talk) 17:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Geograph Information boards deletion.

The sole value I can see for snapping an information panel is for the information it publishes. As a copyright breach they should go, and fast-- but as a potential reference in WP:English they or a link to them is valuable. Is there a technical way to zap the image- but to keep the geotag and a link to the Geograph page where they may be consulted ? Just a thought as we needn't throw out the baby with bathwater. --ClemRutter (talk) 15:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

No, there's no way to do that that I know of, except by inertia of however long it takes geocommons to catch up. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I haven't researched it- but after posting, and looking at your awesome ballooon images it occured to me, that a little Python app that admins could use that simply overwrote the image with customised balloon image, and added hidden cat- Geograph images with information content deleted for copyright reasons. That would kill the image copyright vio, but maintain the data which already provides the link. Just a thought.--ClemRutter (talk) 08:10, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Thing is, Commons is not here as a source of information, that's what WikiSource is for. Commons is here to distribute freely licensed media. Anything which is not freely licensed should not be hosted by us. We are not an encyclopaedia, we are not a repository of human knowledge, we're a store of pretty pictures. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree with all you are saying- I just hate to lose data that would make someone else life easier. I work by geotags and a blob on Google map is an entry point to a category and from there I glean clues for articles. A good interpretation board can be the difference between an WP:Eng article or not- while the image is important the metadata can be more so. It seems simpler to maintain the metadata on Commons- than to script it to transfer WikiSource-then have some one write a tool to create blobs from both Commons and WikiSource.--ClemRutter (talk) 13:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Ask at COM:VP or something. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I'm not familiar with how Geograph works, but why can't Wikipedia articles refer directly to the Geograph website? Why do we need to retain any metadata at the Commons? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 19:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The geograph.co.uk project was a massive 6 figure download, and we are slowly working through them to categorise then delete copyvios. Geograph aimed to collect an image (or frequently more) from each 1km square in the UK, and was largely succeeded. All have a geotag. Here is a random square from the 53,369 to do Category:Images from the Geograph British Isles project needing categories in grid NZ2750, there were other images there in that square that have been catted. During that work, interpretation boards have been found that contain valuable facts that may benefit a future editor. An editor will find the metadata and image while looking for relevant blobs on google Maps-(created by the metadata) but will not know to try to look for a possible iinterpretation board on the geograph site- by searchin on UK grid ref which we at Commons do not use. Any ideas on how to save the data for future use is welcome, and anyone with spare time could join in the catting effort, you do see some lovely images in the process--ClemRutter (talk) 21:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

non-English categories

Dear all, could you please help me to find out the rule about French language? Some editor states that category names in French must be kept, so we cannot rename French categories into English language, or we will be blocked (blocking as punishment). This looks strange: as soon as that very editor prefers to delete all non-English categories (with their descriptions and interwikis) instead of renaming them, he makes the exclusion for the French-named ones. I'd like to find out the way from this controversy. Maybe there are other special languages that must be protected? Thank you.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 13:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello,
I think languages other than English are fine for proper nouns, but not for common nouns. Yann (talk) 14:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
The official policy Commons:Language policy says "Category names should generally be in English. See Commons:Categories for the exact policy. See also the proposal of Naming categories." Commons:Categories has nothing to add, saying only "Category names should generally be in English (see Commons:Language policy). However there are exceptions." Commons:Naming categories has been "in development" for years. My feeling is that, with certain exceptions (e.g. taxonomy), commons nouns use English and proper nouns use the most common English name (but not an ad hoc attempted translation of a name), or otherwise the best (most common and/or official) non-English name. As examples, of good naming, consider Category:Lake Zurich (common English name) rather than Category:Zürichsee, Category:Reichstag (building) (disambiguation in English, but the German name is generally used in English-speaking areas), Category:Jeddah (common English name) rather than Category:جدة, Category:Red Square (common English name) rather than Category:Красная площадь, and Category:Zelný trh (Brno) (local non-English name where no common English name exists) rather than the attempted translation of Category:Cabbage Square (Brno). A good quick check might be how an article is named on the English Wikipedia (note, for example, that en:Die Entführung aus dem Serail is not translated, but Die Zauberflöte is given as en:The Magic Flute, a common English name), though English Wikipedia naming is not definitive here. cmadler (talk) 15:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Not to forget that a bare minimum naming rule is an (extended) Latin Roman characterset and script. --Foroa (talk) 16:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Where, in the name of godness, is that rule about Roman character set? Please help me to find that very root of answers. Thanks a lot.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 18:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
There's also the Category:Melusines in heraldry vs. Category:Mélusines in heraldry nonsense... AnonMoos (talk)`
Not anymore, with a sample for others on how to move images and redirect categories.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 23:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
The answer is not to indiscriminately merge the two categories, because they're two different things (two-tailed mermaids vs. one-tailed mermaids in tubs looking at mirrors). The answer is to give "Mélusines in heraldry" a legitimate non-bastardized name... AnonMoos (talk) 02:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Very good comment against Foroa! I will fix the situation immediately, for you are right, there must be 2 categories. Thanks a lot.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 11:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Adding VFD requests

How do I add something to COM:Deletion requests? 68.173.113.106 02:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

