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

Linking from categories to en:WP?

Should text and interwiki links be added to the text of a Commons category page so as to link to en:WP?

NB - I'm not discussing the sidebar here, but links that will appear in the page body. In addition to the sidebar link.

It's my practice to add these, manually edited, of something between a sentence and a paragraph in length. Potentially several links, the primary one bolded. I'm aware there's a {{Mainw}} template but I never use this as it's a bit simplistic.

In rare cases, when there's no primary topic WP article to link to and the WP category is more meaningful (typically for collections of "Foos of Bar"), then I might instead link to the relevant WP category.

Is this wrong? Why?

If these links already exist, should they be removed?

Your thoughts please Andy Dingley (talk) 20:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

You already know my opinion so I'm not going to !comment here, but I would like to remind you that there is a huge difference between Commonscat–WPcat and Commonscat–article links, largely but not only caused by the (IMO strange) way Wikidata treats Commonscats. FDMS 4 21:34, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

This isn't about Wikidata. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:38, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

You are right though, this is about your repeated removal of such a link [1] [2] [3] as a "Commons-wide standard". Andy Dingley (talk) 21:40, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with FDMS4, these links are redundant.--Oursana (talk) 22:11, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Can you say why?

Also there are many things where "I wouldn't bother to do that myself", but it's still some distance before "These should be removed as harmful". I can understand FDMS4's view that in their opinion they're unnecessary, but to edit-war and remove them three times, when another editor thinks they are worth having? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with the links added by Andy Dingley, they are at least harmless. -- Geagea (talk) 02:37, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Aha, so you're accusing me of editwarring. This is not justified at all, what actually happened is the following:

You revert me without an explanation ( [1] ).
After one valid revert by each party I invite you to discuss on the talkpage.
You are not interested in discussing the dispute on the talkpage.

FDMS 4 16:54, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

April 02

The "g x" Automatically Transfers to "ĝ"

(As soon as User:Taiwania Justo or any other afflicted with “EoMagicalConversion” edits this page, these two image calls will be pointing to the inexisting File:FlyingCow Farm, Tonĝiao, Miaoli.jpg, due to automatic replacement of "gx" to "ĝ".) -- Tuválkin ✉ 20:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

For example, [[:File:FlyingCow Farm, Ton"g x"iao, Miaoli.jpg]] has a "g x" words but it always transfers to "ĝ" when finishing editing. Please check and fix this bug, thanks! This is Taiwania Justo speaking (Reception Room) 02:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like an issue with your particular computer. Is your system configured to use an input method? - dcljr (talk) 02:50, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

@Taiwania Justo: Try this. Go to Special:Preferences, click on "More Language Settings" under "Internationalization", go to the "Input Settings" tab, and ensure that "Use native keyboard" is selected. Hopefully that will fix it. Revent (talk) 08:05, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Under Preferences/Gadgets/Language Support, there's an option called EoMagicalConversion. Is that on?--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

@Dcljr: , @Revent: and @Prosfilaes: : It's not work, and I give the screenshot on my computer. This is Taiwania Justo speaking (Reception Room) 15:04, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Looks very much like the gadget EoMagicalConversion at work — it doesn’t affect people who have it turned off.

I should say that I have been using Esperanto on a computer since 1987 (including a whole lot of x-sistemo, because it was the least-bad approach for many years) and this blind, behind-the-scenes autoconversion (*) makes my skin crawl. That’s in fact one of the two reasons why I barely contribute to w:eo (where it is on by default, for everybody); and of course we turned it off for http://vikio.esperanto.pt/. (* It is so blind and behind-the-scenes that even passwords are autoconverted!) -- Tuválkin ✉ 20:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Invisible Bird.svg

This picture was deleted as Vandalism. Although it was used to vandalize the Wikipedia page Invisible rail, it is not inherently vandalism. Now that April Fools' Day is over we would like to have this image, to live on in the collective Wikipedian memory. I'd like to be able to use it on Wikipedia:April_Fools/Invisible_Bird. The image can be found with DuckDuckGo image search. Please undelete the image, or re-upload it. Thank you --Naytz (talk) 17:49, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Please follow the process at Undeletion requests. --Fæ (talk) 18:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Irrelevant now, though the damage to my perceptions of the sense of humor in the community, or lack thereof, is permanent. Resident Mario (talk) 19:14, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

April 03

Buddhist art from/of Tibet

Hi, I'd like some input about these categories, and their subcategories. Thanks, Yann (talk) 10:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Category:Buddhist art of Tibet contains Category:Thangka from Tibet, but there is also Category:Mandala thangka from Tibet‎. All these seem not very logical... Thanks, Yann (talk) 10:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

In art categories of Italy we have this system, that for works of art that were created or found in Italy and are still located there we use "Category:Art in Italy"; for works of art that were created or found in Italy but now are preserved elsewhere we use "Category:Art from Italy" instead. The mother-cat is "Category:Art of Italy" that contains the two cats in / from, and then all other cats that have not a more accurate positioning (e.g. Coins, Artists, Italy in art, Music, Literature, etc.). I don't know if for Tibet there is a similar need to distinguish Tibetan art inside the country and Tibetan art located in other countries of the world (museums, collections, etc.). --DenghiùComm (talk) 13:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I would like to have more opinions here. Personally I think it doesn't matter much where is located the work of art. This is a secondary criteria, compared with content, style, age, etc. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps for a little county / country like Tibet (or other little countries) it doesn't really make much sense. Perhaps the correct name for this category may by "of Tibet". But for countries that produced a lot of art (like China, Egypt, Greece, Italy, etc.) it is absolutely necessary this distinction. Why to say "from Egypt" when it is 'in Egypt? Or why to say "in Egypt" if it is in the United States or in France? To apply this scheme (in / from) shows also how some countries were looted of their works of art over the centuries. This is my opinion. --DenghiùComm (talk) 08:24, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, right. Tibet is not really a destination available to tourists right now, and there are very few museums there to display its art. So most of Tibetan art available on Commons (and elsewhere) is not currently in Tibet. This is very different than countries like Italy, Greece, or Egypt. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:56, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Ammanudi Telugu magazine regarding.

Ammanudi is a monthly magazine published from Tenali, Andhra Pradesh. The editor of the magazine has agreed to release the magazine under CC-BY-SA license and to host it on commons. A unicode version of the magazine will be available on Telugu Wikisource as well.

The magazine editor will provide me with the pdf version a little later to the print edition (a lapse of 1 month)

The meta data page of magazine (Page 3) will contain CC-BY-SA 4.0 license mentioned.

Now, I have few doubts about this. The editor has the copyright for all the contents - articles, poems, stories (authored by various writers). The agreeement remains with the editor for all the authors. Should these be also part of the OTRS permissions mail?

How should I have OTRS team approve of these magazines, should a permission letter be sent for every issue, or a single document would do?

Given the fact that the editor is not well versed with using computer, and is comfortable with paper work than email conversations, what could be done from my side to ensure flawlessness in the process. Also, the magazine carries some advertisements which may not be part of the CC-BY-SA license, should I remove such pages?

For archives of the same magazine, that do not carry the CC-BY-SA license implicitly, will it be best to host all magazines on another website with CC-BY-SA license?

Please help. --రహ్మానుద్దీన్ (talk) 15:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi,

You could ask the copyright owner to write a letter, which you can then scan and send to OTRS. This letter should be on official letterhead from the publisher.

This letter needs the text shown at COM:CONSENT, with the list of the magazine issues covered by the license. I hope this help. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

swiftday updates

Section break

Fun update: I programmed into the font the ability to insert old style figures into your documents even if the app you’re working in doesn’t support opentype, a possible fix for bugs like [4] on the font side. It’s on github now. Encapsulate figures you want to display that way with <onum></onum> tags, and the font will switch number styles without touching the underlying text data. To prevent unexpected behavior it also encourages you to type the closing </onum> tag. I suppose this could be extended to small capitals and superscripts—♥ Kelvinsong talk 23:57, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

@Kelvinsong: @Rillke: FYI, with the appropriate install and a bit of CSS, it's perfectly possible to read Wikipedia with this right now (... and it looks quite nice). See this screenshot. Just add body { font-family: "SWIFTDAY3"; } to your common.css after installing. Personally, I detest the 'typography refresh' fonts... doing this doesn't keep the 'fallback' for things like Hangul or Korean text from working, though it ofc has no effect on the rendering of math. Now you need to make a sans display font for it so section headers aren't still ugly. :P Revent (talk) 07:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I am indeed using it here at Commons since March, 16 for content texts but keeping navigational elements in sans-serif - it works very well for that and when I switch to another project I am usually missing it. Time to add it to my global CSS comes soon. -- Rillke^(q?) 09:04, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Aww thank you sm for saying that! @Revent & @Rillke! && @Revent wow your wikipedia text is quite small, and I am surprised at how well my font is holding up at that size! I just need someone to see how it looks on mac/windows bc I am designing on Linux rn too… BTW if ur using the font locally, make sure you are updating from the Github repository every now and then bc I am improving the font almost daily :) . && also I really should think up a real name for the font before everyone starts calling it “SWIFTDAY3” lol—♥ Kelvinsong talk 01:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I'm using Windows XP (SP3) and I can't use any Swiftday fonts downloaded from github... Windows Font installation says your (Swiftday3) otf files are damaged. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.)

@Kelvinsong: I'll give it a try on the iMac tomorrow, and give you another screenie of how it looks there. Revent (talk) 02:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Another update—I added small capitals to the regular style of the font. Those without opentype apps can access them with “<sc></sc>” they’re on github now!—♥ Kelvinsong talk 02:50, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

@Kelvinsong: : I realized that I should download the zip instead of "downloading" each file individually from your GitHub folder (never heard of this site) which doesn't work. But now I look at Swiftday3 in Windows Notepad and Wordpad, the same evenodd fill glitch (the previously reported capital A) pops up below 74 px font size. Regular: 4, 6, 8, 9, e, g, x, z (< all lower case); italic: 4, 6, 8, 9, A, H (<all capitals), f, t, x (< all lower case). All these glyphs appear normal at 75 px and onwards. When I make a sample SVG and load it in Firefox, the threshold of the evenodd fill glitch appears below 100 px. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 10:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

That’s cos of overlapping contours in multistroke letters like X. released fonts should not have these overlaps but I keep them there because they are required for editing. Not sure how to fix that rn bc fontforge doesn’t have a good way to fuse strokes before export to otf—♥ Kelvinsong talk 14:22, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

@ Sameboat - 同舟 I relegated the overlaps to background layers please download and test again :) —♥ Kelvinsong talk 21:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

@ User:Kelvinsong: Regular "8" is still glitchy. Also all English glyphs clump together weirdly... -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 23:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

@ Sameboat - 同舟 Strange. Looks like Windows is misinterpreting kerning pairs or something. U tried it with ur system language set to English? It is a latin font after all && maybe ur computer is trying to typset vertically or something—♥ Kelvinsong talk 20:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

&& also I fixed the 8—♥ Kelvinsong talk 21:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

There is no such issue with other English fonts like Arial and Times. And the options below is "western characters" which is the usual value for Latin glyphs. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 23:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

@Sameboat - 同舟 I think I fixed it try again w the newest commit <3 —♥ Kelvinsong talk 14:03, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

@ User:Kelvinsong: Thanks. It works, but the line-height bugs me which is much smaller with other (English) fonts. In my Win7 screenshot, there is no empty line between the alphabets and numbers. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 15:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

@Sameboat - 同舟 The big line spacing is because of a large square root glyph (like √ but BIGGER) that lives in the font; it’s compensated for in the linux & mac font by the HHEAD field which cancels out the giant radical but I forgot to do the same for the windows font. I fixed it but for some reason Github is down rn :// —♥ Kelvinsong talk 18:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Okayy it’s up now—♥ Kelvinsong talk 19:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

@ User:Kelvinsong: Looks good now :) -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 22:20, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Yay! font’s getting closer to release now :) —♥ Kelvinsong talk 02:36, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

@User:Kelvinsong I applaud your work, but viewing the PDF above I'm having some disappointment on Windows 8.1 (either browser pdf viewer or standalone) because in many places where two lines cross, there's a white spot as if they cancel out. For example, of the three 4's, only the top one has a black crossover point - the lower two have a white rectangle at the crossover. Other examples are the u with a line through the middle, the yen sign (only the top crossbar of the two), the estzet, some of the A variants, the oe ligature, etc. ... there are a lot of them; this isn't an exhaustive list. Wnt (talk) 17:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

@Wnt—oh, this was fixed a little while ago, I just forgot to rerender the pdf. Try again—♥ Kelvinsong talk 22:45, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

@Kelvinsong Now it looks OK up to ɕ, but from there on it still has the same problems. There's a tiny glitch in ɘ , maybe in ə it's hard for me to say, definitely in ɚ ɟ ɣ ɤ ... etc. Wnt (talk) 23:16, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Lol that pdf is always a bit behind the actual font. Uploaded a rerendered version—♥ Kelvinsong talk 01:03, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Section break 2

@User:Kelvinsong: I love old-style figures and want to use it in any given chance (visible if you have installed Swiftday or Adobe Garamond Pro:  which are the equivalences of figures of Georgia: 0123456789). My issue is assigning them to Japanese kana is uninviting for open usage because other participants without the said font(s) will only see tofu. I would rather have a variant of Swiftday so the old-style figures use the usual figure code points. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 03:27, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Update: After little online search, I found that the onum can be called out in this manner in Wiki and SVG: <span style="font-family:Swiftday3,Adobe Garamond Pro,serif;font-variant:small-caps">0123456789</span>(0123456789). Sadly, "font-variant" attribute seemingly isn't supported by librsvg. So even if Wikimedia has Swiftday3 installed on the server, the old-style figures aren't gonna be used for rendering SVG into PNG without typing the corresponding Japanese kana. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 15:01, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

@Sameboat - 同舟 It’s not assigned to Japanese kana; they live in the Private use area, the same place Adobe puts their old style numerals and small caps and swashes, etc. If those code points display Japanese kana then a font you have installed is invading that bloc with kana that shouldn’t be there. && yes u can invoke old style numerals with font-feature-settings or font-variant, or a million other hacks but those rarely work consistently which is why I included in the font portable compositors that let you type “<onum>123</onum>” and “<sc>abc</sc>” to get old style numerals and small caps.

PS svg text should always be rendered through an outlined “display” layer—unless they radically improve the renderer, I recommend text-to-paths with the text itself in an invisible text layer—♥ Kelvinsong talk 22:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I wonder if there is similar mechanism of SVG which allows you to highlight-select the text-to-path object like actually selecting the raw text in PDF. But even so, I would normally not convert text to path in my SVG files due to file size it bloats. Not even the font style could justify this practice in my book. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 23:34, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

@Sameboat - 同舟 You cannot highlight in SVG at all? && letting the text be as SVG text might work for very simple files but rendering problems increase with file complexity—displaying outlines is the only safe way—♥ Kelvinsong talk 00:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

@User:Kelvinsong: I mean I don't know how exactly this can be done in SVG. A simple code example will be appreciated. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 01:03, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

File:West Antarctic ice sheet.svg has something like that—♥ Kelvinsong talk 23:10, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I see that you set display:none for the raw text, but this way the hidden text cannot be selected nor searched manually without accessing the source code. I have a workaround that we use fill-opacity:0;stroke-opacity:0 to hide the text because that way the invisible raw text can still be clicked and selected manually. opacity:0 will make the highlight invisible as well, it is still searchable but reader might misunderstand that the raw text doesn't exist in the SVG just like display:none does. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 02:15, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Gotcha; I’ll do that in the future, but there’s no way I gonna go through fifty images and reorganize the text layers—♥ Kelvinsong talk 22:46, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Font stacks

As an overview, for which font stacks there are which open source alternatives I've created en:User:Kopiersperre/Metric aliases. Could you take a look on it?--Kopiersperre (talk) 13:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Not sure how I can help with that but lol “Wikiserif” 😂 . Also you mixed up Avant garde and cambria && Deja Vu is much more similar to Verdana than Open sans, Frutiger, or even Droid —♥ Kelvinsong talk 22:54, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Call for IPA testers

I just finished the IPA bloc in the regular, (which is probably going to be the last addition for the 1.0), it’d be great if people who use this stuff often would download and test it out! Also name suggestions would be great lol, and the fonts have finally been cleared of warnings and errors—♥ Kelvinsong talk 23:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC) @Sameboat - 同舟, Kaldari, Rillke, TheDJ, User:El Grafo, Quiddity, User:Vibhabamba, Wnt, Kopiersperre, Revent

Re: IPA - (Note: I'm barely familiar with IPA; this is just a glance check). The "Velar Nasal n" and "Retroflex Nasal n" are currently identical. https://i.imgur.com/Im3AVwu.png - The nasalized vowels appear to have a macron instead of a tilde. https://i.imgur.com/OAMAMNK.png BUT, that fixes itself if I zoom-in.

