Commons:Village pump/Archive/2013/05

Refining COM:IDENT to expand when model consent is expected

I propose a pragmatic refinement of the guidance at Commons:IDENT#Moral_issues, so that users and administrators have some clearer rules of thumb of what action is expected in some relevant scenarios. In the longer term, it might be useful to illustrate these with a detailed case book rather than leaving them overly theoretical. This guidance is not focused on copyright (which is a far stronger, and on Commons a possibly easier, rationale for any deletion) but on "common decency and respect for human dignity".

I suggest the following additions:

If there is sufficient support on these words, or similar variations are suggested here, I would be happy to have a go at amending the "moral issues" section. I have avoided a list of the normal situations where we might be concerned about distress or damage, though these are most often graphically sexual or nude photographs, there are many other scenarios that may compromise the dignity of the model and could be subject to a equally legitimate request for deletion from the model. --Fæ (talk) 09:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Minor addendum: The word "model" here is used in a plain English sense rather than in the sense of a "professional model". The use of the word "model" above, means a person appearing in a photograph where they may be identifiable and are a key subject of the photograph. The photograph may be taken in a public place with Freedom of Panorama, it may be a photograph taken with or without the advance knowledge of the person, or someone paid for their modelling but without specific consent to free reuse of their image. --Fæ (talk) 11:23, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• pointless and too wordy to get sufficient support, it will fail. Penyulap ☏ 09:27, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

  Still not a haiku. --Fæ (talk) 09:51, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

•  Support. We should take the recent cases of teens, such as Amanda Todd, Rehtaeh Parsons and Audrie Pott, who where bullyied into suicide (en:Bullycide) per distribution of intentionally hurting images, either by their peers or by child-exploiters, as a warning that we should take outmost measures to avoid becoming instrumental or even unintentional participants in such inhuman and destructive activites. (to be sure: as far as I know, Commons/Wikipedia was not involved in any of these sad cases). --Túrelio (talk) 10:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
• I like the general idea, but a few questions remain:
  • About 2.: There are big differences between consent for a photograph taken, and consent for the publishing of a photograph under a certain (public) license. I'm worried that the wording of 2. might be used for arguments such as "She smiles into the camera, therefore she has given consent" or the like.
  • About 3.: We've had cases before where the face of some models were obscured after a deletion request to satisfy COM:PEOPLE, while the image page kept a link to the original, unobscured image. It should be made clear that this is not acceptable. The current wording of "legal identity" implies that everything is fine as long as there is no direct link to the real name of the model. If we are going to obscure an image, it should not be possible to find the unblurred version anywhere, on- or off-wiki. Otherwise the blurring is entirely pointless.
  • "The deletion process should not make a potential for damage worse, by drawing attention to a photograph (...)" When would this actually apply? Surely, if the mere existence of a deletion request makes things worse, that alone would be a reason to immediately delete the image? --Conti|✉ 12:00, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

    Could you go a step further and suggest some possible re-wording or amendments to cover the examples you raise? It could well be that the extended case book might be more useful that trying to cover multiple scenarios by theoretical text in the guidance itself. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:59, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

    • Well, as for concrete suggestions: I would strike the "drawing attention to a photograph" sentence altogether, since I don't see when this would actually be an issue, and I only see the possibility of misunderstanding/misinterpreting it. Instead, we could mention OTRS when there is a case of a model giving consent, but not wanting to do so publicly. I would also remove the term "legal identity", and make it a requirement that only allows obscuring of faces when there is no way to find/access the unobscured version anywhere. --Conti|✉ 14:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

      The Streisand Effect is a serious challenge for our processes, it does happen, and these are sometimes unfortunate cases where raising a DR is the wrong path to choose; so I'm happy for pointers to how OTRS works, or other recommended alternatives (noting that OTRS is not guaranteed to be confidential). As for the obscuring of faces thing, I would be happy to rethink that a bit, as in these days of improving search engines, I'm not comfortable that simply blurring a face, or a crop, would necessarily be sufficient to stop a later form of outing. Where to draw the line would be highly dependent on the specific image and the risk of damage we might be talking about. Obviously there is a massive difference from the distress that might be caused by someone being a bit embarrassed by being identified wearing very little in an old photo taken on a public beach, and someone being covertly photographed while shoplifting. We can only hope to lay out principles that would need interpreting. --Fæ (talk) 04:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• I think it might help to put the additions somewhere we can collaboratively edit them before people start voting. Per Conti, I think that there are a few important issues the current wording doesn't cover. Do you mind if we directly edit your proposal above? Or maybe this would be better worked up at the IDENT talk page first? --99of9 (talk) 13:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Sure, no problem with it being adapted, or moved elsewhere for a longer term discussion. --Fæ (talk) 22:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
• Sources don't need to be public, they can be in an otrs ticket. The person who does the ticket checks the source and there is no link made public. Already have this. I know of examples. Penyulap ☏ 13:46, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
• Reading this, it would seem to ban the Abu Ghraib photographs or, if it entered the public domain, the photo of Jack Ruby shooting Lee Harvey Oswald. Is there something I'm missing? - Jmabel ! talk 15:31, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

seems that everything mentioned here was already covered with speedy deletes and OTRS, except the vagueness and random ways it could be applied to images people don't like, based on hypothetical ESP ?. It looks like another unnecessary tool for tools to cause fights over otherwise acceptable images. Penyulap ☏ 16:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Penyulap, that doesn't seem to answer my question at all. My question still stands. - Jmabel ! talk 23:33, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• To answer your question specifically, yes, it applies to those images, AND every picture of every person on commons. This is a tool for tools. To quote it "Any photograph of an identifiable living person, for which it is either likely or there is significant doubt as to whether it may cause distress or reputational damage, may be subject..blah blah blah"

The point is if 10 people say 'that's bullshit, the photo is just fine' one person can claim doubt and stamp their foot and say 'my opinion is significant doubt then the photo gets deleted against consensus. That is the point of the exercise, so that one person can get rid of any image they do not like personally. That is where the existing speedy/DR system falls down, it doesn't give non-admins the power to impose their whims against the community consensus. Speedy works fine for problem images right now. Penyulap ☏ 03:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• We can try and come up with rules for everything and try and work out every contingeny every possibility endlessly expanding the verbage needed to run Commons, or we can trust in the common sense and decency of our community to do the right thing.--21:21, 29 April 2013 (UTC) -unsigned comment by KTo288
  • On top of it we can use a catchall to delete images that are known to be bullying. A simple "this image is against the spirit of the purposes of our community/not being used in an educational manner" should suffice. This boarding school in Switzerland says "The School reserves the right to dismiss a student who, in the School’s judgment, is out of sympathy with the ideals and objectives of the School, even though there may have been no infraction of any specific major school rule." - We could use a catchall in a similar spirit to delete images used for bullying. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Identical to IAR or OFFICE ? yes, they already exist, the problem here is they don't make it easy for a few people to delete images donated by people they don't like, and there is the problem along with the reason for wording to the effect of 'If one person doesn't like it, it has to go, regardless of any consensus or existing policy'. Penyulap ☏ 05:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

New York City Municipal Archives

The New York City Municipal Archives have made available online 800,000 photographs from their collection. Many of them date back to the early 20th and even late 19th centuries. They claim copyright over all such images, but (depending on publication date) some of them may be in the public domain. The collection can be accessed at http://www.nyc.gov/html/records/html/gallery/home.shtml -- Powers (talk) 12:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

They all have very obnoxious watermarks. We could use them if we establish some sort of sharing partnership and get access to the original images. --Jarekt (talk) 14:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Timed Media Handler for MIDI files?

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T20852

With the introduction of a javascript-based MIDI player (See this example on my user page and this resolved bug), can we now add an on-page player for the MIDI files now in Commons? — ☠MarkAHershberger☢(talk)☣ 14:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

 Support Sounds like a plan, yes. Jean-Fred (talk) 15:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

 Support One of the more wonderful suggestions. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 03:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Demolished vs. Destroyed

User:SieBot seems to have gone wrong. It seems that it's moving all images/categories in 'demolished' categories into 'destroyed' ones - obviously, 'demolished' and 'destroyed' mean two very different things. This seems to be due to the edit at [1] I trust that the edits that it has made here will be reverted asap. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The discussion takes place here: Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/03/Category:Demolished buildings. It is not done yet, the categories should not have been moved. --rimshot^talk 22:38, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Although it is very close to a consensus. In practice, the categories with demolished in the names have included many buildings that were not systematically demolished, so the content has not followed the distinction, and the consensus is leaning toward saying that for now we are better off not trying to make the distinction. We could always go back and subcategorize for the method of destruction later. Certainly, though, if someone knows of parts of the category tree where this distinction has been systematic, that would be good to know so as to avoid redundant or counterproductive changes. - Jmabel ! talk 00:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

May 02

broken location/coordination templates

please see Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Broken_location_template. Holger1959 (talk) 03:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

PNG and GIF thumb generation limit raised

This map can now be thumbnailed \o/

Per bugzilla:47363, $wgMaxImageArea and $wgMaxAnimatedGifArea have been raised to allow thumb generation up to 50 Mpx (from 25Mpx).

Thanks a lot to User:Dominic who asked for this, and to the sysadmins and implemented it!

Jean-Fred (talk) 13:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T50003

Not working: See the 1220px-thumb of the map on the right: broken thumb and bugzilla:48003. --McZusatz (talk) 15:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Promo materials about CC free licenses

Are there any promo posters or explanation materials about CC free licenses? A photography meeting will take place in our town, so I would like to tell people about free licenses, and turn them against taking money for their photography works. Please help me to find any posters or infographics that combines with this theme. Any advice will be appreciated. Thank you.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 13:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

These PDFs may help you. File:Introduction to free licenses 2010-11-27 (web).pdf and File:Free Knowledge based on Creative Commons Licenses.pdf. Bidgee (talk) 13:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

The 1st is for those who intend to make their works free; my audience dreams to sell (at somewhen, to somehow), so I have to bring over their commercial mind .

The 2nd one is much more interesting, so I will read it thoroughly. Seems it will help me to find some arguments for free licensing. Thank you! --PereslavlFoto (talk) 13:47, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

So the question can be rephrased: is there some kind of advertising to promote free licenses among photographers? --PereslavlFoto (talk) 18:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

A further effort to define the speedy deletion criteria?

For the last two years a discussion has been going on about the criteria for speedy deletion, with the current proposal being set out at Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion. A lot of work has already been done, and it seems that there a large measure of agreement that the very basic speedy deletion rules currently set out at Commons:Deletion policy#General: speedy deletion could be improved upon and could be better exemplified, although there is disagreement about the potential scope of any new rules and also whether they should be defined as policy or merely as a guidelines. I have made a proposal at Commons talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#There has been some useful progress. Shall we try again? for helping the discussions along, and contributions are invited there. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:57, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

May 03

Announcing the release of the the Wikimedia Commons app for iOS and Android

The Wikimedia Foundation mobile features team is proud to announce the release of the official Commons app for iOS and Android! This mobile application allows existing Commons users to log in with their Wikimedia account and view, upload, and share files with the image sharing sites of their choice. On Android, you can also batch upload and add categories to your images. We'll be working to expand the features on both versions of the app so that, in the future, you’ll also be able to participate in events like Wiki Loves Monuments and other focused uploading campaigns directly from this app. To let more Wikimedians with compatible mobile devices know about these apps, we'll be running banners on Commons and English Wikipedia to logged in users this week.

Those who are interested in uploading images via mobile on non-iOS/Android (e.g., using BlackBerry devices, running Firefox browsers) can still upload to Commons on the Wikimedia mobile web. Just visit the mobile site of your home wiki, log in, and go to the Uploads page in the left navigation menu.

If you have questions or feedback, please let us know! In addition to Bugzilla, we have a mailing list (mobile-llists.wikimedia.org) and an IRC channel, #wikimedia-mobile, where we would be happy to hear from you. Maryana (WMF) (talk) 19:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the work and the announcement.

There is nothing yet in either Category:Uploaded with Commons App/iOS nor Category:Uploaded with Commons App/Android − is taht normal? Jean-Fred (talk) 19:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Those seem to be duplicates of the correct Category:Uploaded with Mobile/iOS‎ and Category:Uploaded with Mobile/Android. I redirected them. Superm401 - Talk 22:08, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

April 30

Creative Commons 4.0 nearing final - last chance for comments

Hi, all- as mentioned here a few times before (here and here), Creative Commons is revising their licenses to produce a new 4.0 version. The changes include a variety of things relevant to Commons and other WM projects, most importantly attribution, but also improved translations, database rights, and general improvements in readability. They are nearing their final version, and have asked us for one last round of review and comment. A few relevant links:

• The best way to comment is through their mailing list.
• The actual drafts, including side-by-side comparisons to 3.0.
• Their complete wiki.

Note that this is not a call for comments on the adoption of CC 4.0 for Commons and other WM projects. That discussion, if it happens, would be after 4.0 has been finalized, so that we're not speculating about the final terms.

Thanks! LVilla (WMF) (talk) 19:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Changes to interface/login

I know I'm usually grumpy, but this is a quick note to say I love the new login interface. Very nice - I wonder what's coming next, since it's about time Vector got a bit of a tidy up and redesign - this could be just the time to do it! This is one of the very few wikis I use Vector on, and I'd probably use it in a lot more places if it looked better and was a bit more usable. BarkingFish (talk) 19:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Glad you like it! The good news is that with the new login/account creation in core, we can start applying similar styles to other interfaces when/where appropriate. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 20:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. The new "compact vertical form" appearance works with other skins, but we optimized for Vector and do more if you're using Vector (colored buttons, font changes). -- S Page (WMF) (talk) 23:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Template:CommonsStats

Why is Special:ActiveUsers a red link, but {{NUMBEROFACTIVEUSERS}} (→ 36,202) still works? --Leyo 13:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Because Special:ActiveUsers was removed per bugzilla:41078 without any broader announcement; the issue is just gathering the per-user count, not the query for active users itself. -- Rillke^(q?) 13:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand the second part of your reply. Is the displayed number incorrect? --Leyo 11:19, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

It explains that the SQL query of Special:ActiveUsers was slow and why the magic word is still working and why it is possible that Special:ActiveUsers may be reintroduced (but without the per-user-edit-count) [[[Special:ActiveUsers]] displayed a list of user names with the edit count in the past 30 days and the edit count was the issue]. -- Rillke^(q?) 11:44, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Multilingual display and Urdu... bug?

If you look at Category:New York City Department of Education and use the multilingual display, if you try to display only English, it displays English, then Urdu and the languages below it.

Is there a bug on the Commons related to this? WhisperToMe (talk) 03:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

{{Ur}} used an old-style layout (an extra div). -- Rillke^(q?) 07:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it! WhisperToMe (talk) 22:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Number of uploads ?

Is it possible, with the right tool, to get exact info about my uploads (numbers of uploads)? --Ezzex (talk) 15:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Does edit counter provide enough info? MKFI (talk) 16:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

For the count, you can see this Toolserver tool (fairly long): Pages created by Ezzex − which gives 390.

For lots of fancy information on your uploads, see Commons:MyGallery.

Jean-Fred (talk) 16:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Pages created by ... don't seams to be working.--Ezzex (talk) 13:44, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Here is the output of Commons:MyGallery after clicking though all of your uploads:

New Created:426, Overwritten:16, Reverted:1, Total logged events:443, Deleted:39, Deleted revs:1

-- Rillke^(q?) 17:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to all.--Ezzex (talk) 13:44, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Hwaseong Fortress categories

Editors, particularly Korean speakers, are invited to participate in the discussion at "User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands/talk#Hwaseong Fortress categories" about how categories relating to Hwaseong Fortress should be named. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 20:57, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Querying by size

Is there a way to search files by category in such a way that the results are ordered/filtered by size? If I could, say, run a search for images over 12MB in Austria and its subcategories, that would be mighty helpful for a current task. --Peter ^Talk 22:16, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if such a tool exists, but maybe searching in Category:Quality images of Austria could yield useful images for your task. Using CatScan could help you to refine the search.--Pere prlpz (talk) 12:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

CatScan2 allows filtering by file size. MKFI (talk) 13:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Visual File Change can highlight files with sizes, lets say, over 12MB. --McZusatz (talk) 15:34, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

May 05

Temporarily disabling WikiLove on Commons

Per bug 47457 and the discussion above, I'm going to temporarily disable the WikiLove extension until the underlying issues with mw.loader are resolved. Sorry for the inconvenience. If you need to spread WikiLove in the meantime, feel free to steal some templates from en.wiki :) Kaldari (talk) 00:50, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The issue has spread to en:wp and disabling WikiLove there may be needed as well.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:28, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Here's a thought... why not leave it switched off? - There are much better ways of appreciating someone's work :D BarkingFish (talk) 02:01, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I do not agree with BarkingFish, who is free to show appreciation in other ways as he wishes.--Jarekt (talk) 03:25, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I would also like to see the extension reactivated when the technical issues are resolved. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:36, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Files to be restored when out of copyright

I have created a new page called Commons:Files to be restored when out of copyright to allow us to record the names of files that have been deleted from Commons due to copyright issues but which can be validly be hosted here within the next few years, once the copyright expires. Please add appropraite files or links to deletion requests. Not sure how best to categorize the page, but no doubt someone can help me out? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

This is tracked by Category:Undeletion requests –⁠moogsi (blah) 12:44, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

To be sure, you are aware of all those cats Undelete in 20xx ? --Túrelio (talk) 12:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah, no I wasn't aware of that (but I am now). In that case, we don't need the page and I'll delete it. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:56, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Needs notes and redirects, if one person can't find it there will be others, and if it's not even known then there is not near enough advertising and linking. Penyulap ☏ 13:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm working on an information page now. Give me a day or two and I will put up a suggestion. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

The page has now been restored as a new help page. Please help improve it. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:27, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, afaict this is almost completely undocumented –⁠moogsi (blah) 14:00, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Goddess of Democracy

There is a movement to delete all photos of the Goddess of Democracy statue on Commons. This is about replicas of the statue censored and destroyed by the Chinese government at Tianimin Square. Replicas of course cannot be copyrighted, the matter has been decided at least twice before and folks keep on coming back with deletion requests, until in March they slipped through a deletion against consensus. We should not put up with this type of censorship on Commons. See Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests and Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Victims of Communism Memorial in Washington Smallbones (talk) 05:38, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

"Replicas of course cannot be copyrighted," why ? Penyulap ☏ 05:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Lack of originality. It was intended to be a copy. Smallbones (talk) 13:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah, there is the problem, yes, that makes sense, but it's not how it works. A plain blue circle is not original enough to be copyrightable, and copies of it are just as plain. They can't be copyright because there is nothing to copyright. Where something IS complex enough to be copyrightable, then other copies of it are also copyrightable because there is something significant enough to be copyrightable. If however the copy is changed so much that it no longer describes the original then it becomes a new work. If the new work is complex enough to be copyrightable it has it's own copyright. I guess if it were a too-simple copy it could change category, like the McDonalds M being just M, that is not enough to be copyright anymore, but if it were the same as an original sign, but blue rather than red, it would still be copyright.

On commons the copy is often called a derivative work. Penyulap ☏ 15:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Smallbones is confused, as Penyulap explains. Copies generally have no new copyright, but they inherit any copyright of the original object they are copied from. Only slavish copies of public domain works are free of copyright (and even then only in PD-Art jurisdictions). Dcoetzee (talk) 21:29, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Where to list images used in violation of our free licensing (copyvio OF Commons)?