  • If you want to propose deleting a file on Commons, the usual method is to navigate to the File page, click the "Nominate for deletion" link in the toolbox (at left in most skins), and fill out the reason. A bot will do the various steps including adding to COM:DR. If you want to propose deleting something else, please explain further. - Jmabel ! talk 05:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I already created the request page. Unfortunately it does contain strong language. Can you add it to COM:DR? 68.173.113.106 00:34, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
ResolvedDR posted Rd232 (talk) 12:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Rd232 (talk) 12:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Chakynese

Commons appears to have a fictitious language, and a flag to go with it. Uncle G (talk) 15:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

now nominated for deletion by User:TenPoundHammer:

The files should probably be merged to a mass DR, and the user's uploads checked (eg File:Shaki CHY.jpg and File:Chakynese "Chakingu".png have been missed, amongst uploads of non-Chaky material). Rd232 (talk) 21:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolvedall speedy-deleted by User:Sven Manguard, and user's other uploads collected for review in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Cris.real293. Rd232 (talk) 11:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Rd232 (talk) 12:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

July 21

Copyright violation backlog

There is a massive backlog at Category:Copyright violations. Over 240 files currently. I was hoping to get a bump on File:Voa-photo-Daniel-Oates.jpg because editors will insist on inserting it into the article if it isn't deleted. Ryan Vesey Review me! 08:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Imho a good sign the project needs more admins. -- Liliana-60 (talk) 05:53, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I volunteer for adminship. How much does it pay? Never mind.--Canoe1967 (talk) 08:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Heh. I tried, but I got shot down handily. I don't have any reason to believe it wouldn't come out the same way for the same reasons if I refiled. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Photograph of Lenin & Copyright issues

Moved to Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Photograph_of_Lenin_.26_Copyright_issues. Rd232 (talk) 09:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

A truncated thumbnail

The 1,024 × 685 pixel thumbnail of this image seems truncated for me. Palosirkka (talk) 18:26, 22 July 2012 (UTC) https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3AVillage_pump#Incomplete_image_previews --McZusatz (talk) 18:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Purged. MKFI (talk) 19:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks guys. Wonder what causes those and if they could be automatically search&destroyed? Palosirkka (talk) 22:35, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

July 23

IWM-images

Is there any intention to replace the old small Imperial War Museum -images with new larger ones? --M62 (talk) 02:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Could you give examples in the format Category:Museums or File:Cat guarding the beer fridge.jpg?--Canoe1967 (talk) 08:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Example: File:IWM-H-9214-armoured-lorry-194104.jpg. --M62 (talk) 16:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Looks like a worthwhile effort. I find 174 images with that url listed. If that's the lot I'd say just go ahead and do it rather than try to organize something more complicated. Probably want to make a category too, as a subcategory of Category:Imperial War Museum. Dankarl (talk) 17:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Problem: I uploaded two more: File:IWM-H-10928-Ballykinlar-19410619.jpg & File:IWM-H-8241-Morris-C8-19410320.jpg, but images appear squashed on the pages which use them. Example: [32]. Should I also upload these individually in every page which use them? --M62 (talk) 12:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I purged the page, which made the image dimensions be fixed. In ideal world this would happen automatically (At the moment it only happens automatically for local images). This is bugzilla:22390. Bawolff (talk) 14:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
If the aspect-ratio of the image was changed the image will appear squashed on the pages which use them. The solution is usually a null-edit (click "Edit" and then click "Save" without changing anything) to force a HTML-rebuild from the WIKI-code. /Esquilo (talk) 15:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Suspicious upload by user Marion1000

Hi.

Uploads from Marion1000 (talk · contribs) are suspicious with regards to licensing. The only common thing with her uploads if the fact that she is always the author. The pictures range from 1983 to 2010, lots of them have small resolutions as if they have been copied from elsewhere (like File:Maison de la Charente-Maritime.jpg copied from Flickr), some show angles which are usually only available to official photographers (such as File:Ecole de l'air et école militaire de l'air le 14 juillet à Paris.jpg or File:Colonel Consolini devant les élèves d'EETAA.jpg).

I already opened one DR (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Patrouille de France le 24 juin 2010 à la BA721.jpg) but it seems to me that the clean-up should be done a little bit more automatically. How does Commons usually deal with this kind of situation? Cheers. Badzil (talk) 14:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Is there something wrong with the search engine?

Hi. I need help figuring out why I get 5 results with this search string, but it does not return this or this picture. Thanks, --Elitre (talk) 14:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe because those two have brackets in the title? Just quessing. --M62 (talk) 16:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
It is already the whole day that I don't trust it. I did not manage to find a single "Costa Sobrepera" image, while it is in File:Costa Sobrepera.JPG. I already reported instability problems in Commons:Requests for comment/improving search but nobody seems to worry about its actual state. --Foroa (talk) 17:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
For whatever it's worth, http://www.google.com/search?q=chimurenga+site%3Acommons.wikimedia.org may be a more effective and comprehensive search. And, yes, I know it's not ours. - Jmabel ! talk 01:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
The parentheses shouldn't matter, and even if they did, the search string appears on its own in the file description. I'm guessing the file just wasn't indexed properly when it was uploaded, perhaps because of the database or server failures that we seem to have on a regular basis. I'm also guessing that the search index is never updated unless the file is edited, which these haven't been. Making a dummy edit to the file description pages will probably resolve this particular instance of the problem, but since we can't trust files to be indexed on upload, we should probably have a scheduled low-priority process to rebuild the index periodically. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks LX. Two questions: would you please report this also here or allow me to do so? What should we do to put your solution into action? --Elitre (talk) 21:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I suggest falling back to Google site search when the Wikimedia search engine is down. On the Commons an error message should show up with this Google site search link:

I suggest leaving that link in the sidebar all the time. Titled "Google site search" or "Google search". At least a preference, if not by default.