Re: Size/Serif - Is a Sans version planned? Or should I be adding something else to my user.css to compensate, when using a serif as a body font? Compare my default sans-serif (left), and Times (right) - http://i.imgur.com/rulfpn9.png

Hope that helps. :) Quiddity (talk) 00:24, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

@Quiddity Oh shit 🙊 lol fixed it now. But the nasalized vowels do have tildes, it’s just at small sizes the wiggles are so small that they all fit into one row of pixels making them look like macrons. Almost every font ik does that; the Neue Frutiger I read commons in flattens tildes to macrons as well. I did however add anchor points to all the vowels which should greatly improve accent alignment. Also I do want to make a sans font but I want to finish this one first

PS Please download the other styles of the font! All that faux italic and faux bold is gross loll —♥ Kelvinsong talk 01:32, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

March 16

Category suggestions, please

Suggestions, please, on a set of categories for images like those shown here. Something like:

and the same for black backgrounds, then a set of subcategoies, like, Coins on..., Buttons on..., etc.

I want to exclude images of objects on white tablecloths, etc. Andy Mabbett (talk) 10:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

~~How about discs for the first? It already contains all kinds of coins among others, therefore it doesn't help for your second example, but maybe you could create a new sub-category of discs~~I missed your point background, sorry. –Be..anyone (talk) 21:34, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

What would be the benefit of these categories? Railwayfan2005 (talk) 20:12, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Cabaret vs. Vaudeville vs. Music hall

Hi, I am surprised that there is no en:Category:Music hall performers or en:Category:Vaudeville performers or en:Category:Cabaret performers here. But what is the right name for artist like Mistinguett? Thanks for your input. Yann (talk) 19:12, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Categories can be created here just like they are created on Wikipedia. If we are missing a useful categorization by profession, please feel free to add it. BD2412 T 19:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

But what is the right name? Yann (talk) 21:37, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

en-wiki already has her in en:Category:Cabaret singers, which seems to me to be on the mark. - Jmabel ! talk 16:13, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

The point here is that these artists are more than singers. Most of them are also dancers. So I think that the word "performers" includes both, but we don't have that category here. On the English WP, it seems that artists from UK are in the Music hall category, while artists from the US are in the Vaudeville one. Now where should put French artists? ;o) Regards, Yann (talk) 16:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Be en:WP:BOLD, just create a new category and link it into the tree. Railwayfan2005 (talk) 20:21, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Flickr now offers Public Domain and CC0 designations

and its not an April Fools joke as it is from March 30th: http://blog.flickr.net/en/2015/03/30/flickr-now-offers-public-domain-and-cc0-designations/ The SpaceX images for example have been released as Public Domain on Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/spacexphotos/ . Amada44 ^{talk to me} 10:00, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

As part of my on-going Commons→Flickr mirroring experiment, I am in the process of swapping the previous best default of CC-BY over to Public Domain, using the Flickr API (70,000 images compared to SpaceX's 105). You can search any flickrstream for Public Domain images, though the Flickr website does not make this obvious. The Organizr feature has yet to make license a filtering criteria, so batch license changes to 3,000+ images are hard to sort out (Organizr appears to consistently fail) unless you can set up a special tool or programme to do it for you, or spend your time changing licenses manually in screen-sized batches.

If you want to search for PD images, try editing the URL for this search (the Flickr drop-down says "Any License" but ignore it as misleading):

https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=Wikimedia&sort=interestingness-desc&license=9,10

The new licenses are set up within Flickr as:

license id="9" name="Public Domain Dedication (CC0)" url="https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/"
license id="10" name="Public Domain Mark" url="https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"

The license id is what the Flickr API relies on. --Fæ (talk) 10:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Very nice. An additional trick is to use "https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=Wikimedia&license=4,5,7,8,9,10" to maximize the number of freely licensed or license free returns, where "4" is CC Attribution, "5" is CC Attribution ShareAlike, "7" is no known copyright restrictions, "8" is United States government work, and as above, "9" is CC0 and "10" is Public Domain. In Firefox, I have this set as a search shortcut in bookmarks using "https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=%s&license=4,5,7,8,9,10", so I can type "flickr search term" and get results. — Huntster (t @ c) 14:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

For some reason, the license parameter fails to do anything when using the standard Android Browser. This is probably because Flickr is behaving differently depending on your browser header. So, the above links should work in theory, but in practice YMMV until Flickr integrate the new PD license into their website. --Fæ (talk) 11:11, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Very good point. Android browser does tend to display and function dramatically differently than the standard desktop fare, which is why I made sure to mention that I was using Firefox. Hopefully Android catches up soon. — Huntster (t @ c) 13:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the search link @Fæ + Huntster, I didn't know that, and some of my "noscript" emulations with Chrome kill most Flickr features—I have to edit URLs to get to the download links "sizes" stuff from a given picture, and I get no gallery previews at all. But the search link works and yields a gallery.

–Be..anyone (talk) 08:29, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I now find myself questioning my sanity - I could have sworn Flickr already had a PD option? Anyway, whatever - this announcement means a lot of our documentation now needs updating - start at COM:EIC#Flickr and work your way from there. Our tools also need to be updated - it appears Flinfo allows you to upload these images, but they are subsequently failing the automated Flickrreview [5]. Also, Flickr2Commons doesn't recognise them for the purposes of batch uploading, but you can upload them singly, presumably because it utilises Flickrinfo (which of course will also fail Flickreview). I've left a note at Commons:WikiProject Flickr#Current issues. I'm wondering if a banner noting the change at the top of Commons:Flickr files might also be in order, for the time being? Ultra7 (talk) 14:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Be bold and stick a notice on it. Until the tools or wizards are updated, it looks like a point of confusion for many uploaders who rely on them. --Fæ (talk) 14:28, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Will do. Ultra7 (talk) 15:03, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

The PD issue might be more complicated than out of date software - the Flickreview failed because it interpreted the Public Domain Mark 1.0 license used by the Flickr author as Copyright-Only Dedication or Public Domain Certification. It's not clear to me if that's a software error, or if it is meant to work that way. Does Commons support Public Domain Mark 1.0 or not? I'm not seeing which particular PD tag (except perhaps a pro-forma Template:PD-because) that fits that license. I'm assuming there's no similar issue for CC, since we already have Template:Cc-zero. Ultra7 (talk) 15:03, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I've dropped a note for Zhuyifei1999, operator of the FlickrReiview bot. Ultra7 (talk) 15:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Good move, these sorts of template changes need careful thinking through to get right. --Fæ (talk) 22:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I can't code it to support "Public Domain Mark" before having an exact template or a set of templates that match "Public Domain Mark". As for CC0, ~~Doing…~~ --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 10:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Done --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 10:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I've opened Commons:Requests for comment/Flickr and PD images to get further input on the PD issue. As well as posting it to centralized discussion, I'll drop pointers on the talk pages of Commons:WikiProject Public Domain, Commons:PD files and Commons:Flickr files. Ultra7 (talk) 14:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Help checking categories by new user

I don't know if we have people who regularly check new categories that get created, but User:Reguyla recently created a lot of them without understanding how to fully categorize them and fit them into our category structure. He was looking at Special:WantedCategories to find categories to create. Some of the issues I saw are:

Categories for people created with only the category "Men by name"
Categories for military places created with only a category for a war
Time/place categories created without using the standard templates used for them
A few categories I'm not sure we want, such as "Men named John", "Men named James", etc.

I've checked a few, but I don't have time to check all of them, so any help with this would be appreciated. Thanks! --Auntof6 (talk) 10:08, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I already responded to this user on my talk page but then she posted here as well so here goes. She's right I was trying to clean out the wanted categories list and I thanked her for pointing those out. As she noted and as I have stated to others I am still fairly new to Commons so I am still learning the naming schema for some of the things. She also pointed out some good problems above and I'm glad she was able to fix some of the templates that were incorrectly generating unneeded or unwanted categories so the problems won't continue. Some of what I was doing was just trying to get rid of the red links so she is right in some cases I didn't know what the lowest level category might be and in some cases further refinement is needed and in many cases additional categories will also be needed. I also submitted some for deletion and cleaned out some that were obviously wrong. I fully intend to continue refining the categories as I learn more. IMO though its better to have a category that's maybe not quite as specific as it could be to none at all that can be refined further by others who are more familiar with the topic. I'll go back and look at some of the ones I created and see if I notice anything that should be changed. As for the last point about Men named X, I did create a couple based on common names because I saw others were created for other names like Gabriel. If those are not wanted that's ok, but it seems like a lower level naming would be desired for some things rather than simply Category:Men by name and I did not think that would be a controversial thing since they already existed anyway. Additionally, the Category:Men by name category is a subcategory of People by name so I was reefing them to be more specific rather than less in those cases.Reguyla (talk) 13:13, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I have uploaded a lot of images to Commons and added an awful large number of categories to images. Between us, I can confess that almost all of it is automated using my secret recipes

. After several years of getting on with it, my conclusion is that it is just not worth the time to debate sophisticated category hierarchies, or whether a category should be "this of those" or "this in those" or any of the hundreds of variations possible. Though many users believe there are rules effectively in place for things like date, or place, really they may shift about in a year or two when some newbie wikilawyers want to spend their time arguing about it.

My recommendation is that as soon as a category becomes controversial, try not to touch it. Run in the opposite direction, work on other stuff for a month or a year, and consider taking a look again only when it becomes stable.

Commons is a big place. With 25,000,000 images, there is a lot of enjoyable stuff to get done without getting sucked down into the shifting sand of taxonomies. --Fæ (talk) 18:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, now I feel discouraged. I mainly work on categories. I really enjoy it and I thought I was doing something helpful. I guess my choices are to stop, or to continue with the knowledge that a fellow editor thinks I'm wasting my time. I'll probably do the latter, eventually, but feeling disheartened. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:20, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Not what I said. Spending time doing a thing is entirely different from spending time arguing about doing it. --Fæ (talk) 09:55, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Working on categorizing images, or creating new more-specific categories for crowded ones, or creating new subcategories the could be better cross-referenced after being split up (i.e. geographical subcats that could be in both a subject and a location high-level category)... all very worthwhile. I think Fae's point is that there are occasionally battles about such things, and when a conflict starts it's better to just back away from that specific issue, and work on other things for a while, until a consensus becomes established... editing is far more productive than arguing, especially since you often end up arguing with people that are only short-term editors. Not that 'short term' really applies to Reguyla, he's well known as a 'cross-project' editor, and only 'new' to Commons. He's pretty reasonable, tho, from my experience. Revent (talk) 01:08, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Revent, I wish more folks felt that way. Sorry I haven't been on here for a couple days to respond sooner but I have some pressing real life stuff going on I need to focus on at the moment. If anyone sees anything with my edits it looks like I am doing wrong by all means let me know and I will adjust fire to use a military term. As I mentioned above and on my talk page, Auntof6 identified some valid stuff I may need to look at but I also think there are a couple things that could use further clarification in general. For example the point she makes about the Category for people starting with John or James is a valid one. I created those because I saw a few other names already existed and I intended to use AWB to fill those in further. If these aren't needed or desired though I would be fine with eliminating them. I also asked a couple times about replacing the Category People by name with Men/Women by name to be more specific and only got a couple replies but the general sentiment from those that did respond seemed to be that the more specific categories are more desirable. If that is indeed the case, then there are a couple places in the documentation about categorization that refer to the People by name category that could use some rephrasing. As for some of the other comments she has about using more specific categories I think that will come with more experience and the only way to get more experience is to make more edits and inherently more mistakes to learn from so if anyone sees anything that I need to fix just let me know. Reguyla (talk) 01:50, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

@Fæ: In this case you better adjust your categorization system. Several times I noticed your uploads were hardly traceable.

@Reguyla: IMHO the categorization system is nothing to start with as new user, because mistakes are causing much more troubles than working on files--Oursana (talk) 02:29, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Maybe its just me, but I think my attempts to try and cut down on the hundreds of thousands of uncategorized files so they are in at least some kind of related category might not be an improvement over just having them uncategorized. I'm not sure why, but I am getting that impression. It seems unless someone actually knows what every one of the hundreds of thousands of categories are and where exactly an image should go without error, then its better just to leave them alone rather than get them close to where they should be so it can be refined. IMHO though working with files is much, much harder and prone to error and controversy than categories so I probably won't be fiddling with that much either, if at all. I don't really have a problem with fixing mistakes but this discussion seems to be a lot more nitpicky than necessary. Especially since I see established users and admins doing the exact same things I am doing (which is where I learned it by the way, by looking at their edits) or uploading images with no categories at all. After my experiences with ENWP I have better things to do than to get drug into constant endless nitpicky discussions about edits that require nothing more than a note and are easily fixed based on nothing more than that I am not an established long term editor on the project. So I am going to focus on some other projects for a while like Wikia and Wikidata but drop me a note if you need me to fix anything I screwed up. I may pop in and do a few things here and there but I'm not interested in stirring the pot and after my experiences with ENWP I am more than aware that editors on these sites have no rights and are allowed to edit solely on the whims of the admins who have absolute authority and discretion so I have no interest in going down that road again. Cheers and good luck getting people to help. Reguyla (talk) 16:29, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

IMO, at least (and I think this opinion is shared by others) adding an uncategorized file to a 'vague' category, so that it can be seen and better categorized by other with better knowledge of the subject is far better than leaving it uncategorized, as long as not taken to extremes (don't dump hundreds of files into a high-level category, it creates drama). Uncategorized files are effectively 'lost' and rather useless for most purposes. There is a tendency among some people to attempt to force 'compliance' to naming rules that don't really exist... there is an old quote along the lines of 'perfect is the enemy of good', that fits well with the way that wiki's work. An incremental improvement is better than none at all, and can spur others to make further improvements. Revent (talk) 23:14, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

You do make a good point, and I do tend to be a bit of a perfectionist. What I was seeing was creating categories just for the sake of creating them, without giving it much thought. There's probably a happy medium in there somewhere. I do think some thought should be put into creating new categories, preferably with understanding of how the categories work here. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:59, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

@Oursana: The categorization of Fae's uploads is often limited by the specificity of the metadata at the image sources. He's freely admitted in the past that all of his uploads could be easily improved by manual editing... as long as they are properly categorized by the image source, it makes fairly reasonable for other editors to trawl through the image source categories and fix things. It's a tradeoff... attempting to automate better categorization, because it would be different for every image source, would cause an unacceptably high error rate without the investment of a large amount of programming time that would be specific to each source.... he has his bot doing what bots do well, and leaving what humans do well for manual cleanup. Revent (talk) 23:44, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

My typical batch uploads are not blindly or fully automated, but are chosen by theme to help with categorization. For example the "Arctic Thunder" image on the right was uploaded this morning with the batch project category Images from DoD uploaded by Fæ (now at 108,000 photos) but then with both the location (Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, 774 photos) and event (United States Air Force Thunderbirds, 552 photos) worked out by automatically searching for key words in the metadata, note that just 25 photographs are in the intersection between these two categories. This was part of a batch chosen to illustrate children and the U.S. military and this image popped up as the file description on DVIDS explains that the event opens early with a special preview for children with special needs. The two main categories for this image may be minimal, but they are sufficient in my view, and the description text with location, dates and reference ID, is easily used to find the image using the standard search bar.

Parallel techniques have been used for "housekeeping" batch upload images where after they have been uploaded, it was realized that categorization could be better. For example the 290,000 images I batch uploaded to Files from the Historic American Buildings Survey had several housekeeping bot-sweeps based on my improving knowledge of how to use the National Register of Historic Places database, and I can imagine that Reguyla's interest in AWB to help with categorization might provide similar large scale improvements.

A note about size. I am convinced that most Commons volunteers have little in the way of a gut feeling about how big a project with 100,000 images is, especially as we frequently talk about millions of images on Commons. To keep this in context, if we paid someone to look at 100,000 images to, say, manually check categories, then at the punishing rate of one photo every 10 seconds working at 8 hours a day, it would take a working month to get through the batch. If in the next couple of years we are to grow Commons over the 100 million images level, yet (as our trends tell us is likely) only be able to grow our volunteer population by a small percentage at the same time, then our reliance and trust in bots to help us must continue and improve. --Fæ (talk) 05:53, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Something wrong in displaying particular categories on a single file page

Please see this page: File:AIGA10a_stairs_inv.png.