See File_talk:Cheating.JPG (our image used on external site without attribution). Do we have a page that collects such examples? If not, we should start such hall of shame. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 03:19, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

You can used {{Published}} to note publication of images which are or are not inline with the licence. russavia (talk) 03:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I've added the pub-template. What an irony that they commit such a copyright violation in an article with the tag "cheating, education, plagiarism, SAT, scandal". --Túrelio (talk) 06:22, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

In general, we need to keep in mind that it is possible that apparent copyright violators may actually have legitimately negotiated other terms directly with the copyright holder or via other channels which the copyright holder may have chosen to use for publication. The best course of action is usually to inform the copyright holder on their user talk page. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, keep in mind that Commons does not hold the rights to any significant portion of what is uploaded here. For example, if I upload my photo here & provide an appropriate license, unauthorized use that does not accord with that license is a violation of my copyright. Commons has no rights at stake in the matter: it is simply another licensee. - Jmabel ! talk 00:31, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Nevertheless it's a good practise to notify the author/uploader if one stumbles over a likely license-violating use. --Túrelio (talk) 07:27, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

It looks as if they've modified the article to attribute the photo. Kelly (talk) 12:04, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

See Commons:Enforcing license terms for a guide on how to respond to this kind of violation. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:20, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Remember that in certain cases media (and other) third parties may use Commons files under fair use, fair dealing etc. laws, depending on country. While it would be nice if they used the free license we offer, they might be using the file legally even if they don't respect our license terms. MKFI (talk) 07:57, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd note that w:fair dealing in many countries demands attribution. The Wikipedia article on w:fair use makes an off-hand comment that it may help a claim of fair use; it's uncited, but I'd tend to agree. I don't think courts would tend to be amused with claims of fair use on CC-BY items.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:55, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Sphinx categories

I just noticed all the sphinx categories are named "Category:Sphinxes", "Category:Sphinxes by country", "Category:Natural sphinxes", etc. The correct plural form of sphinx is sphinges. Sphinxes is a colloquial/deprecated form. Wilhelm meis (talk) 01:42, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense. If you look at Google Books, [2], you find many, many uses from reputable publishers. The Library of Congress uses it as a headword, and the Proceedings of the IXth International Congress of Egyptologists spells it that way. Sphinges, OTOH, brings up mainly works about butterflies. There is no Academy of English, so that's the best "correct" gets in English. (Personally, I'm a huge fan of conjugating English words as if they are English words, and not adding arbitrary complexity to English by dragging in foreign plurals.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:35, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Why should we import a foreign word in its singular form and intentionally ignore the plural form of the same word (in the same language)? That's not how it has been done historically. Sphinxes may have seen more acceptance recently, but sphinx has traditionally been pluralized in English as sphinges. English is loaded with foreign words and often reflects foreign plural forms. One reason for this is that there is not just one way to pluralize English nouns. Take children for instance. There's no s at the end, and although it is a development of Old English cild, it wound up taking two different forms of pluralization in English, so what rightly would have been pluralized as childer also took -en to arrive at -ren. Of course that is a special case that has little to do with sphinges, but it demonstrates that English has more ways of pluralizing than simply tacking on -s or -es. English speakers, over time, have shown a tendency to level unstressed vowels and simplify grammatical forms by doing things like leveling most plural forms to -s/-es, but again, that reflects more recent developments, not long-accepted forms. Wilhelm meis (talk) 15:08, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Same with "Category:Phalanxes"; the plural of phalanx is phalanges. Wilhelm meis (talk) 01:48, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Wiktionary disagrees; it pluralizes the military unit as phalanxes and the fingerbone as phalanges, a pattern that again Google Books backs up. Phalange and phalanges seem to be the normal word for the bone, and phalanx and phalanxes seem to be the normal word for the military unit. A good division, IMO.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:43, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Is Wiktionary a reliable source? I thought we were supposed to avoid relying on sister projects as reliable sources, except in certain circumstances. And the single form of a finger or toe bone is phalanx, not phalange, which is just a backfrom of phalanges. Consult any reputable anatomy book. Wilhelm meis (talk) 15:08, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Wilhelm meis -- I've studied Greek and Latin myself, but ultimately the current prevailing English usage is the authority on what the plurals of words borrowed from Classical languages are, regardless of whether these are classically fully "correct" or not. You could insist on "octopodes" as the plural of "octopus", but hardly any English speaker naturally says "octopodes", so it would be pointless. And tell me what the classically-correct plural of "ignoramus" and "rebus" would be?? AnonMoos (talk) 20:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

The reason we intentionally ignore the plural form Sphinges is the same reason we intentionally ignore the singular form of syringes: no-one will know what a syrinx is. No-one will be searching for Sphinges. Saying it's traditional completely ignores that it doesn't jibe with contemporary usage. Category:Phalanxes is about the military formation and is named correctly. There's no anatomical category because it's not needed. Prescriptivism has no place in naming categories, where we do apply something like w:WP:UCN to make them usable. You can continue to know what is correct, and set up redirects if you like, but I'm struggling to envision whose English usage you are trying to reflect, here –⁠moogsi (blah) 15:45, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

The OED lists "sphinxes" and "sphinges" as equally valid plurals (but uses the x-form in its own annotations). Both forms are attributed from the seventeenth century onwards. I don't see any particular reason to declare that the g-form is correct and the x-form is invalid. Andrew Gray (talk) 17:42, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

May 06

Plain upload form

Is there a way to get just the plain Wikimedia upload form at Special:Upload instead of the one that I guess uses jquery or something to give me all of these individual boxes? It's much easier for power users who know what we're doing to use the standard form rather than to make us have 20 mouse clicks to upload something. --UserB (talk) 11:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

You can use this one basic or UploadWizard. --Anne-Sophie Ofrim (talk) 11:31, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Basic is what I was looking for. Bookmarked. --UserB (talk) 11:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I had this question myself not long ago. Just put the following in your common.js or vector.js:

// Change "Upload file" link from [[Commons:Upload]] to [[Special:Upload&uploadformstyle=basic]]
var d = document.getElementById("n-uploadbtn");
d.innerHTML = d.innerHTML.replace("wiki/Commons:Upload", "w/index.php?title=Special:Upload&uploadformstyle=basic");

--Patrick87 (talk) 11:38, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

That didn't work for some reason (and actually, now that I look at it, I realize that the reason is that the actual upload link on the toolbox is now Special:UploadWizard, not Commons:Upload). So anyway, what I did - User:UserB/vector.js - is just add a link to "Better Upload". Thanks. --UserB (talk) 11:48, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah yes, you can choose in Settings whether to use Special:UploadWizard or Commons:Upload (which I chose), that's why it works for me but doesn't for you. Sadly there's no option for Special:Upload or the even handier basic version of Special:Upload you get with the additional parameter uploadformstyle=basic but since one can solve it with some simple JavaScript like above that's acceptable. --Patrick87 (talk) 12:51, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

There is a default gadget, that you can simply disable: At Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets, deselect

ImprovedUploadForm: ^d On Special:Upload, show an easier form and help. [documentation / talk] 

or do it right away, following the dialog: Disable the ImprovedUploadForm gadget now!

Furthermore, you can build a link containing all the information you usually use using Commons:User scripts/UploadLink -- Rillke^(q?) 20:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks four your answer Rillke, but disabling the ImprovedUploadForm is not an option since it seems to provide the preview button in the basic upload form (which i use a lot). See Commons:Village pump/Archive/2013/04#Commons:Upload vs. Special:Upload for the archived discussion on my issue. --Patrick87 (talk) 20:43, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Can decorations be considered creative work?

I ask this because a lot cafés and other public places have decorations or themes. Somethimes it is just using standard decorations (example christmas decorations) or using al kind of decoration elements. Copyrigth can exist on individual decorations or statues, but often it is a mix of decorative elements. At wat point can the whole decoration be considered a creative work? A separate issue are the rigths of interieur designers. I think moving furniture around and repainting the room is in most cases not creative work.Smiley.toerist (talk) 15:00, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• This would be better asked at Commons:Village pump/Copyright. Almost certainly the answer is different in different countries. - Jmabel ! talk 15:38, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Deleting a category

How do I request deletion of a category, please? I created Category:Villages of Nottinghamshire, but it should have been Category:Villages in Nottinghamshire, so I created it correctly, but cannot find how to undo my mistake. Bob1960evens (talk) 16:02, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I've tagged it for deletion; for future reference, you need {{Bad name|Villages in Nottinghamshire}}. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 16:56, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

May 07

Stolen cameras

http://www.stolencamerafinder.com/ seems to work with commons images now. I entered my serial number and it found an image here. The only problem is that it only returns one image on a free account. It is £125.00 per year for a business account. Does anyone wish to look into funding from WMF and see if all of our admin can share the same account? My camera hasn't been stolen but it nice to know that such a service exists.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I doubt that shared accounts are allowed. -- Rillke^(q?) 22:02, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I just sent an email and asked. How many accounts should we get if they don't allow sharing? I should see if my insurance company has one.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

That opens up a Pandora's box of problems,

• bought the camera on ebay
• bought the camera new, but it wasn't
• same serial number assigned to different cameras at the factory, this happens with mobile phone IMEI's.
  • Blocks resulting from any finding
• I don't like someone, so I find the ID number and report that as stolen even though it is their camera.

It's a legal minefield best left to the local police forces. Similar situations exist with mobile telephones, except that the mobile manufacturers and operators assist criminals wherever they can because that helps their profits. Analogue phones couldn't be sold, and so they didn't get stolen very often, SIM cards helped change all that and fuel phone company profits. The first arrests made for using stolen mobiles were cases where the phones were stolen from telephone company execs who then got angry, reported it to police, and made customers angry over the two tiered nature of it all. From day one the phones could be tracked, but that would effect profit.

The whole idea will only ever be left up to individuals, behind-the-scenes work, and your own bots for your own interest. Penyulap ☏ 05:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

With the success cases I read on the site most did a little investigating on their own and then called police. I would think that any abuse of the service would end up with egg on face of abuser. I can prove I own my camera because Future Shop keeps records of it forever, I think. No sense in trying to report mine stolen to irritate me and that could cause charges of reporting a false crime. I think the police love filing those ones.--Canoe1967 (talk) 05:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Why don't I report your camera, or Tom's camera as stolen to my local police, or skip that and just report it on a website, and then blocks ensue ?

Isn't the serial number info publicly available, therefore bots can do their work looking, and nefarious people can make false accusations, all without any help from us ? Penyulap ☏ 05:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I doubt commons would create a policy to block users from uploading photos from a stolen camera. I think the WMF does need to provide user information when faced with a court order though. Then the police and courts can decide whether the report is false or not. I don't know about other countries but reporting false crimes is very serious here. Having the court get WMF to out a user would be blockable and possibly criminal as well.--Canoe1967 (talk) 05:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

It does have to comply with court orders for florida and so on. I can't see where this is going. Penyulap ☏ 06:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

If an image from a stolen camera is uploaded to commons and tagged as 'own work' then the actual owner would have to seek the court order to expose the uploader. Most thieves wouldn't bother uploading to here but I think the site checks facebook, twitter, and other sites as well. Those are easier to track to uploader.--Canoe1967 (talk) 06:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I´m not in the habit of stealing cameras but still feel a bit alarmed by the conversation above. I had a look at my uploads and although the website mentioned above lists my camera as one of the models that do save serial numbers, the EXIF data here at Commons shows none. Does that mean that there is some hidden data still available within the pictures I upload? Not being overly concerned about theft of my camera (it´s just a D80 anyway) I would rather be disturbed by the privacy issues of deputizing Commons. --Rudolph Buch (talk) 23:01, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

There is hidden data that doesn't show at commons. http://regex.info/exif.cgi will show all data, I think. I also got an email back answering my OP as 'not at this time'.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

There is at least an "Exif.Photo.MakerNote" binary blob of 24930 bytes in at least the photo I happened to check. Unless you can decode it, you should suspect it can be used to identify your camera. I may have missed other fields useful for identification and there may of course also be steganographically hidden information. --LPfi (talk) 12:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

The site I linked above: http://regex.info/exif.cgi shows all data, I think. I found I had to link to the full resolution image from http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons after clicking the full resolution button. It does show the external and internal serial numbers, lens serial numbers, geolocation, etc. I don't see any harm in serial numbers but geolocation could cause privacy/outing issues. I am not worried as my camera doesn't have a GPS module.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

No harm in serial numbers? Anyone who uploads a picture under his user name and has published other pictures under his real name anywhere else has his identity matched - not only in Commons, but in all other projects as well. If you know about that, you can avoid it (simply buy a second camera) - but I would expect Commons to eiter warn about that possibility or strip away hidden data that could compromise the user name. --Rudolph Buch (talk) 22:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

This was brought up before, I think. Uploaders need to strip EXIF if they are worried as it would be to complex to strip just specific data from EXIF. We may wish to discuss it again though.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• people might like the idea of a bot which strips out unnecessary data. Penyulap ☏ 00:20, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Commons_talk:EXIF#Privacy discusses the difficulty. It is read only now and would need a stripper and writer to change.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Automatic stripping of EXIF may serve privacy but creates problems for auditing of content. EXIF is an invaluable clue in deletion discussions - in this case, serial numbers in EXIF that can be matched to known serial numbers of professional photographers (e.g. gathered from EXIF of their online photo galleries) are a great way to identify copyvios. Let's be careful before we discard such an advantage. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:34, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree. We have far more reason to keep EXIF than strip it. As I mentioned in the link above we may decide to just put a warning template on upload pages. Is this the forum to discuss that in a new section?--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:28, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

would hiding it have advantages ? allow select users to view it ? Penyulap ☏ 03:08, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I understand the value of EXIF data and have no objection as long as it is transparent to every user what meta data is stored and/or publicly available. The issue here is that it is invisible data stored by commons without revealing this to the user (i.e. it doesn´t show in the EXIF table on the page). Combine that with the ease of bringing together the uploading account with a real person, needing just two pictures and a suitable search engine, and I´d say that the graveness of the privacy violation can´t be outweighted by copyvio detection advatages. There are lots of perfectly honest reasons why someone (including me) doesn´t want to be his user name matched to real life and this should not only be respected by Commons, but also protected by all means. --Rudolph Buch (talk) 20:18, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

This may need to be brought up at Meta. I know of one fair use image uploaded to en:wp of a rare and valuable work in a private collection. The EXIF contained geo data giving its location. We uploaded a stripped version of the image and removed the other one. The easiest would be warning templates at all the upload portals which could link to EXIF editing sites. A bot could probably be written to remove serial numbers and geo data but it would be nice to have the bot leave the geo data intact as an option on upload. The default would be to remove it with an option to include.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:44, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

This is a common problem. I remember seeing an image of a user's cat, an image of a user's dog and (if I remember correctly) an image of some electrical equipment which you would usually have in your home or at work, all with EXIF GPS metadata. I've seen several other similar cases too, like a photo of the cover of a passport and a photo of a paper photo in someone's private photo album. This revealed the location of these users' homes (or possibly the users' workplaces). One problem is that Iphones seem to record GPS data unless the phone owner explicitly disables this. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I just had a user email me an iPhone image to upload: File:Buffalo Deh Cho Bridge 2012.jpg. It shows GPS data but no serial number according to: http://regex.info/exif.cgi . The special upload failed to enter the time/date as it does from my EXIF though.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:23, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Stefan4, it is important not to outline malicious things for idle hands to do, and it's not a good idea to help people who wouldn't otherwise be able to find the information on their own. There are no secrets on the Internet, whatsoever. Let me say that again, there are NO secrets on the Internet. There are simply levels of awareness. Like with socks, I can make a complete list of someone's socks, and what point is it when nothing would come of it ? I think it is proper that everyone discuss the topic while keeping in mind that idle hands ARE reading what we write.

(Penyulap means magician in Indonesian, and I make it a POINT not to help those who shouldn't be helped, and to assist everyone who has a genuine purpose. That may mean speaking in private for some parts of some things.) Penyulap ☏ 08:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

May 01

Beyond categories

There is some brainstorming and discussion going on, on next generation Category system, which might be of interest to Commons. The discussion started at 2013 GLAMWiki Boot Camp D.C., moved to glam-us-l and continues on m:Beyond categories. It is closely related to this VP discussion, and some of those ideas voiced by User:Multichill here and here. Please join. --Jarekt (talk) 14:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Galleries and Categories

I would to better understand what you suggest for galleries and categories.

• Do you suggest to make a gallery for categories that already have a big amount of images? I think of the category:Douala which does not have a gallery at the moment and Douala points directly to the category.
• I am also wondering if there are guidelines for public art. For example I would like to make a gallery for the public artwork Category:Lucas Grandin, Le jardin sonore de Bonamouti to select and organise pictures according to a chronological order. Can I make the gallery? do you suggest to improve the category page first? Is there a template for public art?

thank you. --iopensa (talk) 10:43, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• Generally, the time to make a gallery is when it will have an advantage over a category. Usually that means one or more of the following:
  • A subset of the pictures really stand out, and there is a reason for a page that will let those be singled out.
  • The pictures (or a subset) need captions to make sense.
  • The pictures deserve to be organized in some manner that doesn't quite merit subcategories.
  • The pictures make more sense in a particular order (e.g. pages of a book in order, or illustrations of a work, in order).
  • A category has so many subcategories that the pictures a typical user would really most expect to see for that category are scattered among a large number of categories.
• In general, ask yourself if the gallery can bring something to the material that a category cannot. I think Seattle and the Orient and New York City are good examples. I won't single out any bad examples since I don't want to implicitly criticize people who may have built such pages with good intentions.
• I don't know what you mean by improving the category, so I don't know how to respond to that, nor do I offhand know a specific template for public art, although {{Category definition: Object}} would be relevant. The photos in the category you mention are taken in a relatively narrow span of time. I'm not at all sure why readers would care to have them in chronological order, although there may be something I'm missing. If they had been taken over the course of many decades, then that would be an obviously worthwhile criterion. - Jmabel ! talk 15:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

A very thoughtful answer Jmabel, thanks. I took the liberty of copying it to Commons:When to create a gallery for future reference (just let me know if that bothers you :) Jean-Fred (talk) 10:39, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Errors in DerivativeFX

Everytime (literally) I use DerivativeFX to upload a derivative file, after I have loaded all the data and have clicked on "Upload", I get this message: "Sorry! We could not process your edit due to a loss of session data. Please try again. If it still does not work, try logging out and logging back in.", and the uploading is interrupted. Does anyone know why? --GianniG46 (talk) 13:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the DerivativeFX does not know your edit token which is required since a while to "prevent drive-by-uploads". I am surprised it is still offered this way. -- RE rillke questions? 19:31, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I thought it was just me having this problem! Is there a new method to show derivative files now? NikNaks _{talk - gallery - wikipedia} 13:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I recommend using the tool until the last step, submit a small dummy-file and then upload the real file after being redirected to Commons (and the error-message appeared). -- RE rillke questions? 10:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

This is exactly what I do, except that I submit the real file, instead of a dummy one (I'm not sure the software will not work...). The odds, of course, are that I have to wait twice for the upload time. --GianniG46 (talk) 13:03, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you get Luxo updating his tool. It's fairly simple to transfer the editToken from Commons to derivativeFX. Then, also the first step there (check whether you are logged-in) could be skipped. -- RE rillke questions? 20:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

<The above discussion has been digged out from [3]>

Today I used DerivativeFX, and there was no error message – but in the end, it didn't work. It seemed that upload ended successfully, but there was no file.

To its excuse I must say that editing on commons is rather slow at the moment. -- Pemu (talk) 14:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I have also had problems for weeks with derivativeFX not recognizing valid licenses...two examples are {{PD-USGov-Military-Air Force}} and {{PD-USGov-Military-National Guard}}. Kelly (talk) 15:19, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Files created by DerivativeFX often have a lot of problems. They often end up without license in Category:Media without a license: needs history check, or they end up with nonsense metadata if the file is not using standard templates, but {{Artwork}}, etc. Also often people misuse it, by uploading crops of a single file or files with adjusted color balance. In such cases matadata should not be different from the original. --Jarekt (talk) 17:33, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

IRC office hours about Flow on 9 May

In #wikimedia-office (on IRC) on 9 May, 1800-1900 UTC, Brandon Harris (senior designer at WMF) will lead a discussion of Flow, an upcoming change in the wiki discussion interface.