Many people, myself included, mainly use the Firefox browser. Google does not allow the Google Toolbar on it. It did in the past, and I greatly miss its ease of use for doing site searches. None of the site-search addons for Firefox are as easy as the Google Toolbar.

So a link to Google site search in the sidebar would fill multiple needs on the Commons. It would be used a lot. I also posted this comment at Bugzilla bug 35691.

July 24

Uploading pictures from Panoramio

Hallo, may I upload pictures from Panoramio, as I do from flickr with flickr upload bot? Does a "Panoramio upload bot" exist?--Friedrichstrasse (talk) 21:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think Panoramio has a licensing system like flickr so bots can't verify the license.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
No idea what you're on about. Panoramio does have a licensing system, and there's absolutely no reason why it shouldn't be possible to verify licenses from there automatically. As far as I know, we currently don't have any upload bots with that functionality, but Flinfo at least turns the manual process into a semi-automatic one. —LX (talk, contribs) 01:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I have started a help page at Commons:Panoramio files. Please add any relevant information there. Jean-Fred (talk) 14:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I remember hacking up panoramiopicker.py some time ago, you can find the manual here. You might want to try that. Multichill (talk) 15:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

July 25

Downloading large numbers of pictures?

Hi, I'm working on a project that will require me to download large amounts of pictures from Commons. I've been trying to find some advice about the best way to do this without breaking any Wikipedia rules or guidelines. Can anyone here advise me on the recommended way to do this? In particular, I need to know if there are any bandwidth restrictions? Many thanks.Nozzleberry (talk) 23:28, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there are any bandwidth restrictions. Each image will have its own license though. You may wish to download them to folders by license type. No restrictions, attribution required to original creator, share-alike similar license required, and also personality rights type thing.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
It seems there are restrictions. I struck my above statement.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:39, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
I imagine it would probably be a good idea to follow the guidelines for api usage mw:API:Etiquette( Basically wait for one image to fully download before starting to download the next one, and include a descriptive user-agent with your email in any requests you make). If you're concerned, the folks who hang out in the #wikimedia-tech irc channel on freenode would be able to give you a more definite answer. Bawolff (talk) 13:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Apologies for not responding earlier, I've been away and unable to edit Wikipedia from my phone! Thanks a lot for you answer - I'll read through the guidelines and also ask about this on the irc channel to be on the safe side. Once again, much appreciated! :)Nozzleberry (talk) 02:03, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

You are very welcome.

A few notes: there are ways to download reduced-resolution images if those are all you require, reducing bandwidth usage. Additionally, if you require a very large number of images, you probably want to arrange an rsync transfer from the developers, or for them to send you hard drives by mail. Dcoetzee (talk) 08:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Canoe1967 (talk) 23:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

July 13

VIRINs

Because this is the second time that this cropped image has been queried, I've created {{VIRIN}} for marking VIRINs. One day, the USDOD will provide a robust mechanism for locating every published image by its VIRIN. But this works for some images and recordings with VIRINs, including the one queried, and will do in the meantime. Uncle G (talk) 08:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Why not integrate this functionality into {{ID-USMil}} rather than create a new template? The ID template is already very widely used (over 100,000 files) amongst US Military images. — Huntster (t @ c) 09:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, this is very redundant. {{VIRIN}} should be deprecated. Multichill (talk) 08:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I'll work on upgrading ID-USMil soon, and deprecating VIRIN. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

A Huge Seafood Smack to Commons!

SMACK!

Because this is how it's been for ages: [33]

Copy paste the contents of that black box to a notepad or email and see that the email address turns into "permissions-commonswikimedia.org" with no warning. How many did this affect????? I now know of several people this has affected. Just the tip of the iceberg! If you see a sudden increase in OTRS emails coming in, you'll know why! Booooo to those responsible!!!!!

See discussion at: Commons talk:OTRS#The @ symbol in the email address

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

And I suggest you track down any other language forms and fix those too! For example: [34]

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:06, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

One might think it common sense to proofread things before hitting send, no matter the source. Don't be so quick to condemn others who, it would seem, merely tried to address a spam mail issue. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
With respect, one might think it common sense to know the results of using nospam. In fact, those results were known beforehand, which is why nospam was used. It was also known that the form was meant to be copy pasted. This is a huge lapse in common sense. And please don't be too quick to condemn me for taking the form at face value -- a value that changed without notice. This trout is merely a valid outcry over the loss of countless images. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I came across the same issue in en:wp. I left a note here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/General_requests#Email_failures I don't know if is the correct forum though.--Canoe1967 (talk) 05:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

You minnowed my trout! The noive! :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

But minnows are so cute! — Huntster (t @ c) 07:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

See also my comment from yesterday at en:Template talk:No spam#Copy & paste bug. The e-mail address can be copied and pasted using some web browsers but not using some other web browsers. Unlike the English Wikipedia version Template:Di-no permission-notice, the Commons version Template:Image permission/layout seems to include a proper @ sign. --Stefan4 (talk) 09:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Just letting you know, at Commons:OTRS#Declaration of consent for all enquiries, when clicking:

English | français | Հայերեն | italiano | 日本語 | русский | svenska | +/−

...except for English, the problem remains: Copying "permissions-commons@wikimedia.org" still pastes as "permissions-commonswikimedia.org" Please fix this and take it seriously as a problem. What am I missing here? Why doesn't anyone seem to care about this? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The text is in each of the six other language-specific versions of the template. I suppose you could make the same edit to them as to the English version. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
As I noted below, I believe the use of any sort of antispam tactic to obscure the address is unnecessary and ineffective. The address is already widely published in discussions, and modern spam bots are sophisticated enough to circumvent such primitive tactics. We should simply include the address directly. Dcoetzee (talk) 08:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Calling all raws

This is just a reminder that Commons Archive, my unofficial repository for source materials of Wikimedia Commons files, needs more uploaders. If you have uploaded photographs to Wikimedia Commons and are willing to share your raw image format files, they can be invaluable for creating alternative versions of your works, as well as for helping people practice raw processing. You can link there from Commons with {{Commons Archive}}. Even just one upload would help increase variety. Let me know if you have any trouble contributing or any concerns. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean by "raw format files"? --Philosopher Let us reason together. 23:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
He means raw image format. These files have more information than a JPG, and are useful for fixing white balance and exposure, for example, after the fact. However, they can't be uploaded to Commons. InverseHypercube 01:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Ah, okay. Thanks. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 18:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Clarified this, thanks. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Why is this unofficial? Why is it your archive ? --Havang(nl) (talk) 22:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Because nobody officially did it?--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Because it's not affiliated with or endorsed by the Wikimedia Foundation... AnonMoos (talk) 00:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
It's unofficial because it's unaffiliated with WMF. It's mine because I operate it and pay for its resources. I would much rather Commons accepted this type of upload, but that won't happen any time soon. Dcoetzee (talk) 06:02, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
The name "Commons archive" seems rather misleading! --Havang(nl) (talk) 19:28, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Well it's intended solely for source materials of files present at Wikimedia Commons. It's very closely related. Dcoetzee (talk) 07:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

July 20

Deletion of my own work/contribution refused?

I have numerous illustrations on the Commons that I uploaded several years ago. I have started a website for my illustrations and do not want these images on the public domain. I requested deletion for many of them but had the request denied by administrator Denniss. The reason was something about free use. That might have been fine back in 2007, but now I need these illustrations removed from Wikipedia as they are now copyrighted on my personal website and they need to be removed from Wikipedia. Since they are my property, I think I should be able to add/delete my contributions as I see fit. Someone please explain why I am unable to delete my own work/contribution. My username is Tambja and you can see an example of my work under 'Carcharhinus' where I have several shark drawings.

Thank you, --Tambja

Your files (Special:ListFiles/Tambja) are not in the public domain; you released them under a Creative Commons license years ago. As Commons:License revocation explains, you can't change your mind about that, the release is permanent. Even if for some reason Commons did delete the files, anyone could still use them under that license; and Commons only rarely removes useful files that are appropriately licensed. About the only way to remove these files now is to show that they were copyright violations (i.e. that your illustrations were based on someone else's work, which was copyrighted). Rd232 (talk) 07:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
As you can see here, the files are used on more than 800 known places, maybe hundreds of others. Releasing pictures under Creative Commons license is like throwing seeds in the wind: one never know where they arrive or get children. Once they are gone, they cannot be retracted. --Foroa (talk) 07:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm wondering if 'wires' are close to getting crossed. The advice that Tambja might need, is that s/he can have a full copyright notice on s/he's website, so long that the images s/he included on this website, that have previously been licensed under a Creative Commons Licences are individually identified as being so licensed. If his website becomes popular, it will save his lawyer from trying to involving him in worthless litigation costs due to copyright confusion. He can still upload to Wiki media Commons whilst keeping the text of his website copyrighted to himself. Also, I don't think it could be considered 'blatant advertising' for him to place a link to his website on any more images uploaded to WC. This is a Win-Win situation, as WC's high ranking on Google will mean more traffic will go to his website. Whereas, in these early days, his website will have no ranking on google at all. This is why so many modern artists are realising their work under Creative Commons licences in order to gain a higher and wider reignition. The author Cory Doctorow has stated many times that his success is due to releasing his Sci-Fi novels under CC's [35]--P.g.champion (talk) 17:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation. I have indeed seen many of the images used on other Wiki's, but I've also come across some of them on other websites outside Wiki without linking to a source. As the artists who created these illustrations, I don't want people using my illustrations on their own websites without citing me as the artist. Is there a way I can replace the files on Wiki with my watermarked images? Thus the articles using them do not have to be changed and the file is updated? I understand the explanations given by you guys, but when I uploaded them in 2007 I didn't understand the copyright rules and the Creative Commons laws. I thought I could edit and remove images at will. Most of the uploads were for "Wikispecies" anyway, which is a taxonomic Wiki. Since these illustrations are my own, I do not have any copyright claims or issues, so I guess I'm out of luck? I think if I can replace the images with my watermark, people can still use them under Creative Commons, but the artist will be cited on the image itself. --Tambja
Commons strongly dissuades the use of watermarks, and editors here routinely remove any watermarks they find, which, for example, is allowed by the Creative Commons licenses used on your images. Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on the viewpoint, once a license is applied by an author, any uses spawned by that license cannot be revoked, even in a situation where the uploader does not understand the implications of that license. It is understood that the uploader has the responsibility to understand what a license allows before applying it.
All that said, if you find another website that is using one of your images without following the rules of the license, your best bet is to contact the site owner and request that they either remove the image or properly attribute the image to you, along with a link to the CC license you released the image under. You would have to speak to someone more versed in the law to handle situations where the website owner refuses the above options, since we aren't set up to give legal advice. — Huntster (t @ c) 00:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Although we wouldn't normally allow you to embed a visible watermark in the image, because it damages image quality, I think it would be fine to use a combination of EXIF data identifying you as the author (see Commons:EXIF) and an invisible watermark, such as those provided by Digimarc. These invisible watermarks allow you to prove that an image is yours and they provide a service to automatically track who is using your image on the web, so that you can contact them and demand compliance with your license (however it has an annual cost of $100 USD). You can also find many uses of your image for free using Google's Search by Image. For those who refuse to comply, you can follow up with a DMCA takedown notice. If they still refuse to comply, you have the option to sue them, or you can simply create a "hall of shame" of noncompliant users by listing them on your website and/or on the file description talk page using {{Published}}. Dcoetzee (talk) 07:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
See also Commons:REUSE#Enforcing_license_terms. Rd232 (talk) 09:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Pending deletion requests - come and participate