I am a user from China. Today I uploaded the SVG version of the inverted stairs icon (see File:10a_stairs_inv.svg), and changed the category of File:AIGA10a_stairs_inv.png as follows:

[[Category:Uploaded with UploadWizard]] [[Category:Facility symbols]] [[Category:AIGA symbol signs obsoleted by SVG replacement]] [[Category:Stair symbols]]

However, when I did such modification, a problem occurred: after the deletion of these two categories: [[Category:Inverted AIGA symbol signs]] and [[Category:PD ineligible]], the links to these two category pages still exist. I tried to purge the cache in my browser (Internet Explorer) and even changed to another browser (Firefox), the problem still occurs.

On the other hand, such problems did not occur when I modified the other categories.

So I am going to ask for help here, since such problems seem to be technical problems.

--Ytx21cn (talk) 14:09, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Those categories are inherited from Template:PD-AIGA; you can't just remove them, they will be repopulated by the template. ColonialGrid (talk) 15:11, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

April 06

OTRS has not yet been proceeded tag

Hi. We have {{No OTRS permission since}} for no permission at all, {{OTRS pending}} for uploaders in order to claim that they've sent a permission, and {{OTRS received}} for the case when the email indeed was created but there wasn't enough reliable data in order to close the ticket as success, and {{PermissionOTRS}} for successful permissions. Am I the only one who feels that we need a tag for the case when an agent sees a ticket about a file but is too lazy/has no time/whatever in order to proceed it and thus put either {{PermissionOTRS}} or {{OTRS received}} on filedesc? I think it's not uncommon situation and seeing not just claim from OP but confirmation from agent that there indeed exists ticket about file in question would be helpful in some ways. --Base (talk) 13:11, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Why not just {{OTRS received}} for that case? And maybe the possibility of adding a note to the template. - Jmabel ! talk 16:26, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Indeed it seems the template has the tag as one of it's parameters. Well I suppose there's no need in something else then. Thanks --Base (talk) 16:36, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I actually sometimes run into this problem when there is an image with no license, but with {{OTRS pending}} or with uploader claiming that the author sent something, so I look up the license in the ticket. If is is a clear-cut case in English or Polish I process it, but I leave more messy cases or other languages to more experienced users. But I usually would like to live a direct link to the ticket in the file. {{OTRS received}} is the only template to use in such a case but the message is all wrong, since it mostly say that there is a problem with the permission and we are waiting for more info, instead of nobody got to it yet. I think it would be beneficial to either

Extend {{OTRS pending}} to allow additional ticket ID information
Extend {{OTRS received}} to allow "not processed yet" wording
Create a new template

Whatever we do we would have to coordinate with User:Rillke or other maintainers of MediaWiki talk:Gadget-PermissionOTRS.js to ensure that we do not break that Gadget. --Jarekt (talk) 20:36, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

@Jarekt: {{OTRS received}} already says "An email has been received at OTRS concerning this file, and can be read here by users with an OTRS account. The email is in a queue awaiting processing." if its reason parameter is set to 1 or processing. A reason dropdown in said gadget would be great. FDMS 4 13:49, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

You are right, I have never noticed that. Thanks. --Jarekt (talk) 13:58, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

April 05

Category for a particular type of sign

Do we have a category for signs or objects like this (freestanding, a bit like a sandwich board but with only a small sign at the top)? - Jmabel ! talk 02:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Or this other type of sign, which is also not exactly a sandwich board. - Jmabel ! talk 05:48, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I thought File:13-03-30-praha-by-RalfR-079.jpg would be called an "A-frame sign", but apparently that's something slightly different (Category:A-frame wet floor signs etc.)... AnonMoos (talk) 11:18, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Looks like that notion of "A-frame signs" (which doesn't yet have a distinct category: we go directly to Category:A-frame wet floor signs) is absolutely the same as Category:Freestanding sandwich boards (which I separated out of Category:Sandwich boards). - Jmabel ! talk 15:56, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Error in {{PD-old-auto}}?

This image (and many more like it) is showing up in Category:PD Old auto: no death date, and yet the page includes "{{PD-Art|PD-old-auto|deathyear=1935}}". What’s wrong? -- Tuválkin ✉ 09:58, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Purge fixed it for me. After a lot of digging around I traced it to the resent changes to the Module:Fallback which are discussed below. --Jarekt (talk) 14:45, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Yay, thanks a lot! Unpurged transclusion cruff also explains why I could find in that mantainance cetegory only a couple dozen of the >110 filepages with the very same "{{PD-Art|PD-old-auto|deathyear=1935}}". -- Tuválkin ✉ 16:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Category:Pages with incorrect template usage/Autotranslate

There are currently 159,782 images in this category, but I strongly doubt that there's anything wrong with the code directly contained on most of these image pages (rather, the problem is with some indirectly-transcluded template). AnonMoos (talk) 11:13, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

It is in Module:Fallback, i restored @Jarekt edits (which was reverted because of some other invoke issues a few days ago - which affecting only a few pages). Should be fixed now. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:09, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I am currently purging all pages in the cat, so that the change will be loaded from the module (this is faster, jobqueue is slower). :-) --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

There are also 30k files in Category:PD Old auto: no death date, see message above. --Jarekt (talk) 14:52, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Requested move of File:Pussy.jpg

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This discussion appears to have gone off on a tangent. Please note that "[t]his page is used for discussions of the operations, technical issues, and policies of Wikimedia Commons." If you have unrelated issues to discuss, please take them to the nearest appropriate talk page. Green Giant (talk) 21:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I filed a move request for File:Pussy.jpg, requesting renaming to File:Pussy, winner of the 1834 Epsom Oaks.jpg on the grounds that the current file name is highly ambiguous; the proposed name describes the contents of the image. User:FDMS4 declined the move as "not covered by our rename guidelines as decided in Commons:Requests for comment/File renaming criterion 2". I am perplexed by this, as I thought that moving files with highly ambiguous names was precisely the determination of that discussion. As w:Pussy (disambiguation) demonstrates, this is a highly ambiguous term, for which the name of a particular horse is a comparatively obscure meaning. I don't see how this is different from any of a number of other move requests that I have made that have been fulfilled, such as the moves of File:Bass.png to File:Range of bass voice marked on keyboard.png, File:Green.JPG to File:Green BMW E30.jpg, and File:Sad.jpg to File:Man holding a hat behind his back at the Monumental Cemetery of Staglieno.jpg. BD2412 T 15:58, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

The way I understand it, criterion #2's "ambiguous" means generic and unspecific, not "could have a different meaning". FDMS 4 16:09, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

The main goal of COM:FR is stability: While there is always possible to chose a better name, that guideline establishes a very greedy shortlist that can be used, upong stringent necessity, to circumvent the hard-and-fast rule, which is: do not rename files. (On the other hand, COM:File naming tries to guide prospective uploaders on selecting good filenames, before they are created.) -- Tuválkin ✉ 16:28, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Frankly, those renamings you list (File:Bass.png, File:Green.JPG, etc.) were against the previous text of COM:FR, and i.m.o. illustrate well how the current wording opened a can of worms… -- Tuválkin ✉ 16:28, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Well the current wording offers "File:Smartphone.jpg" and "File:Louvre 12.jpg" as examples of files that should be renamed under the criteria. In the present case, the subject of the file is so obscure that any reader coming across it is likely to be completely befuddled as to why this file name is associated with a picture of a horse. BD2412 T 16:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

No, unless he/she is browsing special pages he will very likely find the image via Category:Thoroughbred and Category:Racehorses by John Ferneley, which make it clear that the image isn't about cats. FDMS 4 16:55, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

The file description removes any possible confusion, as it makes it pretty clear it was the horse's name. Revent (talk) 17:01, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Then why move ambiguously named files at all? Why move "File:Smartphone.jpg" or "File:DSC 1342.jpg" to a different name, when the file description can always remove confusion? BD2412 T 17:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Something like "File:DSC 1342.jpg" is not descriptive of the subject matter at all... this filename is (somewhat amusingly, I admit) the actual name of the depicted object. Other uses of the term are slang, this is not. There is IMO no real reason to move it, I doubt anyone is going to have difficulty finding photos of genitals or cats simply because this is at this name, and a search for "Pussy" would still point at it through the redirect, which makes renaming it a bit pointless. Revent (talk) 18:41, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with BD2412 that the file should be renamed. I'm not sure why you're all pussy-footing around the issue but the word "pussy" is far more associated with cats and female genitalia than it is with a racehorse. Before the current image was uploaded, there was a succession of images of female genitalia, the last of which was the subject of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pussy.jpg. I note also that an extracted image has been named File:Pussy (horse) crop.jpg, which I think is a reasonable naming scheme. Green Giant (talk) 18:07, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, this matter is best discussed at Commons_talk:File_renaming after reviewing the archives thereof. No one is going to be happy with all the criteria and the wording thereof. Borderline cases always exist. But, I am dubious that further discussion of an already much-debated guideline will be fruitful. I agree with Tuvalkin view above and support User:FDMS4 decision in this instance. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I strongly agree that the current wording of COM:FR supports this rename. If that's perceived as a "can of worms" then that's too bad: reopen the discussion on how it should be phrased. But if we're sticking to the letter of the law, the file should be renamed. Tim Pierce (talk) 18:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I've moved the file to File:Pussy, winner of the 1834 Epsom Oaks.jpg. The original name was legitimately ambiguous, which is directly covered by criterion 2 at Commons:File renaming. INeverCry 19:41, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate that, although now I am legitimately confused as to how the process is supposed to work here. I close a lot of the requested move discussions on Wikipedia, and the process for debating a proposed move and determining the policy-based outcome seems to be more open and defined. BD2412 T 19:52, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I go by file renaming policy. The original name was clearly ambiguous, and so it fell under criterion 2. I don't see any legitimate argument to the contrary. I think people often create confusion and problems that're unnecessary and a waste of valuable time, as this has been. It almost amounts to a hobby or obsession with some people around here. INeverCry 19:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm. So it's just like Wikipedia after all. BD2412 T 20:03, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I think this is the wrong way to go. There is an ongoing discussion, with several people against the renaming. One filemover feeling he is right shouldn't rename against consensus. I'm filemover, too. If I feel that previous name is better (according to our policies and so) can I rename in the opposite direction at will?

I agree with INeverCry that having to take in account other people's opinion is sometimes annoying, but it's the price of working in a collaborative project instead of just publishing our private blogs.--Pere prlpz (talk) 21:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any issue for the renaming by INC. The original name was clearly suboptimal and ambiguous. My 2 Rs. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:29, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

One should note that our Commons:File renaming is merely a guideline (which allows for the community to deviate and to interpret wisely where it makes sense), not policy (which also allow for the community to deviate and to interpret wisely where it makes sense) and not cast in stone (so the community can deviate and to choose wisely where it makes sense). We are not robots. There is no do not rename files policy, and some who claim such have no business claiming so. Especially not when their record of what constitutes a good filename would meet most people's definition of what constitutes a secure password. -- Colin (talk) 22:05, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

We have the issue on Wikipedia where sometimes an article is at a suboptimal name, but there is no consensus for the title to which the article should be moved. However, if someone does happen to come along and move it to a name that is better than its current location, we don't move it back there even if there is no agreement about what name is the best. One way to figure that out in this case is to look at the image and ask yourself, "if this was a brand new image to Commons, what would I name it?" If the answer is something different than the file name that it had originally, then don't move it back there. BD2412 T 22:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

And there are far, far more direct links to Wikipedia articles than there are hyperlinks (outside of WMF wikilinks) to Commons images. Somehow the world continues to revolve even when folk on wp change an article name. Of course we should be reluctant to rename, but a forum such as this, where cases can be reviewed/discussed and merits weight, is just fine and should not be shut off with unthink nonsense that we simply "do not rename files". -- Colin (talk) 07:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

What about "unthink nonsense" that arbitrary identifiers need to be more then that? By the way, you might want to look up what a secure password is and change yours, since you obviously have no idea what a secure password look like. "Pussy" and "DSC 1342" are horrible passwords, whereas "Pussy, winner of the 1834 Epsom Oaks" is a passably decent one.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

If they are "arbitrary identifiers" then change our filename rules to be a GUID and be done with it. Don't think many people would support that, for reasons that most of us are humans not robots As for the password issue, those aren't the examples I have in mind: "4volboj4krucoj". Anyone who actually reads our Commons:File naming guideline will realise that it permits a number of uncontroversial rename reasons, that it discourages a number of typically harmful rename reasons (such as only making a slight improvement), but it says nothing about those in-between other that to apply caution. Anyone interpreting that guideline as though it forbids any file rename beyond the core set of uncontroversial renames, or thinks it is a policy without exception, hasn't actually read it and their opinions therefore are pretty worthless. Let's be human about this rather than anal. -- Colin (talk) 11:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Are you goading me to react in an intemperate manner to your accumulated micro-insults above, Colin? Please either ignore me entirely or address my actual point on this thread — that COM:FR fundamentally values stability above all else. The matter of spaces and camel case in filenames is not being discussed here. (Also please take care when you reference to COM:File renaming and to COM:File naming, as they are quite different — the latter does not affect filename stability, and indeed seeks filename “perfection”, however defined.) -- Tuválkin ✉ 13:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not trying to goad you at all. You should appreciate that if you give apparently authoritative statement like "COM:FR... establishes very greedy shortlist that can be used, upon stringent necessity, to circumvent the hard-and-fast rule, which is: do not rename files." then when it turns out that this statement is completely misleading and in fact an idiosyncratic view of how you think Commons works/should-work, those present may also question whether you have any authority on this matter. And on this issue of file naming and renaming, your practice has not been one from which anyone would wish to set as an example to follow. You are not the Commons authority on file renaming; far from it. (you are right, that I copy/pasted the wrong link). -- Colin (talk) 17:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

One more time: Do you deny that the paramount principle behind COM:FR is filename stability? -- Tuválkin ✉ 18:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Tuválkin, "paramount: more important than anything else". Clearly "filename stability" is not "more important than anything else" otherwise we would not have the ability to rename files under any circumstances. Let me quote bits of our guideline "most editors agree with in principle and generally follow... In general, Commons aims to provide stable file names... Thus renaming should be used with caution...As a matter of principle it's best to leave all files with generally valid names at their locations, even if slightly better names may exist." In these the words "in general", "aims", "with caution", "principle", "slightly" all have modifying effects which you seem to wish to ignore. We all agree with the principle that file renaming has the risk of causing disruption (though with many images, that aren't used or linked to, that disruption is zero) but we also agree that sometimes that disruption is worth it if the name is itself causing problems. It is a balance. There are cases we all agree are clear both for and against but a lot of cases where discussion is worthwhile, as here. Please do not cause disruption yourself by blocking this discussion with an dogmatic view that has no basis in our guildeline. -- Colin (talk) 18:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

That’s exactly what I mean. ("Paramount", of course, in the scope of file renaming only; to compare, stability is not paramount in the scope file naming: If our only two photos of a Gizmus invulgaris are already SillyName1.jpg and SillyName2.jpg, stability means that those should not be changed, but not that a 3rd, newly uploaded photo of a Gizmus invulgaris must be named SillyName3.jpg, of course.)

COM:FR describes how and when to depart from the basic principle of stability (and stability means avoid changes). The caution that should be taken is when making use of the exceptions, not when applying the basic principle — and yet you seem to see it the other way around. If so, a guideline would not be necessary, but, hey, that’s my view and nothing else: I have no delusions of authority. You repeatedly in this thread above, and not for the first time, tried to discredit my opinion with ad hominem arguments. Yet anyone can check my contribution history and know for sure what kind of file names I created and what kind file renamings I’ve been envolved in: Let them make their own mind about how much of it is «robot»-like, «password»-like, «unthink nonsense», «worthless», and (a zenith of elegance!) «anal».