Flow involves replacing user talk pages.

He will be showing an interactive prototype so you can try it out, and we want to hear your feedback. Please come! If that time doesn't work, please let us know what times will work. Thanks. Sumana Harihareswara, Engineering Community Manager at WMF (talk) 21:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Meeting log available. Sumana Harihareswara, Engineering Community Manager at WMF (talk) 19:13, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

May 08

Transcode error after uploading File:Republica 2013 - Tim Pritlove.ogv

Hey, I have uploaded File:Republica 2013 - Tim Pritlove.ogv, somehow the transcoding for Web streamable WebM (360P) done by wikimedia servers failed without any error message. The other transcodes were completed successfully. Is there a way to fix this? Since the file is >100 MB I'm not able to upload a "new" version to start the transcoding again. During the time I've uploaded it there were some issues with wikimedia servers which might have affacted this error. --sitic (talk) 15:54, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Some admin seems to have reset the transcode. (Transcode started 1 hour, 39 minutes, 12 seconds ago.)

Also keep in mind it is possible to directly transfer files from YouTube to Mediawiki (Help:youtube2mediawiki) --McZusatz (talk) 20:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Erm, how does one use youtube2mediawiki? The web page https://github.com/bit/youtube2mediawiki is incomprehensible to me. — SMUconlaw (talk) 08:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I changed help:youtube2mediawiki: You need to install python first and use the command line afterwards. --McZusatz (talk) 10:31, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. — SMUconlaw (talk) 10:52, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

May 09

Prominent error messages in template documentation are distracting and potentially confusing

Our template documentation pages start with the template. However when the template starts with blank parameters the resulting display has red error messages, In a complex template with multiple parameters these multiple red lines make the displayed template hard to read. See for example {{Licensed-PD-Art-two}}. For a moderately experienced user who understands where these come from, they are a distraction and annoyance while trying to learn how or whether to use the template. I expect they are intimidating or confusing to less experienced editors, who might interpret them as indicating a problem with the template itself of simply leave the page in frustration. I do not know whether there is a standard approach for avoiding this issue (maybe a dummy parameter)that simply isn't being used, or whether a more fundamental fix is necessary, but the problem definitely influences the usability of the documentation. Dankarl (talk) 15:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I fixed {{Licensed-PD-Art-two}}, but you are right the templates that require parameters to work are hard to preview on the template page. They can often be written in a such a way as to not display any errors on the template page, but it is extra work and not everybody does it, and we just have so many templates. --Jarekt (talk) 17:24, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Jarekt, that looks like a straightforward and adaptable fix. Anything I should keep in mind if I want to try it myself next time? Dankarl (talk) 18:31, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Only that this approach would not work for many types of templates. --Jarekt (talk) 13:02, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

And while we are discussing it; a template that generates any category in function of a parameter without any form of checking is asking for problems as you can see here; amazing how many pd-old variants we can have. I have given up trying to correct them as it cannot be done by a bot or cat-a-lot, so I drop those categories in Category:PD Art. --Foroa (talk) 16:20, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I am a big fan of maintenance categories wot catching issues with the templates, but I do not like templates that add categories based on the input. One way to fix the problem with PD-Art categories would be to have some subtemplate that used switch statement to assign different category based on the input and dump all the others to a default category. We could implement that. --Jarekt (talk) 17:24, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Editnotice for talk pages of DRs

I noticed that new users add their comments to the talk page of a DR instead of the the actual DR page (example 1, 2). Such comments are likely to be overlooked.
What about adding an editnotice to DR talk pages? --Leyo 11:50, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how an edit notice could harm. -- Rillke^(q?) 14:50, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, good idea. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:18, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

No harm at all. Admin may wish to boldly add it without consensus. If anyone complains then we can discuss it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:22, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure how this technically works since it's not a namespace of its own and not a single page only. --Leyo 17:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to improve Template:Editnotices/Group/Commons talk:Deletion requests. -- Rillke^(q?) 18:31, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks great, thank you. --Leyo 18:43, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

JP2 files of maps from Library of Congress

The Library of Congress has scans of Ivan Petroff's 1882 Alaska census maps. We have a low-resolution version of one of these which is unsatisfactory for most purposes. LOC's high-resolution files are in .JP2 format (JPEG2000), which I can download but which my software won't open. Is there a way I can get these uploaded here in readable format? Dankarl (talk) 22:00, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

There's a list of applications supporting the JPEG 2000 format on Englisch Wikipedia, see en:JPEG 2000. An easy and free image viewer I can recommend for such tasks is en:Irfan View (make sure to also download the official plugin pack which adds support for most image formats). --Patrick87 (talk) 23:34, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Dankarl (talk) 14:14, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Are there a lot of these maps? You can request a batch upload instead upload all manually. --Slick (talk) 14:36, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm only after 4 in this instance. Dankarl (talk) 23:24, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

May 11

Global usage for articles

Hi all, is there a way to determine the global usage of articles in the same way it is possible for files? Special:GlobalUsage only works for files as far as I can tell and Special:WhatLinksHere only lists local usage. --Patrick87 (talk) 15:30, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean by 'global'? Ruslik (talk) 16:21, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean either. Files may be transcluded in other projects − hence the need for a "global what links here". Articles/templates cannot, so a global usage does not make sense. Jean-Fred (talk) 16:41, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, you can put an Interwikilink to a Commons article or a Commons category on other Wikimedia projects. The question is if there's a functionality like Special:WhatLinksHere that also shows links from other WMF projects. --Patrick87 (talk) 16:51, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Anyone? It would be really helpful to decide whether deleting some "gallery" pages (which only contain 2 or three images, not even representing the topic well, e.g. HVD) was acceptable. In such cases just giving the Commons category is much more useful (In case of the example even the category only includes 6 files). --Patrick87 (talk) 16:14, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Did you try GLAMorous : settings in my preferences - gadgets - Tools for categories - GLAMorous file usage analysis tool, works on user contributions too. But that is not a valid reason to delete galleries, galleries are per definition always on-going works. sample --Foroa (talk) 17:27, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

If a gallery is small and unrepresentative, you could consider adding some of the best images from the category and removing any dross. Or, if it is of good quality but represents only a particular subset of the category or a particular POV, you could nominate it for renaming so it will not show up ahead of the category in searches (reason:misleading name). Dankarl (talk) 17:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

GLAMorous still doesn't allow me to find Wikis linking to the article HVD itself. It only shows me usage statistics for files which are on that page.
I see your point that when possible galleries should be improved. But as for the example it's obvious that the gallery isn't any longer "on-going work" (it was not changed since 2007 [sic!] and it won't possibly change in future since HVD is essentially dead). Furthermore if I actually started expanding the gallery, I'd end up having most of the images of the corresponding category in the gallery (so there's no real use for a separate gallery either). And in the end a category is always up to date regarding it's contents, whereas a gallery will eventually be outdated for subjects of low interest where no one cares to manually update galleries. --Patrick87 (talk) 19:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

May 14

Wiki Loves Monuments 2013 in the United Kingdom is ready to go!

For the very first time, the UK community will be competing in the annual Wiki Loves Monuments competition in September. This is a community-led effort, with support from the UK chapter, Wikimedia UK. A number of volunteers have already expressed interest in helping to organize the contest, but there is much to be done and many more volunteers are needed, both now and over the coming few months.

If you would like to contribute towards making our first ever competition the great success we expect it to be, please visit Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments 2013 in the United Kingdom and leave your name there. Even if you are only able to offer us moral support, or want to take part as photographer in September, please leave your details anyway. You need not be based in the UK to help. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:30, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Can you add the Academy Award to someone's list? I am still not sure what the WMF opinion would be but it would be nice to have FOP images of it to replace our fair use one on en:wp. w:List of Academy Award trophies on public display has the four a in countries with FOP. If the other two countries are in the monuments project you may wish to let them know and get images as well.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I have a question about licensing

http://www5d.biglobe.ne.jp/~gakai/sozai/SO_kiyaku.html

Does this mean that I can assign licenses to pictures I created using materials provided by him? if yes, then I hope to assign the license of two of the pictures I created using materials provided by him to cc-zero or PD-self.--K1234567890y (talk) 18:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Licensing status of Defense Distributed software products

• "Permission is granted to anyone to use this software for any purpose, including commercial applications, and to alter it and redistribute it freely ..."

This is confirmed as per source:

• Bump, Philip (May 10, 2013). "How Defense Distributed Already Upended the World". The Atlantic Wire. The Atlantic Monthly Group; www.theatlanticwire.com. Retrieved on May 14, 2013.

Just putting here as an FYI. I believe this conforms to Wikimedia Commons licensing requirements.

---

Posting here, for further discussion.

Any thoughts?

Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 19:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

The Atlantic Wire article you point follows that with "with minor caveats." We need to know what the minor caveats are. (Then they follow it with the bizarre sentence "Had the group tried to copyright its design", as if that wasn't a copyright license they just showed there.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:27, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking of uploading the obviously unquestionably legal CAD design files, such as the one that lets you print out a practice plastic toy gun for use in self-defense martial arts classes, etc. It's a solid block of plastic, not a real gun, but a toy and model prop. -- Cirt (talk) 20:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

?? Not an allowed file type, as far as I'm aware... AnonMoos (talk) 20:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, an image of the design, or of the object itself, would be an allowed file type. -- Cirt (talk) 21:30, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

---

Updated with text below of the Readme file with the actual licensing statements

There is a file inside Liberator.zip, named "License.txt" with the following text:

/* DD-Liberator
  version 1.0, May 2013

  (zlib.h -- license)
This software is provided 'as-is', without any express or implied
warranty.  In no event will the authors be held liable for any damages
arising from the use of this software.

  Permission is granted to anyone to use this software for any purpose,
  including commercial applications, and to alter it and redistribute it
  freely, subject to the following restrictions:

  1. The origin of this software must not be misrepresented; you must
not claim that you wrote the original software. If you use this
software in a product, an acknowledgment in the product documentation
would be appreciated but is not required.

  2. Altered source versions must be plainly marked as such, and must
not be misrepresented as being the original software.

  3. This notice may not be removed or altered from any source distribution.

Copyright is still theft.

This licensing does seem to conform almost exactly to {{CC-BY-SA-3.0}}.

Again, at the moment I'm mulling over any potential issues with uploading the practice gun.

And also maybe images, but not plans or coding, of the other stuff, in finalized FreeCAD 3D rendering.

Thoughts?

-- Cirt (talk) 23:04, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

May 15

our template PD-Sri Lanka may be very wrong (is not)

When checking a number of historical images of the bloody anti-Tamil pogroms in 1983 in Sri Lanka, requested by User:Australian_Sun for speedy deletion due to alleged copyvio, I read in the current {{PD-Sri Lanka}} "Photographic works or applied art: During the life of the author and 70 years after his death.". Thereby these images from 1983 seemed to be clear copyvios. However, when I checked Sri Lanka's current intellectual property law (pdf), I read in section 19 (5) "Duration of Economic Rights" on page 13: "In the case of a photographic work or a work of applied art, the rights referred to in section 10 shall be protected until the expiration of twenty-five years from the making of the work." Section 10 (page 9) is about "Economic Rights". The 25-year protection as I read from the law-text seem to be in conflict with the 70 years pma in our template. What's true? --Túrelio (talk) 15:17, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

w:Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights also tells that photos are subject to a 25-year term, but seems to tell that this only applies to photos taken before 1978. Also, for Commons, they must have been taken before 1971 due to COM:URAA. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The first interwiki doesn't work. --Túrelio (talk) 15:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Link now corrected. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:50, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The description of the File:Sri Lanka's intellectual property law.pdf mentions that it is not the current version of the law and that it was superseded by this version. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. The new law is "bad" news, as it extended the former 25-year protection for photographic works to full 70 pma. I was mislead by the outdated version of Sri Lanka copyright law hosted on Commons. --Túrelio (talk) 19:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

However, it does mean that photos taken before 1971 are URAA-safe as long as they were published without US copyright formalities, which is at least better than nothing. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Gadgets and tools have disappeared, and other problems

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T50515
RESOLVED

All my gadgets and tools have disappeared, I no longer see the toolbar at the top of editing box, and when I click "Preferences" all the menus now appear on one page instead of in separate tabs. What's happened? Is anyone else encountering this problem? — SMUconlaw (talk) 19:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks like this is related to the problem raised in the previous section. Also, forgot to mention that I can't expand any categories as the [+] symbols have all disappeared. — SMUconlaw (talk) 19:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Just logged in to upload some photos. I'm also noticing all of the above problems. Plus the EXIF data section on file pages is fully expanded by default, with no option to collapse. I'm also currently noticing that there's no auto-completion in the search field. It's almost as if the usual javascript code isn't functioning. Also, the upload wizard is just hanging on my system, stuck on the rotating circle. Same in Firefox and Opera. I could probably use Commonist instead to upload, but I'll be back tomorrow to try the upload wizard again. Regards, Rept0n1x (talk) 20:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, if it's any help, I can report that none of these problems are occurring on the English Wikipedia which continues to function fine. The problems appear to be confined solely to Commons, at least from my PC. Rept0n1x (talk) 20:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Please see #Some preference settings are not applied the section directly above. EnWikipedia will get the new version on Monday, May 20. -- Rillke^(q?) 20:50, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the help. In Firefox, I've just purged the browser cache as per your instructions above, and I still appear to be experiencing the problems. Also, in the case of Opera, I don't think I've ever visited Commons using that browser before this evening, so nothing really to purge. Although I purged the Opera cache anyway just in case, but the problem appears to persist. Also, I've just tested it in Chrome and likewise purged the browser cache, with the same result - the problem persists on my system. It's quite possible I'm doing something wrong or missing some critical step, but I thought I'd report my findings in case anyone else experiences the same behaviour. Thanks again, Rept0n1x (talk) 21:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

There appears to be some broken javascript which is causing all (or at least most javascript) to fail. This is what I get from the Chrome debugger: Uncaught TypeError: Object #<Object> has no method 'hook' . I don't know where to report this, and clearing the cache does not resolve the issue. Mackensen (talk) 21:07, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply (and to RillkeBot above), indeed it seems that the mw.hook error that you've found in the Javascript would certainly explain the problems. Rept0n1x (talk) 21:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Also can confirm that all problems are resolved now. Thanks very much to the fixers for sorting it out! Rept0n1x (talk) 06:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Metadata won't collapse?

Commons just broke, but fortunately there's a conversation about it above. But at File:Ane Brun, Le Cargo interview, 2008.jpg, the metadata doesn't collapse ("show extended dtls" "hide extended dtls"). Is this also a part of today's Commons breakdown? None of my images are collapsing their metadata, so I'm going to assume yes. Anyway, huge relief this isn't just me. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁galaxies 21:20, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

This is mentioned at Commons:Village_pump#Gadgets_and_tools_have_disappeared.2C_and_other_problems above. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁galaxies 21:22, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Everything working for me, thanks mysterious person! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁galaxies 22:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Resolved– Kerαunoςcopia^◁galaxies 22:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

May 16

Rapla

No chance for IPs to create Rapla. In Germany they have a sad phrase for things like these: Warum einfach wenn es auch ümständlich geht?/Why simple......? 91.66.249.106 07:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Unfortunately, 99.9% of the new galleries created by IPs were trash of spam. -- Rillke^(q?) 08:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Making it easier for problematic files to be brought to our attention

After recent events on Jimmy Wales' English Wikipedia talk page, one of our Commons Oversighters tweeted a blog post he has published addressing many "facts" which are in the public domain regarding what is a serious issue that affects all sites on the internet which rely on user provided content; whether that be WMF projects, Facebook, Flickr, etc. User:Odder should be commended for providing information on the issue as it affects Wikimedia Commons, and how this project handles the issue.

Long-term editors on WMF projects should be aware that sensitive information/images should be referred to oversighters on the applicable projects (or stewards if that project does not have local oversighters), or via normal deletion processes for copyright issues, etc. However, in his blog post, Odder states (and I hope he does not mind me posting it in its entirety here):

There’s nothing secret about how we deal with potential child pornography, and in my opinion it’s quite a good and scalable solution to a very delicate problem — though I do see a lot of space for improvement; for instance, adding a simple abuse link to every Commons page might be a good first step, so that we don’t require people to actually e-mail us to report content that they find illegal.

I think that this is something that we as a community should explore. Commons:Contact us is available on the side bar of all pages on Commons, and Commons:Contact us/Problems is another click away from that; reporting copyright violations and other inappropriate content requires a person to email OTRS and/or the WMF. We should probably be providing a one-click reporting method on all images so that issues can be brought to our attention quickly, and without the submitter requiring to be familiar with our processes. Other websites have this feature, and so probably should we.

Commons:Contact us/Problems currently has copyright violations being sent to info-en-c@wikimedia.org, which I believe is an English Wikipedia queue, that people with permission for permissions-commons likely do not have access to. Files hosted on Commons should likely be dealt with by OTRS agents with access to Commons-related queues. So I would like to propose that a dedicate Commons queue is created with all OTRS agents with permissions-commons to be given access to.

In relation to "Inappropriate images of children" an alert could be sent to both legal@wikimedia.org and our team of oversighters, to ensure that any offending material is removed as a matter of urgency from the site. As Odder notes, the legal team is not available 24/7 but our oversighters technically are.

Thoughts/ideas/comments on how such a process for any problematic files could be introduced would be great. russavia (talk) 09:25, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Support that idea, as I found it always a bit needlessly onerous to jump from the browser to my email program, search for the recent WMF-legal address, then copy and paste all necessary information into the email program. This could really be made easier to handle.
However, what I find unfortunate is that the blog-post in its reporting section again associates the name of one of our admin-colleagues with the term CP, as was done in the original blog-post and on Jimbos talkpage. Such an association is unjustified and should be avoided due to its deleterious potential for real-life. --Túrelio (talk) 09:40, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

This is now fixed, thanks. odder (talk) 11:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 12:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Túrelio's concern for how this was handled (not a comment directed at Odder, the relevant blog post was helpfully factual and just needed to avoid accidentally propagating deliberately disruptive and apparently criminal allegations against one of our volunteers). I would support future proposals for an immediate indef Commons block or ban for anyone that appears to be deliberately causing disruption by soapboxing criminal claims of this type, whether on Commons, en.wp or off-wiki, against Commons contributors, without following the well understood proper process. The process exists for good reason, and should anyone not wish to follow it, they are free to contact local police with their reports about any suspected criminal activity; as indeed I have done in the past. The police will doubtless advise them to follow the complaints procedure, or will contact WMF legal themselves.

I would hope that WMF legal are paying close attention to this case and the way that Wikimedia projects are now being actively used to make public criminal claims against our volunteers. On behalf of our volunteers, the WMF should be prepared to mount a public civil case for significant damages against anyone who persists with blatant attempts to cause real-life harm, targeted against Wikimedia project volunteers with a history of correctly following project policies for creating content on our projects for the public benefit. --Fæ (talk) 10:54, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Fæ, I also hope that the WMF legal department are paying close attention to this case and to admins whose actions would seem to violate the terms of use. Although I have been in touch with the WMF, I have heard nothing from their legal department as yet. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:17, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Commons affects all Wikis, so you cannot create such a policy. Images can and will be discussed where they are used. As for the second half, being in compliance with "Commons policy" does not mean you are in compliance with the WMF or with a law of a nation. After all, policies have no legal binding and cannot be taken as in compliance with the law. That is a legal disclosure that is made very clear. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:08, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

 Support temporary block, perhaps a month, for the first violation. This block should be appealable via the user's talk page. A person may just not notice the policy or the link. I noticed "Nominate for deletion" only after a couple of weeks of using Commons, if the "Abuse" link is placed there it is possible that a person will see something that they think is abusive before noticing the way to report it. The second violation, or in cases where it is clear that the intention of the individual is to disrupt and not to help, indef can be in order. That can also be appealed by a user who will have to in his/her own words describe the policy and state that he/she understands it and will follow it. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 02:57, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Contact us and Commons:Contact us/Problems are no good. There should be a link to AN at least, so that the image can be deleted immediately, the person who does the deletion will know how to contact oversight. Email to the wmf never gets answered by anyone prompt or sober, better to simply short out the link to the admins who are most actively checking their watchlist.