Orrlingtalk 15:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Dear Orrling, if you nominate something for deletion you have to include it in one of the subpages of Commons:Deletion requests so people know that you nominated something. You didn't do that for these two so nobody noticed them. Multichill (talk) 17:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Ouch, didn't know about that procedure.Orrlingtalk 18:35, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
If you use the "Nominate for deletion" link on the left side of the screen, everything is done automatically. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 20:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Ha! Will try this next. Thanx. Orrlingtalk 21:37, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Simón Bolívar

Hugo Chávez, president of Venezuela, has presented the "true" face of the libertador Simón Bolívar, hero of the XIX century Spanish American wars of independence. It is a 3D image generated by computer, based on scans of his skull. You can read the whole thing and see the image here: Chavez unveils 3D image of Simon Bolivar based on his exhumed body.

As far as I understand, this image is just the result of computer calculations over certain data, with no artistic intervention of any human being. Can it receive copyright protection then, or is it safe to upload? And if it gets such protection, who would be the author? Cambalachero (talk) 15:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

With an image that detailed, I would be rather surprised if there was no artistic intervention - how did they get the hair to lay or the wrinkles to fall or the uniform to fit? That's in addition to the question of the reconstruction software itself - about which I have no idea. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 18:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I'd agree that such a detailed reproduction goes well beyond just the data gleaned by the skeletal scan. A tremendous amount of interpretation goes into, as Philosopher says, hair patterns, clothing options, wrinkles, lighting, skin tones, and many other things. As for the computer scans of the bones, it is up to the forensic reconstructionist to interpret the results, which in my understanding only shows limited information, such as connection points for muscle and connective tissue. — Huntster (t @ c) 00:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

July 26

FOP in Laos

Transferred to "Commons:Village pump/Copyright#FoP in Laos". — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 15:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Help decide about more than $10 million of Wikimedia donations in the coming year

(Apologies if this message isn't in your language. Please consider translating it)

Hi,

As many of you are aware, the Wikimedia Board of Trustees recently initiated important changes in the way that money is being distributed within the Wikimedia movement. As part of this, a new community-led "Funds Dissemination Committee" (FDC) is currently being set up. Already in 2012-13, its recommendations will guide the decisions about the distribution of over 10 million US dollars among the Foundation, chapters and other eligible entities.

Now, seven capable, knowledgeable and trustworthy community members are sought to volunteer on the initial Funds Dissemination Committee. It is expected to take up its work in September. In addition, a community member is sought to be the Ombudsperson for the FDC process. If you are interested in joining the committee, read the call for volunteers. Nominations are planned to close on August 15.

--Anasuya Sengupta, Director of Global Learning and Grantmaking, Wikimedia Foundation 19:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Distributed via Global message delivery. (Wrong page? Fix here.)

Equipment exchange

I recently upgraded cameras and would like for my old camera to go to someone who will use it to produce free content, either as a donation or at reduced cost. I imagine many of us have been in this position. However, I could identify no systematic way for people in my position to get in touch with talented users requiring access to equipment. Some people have suggested donating it to a chapter who could loan it out to members, but there is no chapter in my region and I wouldn't know how to pick one.