-- Tuválkin ✉ 20:04, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

When a discussion devolves into legal threats (whether explicit or implicit), it's time to close it. This is a closure by an involved party, but I'm sure anyone with sense will understand that this thread can only result in disruption. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)}}

Undone aggressive collapse when there is no legal threat here. --Fæ (talk) 16:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

The closure was an attempt at pacification, not aggression. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:08, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

This particular rename is trivial, but (1) it is a clear misuse of rights for any trusted user to take pre-emptive action in the middle of a community discussion, this is not the first time that INeverCry has used their admin rights to act unilaterally and disrupt consensus building, (2) we are in danger of never being able to leave alone simple filenames for any image (this example had been stable for 3 years), because anyone in the future will come along and make it "just a bit" more specific. --Fæ (talk) 09:12, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think so. This name reminds me the drama created by Orrling to reserve some fancy names. Although I don't fully agree with all such actions, sometimes such bold actions (as Marcus Cyron did there) are time saving to prevent endless discussions which have little merits. J e e 09:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

"Bold action" easily becomes an excuse for suppression of legitimate concerns. I see a recent trend in preemptive closures by-passing discussion by the community, such as here or this ridiculous attack which effectively claimed ownership of a noticeboard. Commons should not be run by a closed clique of Super Friends, no matter how desirable that seems to a conservative minority. --Fæ (talk) 10:53, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

There are filenames that are "simple" and file names that are hopelessly ambiguous and likely to mislead the casual reader. I see no realistic chance that anyone will now have a need to make this filename "more specific" than the title to which it has been moved. BD2412 T 12:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Friendship is just a game of The Time. BTW, that DR is in my watch-list before I went to my vacation. I didn't see any game of friendship there. And your comment on the other thread you mentioned is quite nonsense. Michaeldsuarez already corrected it, so that I think you were trying to frighten me to refrain from handover evidences to higher authorities. It is is clear example how Super Friends play every trick to protect their closed cliques. (Sorry if this is going too off topic as usual.) J e e 12:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

If you wish to be pals with a user who was banned from Wikipedia for working with others to use Encyclopaedia Dramatica to make disgusting homophobic attacks and cyberbully Wikimedians, I suggest you take your tangential arguments and false complaints to that website. That sort of malicious shit in order to "win the argument" is not welcome here. --Fæ (talk) 13:04, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

What is "Encyclopaedia Dramatica"? I didn't such a name under wmf:Our projects. :( J e e 13:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Ask your banned cyberbullying pal, he'll be only too happy to promote his attack website. --Fæ (talk) 13:12, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Wow, how did this fairly simple request/question devolve into this? I think everybody should just chill. While I think that the new name is better, but renaming is not covered by our current guidelines, who the heck cares? Renaming or not renaming, both solution are acceptable. --Sebari (talk) 13:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

@Jkadavoor: : I don't recall saying anything of the sort, particularly in regards to the discussion that you link to. I would also appreciate it if you didn't drag me into confrontations with Fæ. I have the Village pump and the noticeboards on my watchlist. If there's a discussion that I need or want to participate in, I could do it without anyone pinging my name. Also, I'm currently appealing a ban, and my participation here undermines my chances. I would rather focus my concentration on my work at Meta right now.

@Fæ: : It was never my intention to create a page that would appear homophobic. I really just wanted to criticize free licenses and the amount of information people on the Internet share, hence the original name of that article. I'm sorry that things went so wrong. Nevertheless, I've noticed that you've been attacking INeverCry at very opportunity due to his involvement with blocking Russavia's sock accounts. I know from experience that when INeverCry is pushed too hard, he goes into retreat mode. Now, you're the one pushing him too far, and I would appreciate it if you stop and use a gentler approach instead. You know how it feels to be pushed into retirement, and last year, I learned about that feeling as well. Let's not make this discussion more painful than it should be. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Michaeldsuarez, I tried to correct what I intended to say. If ping notification is a problem for you, just disable it in preferences. I didn't drag you here; it is (the ping) just something technically part of the software used here. J e e 14:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, that changes things. I'm adding a comma between "it" and "so" for added clarity. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I believe that this discussion has devolved into sufficiently off-topic personality conflicts to merit closing for real at this point. I regret finding the original file in the first place. BD2412 T 17:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Michaeldsuarez

"I'm currently appealing a ban, and my participation here undermines my chances", no, maliciously disrupting our projects by inserting pornographic links in inappropriate ways just for the lolz, like this one just a few weeks ago, is what will keep you deservedly banned. Anyone that takes your recent on-wiki appeals for personal support for an un-ban because you are still active here is being badly misled and should pay more attention to the background of your long term advocacy for an attack website.

It remains a blot on the ethics of Wikimedia that malicious cyberbullying of Wikimedians off-wiki and promoting racist and homophobic material in order to upset our unpaid volunteers is not a rationale for a global and permanent ban or an office block, simply due to the demonstrable risks you deliberately create for our community and employees. --Fæ (talk) 15:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I added a joke to a light-hearted contest. It didn't cause any disruption. No one sent me any complaints. It was also innocuous, not malicious. No one was hurt. and I didn't place anyone asides from myself at risk. Can we also please stay on topic? Or are you just here to take shots at INeverCry and me? Think about what you should be doing here. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Warning The pornographic cartoon that Michaeldsuarez is pushing as a "joke" is likely to be illegal to possess or promote in the UK under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, and in many other countries due to the child-like figures represented having sex. The website that he regularly advocates, features not only attacks against individuals already mentioned, but a significant amount of this sort of legally high risk pornographic material. I personally advise against following any links to Encyclopedia Dramatica for this reason. --Fæ (talk) 16:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I wonder why there is no sitenotice for UK users containg an adaptation of your incredibly useful warning as it is indeed Commons that hosts "such material" and Wikipedias like the English one that include it. FDMS 4 17:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

It has been proposed before, you could try again. I'd support a new template proposal. --Fæ (talk) 17:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

No legal threat here. If Michaeldsuarez wants to use Wikimedia projects to promote pornographic cartoons of children or abusive attack pages about Wikimedians, that's a matter for his judgement and for local administrators to review. --Fæ (talk) 16:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

You're accusing me of illegal activities and are now suggesting that someone act upon your accusations. File:Futanari.png doesn't depict sexual intercourse or minors, and if the image is really so vile, why are you attacking me instead of ridding Commons of this allegedly illegal content? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Fæ, wrt "banned cyberbullying pal"s I do believe that when I referred to the Wikipedia ban, and sockpuppet activity, of one of yours, you reminded us "this noticeboard is for Wikimedia Commons" and that I was "taking this thread off-topic, in fact off this project entirely". The irony is most amusing :-). I completely agree with you that those who engage in "malicious cyberbullying" (whether on or off-wiki) of our fellow users (including WMF staff) should be shown the door on all WMF projects. I'm surprised that is even contentious. -- Colin (talk) 17:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Colin, please, no more of those sorts of comments. It is my belief that this thread should be closed, and the initiator of this discussion feels the same. Please don't add to the trouble that this discussion is causing. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

SVG files from Bentley MicroStation v8i

Does anyone have experience of creating SVG files from CAD using Bentley MicroStation? I've just been upgraded to this version, and one of the advantages is that it will export directly to SVG. However a test file I uploaded to en-wiki, en:File:Rugby-Birmingham-Stafford.svg, gives the error "Expected <svg> tag, got svg in NS". I've simplified the <svg> tag in Notepad, without success. The file seems to open correctly in Inkscape. Any ideas what I might be doing wrong? An optimist on the run! 15:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

im on a cell phone so cant really look at file, but probably missing the xmlns attribute on the svg tag. Bawolff (talk) 17:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

@Optimist on the run: I added the correct namespace (xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg") to the original version you uploaded (but had a copy-paste fail in the upload summary), and it works now. Bawolff (talk) 19:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks - there seems to be an issue with fonts and filling, but I'll see if I can tweak these in MicroStation before uploading it to Commons. An optimist on the run! 22:24, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Parallax coincidence

This photo shows what seems to be a large wethervane atop the tower at the end of this street, but it is rather a live pigeon flying much closer to the photographer. What is the proper name for this kind of parallax coincidences?, and do we have a category for it? -- Tuválkin ✉ 18:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

(It is not unlike Category:Forced perspectives, but it is usually unintended and unplannable.) -- Tuválkin ✉ 18:12, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

This one: File:Fairway-Rock-mil-atop.jpg is used on w:Forced_perspective as an example of "unintentional forced perspective" and has been added to Category:Forced perspectives. You could make a subcategory "unintentional forced perspectives", or "accidental forced perspectives", although the name seems a bit strange. --ghouston (talk) 23:02, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Good idea! -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 10:53, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

On the other hand, trying to guess photographers' intentions may be a bad idea, and you could just go by the end effect and add it to Category:Forced perspectives. Perhaps Category:Growing from head photos should be a subcategory too. --ghouston (talk) 23:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, when it comes to birds crossing the frame we can be fairly sure of an unplanned shot, but I agree that, at least for now, there’s no need to categorize separately intended and random forced perspectives. (Category:Growing from head photos, an all time favorite of mine, now added to the bunch.) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 10:53, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Category issue/question

Greetings all. I stumbled onto a couple possible category issues related to Category:Men with glasses.

My first question is, this category looks like it has had a discussion going on since 2013, here. So it might be time to consider wrapping that up.
My second question, most of the categories relating to things men are wearing start with Category:Men wearing X. For example, Men wearing hats, neckties, jeans, etc. I was thinking it might be good to change the Men with glasses category to Category:Men wearing glasses so it maintains the naming standard used by other related categories.

Reguyla (talk) 20:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Category:Men with glasses is (or will be) a parent category to Category:Men wearing glasses, along with its siblings Category:Men with sunglasses, Category:Men with glasses on forehead and Category:Men with glasses dangling from collar, among possible others. Much of the current content of Category:Men with glasses could be moved down right now to the new Category:Men wearing glasses, but the parent itself should be kept. (On the other hand, the many categories about individual men that are categorized under Category:Men with glasses need to be fixed, as those men are not inherently wearing glasses all the time. Not even Category:Santa Claus is!) -- Tuválkin ✉ 20:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

That linked discussion, mostly about whether Category:Andy Mabbett belongs in "men with glasses" or not is something that happens to categories all the time. E.g., Category:Trams is a subcategory of Category:Motor vehicles, even though it includes Category:Horse-drawn trams that don't have motors. I'm not sure if achieving perfection in logical categorization should be a goal, or if it's just too hard. --ghouston (talk) 23:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the right place for such discussion, but here it goes, trying to make a long story short:

Categories are “grainy”, as the nature of the relationship is not expressed, only the hierarchy (parent-child), and also because we usually don’t create more than the necessary categories to cover the files we already have [categorized]. But there’s a line to be drawn in that grainy grey area between perfect categorization and pure nonsense, and I think that on the side of good lies the notion that all trams are motorized (horse trams and trailers notwithstanding) while on the side of nonsense is the assumption that this or that man is inherently, fundamentally, and essentially bepectacled (except maybe Jones’ and Smith’s version of these guys).

That said, we have the matter of tram categorization well developed enough these days to envison swapping the tram-related child of Category:Motor vehicles from Category:Trams to a new intermediate category grouping some of the ones currently in Category:Trams by motive power, allowing the separation of self-propelling trams from mere pulled units.
Doing the same for Category:Men with glasses seems trivial — it enough to create separate subcategories about Category:So-and-so wearing glasses when the sheer number of files advise it (for some it would be more practical to do the opposite, as in Category:Ray Charles without glasses), or merely tagging the individual photos with Category:Men with glasses for most cases.

(And of course all this applies also to Category:Women with glasses and the generic Category:People with glasses.) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 10:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

April 08

Problems in new file version

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T95333

Two days ago I loaded a new version in this file. However, there are pages that use the image and continue to exhibit the original version, like pt:Coronel Fabriciano#Religião and pt:Distrito-Sede (Coronel Fabriciano)#Cultura e lazer (pt.wiki). I updated and emptied the cache and also accessed the pages on other computers in different browsers, but the problem continues. What happens and how to fix? --HVL talk 22:07, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I think the problem may be on Commons, since this link also gives the old version: [6] --ghouston (talk) 02:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I remembered some steps at the bottom of phab:T43130#447471 which I tried to apply now (add random number to thumbnail URL and purge file page). Crossing fingers the cached thumbnail will update. If not (after bypassing your browser cache), please report the software bug to the 'Phabricator' bug tracker. Bonus points for mentioning the meta-ticket T43371 in the report's description. Thank you! --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 10:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I think its a problem on the swift side not the varnish side, so those instructions probably won't work. Bawolff (talk) 19:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

@HVL: Until the issue is fixed, you can work around it by including the image at a size 221px (e.g. doing [[File:Fachada e lateral da Catedral São Sebastião após pintura, Coronel Fabriciano MG.JPG|thumb|221px|caption here]]). Bawolff (talk) 19:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Filed as phab:T95333. Bawolff (talk) 19:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Coincidentally, I reported the bug almost at the same time: phab:T95334 --HVL talk 19:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Now the file shows the new version. Thanks for the atention. If possible, please delete the last upload, which is redundant and overloads the history. --HVL talk 20:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Done - deleted latest version. Green Giant (talk) 22:32, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

April 07

Merge Nightclubs by country and Discos by country?

The categories Category:Nightclubs by country and Category:Discos by country have exactly the same kind of content.

All pictures in Category:Discos by country are not taken in place that do not play Disco music especially, and are just there because "nightclubs" and "discos" are synonym.

I believe the 2 categories should be merged, but I am not sure how to do that.

Cheers! Syced (talk) 10:17, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Certainly there can be a nightclub that is in no sense a disco (nightclubs with live entertainment predate discos by decades), so if there is to be any merger here, "nightclubs" is the term that should win out. - Jmabel ! talk 15:53, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

see Commons:Rename a category. The files have to be moved first by hand or by request. --Oursana (talk) 20:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

April 09

Crown copyright on photograph credited to Royal Navy officer

G'day all, File:Yugoslav submarine Hrabri.jpg is taken from a copy of Jane's Fighting Ships of WWII (1989, re-printed from the 1946/47 edition). Under the photograph it says "1934, Lieut.-Com. D.C. Beatty, R.N.". I have uploaded it on the basis that was subject to Crown copyright when it was taken, as taken by Beatty in the course of his duties while Beatty was an officer or servant of the Crown. This has been questioned on en WP at GAN review on the basis that Beatty himself may have personally held the copyright. According to uboat.net, Beatty commanded several escorts and destroyers in WWII, having been a lieutenant since 1937, and reaching the rank of lieutenant commander, at the end of WWII. He reached the rank of commander before retirement in 1959. So, probably a midshipman or sub-lieutenant in 1934. My contention is that midshipmen and junior RN officers who took photographs of foreign vessels often did so for naval intelligence purposes. Of course, having been taken prior to 1 June 1957, if it was under Crown copyright at the time it was taken, it is now public domain. Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

If the photograph was taken by Beatty as part of his duties, then Crown Copyright applies from the time of creation (not publication). This would have expired in 1984, making the photograph public domain.

The fact that Jane's has credited him as part of the Royal Navy, appears to give little doubt that in 1946/7, Jane's was of the opinion that the photograph was taken as part of Beatty's employment. --Fæ (talk) 11:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Beatty could have easily taken the photo on his own time and with his own camera and would thus retain copyright. If the photo was crown copyright, I would think that Jane's would have mentioned that; do any of the other photos reprinted show crown copyright? I find it quite plausible that Beatty took the photo on his own initiative and sold it to Jane's. Forex, Dr. Oscar Parkes was a surgeon in the RN who took quite a few photos that were published in Jane's, mainly because he was the editor of the annual for quite a while. Most of those appear to have ended up in the IWM, although I'm not sure if he donated them at some point or if they were truly crown copyright from the beginning. I must say that I'm rather amused that I'm on the more restrictive side of a copyright argument for once as I'm usually the one arguing that something is PD.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

FYI this image is not in the IWM, nor is any other photo by Beatty as far as I can tell from on-line searches using their database. I can find no claim from Beatty's estate to counter an expectation that this was RN/Crown property before publication in Jane's. --Fæ (talk) 15:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

In reply to Sturm's query, the other photographs on the same page have captions like "1940, Official". Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: anything you want to add here? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Glitch in AWB

Greetings all, I noticed what I think is a glitch in the coding of AWB recently and thought I would ask about it in case I am wrong. When I run AWB across some categories of living people it tries to include Category:Living people at the end such as it did here. As I see it that is a problem for 2 reasons:

I don't think that's needed
That Category is a redirect to Category:People by name

Additionally, if the page is processed again, it again tries to add it, not recognizing it is already there. So really, to me, there are 2 problems. Does anyone have any thoughts on whether this result is desired? Reguyla (talk) 23:46, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

April 10

Categorization by camera

I propose to autocategorize all the photo with the camera model from the exif. Sorry for my english...--93.147.64.4 15:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh I hope not. EXIF is mostly a service for spies and the egos of wannabe spies; properly, if Commons' scope does not include computer code then it shouldn't include EXIF. The thought of having automated scripts churning through files to burden them down with more characterizations that make it easier for anyone to mine camera serial numbers and out users and so forth... I mean, I know someone's going to do it but do we have to do it? Wnt (talk) 17:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

As someone who regularly categorises images by camera models, I'd like to point out that EXIF data regularly shows model names/numbers that don't match the category name for a particular model. A single camera body may have different model names based on where it was sold, so any such automatic categorisation would be very complicated and error prone. I don't see the benefit of this proposal. — Huntster (t @ c) 19:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I have a bot that can do it using a mapping table (which is only partial at present. The number of different camera models out there is quite large). It doesn't have proper authorisation to run however. --ghouston (talk) 23:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I recall similar discussions on the past and it seems like many users do not like categorization by camera (EXIF based or not), especially if there are already 50k images in the category. However adding images to camera categories with few images is much less controversial. --Jarekt (talk) 15:01, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I think it's debatable if we want categories by camera or if we don't want them. If we don't want such categories, we should delete them, but if we don't delete them, any mean to fill them - automatic or not - should be accepted as long as it works properly.--Pere prlpz (talk) 20:12, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

@Wnt: How would this categorization make it easier to mine serial numbers? If it does, I understand your concern, but I don't really see the connection. — Julian H.^✈ 21:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Stewards confirmation rules

Hello, I made a proposal on Meta to change the rules for the steward confirmations. Currently consensus to remove is required for a steward to lose his status, however I think it's fairer to the community if every steward needed the consensus to keep. As this is an issue that affects all WMF wikis, I'm sending this notification to let people know & be able to participate. Best regards, --MF-W 16:12, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Emptying Category:People by name

Hi all, in the past days, a number of people categories on my watchlist have been moved from Category:People by name to Category:Men by name and I see that the latter has grown from 900 to 1200 since yesterday, so there´s obviously some effort going on to move all subcats from "People by name" to "Men by name" or "Women by name". I would have expected some extended discussion about that, but found none. Is this uncontroversial? (Then it will need some help as we are talking about 250,000 cats that have to be changed.) Personally, I think that "People by name" worked well as a flat category and would prefer it stayed that way, but if a consensus goes the other way I´ll certainly help with the recategorization. (Pinging User:Reguyla) --Rudolph Buch (talk) 14:10, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for starting this discussion and I look forward to the outcome. I had asked about it a couple times and it didn't seem controversial, the comments I got seemed to indicate it was a desired change (although a large undertaking) and no one objected so I went ahead. As you said, right now I am merely going through Category:Men and for the named individuals moving them to Category:Men by name. Also, since Men by name is a subcategory of Category:People by name, it made sense to refine it to the more specific category rather than leave the parent, People by name category as well. The Men/Women by name categories serve the same function as the People by name category, they are just more specific and allow, IMO a more specific view. I want to clarify I am not trying to eliminate the "Men" category, I'm just trying to refine it a little to be more accurate. Also, Auntof6 started a similar discussion above on some related edits I was doing with categories. I wanted to add these other similar discussions regarding this topic.