A link that chooses where to go using switches would be better though. If the image has been nominated before, then taking them to the talkpage where they can see the responses would handle a lot of it. Example FAQ #11. No this is not child pornography, it's just a belly-button, get over it, see a psychiatrist, check with your therapist first. Across the known world this image is OK, just calm yourself down, use medication as directed." and so on. Talkpages already have notes about previous deletion discussions, so adding the typical automatic responses to most frequently asked questions without workload for others would help a great deal I expect. (though you need to have the people smart enough to implement such things) (mental note, add this to the replacement project, MwaHAhHhah, etc.) Penyulap ☏ 10:28, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose any solution that puts more strain on our OTRS volunteers. I agree that child porn can be a problem but a faster and better solution would be to tag them with a template that activates a bot. The bot hides the image from public view and then emails the WMF. Adding more workload to OTRS would be a big mistake when a bot can have more effect and respond much faster.--Canoe1967 (talk) 10:56, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
  • @Canoe1967 IMO making it easier to tag the files and letting a bot to hide/delete them is just a potential recipe for disaster, what could stop vandals from tagging and hiding other images? files should be reviewed by authorized users and then they can delete/report any illegal content.

Besides the Commons:Contact us, we also have a link on the sidebar for unregistered users to nominate files for deletion, although the wording may not be the best, maybe something like "Report this file" would be easier to understand. I agree with Penyulap, I think we could add an option to Stockphoto gadget where registered and unregistered users could report the files for different reason by choosing different options from a dialog box, it could also point users to AN or the file talk page.  ■ MMXX ^talk 12:02, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

We could probably have the bot only work on newer files and the template only usable by registered users. For IPs we could just have an email button to WMF but not the OTRS who are far too busy as it is.--Canoe1967 (talk) 12:38, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

This issue that I highlighted in my blog post was not really about the difficulties in reporting child pornography on Commons, it was about child pornography on Commons not being reported. Changing the reporting mechanism does not address this problem at all. Having said that, this is an issue which affects all projects, not just Commons. I suggest that the sensible way to handle this is for the WMF to have an email address that is monitored 24/7, rather than relying on the judgment of untrained volunteers across a large number of projects. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:28, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

24/7 coverage for less than 100 images a year? We should just give admin to the FBI. They can afford 24/7 coverage far more than we can. If you force volunteers to cover email 24/7 then they may respond slow out of spite or keep images that would normally be deleted then put them in DR and create a huge Striesand Effect on them. Our uploaders are traceable unlike other sites so only the really stupid ones upload to here anyway. Our projects are part of the solution not part of the problem. I can see a faster access to existing WMF email than the existing two clicks now but not increasing workloads of volunteers or staff budgets for a very small problem.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Canoe1967, I'm not suggesting that untrained volunteers do this. I'm suggesting that the WMF have paid and trained employees who do this. I would rather not have volunteers involved in this at all, but if they are involved, I expect them to be trained in the applicable laws. Where does this number of "less than 100" incidents come from? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:50, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

"less than 100"? - from an oversighter[4]. --Túrelio (talk) 20:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

That figure refers to the number of images that were "suppressed ... as potentially abusive", not the number of images that were suspected child pornography. I have no way of verifying this or knowing if "double digits" means 11 or 99 - is there a way for anyone without oversight privileges to see how many images have been suppressed? That number fails to account for images that were simply deleted (as so many uploads are). It may also fail to account for images deleted by the WMF if they use a different set of tools. In any case, how many images of child pornography on Commons is an acceptable number? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:02, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Even if it is 99, are you suggesting having a paid staff member on call 24/7 (in reality 4 for 8-hour shifts and weekends) solely for something which will happen to them, on average, once every 4 days? -mattbuck (Talk) 23:16, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that anyone here is competent enough to judge whether all images that were suppressed could be considered child pornography or not, especially as our general policy is better be safe than sorry — which is related to the fact that, as DC correctly points out, none of Commons oversighters are trained in fighting this kind of illegal content. This policy means that there might have been some borderline cases of suppressed images that specialised lawyers could argue against (even though our usage of the tools is rather conservative).

As I wrote in my blog post — and as anyone who read the RevisionDelete help page and the general oversight policy can tell — there is currently no possibility for users without the suppressrevision user right to review the suppressions (with the possible exception of Wikimedia developers). As far as I am aware, the WMF does not use any other tools than suppression and then server-side deletion to remove illegal content (probably because things would break pretty badly), but you'll need to confirm that with them to be completely sure. odder (talk) 14:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed Canoe1967. We should be paying attention closely to what Odder has written in his blog post, as it objectively presents cold-hard facts. For a number of CP uploads in the double digit realm over the period of an entire year, it is totally unfeasible to have a WMF legal representative available 24/7 in order to attend to (working on numbers) a single report every several days. That is why, as Odder mentions, our oversighters are spread over multiple timezones and are essentially available 24/7. At the very least we should be changing Commons:Contact us/Problems to something more inline with what Odder raises in his blog post. Other solutions are obviously a matter for community discussion, and I have alerted our OS, legal and Philippe to this post in order to get their opinions too. russavia (talk) 16:10, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we need much consensus, if any, to add convenience links to file pages. We could even add one to http://www.missingkids.com/cybertipline . I could be wrong when converting 'double digits' to less than 100. If it were binary it would be 3 images or less and if it were hex it would be 271 images or less. We may even ask the foundation if they wish to create a rare 'shared account' for use by the FBI or the cybertipline. This account would have strict limits about users who upload regular images but full checkuser powers, etc. for any uploads of legitimate CP. They would be able to locate and identify uploaders very quickly with such powers.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:08, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Russavia, just to be clear, I am not suggesting that the WMF employ full-time staff to deal with this issue exclusively. I am suggesting that there is an email which is monitored 24/7 so that action can be taken by someone who is trained in the law and able to respond quickly with appropriate action. The WMF is a worldwide organization and may already have people who could perform this function in their normal workday timezone. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:10, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

@Delicious carbuncle why don't you contact http://www.missingkids.com/HowYouCanHelp and see if they are willing to contact WMF and tailor a plan for the projects? They are experienced professionals and not amateur volunteers like us. As far as I know images can be uploaded to most of the 900(?) projects easily so the issue may be larger than just commons. Seeking any consensus at commons for a WMF decision would take far longer. Bring it up on meta and see if any there want to move forward with 24/7 service for all projects. We may be able to give a few of our members paid jobs to monitor emails using funding from the above project that is already in place.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:10, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Canoe, a worldwide list or an international organisation is an appropriate proposal for you to make, rather than a USA-only site. Penyulap ☏ 03:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to edit Template:ReportAbuse (mainly Template:ReportAbuse/layout) and view the result e.g. here. If something useful comes out, I will spend more time with it. -- Rillke^(q?) 22:26, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• No

Canoe1967, to be honest, I have decided that any participation in Meta is an absolute waste of time. I'm not looking to make jobs for people, I'm hoping that this can be handled with the WMF's existing staff. I do not know if that is possible, but as you note, this is an issue that affects all projects which is why I may not sound supportive for the Commons-specific suggestions made here. I have been on touch with one WMF employee and I know that Russavia has as well, but I have not heard anything back or seen any comments from them here. I may get in touch with the group you mention to see if perhaps they can help the WMF think about solutions. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Commons "problems" are Commons' problems. Email to OTRS is not legal service to the Wikimedia Foundation and does not provide security or any backing in any way, shape or form, of its projects or its volunteers as a whole. Bringing them to OTRS does not remove the issue, but instead sends it to a separate pool of volunteers to decide on project policy. This is not the remit of OTRS. Using our email system to verify permission or submit files securely, with reference, is fine, but it is not going to be a place where agents are authority on what may or may not be inappropriate images nor having any governance on Commons policy. Commons has plenty of place for that.

with a firm OTRS admin hat, Keegan (talk) 08:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Keegan, this is an OTRS issue. You will notice that our contact page (as noted in my opener) states that copyright violations should be sent to info-en-c@wikimedia.org and we are not only talking about the issue of CP here, but a general approach to allow anyone to report issues with files to us. I asked on IRC about "info-en-c" -- is this a Commons queue? Do people with permissions-commons have access to this queue? Can we bring files hosted on Commons back under the Commons umbrella in terms of OTRS? russavia (talk) 09:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

If Commons believes that there is a neccessity for contact in reporting alleged child pornography, OTRS is not the place for it. OTRS is a courtesy project that we supply to fill the information gap that email can provide in a different manner than on-wiki. OTRS is not for abuse or misuse management on a project-wide scale that does not exist other than its scalability with oversight requests. A general subqueue for reporting child pornography will not happen on OTRS, because its volunteers are in no way, shape or form equipped to handle, nor should it. This is a Commons matter. Keegan (talk) 03:49, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Keegan, please go and read everything that I have written again; I believe I've been pretty clear thus far. We are not talking about reporting of CP via OTRS in this matter. We are talking the reporting of copyright violations to info-en-c. Could you please re-read what's been written and the few questions which have been asked, and get back to us. Cheers, russavia (talk) 03:59, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I read what you wrote, Russavia, and I'm happy to clear up my interpretation.

You are raising a discussion of "problematic images" and how to best streamline reporting and dealing with such cases. This, as you outline it, is two-fold: the matter of copyright violations, and the matter of "problematic images," which you quote Odder in direct relation to such problems relate to child pornography. In either case, OTRS is not your answer.

1. Copyright violations: info-c does exist, but it does not get many notifications. Copyright violations on the English Wikipedia, which that is primarily used for, is largely handled by the on-wiki process. This is a best practice, because it is open for review of what are essentially deletion requests. Commons does have an OTRS email queue, and we could theoretically set it up for such requests. However, the queue is not properly staffed considering the size of requests that this could generate, and again best practice across WMF wikis is to keep this process on-wiki. Commons has the stability, administrative core, and userbase to execute this successfully.
2. Problematic images: reporting this to OTRS is entirely outside of our remit for reasons previously mentioned. If there is an issue of reporting things like child pornography to Commons, I absolutely leave that issue to be addressed on Commons. Do not drag these problems over to another project with a different userbase, solve it locally or by stewards. OTRS is not going to be a reference repository for these sorts of takedown requests.

These Commons problems can only be solved here using this wiki. Keegan (talk) 07:36, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

A different idea is to create a specialised OTRS queue that oversighters and WMF legal staff would have access to, and create an e-mail form that people could use to send messages directly to that queue. Using OTRS would have the advantage of being able to respond to false reports with predefined messages, easily mark messages as spam (something that isn't easy with mailman, especially as the oversight mailing list isn't moderated), and archive all reports. This wouldn't be anything new, since there are already a few oversight addresses that are in fact OTRS queues, though I think this something that the WMF LCA team would want to have a say in. odder (talk) 16:05, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose There is a perfectly functional solution that doesn't involve OTRS or paid staff members, and works on every project: email the stewards. Child pornography unquestionably raises to the level of 'emergency that allows Stewards to act on projects that have local oversighters', and there are 40 stewards in a variety of time zones. If too many emails come in and it becomes too much work for the stewards, they could either delegate a small number of stewards to moderate the mailing list, create a clerk system, or push for an increase in numbers during the next election. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, I don't think that this is a perfectly functional idea, Sven. The whole point of my suggestion was to make it easier for people to report images, and not requiring them to e-mail us (or making it easier to do so) is the crux of it. Wikimedia stewards have never been responsible for suppressing potential child pornography on Commons because of the existence of local oversighters; as a sidenote, it should be mentioned that we do not have problems with reaction time, as all reports of potentially illegal content are responded to within a few hours (sometimes even minutes), which is much better than the 12 hours than Flickr takes pride in. odder (talk) 15:53, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

If you want to create a button "Click to report" that sends an email to the stewards, that would get at what you're trying for. I don't care about the how, I care about the who, and in this case, OTRS is the wrong who because you want to minimize the people who are exposed to the content. As to the people commenting above on how copyright infringement is handled, there's a huge difference between dealing with copyright infringement and dealing with child porn, in that the latter is illegal to view and the former isn't. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:05, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

So how in your opinion does sending an e-mail to 46 people instead of 5 (five) limit the number of people exposed to the content? The current ways of dealing with potential child pornography are to either (1) e-mail the WMF or (2) contact local oversighters via e-mail, or sometimes via IRC, and you're suggesting to include even more people in the process. As for your other argument, as far as I am aware, viewing potential child pornography is legal, at least under the US federal law; if it weren't, then people who report such content to proper authorities could be prosecuted (and none of the people who are in regular touch with the NCMEC that I know are currently in jail). odder (talk) 16:13, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I was under the impression that a solution was being looked for for all projects. On projects with local oversighters, the email can go to the local oversighter mailing list. For other projects, it can go to the Stewards. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:37, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Any solution that relies on untrained volunteers is a less than adequate solution, in my opinion. I am comfortable asking WMF employees to view and assess possible child porn if that is understood to be part of their job. I am not comfortable asking an unknown group of volunteer oversighters or stewards to do that for a number of reasons. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:24, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not sure OTRS has the bandwidth to deal with this. Stifle (talk) 21:53, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Reusers

Am I the only individual who notices that there is a huge pink elephant in the room? The image that is available on Commons is available for the whole world, and we say to everybody "Come and use our images, it is not only legal, but we want you to do so" (we even go to great length to disallow NC licenced, and some even take it to discourage GFDL because it makes it "impractical" for printed media). And then the files get deleted, suppressed, wiped, shredded, etc; and the only thing that is given to "the rest of the world" is "Write to legal@..." How is this helpful? Please keep in mind that we are not simply an image repository, we are a repository of freely distributable educational content.

What happens when stuff is already republished on other sites? And (even harder question) what happens if somebody has printed 10000000000 copies of a book in 500 languages that uses an image from Commons that we suppress as child pornography? Sinnamon Girl (talk) 03:19, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but that aspect is rather irrelevant for the current discussion, in addition to the fact that CP images are often deleted shortly after upload. Besides, this "problem" does not differ between images deleted for suspected of being a CP (<100/year) and images deleted for suspected of being a copyvio (approx. 2000/day). --Túrelio (talk) 14:33, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Technical feature

Just to make sure this doesn't get lost: Rillke has done some good initial prototyping work with Template:ReportAbuse and MediaWiki:Gadget-AbuseLink.trial.js (see demo). I think this merits further discussion and also have invited WMF legal to comment on workflows as time allows. I've started Commons:Reporting abuse as a draft space for further discussion, and will leave some notes on the talk page there as well.--Eloquence (talk) 08:20, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I think this is great, Eloquence, and it is nice to see someone from the WMF participating in this discussion. Good work, Rilke. The same problems of training and responsibility, however, still exist. Where do the complaints about possible child porn go? Are the recipients trained to assess whether or not this the image is illegal? What happens if someone complains about an image and it is not deleted (for whatever reason) - does the complainant get notified? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:50, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Rillke: a nice demo. The problems of training exist no matter what tools are used; this seems to simplify one step in the process. --SJ+

The full thread above was too long for me right now, but hopefully my request will be slightly relevant. Please can we have a toolbox button that adds {{consent|query}} to a filepage, and notifies the uploader? Thanks. --99of9 (talk) 12:04, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

+10 --SJ+ 00:08, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

 Support This would be pragmatic and would be easy to pull quick reports and longer term analysis from. I suggest the same button gives some of the other {{Consent}} underused options that I find highly useful, such as "appearspublic" and "published". --Fæ (talk) 05:19, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Bizarre search result

Why does File:Black genitalia.jpg (caution: explicit) appear as the first search result for "purpose" (note, contains same image)? The file description page does not contain the word purpose. — Scott • talk 17:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Indeed a mystery as even the search results do not show an occurence of "purpose" for that image, as opposed to the subsequent results. --Túrelio (talk) 18:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I know little of programming could it be a hidden code somewhere?--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:15, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

At least not in the image-page or talkpage. Interestingly, when you search for "purpos" (e omitted), it's not shown. --Túrelio (talk) 18:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I stripped all the exif and re-uploaded but that didn't fix.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:30, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Funny, a GoogleImages-search for "purpose site:commons.wikimedia.org" did not yield this image, though images of Sue and Erik. --Túrelio (talk) 18:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I have restored the EXIF, this was a bit of a random experiment in my view, you are likely to find that the search function does not ferret through the EXIF, and a d/b lag is likely to invalidate such a test. You can read all the EXIF data by examining this API call which does not appear to contain anything strange, or with a match for "purpose". I suggest isolating the problem before changing the file or making other 'fixes'. --Fæ (talk) 18:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. I guess a rename wouldn't fix it either then?--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't touch it yet, let's give some people time to diagnose it. It could be an oddity of the search set-up, a hang-over from being a FP on this or another project, something tucked in the file history, a complex joke, or some other weirdness I have yet to dream of. Worst case, an admin deletes the file and tries re-uploading from scratch and possibly dropping the file history. Not a good practice for several reasons. --Fæ (talk) 18:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

When I search "result" I get File:PieCrust masked.jpg at the top with no text to match in the image page. I will try a few more.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:58, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Continuing Túrelio's experiment, I see that the file also shows first in a search on "purposes" but it does not show in a search on "purposed" or "purposely". Also, it might have something to do (although I have no idea of the connection, technically) with the fact that other Klashorst files are titled with the word "pose". For example, a search on "pose" shows as the first result File:Pose.jpg, possibly from the same series of photographs. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Oddly, searching for the endlessly soapboxed "toothbrush", "cucumber" and "zuccini" show me nothing with nudity or sex at all, just toothbrushes and penises vegetables. I guess search has improved a bit. --Fæ (talk) 19:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Asclepias: I was looking for something like that. Commons uses a search algorithm based on Lucene:

"Lucene-search extends the Apache Lucene search API to rank pages based on number of backlinks, distributed searching and indexing, parsing of wiki text, incremental updates..."

There is more going on here than just looking for text in a page. Something about the structure of Commons is probably causing it to favour a certain kind of page. That is, the search is functioning as its supposed to, but it's not doing what we want it to in this instance –⁠moogsi (talk) 19:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes plural is the same and produces the above pie image when I search "results". Can we remove all the backlinks from the NSFW image and see if that fixes?--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

If we can't really investigate this much further, should I bring it up at Bugzilla? — Scott • talk 07:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I think you should. That 'purpose' image is rather shocking. I tried a few more simple words that didn't err so 'result' must have been a total fluke when I tried it. Are purpose and result the only two we found?--Canoe1967 (talk) 08:06, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

The pie image has the French word "résulte" in its description so I would imagine that's why it's coming up - Lucene does stemming. "Purpose" remains a mystery, though, so I've filed this bug. — Scott • talk 10:33, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I overwrote the vulgar one with mellow kitty image and it does the same thing. If it takes too long to fix we may have to remove it from the three articles it is in.--Canoe1967 (talk) 11:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Some preference settings are not applied

I just logged in and noticed that some of my preferences are not applied even though I reloaded the page I was on after logging in.

The preferences that are not applied include "Place categories above all other content." and "UTCLiveClock". I also noticed that I am not getting search suggestions when typing in the search bar (I expect to see suggestions like "Category:?" when I type "Category:" but the list of suggestions never appears).

Also gone are the Cat-a-lot and HotCat tools.