What I'd ideally like is some kind of marketplace on Commons where I can post about equipment (with price if being sold), receive offers from interested users, and evaluate their contributions and current equipment to select the best recipient. Bartering could also be an option. I can imagine starting a page, something like Commons:Equipment exchange, to facilitate this. I'd like to get feedback on this idea before proceeding. Thanks! Dcoetzee (talk) 07:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how practical that is for a global site like Commons. For donations there are already things like Freecycle and Freegle; they mostly work on a local basis, with the person getting the item collecting. Maybe the new page could be linked to those. So someone could post "I'm going to put X on freecycle on Date Y, unless someone says they want it first and can collect or pay postage". Equally, people could post requests. ... Ultimately I'm not sure it'll work, but there's no harm in trying, for donation items. Selling things may be trickier though. Rd232 (talk) 09:19, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I've already tried selling on Craigslist but was unable to find anyone suitable, even at a greatly reduced price. Most people interested in purchasing cameras have little interest in producing freely-licensed works - it's definitely the wrong forum to try to find them. I doubt I'd find anyone like that on Freecycle or Freegle either. But it would be a fine backup option for items that fail to garner interest. Dcoetzee (talk) 10:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Hm, I see. Well, we may as well try it. Problem will be getting people to know it exists; chapters may work for that, at least. Rd232 (talk) 12:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I've now set up Commons:Equipment exchange. If you have any camera equipment, computer equipment, art supplies, or software you'd like to offer please add a section for it, or just watchlist it if you'd like to keep abreast of future offers. Please help spread the word to other wikis as well - I already left a note at en:Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous). Thanks! Dcoetzee (talk) 23:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

squareroot in svg

Is it possible to use extended square root sign in svg files as text. Not by manually extending the overline as a path?e.g. --Gauravjuvekar (talk) 09:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

MathJax as of version 2.0 beta features functionality to render mathematical notation as SVGs. This could prove useful for this and other applications. Dcoetzee (talk) 10:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
You can always use fancy unicode symbols: √ ̅1̅2̅3̅  However, I'm not sure if that would work in general (aka if the overline and the radical symbol would meet properly). May vary with font in use/font size/svg renderer used. Bawolff (talk) 13:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Using <text>s for numerals and symbols in SVG is perfectly fine. But text-encoding of such glyphs as overline and fraction bar IMHO is a perversion (although I once resorted to encoding of a horizontal fraction bar with en dash). I agree with Dcoetzee that MathJax can provide valuable clues in SVG mode. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:58, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

A Giant Thank You To All

A huge thank you to everyone here, and at IRC #wikimedia-commons. You have been so helpful in answering all my questions about uploading images. You know who you are. Thank you, thank you, thank you. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Special:List files annoyance

Hello,

while looking for my latest upload in Special:ListFiles/Funfood, I wondered why it was not shown. Then I recognized that it was rotated by rotatebot, so it is shown in rotatebots uploads. I suggest adding an option to switch off this behaviour, so that all uploaded files by an user can be seen, even if another user has uploaded a new version. I know I could use the Gallery tool, but it's a bit inconvenient when I am on an user's site for looking for copvios while categorizing images. --Funfood ␌ 08:46, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

bugzilla:30607 Bawolff (talk) 13:34, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Offensive country name

At some Commons page we discuss the laws and codes of Russia, and we speak about how can the legitimate law articles be fulfilled. A commons user that is against the copyright law polemically and sarcastically says that we speak about the laws of the «barbarian Putinland». Is this normal on Commons? May a person call the country in such an offensive word? Is there any rules about offensive mockery language? Thanks for the advice.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 00:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

It's offensive, and probably says more about the speaker than about Russia, but as long as it is on a talk page or comparable page, it's probably harmless. If used in the description of a photo, of course, it should be edited. - Jmabel ! talk 00:47, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Where was this? I can't find it anywhere on Commons or any of the Wikipedias, via Google. -- Nick Moreau (talk) 16:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Free Nikon D300

I am giving away a Nikon D300 camera with 18-55mm lens, memory card, filters, etc. Anyone who uploads freely licensed photographs to Commons is eligible. Please add your name at Commons:Equipment exchange if interested. I haven't gotten any offers in a couple days so posting here. Dcoetzee (talk) 03:35, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

A recipient has now been chosen. Dcoetzee (talk) 14:34, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Again Right-Wing Slanting Attempts on Wiki

Sorry for needing to use this panel as a bulletin-board, I don't know by now of any other platform.

This is a call for all you sense-orientated dedicated Wiki editors and users regardless of personal views to take side and VOICE IT at this newly erupted dispute, as to how to refer to the Historical Region of Palestine in new subcategories' titles: Should it be "Palestine" or a more focused term? Using plainly "Palestine", an ambiguous coin that dumps users at various historical, spacial and national associations, or help misleading them by referring specifically to i.e "pre-1948 Palestine", "pre-Israel Palestine" or any better term which is clear. Insisting on the use of "Palestine"-on-its-own, besides demonstrating user's willinglessness to understand how things work on our project, renders the category's name politically-watered. This is avoidable!

Come Be on Wiki's Side! Orrlingtalk 15:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

For the love of God, can you at least act like you're trying to come to an understanding and working for consensus? This is not a fucking battlefield.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Accepted. It sadly now looks, however, as if my opponent in this matter will not show any measure of "working for understanding and/or consensus" - how come leave Wiki to such manifestations of mistake-sowing like we see in the category-group from last Friday? Shouldn't we at least come to revoke certain users' ability of creating new categories when it is abused? No battlefield, now wouldn't you rather go to that discussion page and talk up topically. Orrlingtalk 07:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
I have no idea why you consider this a left-right issue. I can't even think which side on this would be "the left" vs. "the right". - Jmabel ! talk 00:08, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment. Why was Orrling blocked? For some reason I noticed this on my watchlist:

(Block log) . . Matanya (talk | contribs) blocked Orrling (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 day (account creation blocked) ‎(Edit warring after warnings)