There's plenty to do here so I won't do any more from that category for a while so this discussion can play out. It seems to me, aside from what I am doing, there is room for some discussion about this category in general. Its grossly underpopulated and the instructions about adding Category:People by name don't mention or specific using Men/Women by name at all. Another user was recently asking in a CFD about the Category:Living people which is an ambiguous redirect to the Category:People by name. So IMO I think its good to have this conversation so the community can decide on how we want that category structure to be and then we can move forward with implementing that. Reguyla (talk) 16:28, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Seems to me to be an ill-conceived direction. As I understand it, the idea of Category:People by name was as a maintenance category where we would put all people in one category. In general, I'm pretty suspicious of gender-based categories, although there are some areas where I guess they are relevant (e.g. athletes). Especially, it's very hard to decide what to do here with transgendered or ambiguously gendered people. Is there somewhere that a central discussion is happening on this? - Jmabel ! talk 22:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

The transgender question is a good point and something that definitely needs to be considered but I think we should treat those as we would the ones we don't know and simply leave them in the People by name category. As I mentioned above, this doesn't eliminate the people by name category and the Women/Men by name categories fall under the People by name schema. There will always be some we cannot sub categorize. So just as we would sub-categorize years under decades and decades under centuries, this is the same thing. IMO, just piling everyone into a giant category isn't really all that helpful and doesn't make it more manageable. It would be like grouping all date related articles into a giant category called Category:Stuff by date. I would also add that I didn't create these categories, I am just adding people to categories that already exist and are underpopulated. We could leave them in both the Category:People by name and the men\Women by name categories but again, since these fall under the People by name parent category it would be redundant and unncessary per Overcat. Reguyla (talk) 01:57, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Consider also that not every male is a "man" and not every female is a "woman". (Children, anyone?) - dcljr (talk) 02:59, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with User:Jmabel. Is there a reason for having categories, or are we creating them just because we can? Separate categories by gender are rarely needed. Besides that, it would be a royal pain to do the dividing. How would we decide who goes into which category? You can't go just by name, because people don't always use traditionally male or female names as they used to, a name that is male in one language can be female in another, and some names can be either (not to mention that few of us are probably familiar with male and female names in all the different languages represented here). You can't go by appearance, because more and more people are identifying as other than male or female. The only way we could tell for sure is if the person is already in a male or female category of some kind. Even then, though, I just don't see the need to split the main category. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:46, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

The categories have already been created however, which means it's hard to complain that people are using them. You could start a discussion to delete the categories, but I can predict what will happen: some people will say they should be kept, and the result will be no consensus to delete. --ghouston (talk) 09:49, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

However, since People by name is a maintenance category, and a member of Category:Categories by name (flat list), it's not a hierarchical category, so adding a file to Men by name etc., doesn't mean it should be removed from People by name. --ghouston (talk) 10:19, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Precisely. If someone wants to create "Men by name", etc. I don't care if they waste their time doing so, but "People by name" should continue to contain all people. - Jmabel ! talk 18:21, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a perfect category and its unrealistic to make any category with the thought that it shouldn't be done unless its 100%. Because there are always going to be a few that are outliers and don't fit. This category is no exception and I personally do not perceive making a more specific category that "People" as a waste of time. I personally do not see the utility of having a giant meaningless category that currently isn't any more accurate than the ones I have been populating. I again want to clarify that "People by name" still contains the same number of "people" as it did before. They are just subcategorized within it rather than lumped in. Reguyla (talk) 19:44, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

As I understand it, the idea was to have a single maintenance category that (1) would make it easy to spot omissions and (2) would make it easy to see if everyone was alphabetized correctly. When we pull things out of the maintenance category, we defeat both purposes. - Jmabel ! talk 22:53, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, but with respect, how does a category, with hundreds of thousands (or millions potentially) of files and categories become useful? Even scanning it with an app like AWB it takes a couple days to cycle through 20, 000 so 200, 000+ is unreasonable if your scanning for problems. You need to break it down into chunks to be manageable for anything. Additionally, I would argue that if that were the case, and you were looking for John Smith, then going to the category. Category:Men named John and looking through that list would be a whole lot easier rather than just sort to J and scroll through 20 or 30 pages of categories and files until you found or didn't find the one you were looking for. Additionally, if I were looking for one, I would probably just search for it and see what came up there. I'm just wondering, has anyone here actually ever used this People by name category for anything? Or is all of this discussion just what if scenarios? That would be a good place to start this discussion IMO. If there is a use for this category then we should look at what its for and if this improves or does not improve that. Reguyla (talk) 23:14, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

If Category:People by name becomes hierarchical then it's basically a duplicate of Category:People and may as well be deleted. If you think People by name is pointless, then the best thing to do is ignore it, like we all do with categories we think are pointless. Personally I think Category:Men by name and Category:Women by name are pointless categories that don't even have the marginal usefulness of Category:People by name, so I intend to ignore them. Also, if People by name is too large to be useful, then Men/Women by name are not much better. --ghouston (talk) 23:31, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Well I think People by name is a logical diffusion of People just as I think Men/Women by name is a logical diffusion of that just as I think Men/Women named X is further still a logic diffusion. People is the higher level parent and Men/Women named X is the lowest level. In the example I gave earlier, we don't pile all the years into one giant years category either. We group them by decade and then by century. Reguyla (talk) 02:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Just because something is logical doesn't mean we need it. You're overlooking the fact that Category:People by name is a flat category. Flat categories are not hierarchical, and they aren't intended to be useful for the general reader. As far as Men/Women by name, I would ask why we're creating those categories. It's not to subdivide People by name, because that category isn't hierarchical. Has there been a need for the separate categories? If we think People by name is of little use, why would Men/Women by name be sufficiently more useful to warrant having them? I would also ask, since we can't go by name or appearance, how are you deciding what categories go under Men/Women by name?

"Just because something is logical doesn't mean we need it". I'm sorry but that statement doesn't even make sense to me. As for the comment about the category being flat and not hierarchical...its not. The hierarchy is there and has been since before I came here. I am just populating it. Again, if people want to have a giant unmanageable and unusable category that is a redundant parent category for more specific categories then that's totally ok with me, but I still think its needed to break out the people into meaningful groups as well. Otherwise, wy do we need categories like Category:Smiling men, Category:Men wearing hats or Category:People by name by country. According to the logic being displayed here in this discussion none of these are needed either because they are already in the People by name category. Reguyla (talk) 15:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

As for the example of not combining years into one giant category, the names of years follow a pattern (1, 2, 3, etc.), so we don't need a category to find them. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:59, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

But we do have categories to find them, like Category:1970 falls into Category:1970s and that falls into Category:20th century by decade. Or are you saying you don't think we need those categories because the years are linear and follow a pattern? Maybe I don't understand the point you are trying to make. Reguyla (talk) 15:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

You talk about AWB taking a long time to go through the large number of entries. AWB is not a good tool for doing that kind of work. There are much faster methods of going through it. I heard tell of a database dump (or is that only for Wikipedia), against which it would be much quicker to look for or check things. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:59, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Your correct AWB isn't a good tool, but the list of people who are capable of mining database dumps is extremely short. Probably less than 20-30 including myself, a couple of bot operators on here and the people who work at the WMF and the dumps are enormous (in the dozens to hundreds of GB and often over a TB) making mining through them difficult and outside the capabilities of most. Especially for commons where the images take up a lot of space. Reguyla (talk) 15:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Font in VP header

Commons:Village pump/Header, which is displayed at the top of this page, has been using Template:Portal-head2 to format the words "Welcome to the Village pump". For some strange reason, that template uses the style "font-family:Gill Sans, Futura, sans-serif; … font-stretch:condensed;". Also for some reason unknown to me, the Windows 8 computer I have to use at work to browse the web chooses some kind of "fantasy" font to render this text, making it damn-near unreadable. Being of the opinion that there's really no good reason to use a particular sans-serif font in the first place, I decided to boldly change the template to use the more conservative style "font-family:sans-serif" (ignore the "background" part of my edit summary: I was mistaken about that). Another editor reverted my change, noting that "people" (presumably users on their own user pages) are using that template "who want its output to look exactly like that". A debatable claim, but whatever. I have created the similar but font-wise more "conservative" Template:Headline and changed the header to use it (old version, new version). I trust no one will have a mental breakdown if I make similar changes on the other "public" (i.e., non-user) pages that are currently using the other template? - dcljr (talk) 08:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Hang on. An overeager admin deleted the wrong template… - dcljr (talk) 00:49, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Dcljr, you said above that you created Template:Headline, then you complained that it was deleted, yet the deletion log says «2015-04-02T10:36:13 Taivo (talk | contribs) deleted page Template:Headline (Unused template: author's request on creation day)». What’s going on? (Pinging User:Taivo.) -- Tuválkin ✉ 10:30, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Sigh… I created Template:Portal-headline, named by analogy with Template:Portal-head2, which I was intending the new template to (partially) replace. Since we don't use portals here (the original template was apparetly copied from the German Wikipedia several years ago), I decided to move the template to Template:Headline, which left a redirect at Template:Portal-headline. So, not thinking that this would become a huge hassle, I tagged the Template:Portal-headline redirect with the {{Speedydelete}} template. Only I didn't remove the "#REDIRECT" directive, so when User:Taivo came along to speedy delete it, he accidentally deleted the redirect's target, Template:Headline, instead of the page that was actually tagged for deletion. Then he deleted the then-broken-redirect Template:Portal-headline as an "Unused and implausible, broken, or cross-namespace redirect"! I have asked Taivo to undelete Template:Headline, but he apparently hasn't seen that request yet. (Yes, I know I can just recreate the template, but it's the principle of the thing: it shouldn't have been deleted in the first place, since not only was "author's request on creation day" not true of that particular template, it wasn't even "Unused" at the time!) - dcljr (talk) 11:23, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

And now User:Taivo has disappeared. Can another admin undelete Template:Headline so I don't have to spend the time re-creating it? - dcljr (talk) 01:27, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Done INeverCry 01:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. OK, let's try this again: I've replaced {{Portal-head2}} in the header of this page with {{Headline}} (old, new). Is anyone offended by this? Any compelling reason not to do the same with the other similar "public" (non-userspace) pages that use the other template? (Obviously, if folks at another page object, they can just revert my change.) My reasoning here is this: such "public" pages need to be usable to as many people as possible, and clearly specifying particular fonts only invites problems (despite the fallback mechanism for font selection, my experience described in my original post shows that significant problems can arise) for very little actual benefit (a slightly different looking font, when it works right). - dcljr (talk) 02:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, I would prefer {{Portal-head2}} for two reasons:

"Welcome to the Village pump" is not a headline, but a greeting, and therefore should look differently.
So far, no one has reported any display issues on Commons or the German or English Wikipedia.

As I have now added an id to {{Portal-head2}}, you may add #portal-head2 {font-family:sans-serif !important;} to your common.css to alter the font family displayed to you. FDMS 4 10:52, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Point 1: It does look different. Normal headers are in serif font. Point 2: I just did. The rest of your comment: Fine, but very few users are going to know enough to take advantage of that fix (and it doesn't help logged-out users at all). - dcljr (talk) 20:21, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot that I overwrote the Typographyrefresh. Could you upload a screenshot of what {{Portal-head2}} text looks like for you so we can understand what exactly the problem is? FDMS 4 20:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I knew that was coming. I can't figure out how to do that on this machine. There doesn't seem to be "screenshot" application, and I can't install anything on it. I was about point out that, to be fair, "damn-near unreadable" is a bit of an overstatement. (I just really don't like "cute" font selections on websites for no good reason, and that is coloring my commentary about this.) The text is readable to a native English speaker (/reader), but probably significantly less so to non-natives. I also haven't been able to figure out what font this browser is actually using, since the "sans-serif font" is set to Arial, and this ain't Arial I'm seeing. - dcljr (talk) 22:50, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I am running 2 kind of "Screenshot-Scripts" on http://mol.wmflabs.org - one is "select an element by clicking it" and the second is "take a secreenshot of the whole screen and cut it to the browser window dimension" - both do uploading by their own - would they be helpful to Commons? -- Rillke^(q?) 23:18, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but only with some kind of "you have to provide attribution" warning and maybe a speedy deletion criterion to get rid of them after some time. FDMS 4 19:02, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

@Dcljr: You said you're running Windows 8, so please follow these steps. FDMS 4 19:02, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, but I found the font it's using: a Playbill font (condensed). Still don't know why. It's the "Gill Sans" font choice that's causing it, BTW, not "Futura" (and not "sans-serif"). - dcljr (talk) 19:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

See, that very much looks like a font configuration issue on your side (computer or browser). Which is why nobody reported any problems yet: In fact, there are none. If for some reason you can't fix your configuration issue, the CSS still works … FDMS 4 19:53, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Sure, but the fact remains that if the template hadn't been referring to a specific font, the problem wouldn't have shown up in the first place. I don't know if it is, in fact, more likely for a randomly chosen computer to show an acceptable font when "sans-serif" is specified or an acceptable replacement font when "Gill Sans" is specified and it is not available, but it is an interesting fact that the computer right next to the one I have been using (in a computer lab) also shows ~~a rather poor looking font (apparently not Gill Sans or Futura, but definitely not Playbill either — although note that it is more readable than Playbill)~~ Playbill (although not condensed) when {{Portal-head2}} is used. This suggests to me that specifying a particular font and relying on proper font fallback/substitution when a user's computer doesn't have that font is not at all reliable. - dcljr (talk) 00:59, 9 April 2015 (UTC) [Note: {{Headline}} doesn't even set the font family, and hence uses the default font for regular text: sans-serif. - dcljr (talk) 01:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)] {Edit: Nope, it was Playbill, too! - dcljr (talk) 04:34, 9 April 2015 (UTC)}

Sorry, but your conclusions are just wrong. "Safer"? Repeating myself: Except for you, no one who has encountered any problems so far, and you are refusing to let us help you fix it on your side. Also, there even is a "safe" font replacement, the default sans-serif family font. However, there is no mention of Playbill in the template's syntax. Have a look at it. FDMS 4 21:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, everybody, for the mess I created. I was on 4-day vacation (without any computers!) and before that I decided to delete some junk. I opened "Other speedy deletions" and found ... more than 200 things. I deleted during 1 hour and 44 minutes 279 things, deleted and deleted, until misdeleted. Thank you for restoring the correct file. This error happens, if speedy deletion tag is placed after redirect link, not before. Taivo (talk) 19:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

You didn't create a mess, just a slight inconvenience. ;-) (And I really should have realized the template shouldn't have gone after the redirect.) - dcljr (talk) 04:38, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

(responding here to FDSM4's April 9th comment above, since it's getting progressively more awkward to keep responding above Taivo's comment) "Except for you, no one [else] has encountered any problems so far" You cannot possibly know that. "refusing to let us help you fix it on your side" I don't need any help fixing it on my side. That's not why I posted here. (Thanks for offering the suggestion, though.) "there even is a 'safe' font replacement, the default sans-serif family font" And yet that's not working on 2 out of the 5 computers I've checked. Simply using the default font, however, works on 5 out of 5 of them. Not statistically significant results, to be sure, but meaningless? I say no. I say it's illustrative of the fact that using the default font is safer [yes, safer] than specifying particular non-generic fonts. "Have a look at it" I've looked at it plenty. As you know, I edited it before even posting here. This discussion (as it has turned out) is more about you not being able to look beyond the particular computer I mentioned in my first post to the larger issue that I was trying to bring up here. So, returning to that issue: You gave 2 reasons above why you prefer the original template. It looks like you withdrew the 1st one, since I pointed out that the font looks different either way (except, of course, for users who have set things up to use sans-serif headers — these people, no doubt, can deal with the consequences of that choice). Regarding the 2nd one, I simply don't accept that as a legitimate reason to not change templates (from the old one to the new one, I mean). Having heard no objections from other users, I can only assume (ironically, using the logic of your point #2 above) that no one else cares. Are we then at an impasse? Let's just cut to the chase, here: Setting aside my reasons for wanting the change, is there any reason, other than simply inertia, why Gill Sans condensed must be the font used in the header? Any reason why regular sans-serif must not be used? - dcljr (talk) 02:36, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Hearing no other objections, I have replaced most instances of {{Portal-head2}} with {{Headline}}, as described in my original post. I left user pages alone. The visible changes should be minimal. Incidentally, I found the underlying reason for the bad font choice discussed above: "Gill Sans" should have been quoted since the name contains a space; when this is done, the chosen font looks like normal sans-serif. I have not made this change to {{Portal-head2}}, since it might change the appearance on the user pages that are still using that template. - dcljr (talk) 22:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Statistically meaningless? I'd say yes.