I am using Mozilla Firefox 21. I haven't changed my preferences for years and they always worked. I checked to make sure that I had Javascript enabled and I have also disabled Adblock on Wikimedia Commons ańd allowed all scripts on the site in NoScript but the problem is still present.

Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 19:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

HotCat also does not work. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 19:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

A new version of MediaWiki was deployed. See wikitech:Server admin log. We are now running version 1.22wmf4. If you didn't already, please try

Please purge your browser’s cache or enable JavaScript in your Browser's settings. (You only need to do it once.)

Operating system Browser	Microsoft Windows or Linux	macOS
Internet Explorer	Press Ctrl+F5
Mozilla Firefox	Hold down ⇧ Shift while clicking Reload (or press Ctrl+F5 or Ctrl+⇧ Shift+R)	Press ⌘ Cmd+R (reload page) or ⌘ Cmd+⇧ Shift+R (reload page and rewrite cache)
Opera	Press Ctrl+F5 or ⇧ Shift+F5
Konqueror
Apple Safari	Hold down ⇧ Shift+Alt while clicking Reload
	Press Ctrl+R	Press ⌘ Cmd+⌥ Option+E (clear browser cache) or ⌘ Cmd+R (update)
Chrome	Press Ctrl+F5 or ⇧ Shift+F5 or hold down ⇧ Shift while clicking Reload	Press ⌘ Cmd+F5 or ⇧ Shift+F5 or hold down ⇧ Shift while clicking Reload

-- Rillke^(q?) 20:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I tried your solution and the problem is still present. Also, I have my browser cache disabled so I don't think it's cause of the problem.

Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 21:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I see:

Zeitstempel: 15.05.2013 23:06:01
Fehler: TypeError: mw.hook is not a function
Quelldatei: http://bits.wikimedia.org/commons.wikimedia.org/load.php?debug=false&lang=en&modules=ext.centralNotice.bannerController%7Cext.postEdit%7Cjquery.client%2Ccookie%2CmwExtension%7Cmediawiki.action.view.postEdit%7Cmediawiki.cldr%2CjqueryMsg%2Clanguage%2Cnotify%2Cutil%7Cmediawiki.language.data%2Cinit%7Cmediawiki.legacy.ajax%2Cwikibits%7Cmediawiki.libs.pluralruleparser%7Cmediawiki.page.startup&skin=vector&version=20130515T210342Z&*
Zeile: 37

in my error console after I resetted all my settings. -- Rillke^(q?) (talk) 21:07, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

And it stops at mw.hook('wikipage.content').fire(util.$content); of mediawiki.util -- Rillke^(q?) (talk) 21:32, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The problem spears to be fixed now.

Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 22:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Bah, I reset my preferences to the default hoping to isolate the one that was causing problems. Now I have to work out what they all were. --99of9 (talk) 00:00, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I used my bot account for that reason. -- Rillke^(q?) 06:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

If this is still a problem, it would be nice if somebody who has this issue could send the software bug to the 'Bugzilla' bug tracker by following the instructions How to report a bug. This is to make developers of the software aware of the issue. If you have done so, please paste the number of the bug report (or the link) here, so others can also inform themselves about the bug's status. Thanks in advance! --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 12:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

It was working again by the time SuperTank17 posted that it was fixed. --99of9 (talk) 21:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:数

Anyone know what this category is about? The name translates as 'number', but I don't see how that matches the category contents. Kaldari (talk) 23:39, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The character means "number" and "count". I don't see what it has to do with the contents of the category, so I'm removing it from many images. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

May 17

Wayside shrines, Oratories, Wayside chapels

Category:Wayside shrines, Category:Oratories, Category:Wayside chapels, Category:Christian aediculae are overlapping categories, but the denominations are not univoque. And Category:Devotion in Italy by city seems to concern mainly Category:Christian aediculae. Suggestions for improvements? --Havang(nl) (talk) 11:46, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

AS has been suggested to me, I have opened Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/05/Category:Christian aediculae. --Havang(nl) (talk) 14:00, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

May 18

Hattin or Cresson

We got a message on OTRS about this picture : http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hattin.jpg I left a message about it to Adam who uploaded it.

Whilst it is called "Hattin", the legend seems to refer to the battle of Cresson. Even if they occurred the same year, these are two different battles. Perhaps because of the confusion due to the title, this image is now largely used to illustrate both Hattin and Cresson battle. Is there an historian around who would know for sure if it were Hattin or Cresson ? I think this needs to be fixed (both for the title and for the reuse in wikipedias). Thanks Anthere (talk)

No idea, but may I point out that Gallica has the whole of this work online, with this particular folio here. The text may help identify which battle this exactly shows. And may I suggest that someone upload the much better Gallica image? (Or images... it's a beautiful illustrated manuscript.) Lupo 16:34, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Je n'ai pas de réponse, mais je me suis permis de transmettre la question à l'Oracle pour augmenter les chances d'obtenir une réponse. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:45, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

A Flickr-User identifies it as the battle of Cresson.[5] Presumably the "fountain" in the center is supposed to be the springs. Lupo 16:47, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Hm. File:Français 5594, fol. 197 haut, Bataille de Kefar Kanna (1187).jpeg claims it was the battle of Kefr Kana. No idea where that is. Lupo 16:51, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Hm... the uploader of that changed the category from the Battle of Hattin to the Battle of Cresson shortly after uploading. w:Kafr Kanna is a town in the general vicinity so it may just be an alternate name... but no idea of which battle. This page shows all the illustrations from the source book; this one appears more in the middle with what appears to be another battle towards the end, which might suggest that this one is Cresson, though I really can't read the text. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:18, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I came here at Asclepias's request ... I uploaded the better-quality File:Français 5594, fol. 197 haut, Bataille de Kefar Kanna (1187).jpeg. My title "Bataille de Kefar Kanna" is copied directly from the caption on Mandragore site of the Bibliothèque Nationale (at that time I don't believe the manuscript was on Gallica, where the quality might indeed be better). I have never heard either of those battles called by this name before, but, after checking maps as well as I could, this place seemed to be closer to Cresson than to Hattin: also, as Carl Lindberg says, the sequence in the manuscript suggests this is the earlier battle of the two. Both clues pointed to Cresson, and this is why I changed the category. I didn't want to interfere with the description of the other version because I don't really know :) I was hoping someone would show up who knows better than I do. Andrew Dalby (talk) 19:06, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

The illustration of the battle towards the end of that manuscript is labeled by File:Bataille de Nicopolis (Archives B.N.) 1.jpg and File:NikopolisSchlacht.jpg as the w:Battle of Nicopolis. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:58, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

So it's still open. The two hills shown in the Hattin/Cresson one in the background left and right may just as well point to the en:Horns of Hattin... Lupo 20:14, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Trying to read the text on this and the following pages, I don't see any mention of a battle of Cresson. The writer introduced each section with a brief summary (or a longish title) in red of what is described subsequently. If I read the red text below the image right, it says "Et la prise en bataille du Roy Guy de Jhzlm [Jérusalem] par Salladin", i.e., the capture of Guy of Lusignan, king of Jerusalem, by Saladin, which occurred in the battle of Hattin. (I guess that the word that looks like "Jhzlm" means "Jerusalem" from folio 187v, where it says "Comment Guy de Lezignen, Conte de Jaffes, fut fait gouverneur du Royaume de Jhzlm".) I also don't see any mention of Cresson on the preceding or following pages. On folio 200v we're already after the battle of Hattin, the subtitle there reads "Comment Salladin print plusieurs Cités et Châteaux en suite...".

Looking at the image itself, there's the two hills background left and right (Horns of Hattin?), and that fortress (Tiberias?) with Lake Galilee in the background. Comparing with e.g. this map, that would fit Hattin pretty well, as the springs of Cresson seem to be farther away (and Tiberias is probably not visible from there, as there appears to be a mountain range in between). Now I have no idea how well informed about the geography the 15th century authors of the Passages d'Outremer were, but I find it remarkable that it might match so well. Just that fountain on center stage bothers me. In the battle of Hattin, the crusader forces were cut off from the nearest springs... Perhaps the artist mixed elements from both battles, and our using the image in both articles is not that incorrect after all. But if I had to decide between Hattin or Cresson, my personal feeling is that this is supposed to show the battle of Hattin, which was the much larger and more decisive event. Lupo 12:12, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

The battle at the fountain of Cresson ("la fontaine de Cresson'") is (rather quickly) narrated near the beginning of the chapter, at f. 197 (recto verso, second column). The red title for the chapter begins at the bottom of f. 196 (verso) and refers to the events of the chapter from f. 197 to f. 200. I guess the part of that title that refers to the battle at the fountain of Cresson is "(...) Et la déconfiture des maîtres du temple et de l'hôpital. (...)". Of course, we should not expect this type of illustration to actually depict an actual landscape, the task being more to try to decipher what the elements are meant to symbolize. I agree that if Colombe wanted to represent only one of the two battles, normally one would think that he should have chosen to represent the decisive one at Hattin, but the thing in the center of the illustration suggests that the illustration is supposed to represent a battle fought at a fountain. That could likely symbolize the battle at the fountain at Cresson, unless it's supposed to symbolize the fountain at Seraphie, where the Franks gathered and from where they left to go to the battle at Hattin, at many kilometers of distance. I like the idea that Colombe may have wanted to insert symbols representing both battles in one illustration for the chapter. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:55, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, Cresson is mentioned on 197v, 2nd column, middle. Had missed that (spent too much time figuring out what Jhzlm was supposed to mean :-). I agree we can't expect the illustration to be faithful to the actual landscape; even the text itself may be more or less accurate in the big lines, but I wouldn't rely on it for details. After all, the work was created 300 years after that battle took place, and the artist in all likelihood never visited the place. That's why I do find the congruences remarkable. The Horns of Hattin (Cornes de Hattin) at least might have been known by name to him. I'd really love to know what a specialist on this period or on this manuscript might have to say on this. Lupo 18:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Another point is that the image seems to match the description of the Cresson battle (130ish knights possibly attacking a larger force without foot soldier support), rather than Hattin which was much larger numbers on both sides. Additionally, Hattin is described as being fought on an arid plateau in the en-wiki article with the lack of water being an issue, which is definitely not the case in this depiction. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:00, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Is it possible to sort images by a key whithin a Category instead by the imagename

How can I give a order to images stored in a category, but without giving sub-categories?. I would like to order Category:Tropas chilenas de la Guerra del Pacifico according to Regiments something like in Regimientos de Chile (without so much text). Can I add to a image a key, e.g. for image123.jpg

[[Category:Tropas chilenas de la Guerra del Pacifico|Reg. Buin]]

to obtain the images of the category ordered by key (Regiments) but not by the name of the image, as usual. This is the usual method by subcategories. Is there a method for the simple images?. (To rename 176 images is excluded as solution). --Createaccount 16:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I´m not an expert, but in my experience the pipe (|) function works for single images as well as for (sub-)categories. And I think it even overrides the DEFAULTSORT-entry. The only problem is that the sorting criteria is not obvious to the visitors of the page, so you might have to explain it in the category description. --Rudolph Buch (talk) 18:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Rudolph is right – you can use the pipe function, and if used it overrides any {{DEFAULTSORT}} setting. However, I'm not sure what you are proposing to do is a good idea. I agree with Rudolph that it will not be obvious to other editors what you are trying to achieve, and when editors add new files to the category they may not add the sorting keys which will lead to these files being out of order. I would suggest that you create a gallery like "Regimientos de Chile" to display selected images in a particular order, with captions if required. There is no need to include a lot of text if you don't want to do that. — SMUconlaw (talk) 19:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

That key is often used to have some pictures on the top of the list, such of the most significant picture(s) of an artist or other person. In some locations in Spain, they have some keying convention to ensure that coats of arms, banners, symbols appears always in some top order. It is sometimes abused by people that find their picture the most important of the bunch. --Foroa (talk) 16:15, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I should have known the answer, you see I also am not an expert. Allow me a second question: is there a template that shows the key in the category page? I mean, normally the photographs will be shown all together. Can I show the key in the category page?. That is:

== key2 ==

(all photos with key2) ...

--Createaccount 08:13, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Not as far as I'm aware. — SMUconlaw (talk) 08:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, anyway. --Createaccount 13:50, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Nature in New York City

I am categorizing a set of photos made by Suzanne Szasz for DOCUMERICA in 1973. Most of them are concerned with nature, particularly flowers, in New York City. Right now they are categorized under Category:Suzanne Szasz. I would like to provide a link to this set for people who visit Category:Nature in New York City. Do you think putting a link on that page to Category:Suzanne Szasz is appropriate? To a subcategory of her page (which I would have to batch make - and define 'nature')? Or text at the top of the page, such as "Also see 1973 DOCUMERICA photos by Category:Suzanne Szasz". Any other ideas? Downtowngal (talk) 02:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

It looks like 90% of her works are Category:Nature of New York City so there is probably no harm in adding her whole category as a sub-cat of that one.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. One reason I asked is that it's possible other pictures by her will be added later and 'dilute' her category. I guess I can just put this category on personal watch... Downtowngal (talk) 03:17, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

By the way, the DOCUMERICA photographers seem to be using similar themes that crosscut Commons's usual categories, like "A day in the life of Fountain Square, Cincinnati" or "Trash, sewage, pollution in X area". I think there's a lot of value to pointing people to the sets rather than making them figure out on their own when they find one image that there's a lot more on the same theme under different categories. So I expect to be doing the same thing with other DOCUMERICA photographers. Downtowngal (talk) 03:21, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

You could add a note to her category like "Although all the images may not fit it was an simpler way to..." type thing.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Would a subcat of Category:Flora of New York be appropriate? Jim.henderson (talk) 22:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

No, that' much too high-level. Seriously, this is an issue that needs to be addressed in Commons. The category system was made for analytic categories like "by year" or "by country" or "name of building in X city". Synthetic categories like "suburbanization" or ones the DOCUMERICA people were using - another example is "Life in X neighborhood about to be demolished for a highway" - don't fit. Yet there is great value in pointing users to them as a whole. We have to think about WHY users want images. I think the way is to accept that the DOCUMERICA sets will be subcategories that don't quite fit their master categories (e.g., "Suzanne Szasz" as a subcat of "Nature of New York City" with an explanation as Canoe 1967 suggested), and are provided with short text explanations at the top of the page. Downtowngal (talk) 23:04, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I would see nothing wrong with making a subcategory of Category:Nature in New York City of the form Category:Nature in New York City - 1973 photographs by Suzanne Szasz which would then also be a subcategory of Category:Suzanne Szasz. This is the more versatile or general approach and can be used in a lot of cases where we have a large number of images from a particular source or period that threaten to swamp a category. It would also provide an objective categorization criterion to avoid dilution.

The problem with this approach is that not all of the photos in the set are concerned with "Nature in New York City" and I am reluctant to label the set as the photographer's label, if it existed, would be preferable. The theme of this set seems to be "How New York City residents bring nature, particularly flowers, into their lives and the urban environment - with a few other cool pics." Perhaps integrating DOCUMERICA galleries into the existing categories will work. Downtowngal (talk) 15:29, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

To clarify - I would envision a Category:Suzanne Szazz which would contain several subcategories by topic. The individual images would mostly be in only one but some might fit more than one. Only the subcategories that fit within Category:Nature in New York would be put there. The categories you chose to create would be chosen according to what is present and photographs that did not fit the subcategories would be categorized under Category:Suzanne Szazz and whatever other individual categories they fit. The category system is ideally a net rather than just a tree. This is potentially a lot of work and the gallery approach may be quicker and more direct. However ultimately we would like to make these available and findable outside the context of Documerica and the particular photographer.

Alternatively or in addition, since the Documerica images are a set of finite sets, they would be a good candidate for specialized galleries which could correspond to the original Documerica organizational system. Categories are made to be readily extensible but that is not needed here. Dankarl (talk) 15:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Can you direct me to one example of a specialized gallery already existing that I can use to see if this approach can be integrated into the presentation of DOCUMERICA materials? Thanks. Downtowngal (talk) 15:29, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Here are two examples of galleries I made to re-unify sets of images scattered within a large block of NARA images (the Wellcome Collection). Not exactly the same situation as Documerica but a closely related purpose. Most important thing to remember about galleries is to hold explanatory text to the minimum needed. O.B. Kent album, 1916 A trip (or two) through Alaska 1897-1901. You would be grouping based on data of photographer, date and original title that are clearly represented in teh NARA records and so would need minimal description. Dankarl (talk) 02:08, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Involved

Category:Andy Mabbett has just been protected - and reverted to his preferred version - by the same editor with whom I have a dispute over its categorisation. Does Commons have a policy similar to en.Wikipedia's en:WP:INVOLVED? Andy Mabbett (talk) 18:35, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

yes it does, you can also bring it up on Commons:AN/U Penyulap ☏ 18:55, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Done, thank you. Andy Mabbett (talk) 20:27, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

May 19

New project

Do we have anything like User:Canoe1967/Sculptors yet? Feel free to edit it or discuss on the talk page. Another user has an account at http://www.sculpture.net/community/ and we are wondering how to approach them. Once we get a nice page for them to contribute to we can work out approaches to their forum and others.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:26, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

May 20

Princess Olga Orlova

According to this site http://www.gogmsite.net/the-belle-epoque-1890-1914/1911-princess-olga-orlova-b.html (and some others) is this woman File:Portrait_of_Izabella_Grunberg.jpg NOT Miss Grunberg but in fact Category:Olga Konstantinovna Orlova. Regards 91.66.56.55 09:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I renamed the file and fixed the descriptions. --Jarekt (talk) 12:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Photograph or Artwork template

Hello, while reviewing Artworks with implicit creator, I stumbled upon Category:Photographs by William Thompson Freeland

My question is : which is the best template to use on that kind of file : {{Artwork}} or rather {{Photograph}}, which has more technical data fields ?

Is Artwork OK ? is it "wrong" ? should it be replaced ?

Thanx for your answers, as I'm not really used to dealing with such images… --Hsarrazin (talk) 12:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

{{Photograph}} would have been better as some fields in {{Artwork}} might be confusing when applied to the photographs. --Jarekt (talk) 12:29, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Receptie123

Can someone please fix the error on my userpage?--Receptie123 (talk) 14:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• I've fixed the formatting error, but I don't know how you can list your English language level as en-2 in one place and en-5 in another. - Jmabel ! talk 15:11, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Flickr2commons

Hi All

I've just finished filling in a 550 file transfer on Flickr2Commons, some have been successful, others (around 100) have failed, I think some of them are my fault with descriptions being too long or file names using unsuitable characters with the error Transfer failed : API Error... Code: verification-error Text: This file did not pass file verification Upload error...

Others have just not worked, not sure why, the error is Transfer failed : 502 Proxy Error

Question: Is there a way to retry these failed uploads? I have tried clicking the "Transfer selected files to Commons" button but nothing seems to happen.

The successful images are in Category:Images_from_the_National_Media_Museum_collection

Many thanks

--Mrjohncummings (talk) 16:41, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

"Official page" of aircraft manufacturer

I have just spotted a copyvio file, and when I headed to the userpage of the uploader, I found it says "This is the official page of Dassault Aviation." (en:Dassault Aviation is a major French aircraft manufacturer). Can anyone help verify the authenticity of this account, or point me to someone who can? --Ariadacapo (talk) 19:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Good catch and good reaction. It may actually be possible that Dassault wants to share some images under a free license. Fellow French sysop Léna is sending them an email. let us wait for their answers. In the meantime, I replaced the speedy to no permission to give us some time to process this. Cheers, Jean-Fred (talk) 19:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! I’m very curious to see how this turns out =) --Ariadacapo (talk) 20:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

At en:wp, we softblock such accounts and immediately unblock them if they provide proof via OTRS or other official means. Do we do that here at all? Nyttend (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Tech newsletter: Subscribe to receive the next editions

Latest Tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please inform other users about these changes.

Recent software changes

(Not all changes will affect you.)