I looked on her talk page and did not see a warning. Did an admin warn her? And where? Just curious. I really dislike seeing people blocked without a real warning from an admin. Warnings from non-admins should not count. They are often just forms of intimidation. Blocks without admin warnings are a big reason in my opinion why there are more articles on Wikipedia, but less editors. --Timeshifter (talk) 07:13, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

There is discussion about this block here:
Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Editors Get Automated Block?..>: --Timeshifter (talk) 15:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

July 19

the west bank

User:Orrling has been recently removing all connections between the west bank and Israel, claiming that the West Bank is not a part of Israel. This is of course correct, but irrelavent. The West bank is a disputed area claimed both by Israel and the Palestinians. Most of the area of the west bank is completely controlled by Israel. The rest of the West bank is controlled partially by Israel to different degrees. Over 350,000 Israeli citizens live in the west bank. Cataloging the west bank solely under the palestinian authority, which is not a country, clearly violates the NPOV rules of the wikimedia project.

I believe that pictures taken in the west bank, regardless of whether they are of Jews or arabs, should be cataloged under the west bank and that the west bank be cataloged under both claimants of the area.

Furthermore, User:Orrling has made changes like this one: here, which I cannot really understand. The picture is of Jewish children in an Israeli settlement in the west bank. It has nothing to do with the Palestinian authority even remotely. The palestinian authority has no authority under the area in which the picture was taken and no other substantial link to the area.

I request your aid in settling this matter by setting a clear policy and having User:Orrling abide to it. יעקב (talk) 18:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

 SupportOvedc (talk) 07:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 Support אור שפירא (talk) 13:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 Support having someone slap the user with a trout and translating the term 'consensus' to any language they prefer.--Canoe1967 (talk) 08:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Just a note to יעקב that NPOV is a rule for English Wikipedia articles, not for Commons. But I do agree that categorizing West Bank images as "West Bank" is better, for a whole bunch of reasons. cmadler (talk) 14:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 Comment User:Orrling seems to be one of few users categorizing images from West Bank and Gaza. I do not think it is possible to work with those images without stepping on someones toes, so I am not surprised that some of them are controversial. However, most edits by User:Orrling I observed in last year seem to be reasonable, although I am sure I only looked at small fraction of them. I believe that pictures taken in West Bank should be categorized under Category:Israeli presence in the West Bank (for Israeli images) and Category:West Bank (for Palestinian images). It is estimated that 250,000 ([36]) US citizens live in Israel, but we do not categorize Israel as part of US. However, I do agree with יעקב comment about File:LagBomerWoodCollection37.JPG. --Jarekt (talk) 03:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I also find User:Orrling's contributions mostly positive. I note, however, two issues that need to be resolved:
Should images in the West Bank be categorized under West Bank or directly under Palestinian territories? I think except for Orrling we have a consensus here.
Should the West Bank Categories be listed under the Israel Category?
looking at Category:Unrecognized or largely unrecognized states I see that all disputed areas and countries are double catalouged. Kosov is listed both as a country in Europe and as part of Serbia, Category:Transnistria is catagorized under Moldova, and so on. I do not see why the west bank should be different in this respect. We are not dealing here with Israel citizens in the West Bank, as US citizens in China, we are dealing with an area controlled for 45 years by Israel and to which Israel has a claim of title. As this was the status quo and as the current majority agrees with my position, I am reverting Orrling's edits and referring him here to discuss the issue. יעקב (talk) 12:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Beside other irregular challenges you bring about to editors needing to run and clean after you almost day by day with your erroneous sortings, you still appear to misconceive something very principal: there is no "discussion" here to refer busy editors to. The issue for which you're fighting is a clear political one, not a Wiki-policy matter hence the Village Pump is not even scarcely the place to susatain your political observations, with which you should adress, for example, the international community or the Government of Israel to apply its legal rule first on the West Bank which it never has done. You've been told that the Palestinian territries are by standard the only country where items of the West Bank and Gaza Strip are to be associated, and unilaterally "claiming" by another entity plays, alas, no sufficiant role in international relations. You've been furnished with sources showing you that the Wikimedia Foundation is aligned with this, not because we don't like you - just because internationally the Palestinian territories have no Israeli status. We have never come with the idea of tagging the Iraq or Afghanistan subcategories under "Category:Maps of the United States" or "Category:Religion in the United Kingdom" just to reverberate the presence of military from both latter in the two former's territories in the past decade or so. You've also seen the comment as to why Category:Transport in the West Bank should not be listed at Category:Transport in Israel and are continuingly miscategorizing it althouh COM:OVERCAT instructs you to refrain from dumping deeper sub-items at a higher category if their direct parent is already there. We here don't say no to users with creative/unaccepted ideas or interpretations. There's no plot against the cute little settlers from Israel living in the Palestinian territories. It's just simply maintained that in the universal–legal view adopted by Wiki they don't live in Israel. Orrlingtalk 17:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

This discussion is very tiring. As you can see your views lack support. The United states does not claim to sovereignity over Iraq. Serbia does claim sovereignity over Kosovo and therefore Kosovo has double cataloging as do all disputed areas. You well know that the palestinian territories are not a country. I would expect that with your zeal to accuracy of definition you would not make such an incorrect reference. But not accuracy is what motivates you, rather it is a political attempt to severe connections between Israel and the West Bank. I therefore demand you stop and as you see whose ideas are unaccepted here I suggest you beware of being banned from here as you were from the Hebrew Wikipedia. יעקב (talk) 21:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

July 22

Commons:Up!: Testers wanted!