No one cares except for two users with different tastes → no consensus → "my change will not make it objectively worse" → let's just implement the change? I'd say no.

"I have not made this change to {{Portal-head2}}"? I say ahem?!

I got used to {{Headline}}? I quietly say yes …

FDMS 4 22:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Needlessly glary hue

Could this template be less visually intrusive? (Yes, it matches the kindergarten design of Media Viewer, but there’s no need for us to be stuck with it here: At least there is no global lock pending on modifying this template, I hope…) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 19:02, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

The upload method is already stated in the upload summary anyway, so do we really need such IMO promotional banners? FDMS 4 19:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC) ping User:Ubahnverleih

I don't think so. The template is fine, but it should only add the (hidden) category. --Sebari (talk) 23:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Implemented. FDMS 4 21:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Awesome that Ubahnverleih forked the Commons mobile app! Multichill (talk) 20:15, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

April 13

Category > More > Download all (Broken)

I just wanted to note that the "Download all" feature listed under "More" on category pages is out of order. $The Haz talk$ 04:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

This has been pointed out a number of times before, e.g. Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 48#Deprecated toolserver.org URLs in MediaWiki namespace, but that was archived (twice) without being fixed. Could an admin please just remove all toolserver.org links from MediaWiki:Gadget-ExtraTabs2.js? —LX (talk, contribs) 17:53, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

done, AFAIR, it was just a shell script bundled with wget.exe - we might implement it entirely in JS. Iterating over all category members is easy, compiling the list, too and dropping everything into a ZIP is as easy as it never has been. Thanks to Dschwen's fastCCI, it might be even possible to have more sophisticated selection. well just an idea needing someone with enthusiasm. -- Rillke^(q?) 19:13, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Ha, client side zip file preparation, sweet idea. But can it handle a GB download (for large categories)? --Dschwen (talk) 21:12, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

He, I wasn't mad enough to think about that; what I had in mind was just preparation of a shell script, to bundle it with wget.exe (for Windows, surprisingly - other systems usually have it installed), put it together in a ZIP file and to offer that for download. This is what the old catdown on toolserver did and what is perfectly feasible to be carried out client side. Smaller categories might be downloadable as whole, often users only need thumbnails or wallpaper size so ... -- Rillke^(q?) 20:46, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Mechanical work

Hello! When filling images of stamps on the Commons there is a need for a set of cross references. Perhaps, they can be divided into 3 groups: 1) galleries of versions; 2) templates of series; 3) archives and miniatures. It is purely mechanical work. With pleasure I will look after the volunteer, temporary or constant. --Matsievsky (talk) 12:18, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Let me make sure I understand what you are saying:

galleries of images of a single stamp
templates related to series of stamps
(Actually, I have no idea what the third one is about)

Could you confirm/clarify? - Jmabel ! talk 22:59, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

A picture is worth a thousand words. This image of stamp have all 3 groups of cross references. --Matsievsky (talk) 16:36, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

"Mechanical work" sounds like Commons:Bots/Work requests; however I am also confused about what is required. May be you can do a few edits and show before and after state. One usually also needs list of files the work needs to be done on. --Jarekt (talk) 17:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

At first the simplest group 3. Addition of a template {{Compressed version |file=NAME.png}} in the beginning of the description of the NAME.jpg file and a template {{Archival version |file=NAME.jpg}} in the beginning of the description of the NAME.png file, if only files NAME.jpg and NAME.png have identical names "NAME" and are uploaded by the same user Matsievsky and if these templates aren't written down yet. --Matsievsky (talk) 17:38, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

April 14

Inspire Grant proposal

Hi, everyone! I would really love your feedback on my Inspire Grant proposal, "Bored with Boards: Attract Pinterest Users to Wikipedia." The project would entail initiating a match-making program between Wikipedia articles and women who are actively engaged in content creation and evaluation on female-dominated social networks, such as Pinterest. One Commons-related question I would hope to research is whether active female Pinterest users are more likely to participate in crowdsourced projects like Wikipedia if they are asked to provide or evaluate images, as opposed to text. Thanks a lot! -Hahahammond (talk) 13:15, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

April 16

Interiors of / Interior of

This category has been moved back and forth from "Interiors" to "Interior" and back again so much that each of the two is now a redirect to the other and categorization to parent levels (these two) was lost — and I’m afraid there may be much more like this…

While I’m sure that both wordings are acceptable, they are distinct and I’d argue that, in this case, the plural form is more accurate (unlike, say, for a hangar, a greenhouse, or a circus tent). However what needs to be addressed urgently is the ceaseless and distructive pingponging (see typical example). Any ideas?

-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 11:23, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Surely a building can only have one interior? There may be more then one room inside a building, but still only one interior, so using the plural in the case of a single building seems odd to me. Oxyman (talk) 13:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Since it's undesirable to have two redirects pointing to each other, I've also acted boldly to fix the issue by converting "Category:Interior of Palácio Nacional de Belém" back to a category. — SMUconlaw (talk) 20:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

So bold. I hope you restored the original’s parent categories too, yes? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 19:05, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand. Which original? — SMUconlaw (talk) 19:11, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

The originally first created category, with links to its two parents (other interiors and other palaces). I see that you did restore. So it’s good. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:36, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, yes: You agree with Oxyman that it should be always singular ("interior"), never plural ("interiors"). That means you disagree with me, and with whoever thinks either form should be used, depending on the context. That is the matter under discussion — rushing to a decision before consensus was reached is something else, not bold.

Now, I may be utterly wrong here, maybe influenced but such distinction in Portuguese ("interior" / "interiores"), but I would like to hear more opinions, especially from native English speakers.

-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:36, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

If it's a singular example then it's Interior of..., as in Category:Interior of Palácio Nacional de Belém. However it should be Category:Interiors of palaces in Portugal where there are many examples to choose between. Railwayfan2005 (talk) 21:39, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox aircraft image

On Template:Infobox aircraft image, the Category:Template documentation is being transcluded on the template page, in addition to the template's /doc page, Template:Infobox aircraft image/doc. I can't find the error, could someone help, please? Thanks, Funandtrvl (talk) 17:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

It seems to be fixed now. --Jarekt (talk) 12:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I still see the Category:Template documentation as the first category on the template's page. Is there a sub-template that is causing the transclusion? Funandtrvl (talk) 16:40, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea how Category:Template documentation is added to {{Infobox aircraft image}}. I think it is only added by {{Documentation subpage}} template, but I am not sure where that one is called either. @Rillke: , you are the template documentation expert. Can you figure it out? --Jarekt (talk) 14:18, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

There was an undocumented parameter set in the transclusion of {{TemplateBox}} which forced displaying {{Documentation subpage}} everywhere, even on the template's main page. The solution was to remove the parameter. @Jarekt: Can you please check {{Documentation subpage}} - there is a page parameter documented but it's used nowhere in the template. Perhaps it was meant to suppress displaying {{Documentation subpage}} on the described template and the text To view the template page itself, see should probably also respect it. Can you fix that? -- Rillke^(q?) 20:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Rillke, I am having pretty hard time following the logic of the documentation templates, but from what I gather {{Documentation subpage}} "page" parameter is broken and it is only used to create correct link in the text. For example {{Assessments/doc/it}} has text "To view the template page itself, see Template:Assessments/doc". If the parameter would work correctly you would see "To view the template page itself, see Template:Assessments." There are very few pages where "page" parameter is needed and would be noticed, but I will fix it. Even Template:Assessments/doc should probably be rewritten using {{TemplateBox}}. --Jarekt (talk) 19:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing it! Funandtrvl (talk) 20:47, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

April 12

Inquiry regarding the hosting of IS/ISIS/ISIL Videos for the purposes of referencing said works in an academic article.

Removed cross-post of Commons:Help_desk#Inquiry_regarding_the_hosting_of_IS.2FISIS.2FISIL_Videos_for_the_purposes_of_referencing_said_works_in_an_academic_article. Discussion is there. Please do not split discussions by asking the same question in two different places. - Jmabel ! talk 14:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Public Domain licenses on flickr

According to Flickr Blog as of this month "Flickr now offers Public Domain and CC0" licenses. This creates problems for some of our upload and review tools that can not handle them well yet. Flickr CC0 license (used here) is easy enough as it well matches our {{CC-zero}}, but Flickr's Public Domain is harder, because there is no way of knowing why is it in public domain. For example this or this image look like {{PD-Author}}, but the same license will be probably used for other PD license, like {{PD-US-Gov}}, {{PD-old-100}}, etc. It will not be possible for an upload tool to match one PD-flick license with 100's of out PD licenses. Probably the best way would be to create some template that has to be replaced with a PD license or the image is delete in one or two weeks. Ideas? --Jarekt (talk) 14:37, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

That sounds to me like a good approach. - Jmabel ! talk 14:54, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

This was already raised on the pump (now archived). On the issue of how to handle the licenses, please see Commons:Requests for comment/Flickr and PD images. Ultra7 (talk) 17:29, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Ultra7 thank you for this link, I missed it. I guess images can be uploaded now with some tools, but the license is still cc-by-2.0. Review process also know about those licenses but adds non-existing templates, and the images are ending up in Category:Media without a license: needs history check. So we just have to make sure all the tools are compatible with those 2 licenses. But lets continue at Commons:Requests for comment/Flickr and PD images. --Jarekt (talk) 20:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Categorisation of Ski Areas

How to categorise, where to discuss? I have created Category:4 Vallées which as a ski area comprises five ski resorts. Category parent is currently Category:Ski resorts in Switzerland. Drawback is that the individual resorts can no longer show up there without violating categorisation guidelines. What about Category:Ski resorts in Switzerland > Category:Ski areas in Switzerland > Category:4 Vallées > Category:Verbier given that similar parent categories are all organised by resort?--KlausFoehl (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Looks like a good idea to me. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 11:36, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

date categories

Hi, I've been categorising images in Pakistan and just discovered a category I'd overlooked: Category:Categories of Pakistan. It has many categories by date, centuries, decades, years etc. I've discovered similar categories for a few other topics, and they're always hard to find and time-consuming to access since they're only organised by date and not by topic. And most of cats such as this have few to no images. I'm wondering what's the point of such hidden away cats? Is there a greater purpose, like linking the world by date? Thanks, EChastain (talk) 19:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I saw this sort of category too - and decided not to bother. If you make a research categories of you will see that there are plenty of them. I can't see any use. For example Category:Categories of Pakistan has a sub-category Category:Categories of Pakistan by century and then Category:Pakistan by century which is also a sub-category of Category:History of Pakistan. In fact the category can easily be found when searching in "history". In my opinion the categories categories of... should be deleted. Traumrune (talk) 20:03, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

hmm, well the few times I've deleted a year from an image I've been soon reverted by an overseer editor. So I guess I'll leave it alone. The trouble is often images are hidden away under these"date" cats, and unless an editor is willing to go through them all looking for images, they'll never be used. Thanks, EChastain (talk) 20:18, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Category:Tower Bridge is also a good example. It seems like there are only a few images, however most have been categorised by year under History. Hopefully some day a software solution will be found to treat dates differently, but for now it doesn't seem like much can be done. --ghouston (talk) 22:34, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

At least Category:Categories of Pakistan by century seems redundant. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

April 17

How to handle an image with a copyright

Hello guys!

I have images to use in an article in Wikipedia. All the images are under copyright. The author is agreed with the fact that her images to be used in Wikipedia, but wants to emphasize her authorship. She is ready to give any written agreement.

Couldn't you please clear up the sequence of actions i should made to use the images in Wikipedia, to retain her authorship and not to allow the images to be deleted. I am a newbie here, so I am not well in the mechanism, and, moreover, haven't ever faced with something like that.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sterndmitri (talk • contribs)

Hi,

All images hosted on Wikimedia Commons should be in the public domain, or under a free license. See COM:L for details. An author can give a specific permission for such a license. Please see COM:OTRS for the procedure. Further explanation could be given if you indicate which images you are talking about. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:15, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)@Sterndmitri: please read COM:OTRS and COM:L first. Those pages page should contain everything you need to know. If anything is still unclear afterwards, please don't hesitate to come back here with your specific questions. Thanks, --El Grafo (talk) 12:19, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

If the goal is to use the image on Wikipedia: the Wikipedias in several languages (including English) have rules to allow use of certain non-free or insufficiently free images that are genuinely important to particular articles. Those images are hosted on the individual Wikipedia, not on Commons. If you can't get broader permission, you might go that route. Even in this case, OTRS would be good to clarify that permission for use in Wikipedia was given. - Jmabel ! talk 15:12, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

April 19

Template:Multilingual description wrong display

why are multilingual descriptions doubled at the moment? see Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Multilingual_description, eg. at the top of Category:Canals: 1. English: 2. Nederlands: and again 3. English: 4. Nederlands:
i hope someone can fix this. Holger1959 (talk) 11:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

seems fixed now, don't know how or who, but thanks. Holger1959 (talk) 14:14, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

verdy_p worked on Module:Multilingual description. -- Rillke^(q?) 14:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

There was an unrelated bug, and while fixing it, and also adding a test module, another issues appeared which was not expected (and not detected by the test module). I had noted that pages were doubling the languages for strange reasons: the effective list was correctly sorted, followed by all languages again (in "random" order, in fact the internal storage order of PHP associative arrays, that are using a randomizing "hashmap").

There was in fact no bug in the Lua module itself, but this is an issue in the way MediaWiki invokes Lua and binds parameters (first parsed internally in PHP) in an pseudo-array interface offered to the Lua engine: Lua accepts to modify the array silently, but this has no effect because the "parent frame" returned by MediaWiki is only a "shadow" interface to the actual PHP array, and this interface is read-only (Lua reports absolutely no error, execution continues without the change applied, and Lua does not notice that the assignments had no effect at all!).

I solved the problem by copying the arguments array into a true Lua array where it is possible then to alter keys and values of the content (I made the copy myself, because even the mw.clone() function in core library of MediaWiki for Lua does not work, as it also copies the "hollow binding" interface functions, and it is really slow; instead I just create a new array and sets its keys and values by only copying references to string values).

Also I've solved many other issues remaining with all the many untested languages (and I created a couple of test pages for them).

There are still issues but now in this template/module: they are in the localisation data for MediaWiki itself (which really has a lot of bugs for its internationalisation data). Now more than 400 languages are OK after my change (before, it was OK only for less than 50), and soon it will support correctly all languages supported in CLDR (i.e. BCP47, plus aliases, plus legacy codes from ISO639... more than 8000!).