• The latest version of MediaWiki (version 1.22/wmf4) was added to non-Wikipedia wikis on May 13, and to the English Wikipedia (with a Wikidata software update) on May 20. It will be updated on all other Wikipedia sites on May 22. [6] [7]
• A software update will perhaps result in temporary issues with images. Please report any problems you notice. [8]
• MediaWiki recognizes links in twelve new schemes. Users can now link to SSH, XMPP and Bitcoin directly from wikicode. [9]
• VisualEditor was added to all content namespaces on mediawiki.org on May 20. [10]
• A new extension ("TemplateData") was added to all Wikipedia sites on May 20. It will allow a future version of VisualEditor to edit templates. [11]
• New sites: Greek Wikivoyage and Venetian Wiktionary joined the Wikimedia family last week; the total number of project wikis is now 794. [12] [13]
• The logo of 18 Wikipedias was changed to version 2.0 in a third group of updates. [14]
• The UploadWizard on Commons now shows links to the old upload form in 55 languages (bug 33513). [15]

Future software changes

• The next version of MediaWiki (version 1.22/wmf5) will be added to Wikimedia sites starting on May 27. [16]
• An updated version of Notifications, with new features and fewer bugs, will be added to the English Wikipedia on May 23. [17]
• The final version of the "single user login" (which allows people to use the same username on different Wikimedia wikis) is moved to August 2013. The software will automatically rename some usernames. [18]
• A new discussion system for MediaWiki, called "Flow", is under development. Wikimedia designers need your help to inform other users, test the prototype and discuss the interface. [19].
• The Wikimedia Foundation is hiring people to act as links between software developers and users for VisualEditor. [20]

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by Global message delivery • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Unsubscribe • 20:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Important note: This is the first edition of the Tech News weekly summaries, which help you monitor recent software changes likely to impact you and your fellow Wikimedians.

If you want to continue to receive the next issues every week, please subscribe to the newsletter. You can subscribe your personal talk page and a community page like this one. The newsletter can be translated into your language.

You can also become a tech ambassador, help us write the next newsletter and tell us what to improve. Your feedback is greatly appreciated. guillom 20:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

May 21

navigation boxes moved to bottom of watchlist page

The 4 boxes "search", "navigation", "participate" and "toolbox" at the left side of the watchlist-page have since yesterday been moved from the top of the page to its bottom, which makes them nearly unusable if you have a long watchlist. It is specific for the watchlist-page, whereas contributions-page is unchanged. As I observed this problem in Chrome, Opera and IE 8, it is obviously not a local, but a site-problem. It's also independent of language-preference (switch from de to en didn't change it) and of whether "Exclude me from feature experiments" (preferences) is on or off. Any ideas/solution? --Túrelio (talk) 08:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a bug somewhere; the whole sidebar (except for the Commons logo) is shifted down below the end of the content. Appears to affect monobook only. The DOM structure is all wrong. Normally, div#column-content, div#column-one, and div#footer are siblings, but on Special:Watchlist in monobook, #column-one and #footer are children of #column-content, which breaks monobook formatting. Highly annoying. Lupo 08:21, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

All right. It was User:Mono who left an unclosed <div> in MediaWiki:Watchlist-summary. I've fixed that, so the layout is OK again, but actually I think his edits to MediaWiki:WatchlistNotice.js should also be summarily reverted. Lupo 08:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your fast analysis and the fix. So we can't burden it on the MW-update as the usual suspect ;-). --Túrelio (talk) 09:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• I'm sorry - that would be my fault. It looks like Vector has an extra closing div (I checked Vector in Chrome and IE and then missed Monobook). Either way, I've turned off the geolocation so everyone in the world can see the message. It will only be up for a few hours - thanks for catching it. I'll be more careful in the future. —Mono 14:33, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

PDF-versions of Wikipedia articles

Hello,

are PDF-versions of Wikipedia articles like File:TEORIA ATOMICA.pdf or File:EL ATOMO.pdf within our scope? Per Commons:Project_scope#Allowable_reasons_for_PDF_and_DjVu_formats I'd say no, or are there exceptions I'm not aware of? I there are, what would be the appropriate category for those files and how should the author= and source= parameters be set? The uploading user is clearly not the only contributor to es:Átomo and es:Teoria atomica - the real authors are mentioned in the pdf itself, but just putting {{Own}} there is misleading at least. The same question arises for the various figures in the article and their licenses. --El Grafo (talk) 10:12, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I would say no. It is better to generate a new PDF file whenever you need one as these soon will be outdated. --Stefan4 (talk) 10:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the input and the DRs. --El Grafo (talk) 14:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

May 22

Netherlands

I recently replaced File:Leona Helmsley.jpg with my cropped version in many other language projects. The nl.wikipedia.org project was the only one to revert so far. I don't speak Dutch so someone who does may wish to pop over and see what policy or consensus is on images of this sort.--Canoe1967 (talk) 12:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Thumb updated, but not file

Hi,

Something strange going on with File:Wiki Revue (quarterly report - january to march 2013).pdf. A new version was uploaded, changing among other things on page 3 the 75011 in 75012. Now the thumb is correctly updated ; but the actual PDF file is still the old one.

Any idea what is going on here ?

Jean-Fred (talk) 14:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

An issue with the caching servers: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/39/Wiki_Revue_%28quarterly_report_-_january_to_march_2013%29.pdf?dummy=nocache looks like the new version. -- Rillke^(q?) 14:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah, thanks Rillke − did not know that files were cached as well when requested not thumbnailed. Jean-Fred (talk) 16:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Bureaucrats/Requests/MichaelMaggs (2)

As is customary for applications for advanced permissions, this note is to advise the community that User:MichaelMaggs has been nominated for the role of Bureaucrat. --99of9 (talk) 15:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Main Page issues

Hi. The main page looks awful today.

1. The fire picture is huge and takes up most of the page width. (Is this just me? Running iOS using FF)
2. The mobile app section has rather large text that doesn't really seem appropriately tied in to the theme of the rest of the page. (Is this just me? Running iOS using FF)
3. The mobile app section doesn't appropriately attribute the author(s) by linking to the file page (File:Download on iTunes.svg and File:Get it on Google play.svg).

With regards, Killiondude (talk) 18:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree, the picture and media of the day seems a little too large. Same thing about mobile app section. Due to size of those 3 elements the main page takes 2-3 pages and I have large high-res screen. I also agree about lack of image attribution for files on the main page, like File:Double-alaskan-rainbow.jpg, File:Visegradski-most10.jpg or File:WMCommonsAPP upload2.png. We need to link to those files somehow. --Jarekt (talk) 12:15, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Bump. Killiondude (talk) 22:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Licence information in public domain images

Last time the U.S. Capital add the following comment on some (flickr) images, published as public domain, quote: This official Architect of the Capitol photograph is being made available for educational, scholarly, news or personal purposes (not advertising or any other commercial use). (i.E. see here). What about this statement? Can we use this images as public domain or must not import because of this statement? --Slick (talk) 14:31, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I think they are all still public domain by law. They can't change that law at Flickr.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

The first thing is to know if the person who created the work was an employee of the U.S. governement in the course of his duties. The answer is given by the use of the license tag "U.S. government work", which can be taken as a clear statement, by the flickr account owner, to the effect that the answer is yes and that the work is in the public domain in the U.S. and freely usable in the U.S. The additional notice on the flickr image page includes: 1. A non-commercial restriction, which might be enforced outside of the U.S. if the U.S. government ever felt inclined to do so; 2. A credit line, obligatory outside the U.S. and a useful suggestion in the U.S.; and 3. A reminder of the fact that a reuse should not be presented as an endorsement, which is a fine reminder. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:20, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

That site seems to be run by Template:PD-USGov-Congress-AOC. Should we modify a new licence to cover their Fickr account restrictions?--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what to do, but I like to get a clear statement (i.E. which template to use) for images from the U.S. Capital, because there have a great stream and a lot of images are imported already. --Slick (talk) 19:16, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

You could probably just tag them with Template:PD-USGov-Congress-AOC, Template:PD-USGov, and Template:Flickrreview. The third one is a bot that checks licenses but I don't know if it will choke on the first two. We can then add any qualifiers or remove any uneeded licenses once we decide how to deal with the wording on the Flickr site. I doubt they can ever be deleted. We just need to tweak wording to keep them. --Canoe1967 (talk) 21:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

As Canoe1967 said, the flickr account named "USCapitol" appears to be he account of the Architect of the Capitol. Thus, when an image is identified on that flickr account with the tag "United States government work" and when there is no reason to think that this tag was used by mistake or that the image was not created by an employee of the AOC, then on Commons you can use the tag "PD-USGov-Congress-AOC". If you find an image that fits the definition of U.S. government work but is not from the AOC, then you can use the tag that seems to best fit the case among those in the Category:PD-USGov license tags. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Do we know if the Flickrreview bot can detect either license?--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:27, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Giving a licence and then contradicting it in the photo text - it's just weird. I'd suggest asking them what they mean. What is the legal grounds for their restriction in the text? ghouston (talk) 22:50, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

By licence I should have said public domain statement, since it's not a licence in that case. ghouston (talk) 22:53, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Their grounds are likely publicity rights or trademark, i.e. rights not related to copyright. "public domain" can have a different meaning in the real world than just "no copyright", even though that is the definition typically meant here. PD-USGov-Congress-AOC is the correct license tag. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:14, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Publicity rights / trademark of their building, is that's even possible? If it is, wouldn't it apply to every photo of the US Capitol building? ghouston (talk) 09:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

It is possible to trademark a building, yes -- there are several examples (Empire State Building, Rock-n-roll Hall of Fame building, many others). Doubt that applies to anything federal though, and that does not affect photographs of the buildings (the Rock-and-Roll Hall of Fame tried to sue someone on those grounds and failed). I was thinking more about their name -- you shouldn't imply the federal government is endorsing anything you are doing, nor should you use the photos to imply anything like that, and that sort of thing. There is no U.S. copyright in the photos, so whatever rights are claimed are based on something else. They may just be protecting themselves if they put up someone else's photos by accident, as well. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:39, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The name, endorsment etc., sure. But that doesn't explain the "non-commercial use" restriction that has been placed in the photo description. ghouston (talk) 11:00, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The grounds for the non-commercial restriction would be the copyright laws of those countries of the world where the photos are copyrightable and where therefore they can be used according to the license. Perhaps the AOC and other government entities may not often bother to enforce their copyright and licenses in foreign countries, still it is understandable that they may want to express the limits into which they want to allow their photos to be used there and reserve the possibility to exercice their rights if they ever decide to. It is even possible to imagine, in theory, cases where they may really want to exercise those rights. Suppose commercial ads to promote a product or service that is legal in the country where the ads are published but that is illegal in the U.S. -- Asclepias (talk) 00:50, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

"Commercial use" has a different and more specific meaning in trademark/publicity rights (e.g. endorsement) contexts than it does in copyright law. The term doesn't always refer to copyright. The use of the term advertising right next to it is actually a pretty clear indication it's something other than copyright -- it's generally advertising where publicity rights start to kick in. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Bypassing the Flickr UI redesign

OK, so yesterday Flickr decided to 'modernise' it's UI, and unsurprisingly, the result is disasterous. Feedback has been universally negative from what I can see, but sadly it looks like an immediate reversal is not going to happen. They've also changed other stuff like the account administration and profile pages, but that's not what this post is about. It appears whoever actually did the UI redesign, had never actually used the site for anything other than to gawk at teh pretty pictures, rather than concern themselves with stuff like meta data or even relational/chronological context. From what I can gather, for some idiotic reason, they've decided that streams don't need to display info like titles, descriptions, licenses, dates, etc, and neither do search results - everything is now presented as closely tiled images with what little info that is still there only visible on rollover. Only the user name is permanently visible, even in sets (which shows that whoever did the redesign really wasn't a user - sets only ever belong to single users!). Everything is also now presented as infinitely scrolling high resolution streams, which must be great for people wih iCraps and high spec laptops, but not so great for anyone else. They've also decided that presenting anything in thumbnail size is pointless, so that's now gone completely, you get a single size in streams and searches, which can only now be refined by date (which isn't visible!) and the other two (relevance/interesting), which I never really understood in the first place (closest title & most comments?). And for individual image pages, all the info is now below the image, rather than being visible at the side. Obviously that's less annoying than it not being there at all, but still pretty crap. Anyway, rant over, and to the matter at hand - does anyone know of any tricks or fixes to get back to the old UI? All I have found so far is that you can get the old detailed/paginated view of a stream by adding ?details=1 to the end of the url. This doesn't seem to work for search result though. Ultra7 (talk) 10:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Overall it might serve as a good example how not to do it. --Túrelio (talk) 13:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Is any corner of the Internet that's safe from Web 2.0? ;_; --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:00, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Is it possible to see the EXIF metadata of a file somehow without first having to download it to my computer? There used to be a link I could click to see this information, but I can't find it in the new layout. Without easy access to the EXIF, it is much harder to determine whether a Flickr user uploads own works or whether files are likely to be copyright violations. Very annoying and user-unfriendly design. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes. In the photo page, scroll down and look for the "show more" link beside "Additional info" on the right side. Click that, then click anything in the "Settings" line. Tada! Still, the new design is simply horrible. Even with my cable connection, it still takes far too long to load large pages. — Huntster (t @ c) 22:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Did we drive away people working for the WMF ? maybe we can contact Flickr and get them back. ;) Penyulap ☏ 00:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Horrible design, and not where I would have expected to click in order to find the EXIF. Thanks! --Stefan4 (talk) 00:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Only a starting a hustle; I assume. Click on the "..." button on the right of the "title bar" and select "View EXIF info". You get http://www.flickr.com/photos/jkadavoor/4230596704/meta/

Or you can add "meta" on the "address bar" and hit "enter".

Or (as Huntster said above),scroll down and look for the "show more" link beside "Additional info" on the right side. Click that, then click anything in the "Settings" line. Can't you see "1/125 f/4.4 ISO250 86.4 mm" which turns to blue on "mouse-over" and display the "tool-tip" View EXIF information for [this photo? JKadavoor Jee 07:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

World heritage, but which one?

source of the far right sub-image?

I've been trying to do some cleanup on File:PMPPP3.jpg, but unfortunately the list of the images used to compile this collage of World Heritage sites was incomplete. Is there anybody who can identify the place/image on the right side of it? Also, I'd be glad if someone could take a few minutes to double-check my adjustments. Thanks, --El Grafo (talk) 15:55, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Milford Sheerdown Peak.jpg (w:Te Wahipounamu) –⁠moogsi (talk) 18:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks alot! --El Grafo (talk) 08:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Purging issue?

ResolvedKeraunoscopia

I thought the purging issue was resolved a while back. I can't get File:Ane Brun, Le Cargo interview, 2008.jpg to show the updated version, reverting, reuploading, trying different browsers, clicking "purge", nothing is working. The full size appears fine. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁galaxies 05:50, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Are you uploading the right file? I've opened them in full size tabs and can't tell the difference between any of the versions. I tried the ol' ?action=purge trick on the full sized versions as well. Killiondude (talk) 05:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I think it's fixed. I see the same image for thumb and fullsize –⁠moogsi (talk) 06:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

If the thumbnail is correct now, this is most likely bugzilla:41130, which is not fixed –⁠moogsi (talk) 06:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Killiondude, I'm so sorry I can be extremely unhelpful. I should have pointed out the tiny fragment where the change occurred. It seems to have updated now. Apologies for my impatience. Moogsi, would I be able to request suppression of the three file versions in between the original upload and the final version? Thank you so much!! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁galaxies 06:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done. One thing to try is

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/thumb.php?f=Ane Brun, Le Cargo interview, 2008.jpg&width=800

where width is whatever size of thumbnail is stuck on the old version. –⁠moogsi (talk) 07:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much moogsi, I really appreciate it! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁galaxies 18:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Don't fix it

I just fixed two typos and then noticed a template that said I shouldn't. File:Tule Lake Relocation Center, Newell, California. (L to R) Frank Vail, newsreel cameraman for Pathe, . . . - NARA - 537142.tif and File:Tule Lake Relocation Center, Newell, California. (L to R) Frank Vail, newsreel cameraman for Pathe, . . . - NARA - 537142.jpg are the two files and Template:NARA-image-full is the template. The 'do not edit description' is in the yellow bar at the bottom.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to tell us, but at least personally I don't find it easy to understand the message you're talking about. This should probably be communicated clearer and in an easier way. --Patrick87 (talk) 10:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

It's probably the same intention as the Bundesarchiv template - no change to text archived by NARA but add corrections inside a description field. Sadly this description field is missing in the NARA templete while it's present (or had been added) to the BA template. We should probably get someone adding a description field to the NARA template which is shown as "Wiki description" if something is present there and a Bot run to implement this. --Denniss (talk) 14:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Currently, Template:NARA-image-full "Description" field is described as "Other notes by and description by Wikimedians can go here." so this is where wikimedian's descriptions should go. We could have separate "Archive Description" and "Wiki description" fields if that is desirable. --Jarekt (talk) 15:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• I think the purpose of the edit message is to make NARA aware of errors in their files. If we just fix them here then they may not know they are still broken at their end. I don't know how active that project is though. My edits were just 'boundry' to 'boundary'. I discovered three files when I spelled it wrong in search. They may wish to fix the same files at their end so their searches work correctly as well. This is may be why they like to be notified.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Hi. User:Dmcdevit was the Wikimedian in residence at NARA (possibly still is?). Maybe ask him? Killiondude (talk) 22:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I am no longer the Wikipedian in Residence at NARA, and they are not actively working on the project as far as I know, so I can't speak for them or if they ever plan to eventually fix all the metadata errors we have flagged. I can explain the rationale behind that notice being included on all the uploads. (1) Commons has an interest in notifying NARA of errors it has found, both in the general pursuit encouraging quality information, and in partnership (2) the institution whose holdings we are uploading, like the National Archives, is generally the authority when it comes to the metadata, and it makes sense to try to mirror it directly except when we have identified a mistake, and (3) as long as we are doing so, it is problematic for people to just edit the fields that do mirror NARA's metadata exactly (and are described as such), since then we are being non-transparent about our sources. The corollary to all this is that in the ideal world, we'd report the errors and the authorities on the subject at the institution would vet the reports and change their metadata so that our corrected pages are still the same as the experts'. The last step depends on their cooperation and and actually devoting staff resources to correcting metadata, but I do still think it is generally a good idea to somehow make it clear when you are editing these pages that they are Wikimedian-derived changes to original metadata, whether that is through using the parameter provided for that or maybe some kind of inline parenthetical note, since it would be silly to put a spelling correction in a different parameter. Exactly what way the Commons community prefers to mark that is entirely our decision, of course. Dominic (talk) 00:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I noted my two changes just above the license field.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