Hi all, for all of you who don't already know, I've been developing a tool named Commons:Up! for quite some time now. I'm excited to announce that with the latest update, Up! now supports the new chunked uploads protocol, and is so much more stable than Upload Wizard when it comes to uploading files >100Mb. Up! is still in testing and could use your help! See Commons:Up! for details. -FASTILY (TALK) 21:58, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

July 29

User:Bryan

User:Bryan once was an admin and checkuser until he resigned in March 2011. During his time on Commons he created or coached some bots - some of them are used to handle the flickr images on Commons or to transfer those images to Commons. Because he is no longer active on Commons I'd like to ask if there is somebody who is taking care of his heritage? There are some requests on his user page. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 11:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

New Hilton category

I just came across two more Hiltons. en:Kathy Hilton and en:Nicky Hilton. Should we make a category for the clan/dynasty/litters to include all family members? Paris and Conrad have their own cats already. There may be more as well.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

It seems fair. The Mellon family has a category on Wikipedia itself, but neither they nor the Carnegies have categories on Commons (yet). That said, Category:Families of the United States exists as a parent cat to families that do have categories on Commons. -- Nick Moreau (talk) 16:49, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Category:Hilton family

Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Canoe1967 (talk) 23:26, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

July 28

Categories

For some reason categories here are not showed. Can someone fix this? Thanks. --Andrea (talk) 20:44, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

They are showing for me. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 06:47, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Oh! I see! But they're in an unusual place I think... --Andrea (talk) 00:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Try checking your Gadgets in Special:Preferences. The default is that they appear beneath everything else, but there are two settings to move them higher on the page. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 18:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

misguiding flag

As it is described here: File_talk:Flag_of_Tbilisi.svg - problem still exists; correct of this flag is File:Flag_of_Tbilisi_-_seven-pointed_stars.svg, and that one should be described as the official flag. 10:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.156.172.74 (talk • contribs)

Folger Shakespeare Library needs help help uploading their collection images

Hi everyone. The Folger Shakespeare Library wants to upload their collection of images, many (or most) which are documents. See the images here. If you are able to do so, please get in touch with User:Kaldari. Thanks! SarahStierch (talk) 16:55, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I have the time for this right now but I have ripped images from the Folger Library before and they have a valuable and large collection. Definitely worth the investment. Dcoetzee (talk) 03:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Speedy cat delete

Category:Interglacial 600k-450k BP and Category:Ice age 410k-380k BP can both be deleted if anyone wants to help clear cats for discussion backlog. They both had the wrong names or eras. The proper cats were made, all the files moved, etc. I couldn't find a delete cat so they are in discussion now. I doubt anyone speaks pre-history there to dispute the deletes. The details are on the talk page of one of them: Category talk:Ice age 410k-380k BP--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Canoe1967 (talk) 06:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Is this legit?

I found this template: {{Macrame Art - Jolanta Surma}}, it looks like advertizing. Is this allowed on Commons? 150.250.176.231 22:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Deleted. Thanks. It wasn't a template at all, rather an anon text question. Whether intended as spam or simple confusion, out of Commons scope and inappropriate. -- Infrogmation (talk) 22:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Jmabel ! talk 05:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

July 31

Signature Transclusion

I recently put in a bot request so that I could carry out the consensus of Commons:Deletion requests/Transcluded user signatures; however, one question has arisen and I'd like to get it cleared up. Editors are asking whether I should substitute signatures that appear in the author field on a file page. I am perfectly able to avoid that; however, I feel that our guideline on signatures shows that the signatures used in the author description on a file page should be substituted as well. The major reasons we don't allow transclusion of signatures apply no matter how they are used. On file pages, we would look at vandalism of a signature that is transcluded and the affect of changes to the signature. Both of these would cause an unnecessary use of the server's resources and the former would be more dangerous than vandalism on a signature that is on a talk page because it is more likely that users will see it. Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I looked at the special:whatlinkshere of those templates, I didn't look at all of them, but the ones I did look at all had less than 500 links (many significantly less). The concern for "unnecessary use of the server's resources" is significantly misplaced in my opinion (I am not involved with ops, yadda yadda my opinion is only as good as any other random user) when we're talking about things with such few links. If a template has something like 106+ links, you might want be justified in considering performance, but with templates that have less than 1000 links to them, server performance is a rather pointless discussion imo Bawolff (talk) 15:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
In either case, vandalism is an issue and the guideline is already set in place. I see no reason not to substitute them. Ryan Vesey Review me! 15:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
The police is clear. "Transclusions of templates (like those which appear as User:Name/sig...) are forbidden." So I mean also this templates should be deleted, also because it annuls/bypasses the set limit of 256 characters. -- πϵρήλιο ℗ 15:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't necessarily think the templates themselves need to be deleted because is is possible for editors to substitute those signatures themselves (i.e. make your signature in your preferences {{subst:USERNAME/sig}}) The guideline discourages that, but doesn't forbid it. Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Signature templates are not a problem as long as substituted. I think we should discourage signatures on author fields. I feel username should be legible in a non-stylized manner but this is merely my preference. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 18:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

August 1

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2012/07&oldid=848377334"