However the "Multilingual description" template is deprecated: it does not have any support for fallbacks, and generates tool much data in pages, and it requires javascript and ignores user preferences (either in the browser, or by using the ULS or user settings recorded in the account). The migration to LangSwitch (or templates using LangSwitch) will make life better for everyone... verdy_p (talk) 15:16, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for these detailed explanations and your work, verdy_p. -- Rillke^(q?) 17:36, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm still looking for solutions in some Multilingual modules that no longer work due to a change in Scribunto (we can no longer expand something else than pure templates and nowiki tags, all other special tags are cleared. MdiaWiki now no longer expands special tags before the final step of HTML generation and will NEVER call the special tag extension hooks before that step; the "frame:*" API in Lua now only generates "stripped tags" with an encrypted unique ID (representing the tag name and its parameters in a hidden string indexed by this unique ID), and the old solutions (based on #ifexist) still have a huge cost that I try to reduce.

If only there was a way to enumerate subpages by a function in "mw.title:new():subpages(...)" or "mw.title.newprefix(...)" taking parameters like in Special:Prefixindex so that in just ONE call we could have a list of up to 200 page names (like when viewing categories of viewing the Prefixindex page), I've tried all other solutions (with "#tag:", or with "<tag>" or with other "frame:*" methods, none are working.

We desesperately need a Scribunto extension library capable of enumerating a reasonnable number of pages in just ONE query to the database.

Prefix queries are efficient, this requires only one random access to the pages index and the rest is purely sequential within that sorted index. After all, Special:Prefixindex does not cost a lot and is extremely fast, and category pages are also indexed very fast and we should also be able to use "mw.title.new('Category:Name'):pages(...)" or just "mw.category('Name'):pages(...)" with the same parameters as when navigating the content of a category (by group of 200 subcategories+200 pages+200 files!) and with options to filter redirects, or keep only pages or only files or on subcategories.

On the opposite the expansion of 400 "#ifexist" is much longer (400 distinct queries to the database, the cost is huge, and the text geenrated for the #ifexist expansion is also taking a considerable memory and we could save a lot by just generaing the needed content for pages that really exist). We have about 445 language codes in Wikimedia, with 2 or 3 queries we could browse them all and find the one or two dozens that exist just to generate a few lines of wikitext instead of several hundreds! All that is needed is to count an prefixindex query or categoryquery as having a cost of 1 (or 2) per group, and make sure that we won't return more than 200 pagenames per query (we can restart by using "from=" parameters to support 200 times (or 100 times) more pages to test with the same cost on the server). verdy_p (talk) 11:41, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

AWB changes affecting commons

As I have been working with commons and using AWB here I have noticed that AWB is doing some things it shouldn't be doing and not doing some things it should. For example:

AWB attempts to add Category:Living people to things that appear to be living people but Category:Living people is a redirect to People by name here so I asked about either stopping this or changing it to the right category.
1. When AWB adds the above it adds it at the bottom of the page regardless of where categories are on the page
2. AWB should not add it if the category is already present.
AWB often tries to remove the en. from links to [[en.Aricle name]] and it shouldn't.

I also asked for a couple improvements:

Could AWB be changed to remove double categories on commons like it does on ENWP.
AWB should add Category:People by name to categories if they are about living people and do not already contain it. This can be done by looking at the People related categories like it does on ENWP.

It was suggested that the best thing might be to turn off the logic that adds Category:Living people or change it to the right category and to turn on the Meta data sort functionality. That functionality does quite a lot of different things though (most of which would not apply here) so I wanted to mention that here and see what people thought about it. If you want to see all the things this would do you can see it here. A partial list of the things this would do though:

Remove duplicate categories or interwiki links
Make sure interwikis are below categories
Basically it puts things in order. So page body, categories and then interwiki's.

If there are other things you would like to see it do, I could ask about that as well. Please let me know if you have any questions. Reguyla (talk) 03:00, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

AWB usually only does what you program it to do. English Wikipedia has some standard set of queries which are safe to perform, which were bundled as General fixes but those should not be used on Commons as they rely on categories and templates which are used on Wikipedia not Commons. It would be nice if when you switch projects in AWB you would also switch "general fixes". You might find some commons specific general expressions in Commons:File description page regular expressions and this file has some code (I do not know how well tested) that might work in similar way to "general fixes".--Jarekt (talk) 12:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Greetings Jarekt. After speaking with some of the AWB developers it was determined that there were some built in fixes that were happening here that shouldn't be and those are going to be fixed. Also, thank you very much for pointing out those pages, I will take a look. Reguyla (talk) 20:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Images Published in Public Domain are Deleted

Hi there, I uploaded some Magazine covers of Mehfil Magazine and asked the Magazine founders to email OTRS about the public release of the images. Although they sent the email, the images are deleted as shown here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_SteveMattu

Please can someone check OTRS archive and do the undeletion. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveMattu (talk • contribs)

Once a free licence is confirmed by OTRS the files should be undeleted. Sorry, COM:OTRS states there is currently a 75 day backlog. Also, the best place for queries regarding OTRS is Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard. ColonialGrid (talk) 18:25, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

The OTRS email was send a week after the upload and 5 days after deleting admin requested search for it. So I am not surprised they were deleted. Once they are processed by OTRS they will be undeleted. --Jarekt (talk) 12:30, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Category disambiguation

Is there a category disambig template anywhere? I was just about to tidy up a redlinked category and link it to a parent category. The category I was going to link to is Category:ICT, which I expected would redirect to Category:Information technology, instead I see it redirects to Category:Islamabad Capital Territory. Given the range of meanings that ICT may have, I don't think this category should redirect anywhere. A quick look at Category:Islamabad Capital Territory turned up the expected: category ICT had been dropped onto files of technology, and a bot had come along and recategorised to the redirect target. Simon Burchell (talk) 12:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Are you looking for {{disambig}}? --Rudolph Buch (talk) 12:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Possibly - at first glance I thought it was for pages, but a second look refers to categories, so I'll use it... Many thanks, Simon Burchell (talk) 12:24, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Nominations are being accepted for 2015 Wikimedia Foundation elections

This is a message from the 2015 Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee. Translations are available.

Greetings,

I am pleased to announce that nominations are now being accepted for the 2015 Wikimedia Foundation Elections. This year the Board and the FDC Staff are looking for a diverse set of candidates from regions and projects that are traditionally under-represented on the board and in the movement as well as candidates with experience in technology, product or finance. To this end they have published letters describing what they think is needed and, recognizing that those who know the community the best are the community themselves, the election committee is accepting nominations for community members you think should run and will reach out to those nominated to provide them with information about the job and the election process.

This year, elections are being held for the following roles:

Board of Trustees
The Board of Trustees is the decision-making body that is ultimately responsible for the long term sustainability of the Foundation, so we value wide input into its selection. There are three positions being filled. More information about this role can be found at the board elections page.

Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC)
The Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) makes recommendations about how to allocate Wikimedia movement funds to eligible entities. There are five positions being filled. More information about this role can be found at the FDC elections page.

Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) Ombud
The FDC Ombud receives complaints and feedback about the FDC process, investigates complaints at the request of the Board of Trustees, and summarizes the investigations and feedback for the Board of Trustees on an annual basis. One position is being filled. More information about this role can be found at the FDC Ombudsperson elections page.

The candidacy submission phase lasts from 00:00 UTC April 20 to 23:59 UTC May 5 for the Board and from 00:00 UTCApril 20 to 23:59 UTC April 30 for the FDC and FDC Ombudsperson. This year, we are accepting both self-nominations and nominations of others. More information on this election and the nomination process can be found on the 2015 Wikimedia elections page on Meta-Wiki.

Please feel free to post a note about the election on your project's village pump. Any questions related to the election can be posted on the talk page on Meta, or sent to the election committee's mailing list, board-elections -at- wikimedia.org

On behalf of the Elections Committee,
-Gregory Varnum (User:Varnent)
Coordinator, 2015 Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of the 2015 Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee, 05:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC) • Translate • Get help

Zoom Viewer and large images

@Dschwen and Rillke: The Zoom Viewer doesn't seem to be working. No Flash or Flash versions. Also, I thought there were always links to the large image viewer tools when an image was above a certain MP, without having to install the gadget. But I don't see them if I uninstall the gadget. -- Colin (talk) 20:45, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

We switched it to a default gadget (= on by default for everybody, including users without account) and since that time, everyone who disables the gadget explicitly doesn't get the links. Additionally, the links shouldn't show up on pages where the resolution is below 2 MPx, even with gadget enabled. -- Rillke^(q?) 23:32, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that information. The zoom viewers still don't work, though. -- Colin (talk) 06:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I can confirm that, neither variant works for me atm (Firefox 37.0.1, Scripts allowed, ad-blocker disabled). --El Grafo (talk) 12:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

It is up again. It might have been a recent webservice update on tool-labs. --Dschwen (talk) 18:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Dschwen -- Colin (talk) 18:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

April 20

Irregular banner

A banner saying «The 2015 Wikimedia Foundation Elections are starting soon »¶« Learn more and help find diverse candidates to lead the WMF.» is showing up on the top of selected pages. That’s all very good, except for one thing: The whole is built in some really crappy HTML (a DIV reacting to onMouseUp?! — I didn’t even want to look at the source…) and if you right-click it to bring over the context menu, it will open the target in the same window; if you want to hover the mouse for some info in your browser’s status bar, there is none; if you CTRL-click it to open the target in a separate window, it will open it also in the current window… This is a major annoyance, and it is also, once again, the WMF showing its profoundly anti-wiki philosophy and worldview. Too bad that is not going to be changed in the coming elections… -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 00:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Concerns about the board election are probably best addressed to the election committee. In theory they are independent of the WMF. I imagine that meta:Talk:CentralNotice/Calendar would also be a good place to lodge complaints about the notice (There's already one there about an accessibility concern), or perhaps an editprocted request directly to meta:MediaWiki:Centralnotice-template-Election2015_BoardSubmission. Bawolff (talk) 18:36, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Best to make all requests for banner changes to one of the meta admins or (preferably) to the person who made the banner which you can generally see on the logs. That said Bawolff pinged me and I've made this change. Jalexander--WMF 02:19, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

File renaming script malfunctioned

Not sure whether to report this here or somewhere else, or at en:wp:VPT...Yesterday I uploaded File:Olean Road in Corsica.jpg and added it to en:Corsica, Pennsylvania, but some minutes later, I noticed that it wasn't on Olean Road and used the file-renaming script to rename it to File:Main Street in Corsica.jpg, and I tagged the original title for deletion because it was new and unlikely to be used. However, I later noticed that a file-delinking bot removed the photo from the Corsica article, because an admin here deleted the image in use — in other words, unlike normal, the script didn't edit Wikipedia to fix the filename, and the en:wp bot thought that the admin had deleted an image. Does anyone know why it wouldn't have? Nyttend (talk) 12:38, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I guess the API reported faulty global usage details or global usage hasn't been shown on the file description page correctly or both. (The RexExp in MediaWiki:Gadget-libGlobalReplace.js would have matched it, that is sure.) -- Rillke^(q?) 12:44, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

April 21

Do we have "flat categories" or not?

Recently I objected to the diffusion of Category:People by name. Now someone appears to be diffusing Category:Black and white photographs. It seems to me that the only reason for such categories is if we use them as "flat categories", more like tags, and don't diffuse them. Otherwise, we will eventually replicate all people categories under "People by name" and almost all categories under "black and white photographs of".

Should we perhaps adopt an official notion of flat categories and develop a guideline for this?
Is it acceptable for those of us who disagree with these edits to revert them?

- Jmabel ! talk 15:45, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Why not have both? Take my example — I really want to keep populating, and making use of, say, Category:Black and white photographs of trams in Portugal, but none of that populating and using is affected by having Category:Black and white photographs on each and every image in that category.

It is indeed a “tag”, a flat category not meant to be diffused in itself, but that doesn’t mean that the “black-and-white-ness” of photographs is not a valid sorting key for meta-categorization «by type of media». We can have, along with the huge flat category, a Category:Black and white photographs of Lisbon trams, just like we do have a Category:Color isolated photographs of Lisbon trams‎, a Category:Fisheye images of Lisbon trams‎, or even a Category:Sounds of trams in Lisbon‎ or the sadly still not existing Category:Diagrams of Lisbon‎ trams (to move the focus ^{(excuse the pun!)} off from photography, and asserting the implicit notion that color photographs are somehow a default for media items (a notion probably deserving challenge)…)

(As for §2 above, I would therefore suggest that instead of moving from the flat cat, splitters please copy instead, retaining the big flat cat whole.)

-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Additionally, it should be noted that it is very easy to go through all categories that are about «Black and white photographs of …» something and add to all their member images the “tag” Category:Black and white photographs. The opposite (following Jmabel’s §2 above) cannot be done in any automatic fashion. Therefore, splitting the flat cat may be against policy and may be criticized, but reverting said splitting is destructive. Best course of action would be to assert the existence of the flat cat, implement it (by bot, even) and discourage (but not reverting) its splitting. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I rely a lot on some of the "flat" categories like Category:People by name and they need to remain flat. Images in "flat" categories should also be categorized in hierarchical category tree. I support development of "official" guidelines and policies clarifying such categories. May be we should add a section to Commons:Categories. --Jarekt (talk) 17:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

We actually have a policy on that, COM:OVERCAT. Categories that are both flat and hierarchical make maintenance (subcategorising) very difficult and therefore in my opinion should not be created anywhere without clear consensus. Flat lists is something that I think should be created by gadgets instead, but until such a thing is implemented and enabled by default, I do agree that it should be clarified when to and not to create flat lists on COM:CAT.

Not directly related: How is Category:Black and white photographs different from Category:Portrait photographs or other similar photography categories?

FDMS 4 17:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Because Category:Portrait photographs is actually about subject matter, so it will not intersect most other categories (e.g. it will never intersect categories about buildings, species other than humans, inanimate objects). Category:Black and white photographs is entirely about medium and can intersect pretty much anything photographic, and photographs constitute the bulk of our content. - Jmabel ! talk 23:29, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

WRT opening statement, 1=Yes, 2=No. A template to highlight flat cats would be a good outcome. --Fæ (talk) 02:53, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think flat categories are a good idea, mostly because they are redundant with non-flat categories. Our main problem here is that our category tools absolutely suck, and there is no easy way to show all images in a category and all its sub-categories. Therefore, in my opinion, time is better spent on lobbying to improve those tools than to create redundant categories. --Sebari (talk) 16:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I was a party on the People by name category discussion and although I don't see any point in a giant, all encompassing category that can never be complete and has virtually no usability. I also don't see why we shouldn't have some diffusion to make the data more useful. So worst case scenario we have two very similar categories on the same file. Using the People by name example, I was adding Men by name and women by name to the categories and then deleting People by name. Some people objected and that was fine with me, so I stopped removing the people by name and I have seen several others who then went and deleted the People by name category behind me. So it seems to me that we do need some discussion about the need for these flat categories. I also think Fae has a great idea with the template. If we put a template on there that categorizes the file or category, then that solves a lot of the problem. Reguyla (talk) 18:25, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

@Srittau: Using FastCCI to show all images in a category and its subcategories is quite easy (maybe the label could be improved, ping Dschwen if that hasn't been discussed before), the problem is that it "doesn't work" with non-file pages (because it's a picture tool). All in all, I agree that our category tools (not FastCCI by itself; or rather the category "interface") do indeed suck. FDMS 4 21:18, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Marie Lafarge

The earlier version of File:Lafarge.jpg is a completely different image to the current version; can an admin split them, please? Andy Mabbett (talk) 10:31, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

The earlier version of File:Lafarge.jpg is so small (150 × 198) that it is not very useful, and it is also very similar to the current version. --Jarekt (talk) 14:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

It may be "similar", in some respects, but it is undisputably a dfiferent image. I'm not aware of any minimum-size restrictions on Commons. Andy Mabbett (talk) 08:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

On WikiMedia projects you can trust that everything has a template, or two, or ten not counting redirects. For this issue {{Split}} might do the trick, I've added it, but it might be lost in a database lock due to server issues. –Be..anyone (talk) 03:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Topic related to pictures

I know Wikipedia and Wikimedia are different sites but this discussion is related to upgrading Wikilove pictures like barnstars and adding aquarium fish along with kittens. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#More_options_in_Wikilove. People form commons can give their valuable ideas. --Cosmic Emperor (talk) 14:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Wiki-App "Share a fact"

Not sure if this was topic at Comons already. Some contributors voiced strong concerns about a new Wikipedia app, launched by the Wikimedia Foundation, that shares article snippets along with an article's first image. Stephen LaPorte with the WMF Legal Team stated in a legal note that attribution requirements for text and for images would be sufficiently met by a link to the Wikipedia article where they were derived from. How does the Commons community think about this? More details here and at the talk page. --Martina talk 20:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

April 24

About pictures licenses

The user uploaded a lot of pictures but didn't have copyright. And then he said he give up his licenses with C.C. 1.0. Could somebody help to delete these all about "his work", thanks.