"Sensuous"/erotic photos of naked minors

According to US law, it is illegal to distribute "sensuous"/erotic photos of nude minors (below 18). It therefore seems we might have some overlooked problems. For example, the following category (and subcategories) is filled with old photos of minors that are clearly meant to be erotic/sensuous: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Orientalist_nude_photographs Examples:[21][22][23][24][25] It was not normal for North African girls to walk around naked back then, these were posed and photographed for erotic postcards by horny, colonial Europeans. Likewise, we have many other "ethnographic" photos of nude minors, in categories such as: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Ethnographic_topless_adolescent_girls They are not as "sensuous", but might still be problematic. One might argue that since toplessness is normal in those cultures, the photos are not meant to be sensuous. But take for example the Reed Dance[26], where the purpose is for virgins to show their goods to the Zulu king so he picks them for marriage. In that case, the nudity is clearly meant as "sensuous", since Zulu women are normally not topless, and the intent is to show off bodies. The girls can be married as early as 13 years old. Some more weird categories for nude and topless adolescent girls:[27][28] So do we have a problem? This question is not about morals, but about the legal system. Commons files are hosted in the US, so US law applies (not "tribal" law). If it is illegal to show naked minors (in the US sense, below 18) on US websites, then it applies to Commons as well, whatever the context. FunkMonk (talk) 17:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• Furthermore, according to US law, a website distributing pornographic image, which Commons does[29], needs proof that all models are above 18, which Commons does not provide[30] (and cannot in most cases). FunkMonk (talk) 17:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The article you link to says that Commons does not need that proof. It says "The statutory and regulatory definitions of sexually explicit content “producers” should exclude the Wikimedia Foundation".--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Commons does not count as a "producer", but it is still a distributor, which is also illegal. FunkMonk (talk) 18:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

meta:Legal and Community Advocacy/Age Record Requirement, the page you link to, is a document produced by lawyers employed by the WMF saying that Commons does not need that proof that all models are below 18. That's it; I don't see any reason to continue that part of the discussion at this level.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Look at all the disclaimers at the top ("The page may not be accurate, and it may fall out of date over time. This page is not legal advice or a representation of the viewpoints of the Wikimedia Foundation."), this certainly isn't a resolved issue. Furthermore, peer to peer distributors like Napster were closed and sued simply for enabling users to distribute illegal content[31], not for producing it (Napster used the same excuse as Commons), so we shouldn't be so slack about this. FunkMonk (talk) 19:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not legal advice. You're not giving out legal advice, either, because that would be illegal. The WMF paid someone who passed the Bar exam to look into; they came out with a legal opinion that said the WMF was okay. When a lawyer tells a group that what they're doing is okay and the group accepts the advice, I don't think it the place of the volunteers to second-guess that opinion.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

You overlooked the important part: "The page may not be accurate, and it may fall out of date over time." Possible kiddy porn is a tad more serious than your regular copyright infringement. In any case, that point is secondary, we do have actual erotic/"sensuous" photos of children (as shown above), and whether they are historical or not does not seem to make a difference to US laws. Commons does not exist in a legal vacuum, but is subject to US laws. FunkMonk (talk) 19:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Just as a point of interest, the page is just under a year old; I don't think it's terribly likely that the page is out of date by this point. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

It seems the law is quite ambiguous on the issue, so it is likely to change rapidly. But anyway, the "consent" issue is not so important to me, as much as the fact that some of the images clearly show children (all points above the asterisk). Not that I am morally offended myself, the images are so old, but the legal issue with such images is interesting. FunkMonk (talk) 20:45, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't know how US law defines pornography, so I don't know whether these images are pornography or not. How does US law work if the age of a person is unknown? In many cases, Commons does not know the age of the people on the images, and it is likely that there are some pornographic images around where the people on them are too young. There are supposed to be lots of websites for user-contributed pornography. How do those websites work, and do they record the age of every contributor? For example, Flickr hosts some pornography. How does Flickr handle this issue? --Stefan4 (talk) 23:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

You do all realize that the record-keeping "proof" requirements you're talking about only applies to works after November 1, 1990, right? (18 USC § 2257 - Record keeping requirements is the statute. 28 CFR Part 75 seems to apply only to works after July 3, 1995.) I am not a lawyer, but it appears that the "record" requirements are totally off-topic. The real question is about possessing or distributing very old works that actually appear to be, and are asserted to be, of people under 18, and under what circumstances U.S. law allows them, and under what circumstances U.S. law prohibits them. For example, recent sexual acts with underage people is almost certainly prohibited to the widest extent. (But how far is that?) The pictures of 9-year-old Phan Thi Kim Phuc from 1974, in which she's being burned with napalm, appear to be clearly allowed, however. --Closeapple (talk) 22:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• This is a major problem that many, many, many people have brought up over and over, and it is mostly met with people criticizing US law and not wishing to comply. This is an issue that seriously jeopardizes the project and something that too many people here just don't care about. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Because after 5+ years of not even a warning from any legal authority we are in imminent danger of prosecution? - Jmabel ! talk 16:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
    • How do you know there were no warnings? I have seen many Office actions taken. Your statement is out of line. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
      • The files are still here, so there have been no Office actions taken on them. I can't imagine any warnings that couldn't be solved by the Office deleting the files wouldn't get passed onto us, nor that any deletions of files that had been here for years would not provoke comment by the Office to the Village Pump or other places.
      • And calling his statement out of line is out of line. You can disagree with someone without attacking their right to speak.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
        • Prosfilaes, your statement is inappropriate. There have been many, many office actions. Office actions are processed. Claiming that some images have not been officed cannot be used to claim that such images haven't been removed. Child pornography has been deleted in the past. That is a fact. Trying to claim otherwise is disruptive. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Photowikimeetup in Hong Kong during Wikimania 2013

Hello! if you are interested in photography and are joining this year's edition of Wikimania in Hong Kong (August 7^th - 11^th), would you like to attend a (photo)wikimeetup for a night photo tour in Hong Kong?. Does it sound good to you? here you can learn more. Cheers, Poco a poco (talk) 21:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

May 24

Finally

They went and did it! Good news!--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Files moved from ro.wikipedia to Commons requiring review

I have recently noticed that some files from ro.wikipedia are requiring review for a long time.Could someone review them?Receptie123 (talk) 06:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Could you please provide any link to them? --McZusatz (talk) 13:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

There are many.The link is : Category:Files moved from ro.wikipedia to Commons requiring review on commons.--Receptie123 (talk) 15:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Template:PD-US/doc edit help needed

I tried to edit a dead link to cornell univ. with this page, But it didn't reflect new link in PD-US template. Probably I did something wrong. Editing template is challenging. Pls edit that correctly. Thank you for your help in advance. --Nightingale (talk) 13:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're trying to do, here. {{PD-US}} itself already has the new link (see the talk page). What you updated was the example code to make a new translation of the page (which did need updating anyway) –⁠moogsi (talk) 14:16, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I was editing {{PD-US}} on ja setting. Still it shows dead link to cornell univ. If I change my language setting from ja to en, the link is OK, but not on ja setting. I don't know where to edit. Thank you for your further help in advance. --Nightingale (talk) 00:26, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

The link works now. However, there is also another issue. It says that "

これは、多くの場合、最初の発行が1923年1月1日より前であるために著作権が消滅した米国の著作物に適用されます。

" However, any

著作物

published before 1923 is in the public domain in the United States, not just

米国の著作物

. Shouldn't the characters

米国の

be deleted, or do we want to keep them there due to the exception which only applies to the Ninth Circuit which treats some published non-US works as unpublished? --Stefan4 (talk) 00:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not yet sure the link was corrected. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-US?uselang=ja still shows old dead link to cornell univ. Thank you for your advice again. --Nightingale (talk) 01:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Try http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-US?uselang=ja&action=purge --Stefan4 (talk) 13:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I learned how to purge a page. Thank you for your help, Stefan4. --Nightingale (talk) 06:13, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Flickr users need your help! New Flickr redesign threatens availability of CC images on Commons

We all know that Creative Commons photographs from Flickr are a hugely important source of images for us here at Commons. A huge portion of those CC images weren't originally uploaded to Flickr under a CC license, but rather, were changed to CC after a Wikipedian messaged a photo's uploader asking for the change. (I am one of those Wikipedians – I've uploaded hundreds, if not thousands, of images of this nature).

However, one of the changes in Flickr's new redesign makes it harder for Flickr users to change the licenses on their photos. Far from impossible, but they now need to make a few clicks to see the option, which will likely deter many users from making the switch.

User:Fæ and I had an idea that a Help page could be set up on Commons that could include a cartoon or a set of screenshots instructing Flickr users how to make the change. That way, when we message them, we can simply link them to this page. Any thoughts? Delaywaves • talk 22:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

All your base comment are belong to us. sorry, i split the thread due to popular demands, if the demands aren't met, the hostages can be released, just cut and paste or rejoin as you please. Penyulap ☏ 06:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

A single click on Show more on the right of Additional info and a single click on the edit on the right of existing license will give you all the options of licenses available from which you can select any. JKadavoor Jee 07:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Another negative (not just the more complex why on making file changes), is that people are leaving Flickr for other sites. Bidgee (talk) 07:10, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Downloading Wikimedia Commons images and make them accessible/visible on maps

Can I please ask for some help... I would like to show selected images of Wikimedia Commons on a map.

• I would like to include images on the Harvard world map http://worldmap.harvard.edu - which is a sort of map aggregator and which has an Africa map with amazing documentation you can browse by selecting contemporary and historical layers (http://worldmap.harvard.edu/africamap/). It doesn't seem to be any tool to connect wikimedia commons and wikipedia content to this map. Or not? (I asked to their developers and the answer was no)
• Something which seems an efficient system to make content available on this map is through picasa. I have the original images but organized by authors not by subject (i added the subject by using the category). Is it possible to download all the images of a category stored on Wikimedia Commons?
• otherwise, is it possible to visualize selected images from Wikimedia Commons (a category for example) on Open Street Map?

Here an example of images I would like to put on a map Category:Lucas Grandin, Le jardin sonore de Bonamouti (an example), and a group of examples Category:Public art in Douala thank you very much. --iopensa (talk) 20:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

@2 If you consider uploading content to Picasa, make sure licenses of content from Wikimedia Commons comply with Google's terms and services: http://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/terms/

A tutorial on downloading an entire category can be found on wikia.com.

@3 Commons on OSM seems to be what you are looking for. Also de:Wikipedia:WikiProjekt Georeferenzierung/Anwendungen/OpenStreetMap/en could be an interesting read. I recommend contacting User:Kolossos or building upon his code.

Regards, Christoph

• Download a category: See CatDown
• Seeing a category on a map: see {{GeoGroupTemplate}} − I added it to Category:Lucas Grandin, Le jardin sonore de Bonamouti
• As for maps: see {{Overlay}}

Hope that helps, Jean-Fred (talk) 09:56, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

May 25

Transfers to commons

Is there a way for people to know how many transfers a user made? Please let me know if there is.Receptie123 (talk) 12:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Depending on the approach that was used transferring the files, you could start with a simple search. Media files transferred with the CommonsHelper will usually have a notion of this in the description. Yet this is far away from being a decent and reliable count. Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 17:57, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Finland in World War II

Hello! Maybe it has been noticed elsewhere, but Finnish Defense Forces have made public an archive of 160.000 photos. Regarding the terms of use, they're licensed as cc-by: terms of use. Isn't it? -Theklan (talk) 14:49, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, There doesn't seem to be a CC license on that page. Please see also Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Finnish Defense Forces WWII photographs. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:12, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Bibliotheca Augusta changes license to CC BY-SA 3.0 DE

See here. <- Text in German Someone in for a mass import? (example) - Amada44  ^{talk to me} 10:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

This means that for images in Category:Collections of Herzog August Bibliothek, we pass, for example, from {{PD-Art|PD-old-100-1923}} to {{Licensed-PD-Art|PD-old-100-1923|Cc-by-sa-3.0-de}}? -- Asclepias (talk) 19:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

That depends. There has been a discussion on netzpolitik.org (German) and other places on whether applying CC BY SA 3.0 constitutes a copyfraud and is therefore void in the first place. The intention behind {{Licensed-PD-Art|PD-old-100-1923|Cc-by-sa-3.0-de}} is to enable re-users to fall back on CC BY SA 3.0 in case public domain status should not apply under their jurisdiction (or copyright law changes for the worse). Yet, well-intentioned is not well-executed. Applying CC BY SA 3.0 would implicitly accept the premiss of their copyright claim. Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 18:20, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that some countries, such as the Nordic countries, have a copyright law which says that photos above the threshold of originality are protected by copyright for life+70 years whereas photos below the threshold of originality are protected by copyright for a different number of years (for example 50 years since creation). As these are photos which are below the threshold of originality, it is illegal to use them in my country until 50 years after it was taken unless a fallback licence is available. The CC licence is of course void in those countries where there is no copyright protection for the work, but I don't see why it wouldn't be valid in those countries which do provide copyright protection for the work. Compare with a {{PD-old-70}} work tagged as {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}: the licence is void in the countries with a copyright term of life+70 years but not in the countries with a copyright term of life+80 years. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:43, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

As a rule of thumb, can I invariably mark a visually identical image of a smaller file size as a duplicate, when two images are the exactly the same resolution?

I have a pair of duplicates and ought to mark one with the {{Duplicate}} template so that an admin can delete it without doing much work. In my example, I'm looking at both images at full resolution on my monitor, one is 1.13MB (from an official Flickrstream) and the other is 3.25MB (from the military archive) in size, both are exactly the same size in pixels. Blowed if I can see any unnecessary artefacts created by compression in the smaller file. Can any eagle eyed viewers see artefacts in the full size images, and what are folk's opinions on just assuming that the smaller sized file must be of lower quality and can be legitimately deleted?

Chuck at 1.13MB

Chuck at 3.25MB

--Fæ (talk) 10:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I am too tired to make a judgement on visual details in this particular image right now. But in general, I'd say it's safe to assume that the same apparent dimensions with a larger filesize is "more original", particuarly when you know that the source must have been high quality (like with this official military photo taken with a Nikon D3S). There are occasionally some cases on Commons where a user attempts to create a larger image by resizing a smaller image; but they're rare and usually involve blatantly small pictures being "resized" to become blatantly pixelated images. Also, in the case of this particular image, the EXIF shows that the same person seems to have created both copies with a couple of hours of each other. I would assume that they both derive either directly from the same original, or that the smaller file derives from the larger file; I'm being optimistic enough to assume that, after a large number of these photos, the photo office's procedures are not needlessly converting 1.13MB files to 3.25MB files. --Closeapple (talk) 11:26, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

The 1.13 MB version seems denoised and sharpened; but the difference is very minimal. JKadavoor Jee 11:44, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I have added the smaller image as an "other version" on the larger file. Even if the difference is minimal, if these changes improve the image for publication, this seems a fair reason to keep it as a legitimate derivative. It's a marginal call to make in my view, I would guess that many such 'slightly improved' images end up deleted as duplicates (if they are ever spotted). --Fæ (talk) 11:59, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Visually, at full resolution, I can spot absolutely no difference between them (but haven't examined every square inch!), there doesn't appear to be any image wide processing. I would wonder whether there are other differences in the file structure (eg one contains a large 'thumbnail', or other info, that the other doesn't. But back to the question, no, don't assume anything just from file size, for instance it is easy to accidentally increase file size by resaving at a different compression level. Probably a reasonable call to keep both, personally I would probably have just kept the one from the archive as I would assume that to be more likely the original and the other has unspecified and imperceptable changes. --Tony Wills (talk) 12:23, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

By the way, this question is part of handling more than 500 "non-identical" suspected duplicate cases listed at Images from DoD uploaded by Fæ (duplicate). Any help thinking about these and deciding what to do with near duplicates and handling close derivatives would be appreciated. I doubt these sorts of cases can have an automated solution any time soon, though I am conservatively checking on the military identification number (VIRIN) and skipping any for future image uploads that happen to have any sort of textual match, rather than only relying on the SHA-1 hash check that the Commons API provides. --Fæ (talk) 12:33, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

The larger images is obviously the original with 98% jpeg quality, maybe with an embedded color profile? The smaller one is saved with 86% jpeg quality/compression. --Denniss (talk) 16:10, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Not true, actually. I ran the images through ImageMagick's identify utility and compared the output. According to the metadata, the smaller image was created using Adobe Photoshop Camera Raw 6.7 at 12:10:52 on 2013-01-31 from a raw file named 130131-D-BW8350-305.NEF. The larger image was created using Adobe Photoshop CS5.1 Macintosh at 15:51:47 on the same day. Conclusion? The larger image was created using the smaller image, and the quality setting was increased to avoid cumulative compression artefacts. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:57, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree with this conclusion. Both files are based on the same raw file (.NEF format). From what I see using ExifTool, the larger file was saved with a quality setting of 12 and 3 progressive scans in Photoshop, likely to result in a larger filesize than saving direclty from Camera Raw (like the smaller file). So I think one file was saved in Photoshop, the other in Camera Raw - maybe this has to do with the DoD's process of declassifying and releasing images. Also there's an email address in the metadata: terry.mitchellosd.mil - looks like this is POC for questions. Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 15:48, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• The larger image, in pairs like this, might be larger due to w:Steganography. Geo Swan (talk) 06:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
• Ideally, there would be a tool we trusted, which could tell us when apparently similar images are not duplicates. There have been instances I have noticed when contributors have placed {{Duplicate}} tags on images that were merely similar, not genuine duplicates. Highly undesirable, IMO. Since tineye can find similar images, even when they are different resolutions, cropped differently, it seems to me that determining whether similar files are actually duplicates should be possible. Actually, wouldn't this be an easier task than what tineye does? Geo Swan (talk) 06:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Yep. Ideally, as well as checking images using Google Images, Tineye or something similar to check for possible copyright problems (here's an automated report I just started User:Faebot/SandboxM that relies on Tineye matches), I would love to be able to do a quick call to a bot or the API during a file upload, compare reasonable sized images and get percentage likelihood matches back without being foxed by the images being resized or marginally cropped. For example, I would expect the above two images to be shown as greater than '99% similar' and so could flag them for review as non-identical duplicates, but other images that were less than, say, '90% similar' might not be worth worrying about, as if they were the same shot, they are likely to be different enough to count as valid alternative derivatives. --Fæ (talk) 07:41, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Unprot request

Would you please unprotect the file Recherche silhouette that I can upload a corrected version. Thank you sarang♥사랑 20:46, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Sarang, this kind of request please at COM:AN/B or using {{Edit request}} in future. Thanks. -- Rillke^(q?) 22:31, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

May 27

Identification of Flickr uploads with a hidden category

Commons provides a way to easily see the images that a Commons user has uploaded, but I am not aware of any way to see the images that a user has uploaded from Flickr if they have used the Flickr upload bot or other facilities. Yesterday I created Category:Flicker images uploaded by High Contrast (including that typo of Flickr) and manually added about 250 images to it. Those were all images that I believe should be reviewed for general consent issues, country specific consent issues, and personality rights warning tags. It was a hidden category that would not be seen by most users. Today, High Contrast deleted the category, removed it from all of the images, and left a message on my talk page saying "Do not create categories connected with my username especially if you have not asked me". I have tried to determine what High Contrast's concern is, but they seem to have stopped participating in the discussion.

Is there any reason not to use a hidden category to identify the user who chose to upload a particular image from Flickr? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Is there any reason to do so without asking an active user if he wants to? --High Contrast (talk) 16:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Why should anyone need to ask another user's permission to add a hidden category that merely identfies the user who chose to upload the image from Flickr? No one needs to ask permission to see the images that you have uploaded directly, why should Flickr uploads be any different? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Then create categories like flickr images (personality rights template to add), flickr images (whatever) if you must. But if you do so pay attention to the correct spelling: "flickr" not "flicker". Regards, High Contrast (talk) 16:14, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

All was said, as such I did not feed that superfluous "discussion" on his talk page. --High Contrast (talk) 16:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I would also object to someone creating a category (hidden or otherwise) about my work on Commons without consulting me. - Jmabel ! talk 16:12, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Just look at it as a different form of Special:Contributions. It was always supposed to be possible to see the images uploaded by a specific user. --Conti|✉ 16:13, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

No, it is not "a different form of Special:Contributions". Special:Contributions is accurately maintained on an automated basis. If someone creates a category about me, I'm stuck having to monitor it to see if it is being accurately maintained. If I don't, someone can easily slander me by tagging inappropriate images as being associated with me and my work here. - Jmabel ! talk 19:25, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

A bot could easily take care of that and monitor those categories and automatically revert any inappropriate additions. This is unlikely going to be a problem anyhow, as a click on the image always reveals the actual uploader anyhow. --Conti|✉ 19:28, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Wasn't there a similar discussion a while ago? I remember Fae (or someone else?) writing a script that would do that. See Category:Photos uploaded from Flickr by Fæ using a script. It would be really nice to have this for everyone using upload bots. We need this information. --Conti|✉ 16:13, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

No, Conti. This is absolutely different. Please read properly. Fae's discussion was about categories for flickr streams and flickr users. This is absolutely ok. Do you see the difference? --High Contrast (talk) 16:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Why do we “need” the information? What's the intention of such categories? --Rosenzweig τ 16:18, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

In this particular case, I was identifying images that need further review, but it seemed best to add a category that provided useful information rather than just "images needing review". Any that were not deleted would then remain categorized as having been uploaded by High Contrast. In the general sense, we know that the uploads of some users are problematic or suffer from a similar lack of categories, etc. having the uploader identified would make it easier to find and sort out issues. On the other hand, I see no reason why anyone would object to having this information available. It seems to be an oversight caused by a technical shortcoming. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:25, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I think I am more experienced on Commons than you are - if you want to bring it to the "incompetent-user-need-to-be-checked"-direction. You are wasting time of other people. As I said above create categories like flickr images (personality rights template to add), flickr images (whatever) if you must. --High Contrast (talk) 16:30, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

High Contrast, I think you are a very competent and experienced user. But I also think many of the images that you chose to upload from Flickr need to be reviewed in light of Commons recent awakening to consent issues. Don't misunderstand, I think all Flickr uploads should be categorized by uploader, not just yours. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I have no problem in such categories. I have Category:Files uploaded by Russavia as a matter of fact. I think the issue that High Contrast might be objecting to is the choice of images being placed in the category. They have uploaded nearly 20,000 images from Flickr (it seems) so instead of 250 images, it should entail all of these images. High Contrast, would you agree to having Category:Files uploaded by High Contrast added to all of your uploads? I had Fae go through and add the category to all of my uploads with a script/bot. I think that is a fair solution. russavia (talk) 16:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

No, russavia, I do not want such a category - equal what is in there. I see no value in such categories. If you want such categories, it is good. --High Contrast (talk) 16:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Files by High Contrast already exists. What is your objection to identifying your Flickr uploads similarly? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

High Contrast, Special:ListFiles/High_Contrast already exists. All your uploads already are put into a category and are available for all to see. That that list does not contain your uploads done through a bot is a mere technicality that needs to be fixed. --Conti|✉ 16:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

It would be really nice if the upload bots would add/create categories like Category:Files uploaded by Russavia for every image that are uploaded through them. I'm a bit surprised that this was never considered, to be honest. --Conti|✉ 16:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

You are running in circles. I will now get out of this talking round. I say it again: I do not want such a uploads by category. I object such a creation. To your last thought Conti - something comparable is done by the Commonist-tool - but I consquently delete those categories as well. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 16:37, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Would you delete Special:Contributions/High_Contrast, too, if you could? That's a honest question: If the answer is yes, then I would at least understand your point, even if I don't agree with it. If it's no, then I'm simply at loss why you would oppose a mechanism that works exactly the same. Either way, the decision really isn't up to you, or me. Our contributions and uploads are publicly viewable, and it shouldn't matter one iota whether our uploads are done through our main account or a shared bot account. --Conti|✉ 16:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough High Contrast. For the purposes that are stated above, I think Category:Flickr streams is a better way to go about such categories anyway. There's no requirement for uploads to be categorised by the user who uploaded; there are other tools to see what images people are uploading. If people want such categories to be mandatory; then it should have consensus for all users, not just a select editor or two. russavia (talk) 16:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Russavia. I too have a category, Category:Uploaded by Jkadavoor (Jee); but it should only be a matter of personal preference, not done by third parties. JKadavoor Jee 17:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

 Support Great, let's get consensus. Such categories (both uploader and originating Flickr account) should be mandatory for all Flickr uploads. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:51, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. --Conti|✉ 17:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Start an COM:RFC on the issue, and we can advertise it via the watchlist notices to get wider input. russavia (talk) 17:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

This looks like a simple and straightforward enough change for me that Commons:Village_pump/Proposals could take care of it. Again, in the end, it's a mere technicality. We do not need to establish a consensus on whether user's uploads should be visible and trackable. That has always been the case. We just need to ask the bot owners to make the changes to their bots. --Conti|✉ 17:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

RFC is definitely a better way to go about it; it could be drawn up as a guideline for uploading from Flickr sources. VP/P is not the place for such things. russavia (talk) 17:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• I think categories like Category:Photographs by Geoff Gallice under Category:Photographs by photographer is the better approach, which covers all non-Wikimedian contributions. Whether to include a category to specify the uploader is a different matter though. JKadavoor Jee 17:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Again, we already have categories for each uploader. We always had that. It's just that mass-uploading by bots became more and more common, making categories by uploader (based on the user account) useless. Why do you oppose a category of images uploaded by a specific user? I'm trying to figure out where the opposition to this comes from, and I just can't come up with any reason. --Conti|✉ 17:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
    • "we already have categories for each uploader." - No; user categories are created by individual users, if and only if they wish. So I think other's can't create them if somebody (like High Contrast) don't want it. Correct me if I'm wrong. JKadavoor Jee 17:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
      • You are wrong. Well, I suppose it depends on the exact definition, but there is Special:ListFiles/Jkadavoor, which is automatically generated, and lists all your uploads under your account. It should also list all images you upload from Flickr, but since that happens with the help of a bot, it does not. Having a bot create and populate these categories to include uploads done through bots would fix that. --Conti|✉ 18:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
        • Yes; Special:ListFiles/Jkadavoor and Special:Contributions/Jkadavoor are automatically generated. I'm talking about user categories like Category:User:Jkadavoor, Category:Images by Jkadavoor (Jee) and Category:Uploaded by Jkadavoor (Jee). See; I already created them, and I've nothing to hide. But all people may not be. Some people upload non-censored contents that are allowed here; but they may not be interested to show them under their name. Just an example. JKadavoor Jee 18:15, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
          • And what I don't understand is where you see the difference between automatically created pages and user/bot created categories. If you do not want to associate files you upload with your user name then you are neither going to upload them with your main account, nor with a bot account operated by your main account. So the proposed user categories would not even touch this issue, and you could still anonymously upload images. This is only about images uploaded by you through a Flickr upload bot being categorized as images being uploaded by you. Just like images uploaded by you under your main account is categorized as images being uploaded by you at Special:ListFiles/Jkadavoor. It is exactly the same. --Conti|✉ 18:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
            • Reiterating what I said above, Special:Contributions is accurately maintained on an automated basis. If someone creates a category about me, I'm stuck having to monitor it to see if it is being accurately maintained. If I don't, someone can easily slander me by tagging inappropriate images as being associated with me and my work here. - Jmabel ! talk 19:28, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
              • Jmabel, I think your fears are unfounded. Are people trying to slander you using other methods? Is there something about this that would make it more likely to be abused than any other method of attempted slander? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
                • To discuss about fears being founded or not is beside the point. If a user doesn´t want another user to manually create categories with the aim to track his activities, it should suffice that he objects. Period. No need to justify his objections before the village court or elsewhere. --Rudolph Buch (talk) 22:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
                  • Ideally the categories would be created automatically and filled in during Flickr uploads. But getting back to the point, can you suggest why all other uploads should be easily viewed but not Flickr uploads? Should we instead start an RfC to remove access to other mechanisms which list user uploads? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:26, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
              • Agree with Jmabel above. Now it is the right of individual users whether to create user-cats and fill with suitable files under them. We can't allow it to other people; especially if they are of conflicting interests. I don't think it can be done by a bot; since a user-cat may contain sub-cats and gallery pages and whether and where to include a particular file is only a matter of personal taste. See Category:Uploaded by Jkadavoor (Jee). It will expand when I upload more types of files. For other people who are interested to peep on one's work, the best place is Special:ListFiles. I've no problem if somebody fix the bug to display bot uploads too. JKadavoor Jee 05:41, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
                • Of course a bot could easily fill and maintain a simple category, and a bot could easily make sure that only the bot and no one else adds images to that category (by reverting anyone else). Subcategories are a simple bonus that is not necessary, though if anyone would want to sort his own uploads into subcategories, he's certainly free to do so manually. And yes, ideally, the developers would fix this and have Special:ListFiles working even with bot uploads, but we all know how long it usually takes for a feature like that to be implemented. Waiting for that is simply unrealistic. It's not that your worries are unreasonable, I can entirely understand them. But all of them can taken care of easily, with no drawbacks whatsoever. --Conti|✉ 11:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
                  • Then I hope it will turned out as a good idea. JKadavoor Jee 13:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• With the caveat that we use bots to ensure that the category is kept up-to-date, I don't see what there is to object to. The only reason I can think of that somebody would object to their uploads being categorised as such (as long as it's accurate and consistent) would be that you have uploaded files you're ashamed of for one reason or another. If that's the case, just quietly get them deleted (and in future don't upload files if you don't want your name associated with them). I would have no concerns with such a category being created for my uploads (though I won't pretend I've uploaded even a fraction of what some have), and if my uploads were deficient in some way, I would welcome good-faith attempts to track and resolve the problem. We should welcome transparency and scrutiny of our uploads—it makes Commons a more useful, trustworthy resource. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:19, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
  • HJ, whenever I suggest that we make it easier for people who are the subject of images to get those images deleted, there is invariably someone who says something to the effect of "if there is no license or copyright issue - too bad, we're keeping it". Yet here you are -- a Commons admin -- saying "just quietly get them deleted" if the fact that you uploaded them is embarrassing. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:51, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I don't see the comparison. It should be easy enough for subjects to have images of them taken down. I've been an admin for about five minutes, but I'm usually happy to delete images on request of the subject, and (as a general rule) I see no reason not to delete images on request of the uploader if, in hindsight, they wish they hadn't uploaded them. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:03, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Gallery with excessive text

Gallery page Coinage of India contains IMO excessive amounts of text (kudos to Zoloft), 7 paragraphs and actually far more text than the Wikipedia article en:Coinage of India. I propose to shorten it to the usual length of a gallery info and have notified the main editor already. Other opinions? --Túrelio (talk) 09:19, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it should be shortened. But a part of the text can be moved to enwiki. Ruslik (talk) 11:54, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Good luck to 'em :) <Hick accent>two much lurnin is baAad fur Yuu !

I'll add that the captioning rather than simple filenames makes that about the most useful category page on commons. I find categories absolutely unusable when I am looking for anything at all, everything is hidden in subcategories which is exactly how corporate entities hide anything at all, by putting it a greater number of clicks away from the user. I have to use external search engines pointing at commons to find anything, it is that time consuming. So someone puts up a breath of fresh air, I think it's brilliant. The only thing left to do it fix it with auto-translate is all. Fripping brilliant. Of course, I don't think anyone else will look at it from a positive point of view, they'll just note it's not as broken and crap and unusable as the rest of commons. Penyulap ☏ 14:14, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• The captioning as such is all fine, but the article preceding that mostly belongs in Wikipedia. - Jmabel ! talk 15:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Wow, that's a lot of text. It's seven sections with a total of about 25 paragraphs. That's definitely too much for a Commons page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:06, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I've now largely shortened the gallery description, though still left a short histroric overview. --Túrelio (talk) 20:41, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

[Beta] Upload large files as new version

Fig.1: Example

It is now possible to upload large files (>100MB) as a new version. (Example)

How to test:

1. Add

   importScript('User:Rillke/bigChunkedUpload.js');

   to /common.js
2. Choose the second option on the file page:
   • Upload a new version of this file (chunked upload)
3. Fill out the popup (see Fig.1)

--McZusatz (talk) 14:40, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

is there an equivalent for downloading ? Penyulap ☏ 14:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I am not aware of a solution making purely use of JavaScript. Most browsers disallow writing to files. But there are piles of desktop applications that do a good job. -- Rillke^(q?) 16:27, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Why would you need something like that for download? Anyway you don't need a special script for chunked downloads, just a download manager which supports it. I can recommend DownThemAll if you're using Firefox. --Patrick87 (talk) 16:18, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

There are quite a few reasons why you'd need it, most to do with either slow or unreliable connections. Penyulap ☏ 21:54, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I have a script that does just that. Interested? -FASTILY 06:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

May 26

Problem with a template

Something strange has happened with the languages template in Commons:Licensing. No matter which language you choose the link opens a... subpage? with the text always in English and uncategorized. See the Spanish version as an example. I've been having a look at the templates but I can't find the problem, if someone could do a search. Thanks Anna (Cookie) (talk) 19:51, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

As, I wrote at COM:AN#Disappearing translations of important pages, this page was not properly prepared before it was marked for translation. The language links are no longer a template but something generated by Extension:Translate -- Rillke^(q?) 20:04, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I understand now. Thank you for the reply. Anna (Cookie) (talk) 22:13, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Copyright law minutiae

Seeking wider input on disputed license issues. What makes these edits these edits appropriate or inappropriate? --08:59, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion the issue with the first edit, to {{PD-USGov-NASA}} english translation, is mainly in that the original NASA SOHO copyright notice is woefully ambigious: it is titled "copyright notice", but does not otherwise mention copyrights or commercial use. I believe it really could be interpreted either way.

The second edit, adding {{Useful-object-US}} to an image of aircraft with no special livery seems harmless copyright paranoia to me: It is not necessary to specifically mention that an aircraft is not a work of art, especially in dull beige paint scheme, but it doesn't especially harm anything either. The template could be removed IMO. MKFI (talk) 09:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

FoP in the Republic of Moldova

Hi. Please consider involving in this discussion: Commons talk:Freedom of panorama#FoP in the Republic of Moldova. If the FoP is found to be valid in Moldova, I suppose these images should be undeleted. Regards. //  Gikü  said  done  Thursday, 30 May 2013 18:59 (UTC)

May 31

File moves and inactive Commons Delinker

Commons Delinker is out-of-action since May 10 so it can't replace moved files. This generates problems on multiple Wikis as the thumb generation may fail from the original filename. I strongly suggest to restrict file moves to the bare minimum, to files without use or files where you change usage to the new name (either manually or via move + replace). Please do not rename high-use files until Delinker is working again !! --Denniss (talk) 04:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Also note that there are some projects, such as voy:, where Commons Delinker never has been active. Shouldn't the delinker be enabled on every Wikimedia project? --Stefan4 (talk) 10:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes but first we have to get it back to work but this seems to depend on Toolserver ressources which may still have problems. --Denniss (talk) 14:23, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I also tried to ping Bryan about this issue but no answer yet. --Denniss (talk) 16:12, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Added to the MediaWiki:WatchlistNotice. -- Rillke^(q?) 19:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

see https://jira.toolserver.org/browse/COMMONSDELINKER-24--Steinsplitter (talk) 20:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Account creation and login redesigns

Hey all,

After months of testing, we're finally ready to enable the new designs for account creation and login. We plan on doing this today (May 29) around 23:00 UTC. If you're intersted in the background, there is documentation about why we did this and how we tested it. (I previously posted about it here.)

As we announced on the blog a while back, you can try out the new look here before it's launched. (See the blog post for instructions.) If you see any lingering translation issues, please either fix them on translatewiki.net (where the volunteer translation for software is done). I am happy to help with any local customizations you think you might need, so please don't hesitate to reply here with any questions or requests.

Many thanks, Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 22:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Again, pure numbers instead of the quality of the newly gained contributors is measured. You are neither able to prove that more accounts lead to an improved article quality nor are you able to show that more new accounts means more active long-term editors. All in all, the new form looks nice, yes, but I not going to ask how much money was spent for this important improvement. -- Rillke^(q?) 23:43, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your warmth and optimism. You truly exemplify the Wikimedia spirit of good faith and civil collaboration. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 03:57, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

How, in your opinion, should I've better phrased my concerns? Please advise me. UpWiz, the default way for uploading files to Wikimedia Commons does not work, for Opera (≙≈ 2% of Commons users ≙≈ 635 user absolute) for at least 3 weeks (and it's not Opera's fault), the issue is identified but no one is able to solve it… I am just confused to see huge efforts in measuring something that itself is not very meaningful while other, in my opinion, important issues are not solved. -- Rillke^(q?) 10:37, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I think it is very unprofessional for a paid staff member to react with sarcasm to valid user concerns --Isderion (talk) 11:06, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrating between community and developers is sometimes difficult. I forgot to say that I am happy that he posted here, hope he'll continue (- as this dialogue is important -) and I am sure he will tell me how I could have better expressed my concerns. (This is meant serious.) -- Rillke^(q?) 11:17, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Asking questions (e.g. Did you measure how many people who used the new account creation form go on to edit?), rather than making accusations ("nor are you able to prove...") tends to help when wanting to sound less angry and accusatory. Regarding priorities: the WMF is not just one engineering team, we can and do work on many projects at once. If you think UploadWizard and related features deserve more attention, you're in luck, because we're hiring a team dedicated to work on multimedia. My team's job is to work on features that show statistically significant impact for new editors on the projects, primarily Wikipedia. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 00:12, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Did you measure how many people who used the new account creation form and go on to make at least 100 (or any other number > than that) useful edits and joined the project for more than 3 (or any other number > than that) months compared to those who used the old form? Did you manage to remove the dependency of the "Guided tours" from the "Post-edit feedback"?

I wasn't talking about a feature but a bug. One should not being required to be in luck to get something like this resolved, there should be simply someone who is able to do it, don't you agree? Isn't it worse that software is developed but not maintained, software that is in use in the Wikimedia Cluster, is in use at Wikimedia Commons? Can you understand that getting bugged , each day with a new one, (today it was deletion that left stuff behind) makes me pessimistic, and even more pessimistic if one takes one's spare time to file bug reports and they are not resolved for months? If one even uploads (very simple) patches and they are not transferred to Gerrit? If you have the impression that tools like ImageAnnotator or Gadget-HotCat were developed with more consideration and work more reliable than any of the WMF-developed extensions? -- Rillke^(q?) 00:56, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification Steven :) --PierreSelim (talk) 06:58, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I have to disagree with (only) part of Rillke’s critique: the new login doesn’t look nice at all. It looks cluttered and conceited, the kind of toxic eye-candy favoured by all things internet that Wikipedia is the opposite of. Also: Money? This costed money to the project? Unlike Rillke, I want to know: Please say it didn’t, please say it was done on the ordinary budget. -- Tuválkin ✉ 10:47, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

This was a redesign in MediaWiki core, meaning that as of next week it will be on every wiki. We did not just redesign the forms for Commons, and each individual wiki doesn't actually have a dedicated slice of the WMF budget. The budget is assigned to departments/teams, and teams work on multiple projects. You can learn more about what my team does here, here, and here, as well as in the monthly engineering reports that are published on blog.wikimedia.org. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 00:09, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

May 30

Move, not merge, Meta to the Commons

Please see discussion here:

• w:Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Move, not merge, Meta to the Commons --Timeshifter (talk) 06:18, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

CatFood moved to WMFlabs

I have moved the tool that generates RSS feeds on Commons categories from the toolserver to WMFlabs, here. The "new" one is much faster, and the menu is prettier :-) I left a redirect on the toolserver, so everything should work as before. However, someone (not me) should change the link in the sidebar toolbox to point directly to the new version. That is faster, and removes a dependency on the toolserver working. --Magnus Manske (talk) 12:38, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Great, Can I vote for the next tool to be moved to be CatScan2: it did not work for me for last 2 weeks and I seem to rely on it. --Jarekt (talk) 15:11, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

@Jarekt: [klick]--Steinsplitter (talk) 15:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

The link we need to replace I think is in MediaWiki:Common.js there are also many direct links. --Jarekt (talk) 15:22, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Magnus!--Steinsplitter (talk) 15:23, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Hm, “prettier” — ha! (grumble mumble)… Alright, nice, can Luxo’s DerivativeFX be next to next, please? -- Tuválkin ✉ 16:56, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

key1

(all photos with key1)

--Createaccount 08:13, 17 May 2013 (UTC)