The website with all what he done please click here --Cjackh (talk) 03:18, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Done Hi Cjackh, thanks for reporting. I've opened a deletion request → here. --El Grafo (talk) 09:11, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Bandscans

Is it allowed to upload bandscans of the aircraft band to Wikimedia Commons? What about the firefighter and police bands? --84.61.167.153 07:56, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure the answer varies by country. - Jmabel ! talk 16:34, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

In particular: What is the answer for the People's Republic of China, France, Germany, Japan, Malaysia, Russia, the United Kingdom, or the United States? --84.61.167.153 08:34, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

The US should be fine copyright-wise, subject to scope and privacy concerns. --Prosfilaes (talk) 13:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
The UK has some serious non-copyright restrictions that would make me strongly discourage uploads, and I don't know about the others. --Prosfilaes (talk) 13:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
In Germany, it is forbidden by law (§88 and §89 of the Telekommunikationsgesetz) to even listen to anything that is not transmitted either directly to you or the general public. If you accidentally happen to hear something, you are not allowed to pass that on to anybody. Theroretically, you can even go to jail for that (§148). Hence, it's probably not a good idea to upload stuff like this here. --El Grafo (talk) 13:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore, this petition has been rejected. --84.61.167.153 16:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks for the links. --El Grafo (talk) 08:59, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

In Malaysia, it is strictly forbidden by law (Import/Export) to even import any broadcast receivers capable of receiving radio communication within the ranges (68 - 87) MHz and (108 - 174) MHz. --84.61.167.153 08:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

230k SUL user renames by User:Maintenance script

Recently, User:Maintenance script run by User:Keegan (WMF) performed 230k user renames as a part of SUL finalization. The rename went mostly unnoticed, but there are some issues which we will have to fix:

broken transclusions of user-namespace license templates. See for example 500+ files using User:Alx 91/license which was renamed to User:Alx 91~commonswiki/license or files using User:Dysprosia/lic, User:JCarriker/licensing or dozens of other license templates.
broken author attribution links. For example File:The Lamy logo.jpg author's field lists [[User:Dysprosia|Dysprosia]] as an author; however User:Dysprosia was moved to User:Dysprosia~commonswiki without a redirect to the link is broken and similar links for 230k users.

The first issue is of much greater importance (since we do not keep files without licenses). Anybody familiar enough with a database to search renamed userpages for pages transcluding licenses (or transcluding {{License template tag}}) which were in use? Such list can be posted at Commons:Bots/Work requests with request to fix files using them. --Jarekt (talk) 19:19, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

It seems like there is only a small number - https://tools.wmflabs.org/bawolff/renamed_user_templates.txt (Query used

select page_namespace, page_title, tl_title from templatelinks inner join page on tl_from = page_id where tl_namespace = 2  and tl_title like "%~%/%" and tl_from_namespace in ( 0, 1, 4, 6, 7);

) Bawolff (talk) 20:39, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I think that a bot should go around and update all page links and template links to renamed users. The old user names now belong to someone else, and it looks confusing if a comment on a talk page was written by one user but the signature points at a different user. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Bawolff, thank you. I fixed bunch of those files already but your list looks very incomplete (maybe pages were not updated yet) for example over 500 files transclude User:Alx 91/license. --Jarekt (talk) 20:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I has my logic backwards. I've updated https://tools.wmflabs.org/bawolff/renamed_user_templates.txt using a better query. It now lists 3259 pages (Query used

select p1.page_namespace, p1.page_title, tl_title from templatelinks inner join page p1 on tl_from = p1.page_id left outer join page p2 on (p2.page_namespace = 2 and p2.page_title = tl_title) inner join logging_logindex on log_namespace = 2 and log_title = tl_title and log_type = "move" and log_params like "%~%" where tl_namespace = 2  and tl_from_namespace in ( 0, 1, 4, 6, 7) and p2.page_title is null;

). Bawolff (talk) 21:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Alx_91~commonswiki is probably the same person as w:en:User:Alx_91. Although the password or e-mail differs from that of the global account. The account can be moved back and the user asked to merge it manually. Ruslik (talk) 09:31, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Several moved accounts ask to be contacted on English wiki so it seems like pairs: w:en:User:BesigedB/User:BesigedB, en:User:Alx_91/User:Alx 91, en:User:JCarriker/User:JCarriker, w:en:User:MPD01605/User:MPD01605, w:en:User:ZoRCoCuK/User:ZoRCoCuK belonged to the same people but the commons accounts were moved to the accounts with "~commonswiki" like User:BesigedB~commonswiki and probably need to be moved back if the users are still active. Bawolff thanks again for this rather crazy SQL query. I processed bunch of those files and asked for help at Commons:Bots/Work_requests#230k_SUL_user_renames_by_User:Maintenance_script for the rest. --Jarekt (talk) 14:33, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

April 23

Patrol/Autopatrol application

HI, I am not an oldest but an old user of commons and past experience has given me a lot of knowledge of policy, guidelines etc. I have even gone through various papers to gain knowledge on copyrighting. Can I apply for Patrol/Autopatrol ? If yes, where can I apply ? --Jnanaranjan Sahu (ଜ୍ଞାନ) ^talk 07:12, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I granted you autopatrolled. Best --Steinsplitter (talk) 08:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank You @Steinsplitter: for changing my right permission. I appreciate it. I've sent you an email too. Please check.--Jnanaranjan Sahu (ଜ୍ଞାନ) ^talk 06:06, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

@Jnanaranjan sahu: If you would like to become a patroller, which would be a real honor an help for us, read COM:PATROL and follow the instructions from there. -- Rillke^(q?) 13:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

@Rillke: Rather it'll be an honor for me to work for the society and people. I've applied here. Please consider my application and give me any other rights if you think my purpose will suit it. Thank you.--Jnanaranjan Sahu (ଜ୍ଞାନ) ^talk 06:06, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank You--Jnanaranjan Sahu (ଜ୍ଞାନ) ^talk 12:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Help topicons linking to external help pages soon displayed everywhere?

A new "( i ) Help" topicon with a link to mw:Help:Categories is now being displayed on all category pages. Similar and equally inappropriate topicons have already been added to various special pages including Special:Upload (with a link to mw:Help:Managing files), but this is the first time users get to see this on our main content pages. As this is clearly not a well-thought-out change and I've been told that there won't be any customisation options (via system messages, …) "for now", what do others think about removing all such topicons from Commons, by adding #mw-indicator-mw-helplink {display:none;} to our site CSS? FDMS 4 19:00, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Right. A link to a MediaWiki page in English only isn't really an improvement. :/ Yann (talk) 10:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

What makes you think they're English only? This, that and the other (talk) 10:51, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Commons has its own policy & helppage about categorys. No need to link to mediawiki. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

What's the help page? I didn't find one. See below. --Nemo 11:00, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Not helpful at all... *sigh* This should be disabled. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:31, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

+1: If we can't redirect it to something more useful (like Commons:Categories), it should be disabled. --El Grafo (talk) 10:52, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The CSS can be targeted to only hide the link on categories, I don't see why hide them all when you dislike only a couple of them. Yann, mw:Help:Categories exists in dozens languages, what do you mean "English only"??

IMHO it's useful to explain what categories are to Commons users, who often misunderstand them. The link could be customised to link Commons:Categories (a bit long, needs translatability) or Help:Categories (almost empty). Perhaps the help-y part (e.g. about difference from galleries) could be moved from Commons:Categories to Help:Categories and made translatable.

As for the "everywhere", no: this is mostly about special pages and actions, sadly not all of them are documented. See phabricator:T45591#1227210 for the documentation being worked on now. mw:Special:LanguageStats and m:Special:LanguageStats have groups for help pages where you can help translate or see what's available. --Nemo 10:56, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

@Nemo bis: I do not only dislike a couple of them, but think that directing new users seeking help to an external project targeted at website operators and developers generally does not make a lot of sense.

Categories are the main content (browsing) pages on Commons, not "special" pages, and I don't think that more people are confused about their purpose than what Wikipedia articles are (not), yet there are no large help icons there either. There is a point where users should just read "the manual" first (linked to in the sidebar and on the main page) if they don't get it, as "category" is not even a wiki-only term like "OTRS" or "talkpage" but quite self-explanatory.

On Commons, help about subjects being only available in the project namespace is not unusual, and I don't really see any reason to change that …

FDMS 4 20:12, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Suggestions by Nemo regarding moving applying content from Commons:Categories to Help:Categories and making this page a little more friendly make sense to me. -- Rillke^(q?) 20:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

"If file uploads are enabled (if not, you'll need to configure file uploads)…" (bolding by me) and those instructions are not really relevant to Commons; as the page title suggests this is for people who just set up their first MediaWiki installation. The form at Commons is rebuilt by default. Information about how to fill in a form on a separate site that isn't able to provide these visitors or potential contributors (human, individual) help, is not helpful maybe even confusing as they are unlikely knowing what MediaWiki is or why they landed at mediawiki.org, hence I am going to hide the symbol and the text on the upload form. -- Rillke^(q?) 19:39, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I am inclined to switch this of on commons... It is not helpful. It is not linking to the commons policy's, but to some MW page. --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:59, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

April 22

Uploads Fuoco9

Hi. I think that all the uploads of user Fuoco9 are unused personal photos, without encyclopedic interest. --DenghiùComm (talk) 06:29, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Done → Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Fuoco9 --El Grafo (talk) 14:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you ! --DenghiùComm (talk) 06:26, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Help me, please

Hello all,

When I uploaded this file using flickr2commons, I got an error. As a result, the file has been uploaded, but does not show up in its category, and also the bot that should check its license consistently skips it. What might be the problem? Thanks in advance. Vcohen (talk) 08:27, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any problem here. It has the {{Flickrreview}} tag, so the bot should get to it in due time. You can add categories to it just like any other file; right now, its only category is Category:33rd Street – Rawson Street (IRT Flushing Line). It could use more of a description; does "LIC" here mean "Long Island City"? - Jmabel ! talk 13:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- I will try once more... 1. The bot runs once an hour, every file I upload gets the bot's signature in less than an hour. This file did not get it in about 20 hours. 2. If you see the category, please open it and see that the file is not there. Vcohen (talk) 14:09, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- I renamed the file, now it is in the category. Let's wait for the bot... Vcohen (talk) 14:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, renaming solved the problem. The bot processed both this file and another one I uploaded several minutes ago. Vcohen (talk) 14:47, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

darktable to Wikimedia Commons

Hi all,

As you may know, it is possible to upload to Wikimedia Commons from some image processing software − with digiKam using the KIPI uploader (an effort to which I have modestly contributed a couple of years ago) ; with Adobe Lightroom using LrMediaWiki (thanks to Ireas)

I am becoming a keen user of darktable, a free and open-source raw developer. I was wondering if there would be interest in extending the software in a similar fashion to upload directly to Wikimedia Commons. If there is some interest here, I would be happy to go ask the darktable devs whether this is something they would be happy with. If yes, then, I have no plans yet but we could safely start one then. :)

I have started gathering some thoughts on User:Jean-Frédéric/darktable. Feel free to chime in.

Jean-Fred (talk) 18:03, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

April 26

Uploading files with a clearly incorrect license

Once in a while I find old photos online that obviously have an incorrect, unfree license. This can be tricky, there are quite a few times when I suspect a license for an old photo may be incorrect, but not many times that I feel certain about it. But it does happen. For instance, a photo may be labelled as CC BY-NC-SA while it is in fact in the public domain because the photographer died more than 70 years ago. What is the correct procedure if I want to upload it to Wikimedia Commons? Can it be done at all as long as the given (incorrect) license isn't acceptable on Commons? Blue Elf (talk) 15:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Basically, yes, as long as you can give a solid explanation as to why it is PD. In the "Permissions" field of the "Information" template, it's worth giving an explanation of there being a false claim at the source. - Jmabel ! talk 16:15, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Be wary of things like URAA, which can affect files that should really have been PD in the USA. Otherwise, as Jmabel says, feel free to upload images as long as you can demonstrate the PD status. Green Giant (talk) 18:47, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, it is not unheard of (not even rare) for digitizers of old works to claim a copyright in the digital version... if the digital version is a faithful reproduction of the original (there was no 'no authorship' in the form of significant edits) then the 'new' copyright claim is invalid... see COM:PDART. Revent (talk) 07:01, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

(not that I am implying that you should use PD-Art for a scan of a photograph, as opposed to something like a painting, but the same logic applies) Revent (talk) 07:03, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

April 25

USA train pictures

Category:Images uploaded by Natuur12 (clcean up2) has a lot of train pictures taken in the USA. These are taken by Peter Van den Bossche and downloaded from Flicker. I already classified a lot of his European pictures but I am not familiar with the USA scene. Could someone help?Smiley.toerist (talk) 13:55, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Error in metadata viewer?

Hi, in many of my latest uploads, I find that the display of the exif metadata of selected fields are wrong on the file page and deviate from what other tools tell me. I use Lightroom to edit metadata before exporting and have done so for some time without any problems of this kind, e.g., this file has displayed metadata as intended. One such example of wrong display is File:Sarcophagus of Louise of Great Brittain, Roskilde Cathedral, Denmark, 2015-03-31-4813.jpg ( fixed), where the Camera manufaturer, camera model and copyright holder fields as displayed are wrong. However, if I use Jeffrey Friedl's Exif Viewer on the same file, the EXIF looks correct and identical to the ones I have in Lightroom. I conclude that there must be some special cases of EXIF data, which the metadata viewer on Mediawiki does not render correctly. In my latest uploads the 'caption' field in the metadata has often included the "'" character, e.g., "...Frederick IX's Chapel...", but not always. Anyone understand what is going on?-- Slaunger (talk) 06:11, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T97253

Tracked. --McZusatz (talk) 16:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, McZusatz. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:20, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

@Slaunger: Its due to a bug in php's exif support (Its triggered in files where the values for the exif tags come before the list of tags contained in the file). Until the bug is fixed, one potential way to work around it using exiftool is the following command: exiftool -TagsFromFile input.jpg -all:all temp.mie; exiftool input.jpg -all=; exiftool -TagsFromFile temp.mie -all:all input.jpg. (Assuming input.jpg is the name of your image file). Bawolff (talk) 08:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@Bawolff: Thanks for the hint. Not immediately applicable for me as I am on a Windows system, but I managed to use your input to setup a process, which works for my OS.

It is described here.

It can probably be done much more elegantly, as I am not that familiar with making batch scripts for Windows, but here goes

1. I downloaded the Windows executable of ExifTool by Phil Harvey and unzipped it into a C:\Tools\ folder.

2. After unzipping, I have an executable file C:\Tools\exiftool-9.93\exiftool(-k).exe

3. In the file explorer, select the file name, press F2 and rename it exiftool.exe

4. Open a text editor, e.g. NotePad, and copy the following into a new file

C:\Tools\exiftool-9.93\exiftool.exe -TagsFromFile %1 -all:all temp.mie
C:\Tools\exiftool-9.93\exiftool %1 -all=
C:\Tools\exiftool-9.93\exiftool -TagsFromFile temp.mie -all:all %1

5. Save the file as, e.g., mwfixexif.bat on, e.g., your desktop

6. From a file explorer drag and drop individual files which has this problem onto the batch file on the desktop.

7. After running the script, the original "some file name".jpg is replaced by a new file of the same name, with EXIF data, which can be formatted correctly in mediawiki. The original file is kept as "some file name".jpg_original in the same folder.

I have used this procedure with success on this, this, and this, and will continue updating my other files, which have bad rendering of EXIF data in the mediawiki file page viewer.

There appears to be a correlation between this change I am experiencing and the emergence of a new LightRoom major version.

The batch file can probably be made much smarter. Feel free to improve it! -- Slaunger (talk) 19:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:PD-France

Hello,

Do you know what's the status of {{PD-France}}? Even though there's a sign at the top of the page advising not to use it, as it is still being discussed, it is in use de facto in thousands of files. Can we remove the message from the top of the page? Thanks in advance, Ldorfman (talk) 21:47, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Right. There wasn't any discussion for the last 2 years, so I removed the warning. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:11, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Ldorfman (talk) 07:57, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

On the talk page it was mentioned that there is a large overlap with {{PD-old-70}} and {{Anonymous-EU}} → do we need this at all? Personally, I'm not a big fan of those "one of the following reasons" templates, as they tend to be a bit unspecific. --El Grafo (talk) 13:35, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I usually don't use this template, but there is at least one case where it could be useful: work for hire. The rules are different among European countries, and we have quite a lot of images from French agencies for which the current templates are not very suited. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

April 28

Notification of DMCA takedown demand - Flipperfoxfoxmike

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

Affected file(s):

File:Flipperfoxfoxmike.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

To discuss this DMCA takedown, please go to COM:DMCA#Flipperfoxfoxmike Thank you! Jalexander--WMF 11:12, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Village pump/Archive/2015/04