Commons:Village pump/Archive/2015/05

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

Broad reaching precedent?

It seems to me that Commons:Deletion requests/Klingon costumes and props is raising issues that may affect many many other images so I'd like to invite a broad swath of the Commons community to give it some thought and share opinions. --Kevjonesin (talk) 22:52, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

May 01

Just wondering?

Why is .mp4,.wav,or .flv files not allowed on Wikimedia?Doorknob 747 (talk) 19:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

.wav is allowed. .mp4 is not allowed because MPEG-LA holds some patents on it, and in principle we want anyone who uses our files to be able to create a media player. (Actual situation with mp4 is kind of shades of grey and complicated. For example the debian project considers the patent threat for that format not really significant. Much of the concern surrounding mp4 is all the fear uncertainty and doubt surrounding it. Its hard to get a straight for sure answer what the situation really is, so better to err on the side of caution). Flv is basically the same as mp4 at its core. See Commons:Requests for comment/MP4 Video (this is a politically controversial issue. Be warned some people may disagree with my analysis). Bawolff (talk) 19:51, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
@Bawolff: Thanks.

Politician donating headshot through Twitter

A politician's Twitter account has offered to let us use their official headshot in this conversation. They ask if there is a form to fill out. Should I tell them to send something legalese to OTRS, or is a screenshot of the tweet good enough? --Arctic.gnome (talk) 22:38, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

@Arctic.gnome: A screenshot of the tweet would be good enough if it contained an explicit release under Commons-compatible terms (ideally a license), otherwise the (non-interactive) form available at COM:ET should be filled out. "Free to use" by itself is insufficient (modifications, …), not sure whether or not it is at all a legal possibility to release own works into the public domain in Canada.    FDMS  4    23:11, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

May 02

Babel ca

There is a mysterious construction I don't understand: {{Babel ca}} redirects to Creator:Trencapins which links to 3 not existing templates. --Achim (talk) 16:36, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Seems to work, thanks a lot. --Achim (talk) 18:05, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Need feedback for Wiki Loves Food photo contest

Hi, Wikimedians from India are conducting a photo contest called Wiki Loves Food. Currently, we are testing things through a pilot phase. Please have a look at the photos submitted so far. We will greatly appreciate feedback and participation from the global Commons Community in organizing this. Thanks. --Ravi (talk) 16:44, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Why do you call it Wiki Loves Food if only photographs related to food in India are considered valid submissions? -- Rillke(q?) 17:45, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi Rillke, we are discussing the name here.--Ravi (talk) 19:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Image release on Facebook

Presumably this:

https://www.facebook.com/patrick.trauquesegues/posts/569132129896565

(public access, no Facebook account required) is acceptable? How should it be tagged? Andy Mabbett (talk) 22:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

With both licenses given. --Fæ (talk) 22:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I meant in terms of noting that the licence have been verified at the source; as we do for Flickr. Andy Mabbett (talk) 06:34, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
A license reviewer can use {{LicenseReview}}, which allows for any source website. As we rarely batch import from Facebook, there is probably no need to create a specific template for it. --Fæ (talk) 08:33, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
See comment on this facebook page (which is in public access), it's acceptable license CC-by-SA or artlibre.org
You can take the wider version (that can be zoomed)
Please do not refer publicly to the facebook page
Taken on april 2015
It is the source of the photo, you can check the owner on google
I don't want to open a wp account just for upload one photo, it's why I asked help
This photo is for pages about the french village of http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ligardes (at least for the french one)
Cheers 92.156.193.124 12:22, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
La vache!…
To best convey the original’s licensing we can have this:
=={{int:license-header}}==
{{Multi-license}}
{{Cc-by-sa-4.0}}
{{FAL}}
{{License Review}}
-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 13:13, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
I went ahead and uploaded File:Vache@Ligardes.jpg, but the source (for both the image and the permission statement) had to be the mentioned facebook page. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 13:48, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Issue with its licensing

Please note that "CC BY-SA" is not a license and we can't just "assume" under what license copyright holders intended to release their work.    FDMS  4    23:21, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Is this because the CC BY-SA version number was not expressed in the release statement? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 23:51, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
   FDMS  4    nods. 20:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Fishing expedition (or milking, in the case of this photo), sorry, not helpful and pointy. The licencer refered to «CC-by-SA» on a given date (last week); it stands to reason that the current version of this license is implied (4.0).
There are problems with this latest version of CC licenses, or so I heard, and I’d probably agree with those calling shanennigans on it, but this kind of low-intensity, random boycotting is ineffective and deterimental to the project (will someone think of the cows!!). Lets (try to) fix the problems with CC licenses in the appropriate venue instead.
Just to keep this one covered, though, I’ll ask the author in fb which version he intended. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 01:26, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Not sure if that's what you meant, but I can assure you that I'm not boycotting anything but supporting almost everything (excluding The List) coming from CC, and only transmitted what I've been told by other Commons users (including but not limited to those who were involved in the deletion of my transferral of this video) and in #creativecommons (back then still #cc).    FDMS  4    02:08, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
What I mean is that it is simply disingenuous not to assume that, in the absence of a version number, a clear and obvious attempt to refer to a CC license is rendered invalid, instead of assuming that the most recent version was implied.
You’re saying that everytime someone writes "CC by-sa" or "CC by" while neglecting to add a version number, that licensing is invalid and should be ignored by Commons. You need to bring that to a higher forum and stop using this one photo (or any individual case) as the testing ground for such a novel doctrine of licensing implementation.
-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 12:56, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm saying that this is how all such cases I've read about (not few) have been dealt with on Commons. Not going to search all VP archives for previous discussions as I wouldn't know what term to use, but I'm sure there have been some.    FDMS  4    16:01, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

April 30

Having trouble using uploaded file

I am having trouble using https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Seasons-GR.svg in any context, it just won't show up as if it doesn't exist(nor does it show up when searching for the title in commons search). Original title was in Greek so I requested a file move, yet even after the file move was completed to the current latin characters filename it is impossible to include it anywhere. Anybody has any idea why this may be? Thanks Gts-tg (talk) 22:08, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Follow up, it is possible to use the file via wiki code File:<filename> but not via VisualEditor or searching for the title in Commons search Gts-tg (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Please report this technical issue for which the site administration organization is likely in debt for to Phabricator (new task, projects VisualEditor, Commons, File management). Make sure to give detailed information how to reproduce the issue (step by step). -- Rillke(q?) 10:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Can't reproduce anymore – this doesn't appear to be unusual for very new files and would probably be a wontfix.    FDMS  4    16:18, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Its kind of unclear what the issue actually was. Are you saying there is a delay before newly created pages/images appear in the search feature, or something else? Bawolff (talk) 04:51, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

May 03

Can I make a tab in my user account for My Gallery?

Earlier today, I clicked a link you provided in my discussion or talk area somewhere, and it opened a page called MY GALLERY, and showed my uploads to Commons. I don't know where I was in the global wiki areas, or how to open the gallery page again. I can't find anything about this in my searches. Could you explain how to do this? Or please, send me a link that will explain. I'd like to have a tab somewhere, that I can always click as needed. Is that possible? Thanks. Nettlepatch (talk) 00:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

You are looking for the Uploads link in your personal bar or for COM:MyGallery. -- Rillke(q?) 00:38, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation Funds Dissemination Committee elections 2015

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

Voting has begun for eligible voters in the 2015 elections for the Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) and FDC Ombudsperson. Questions and discussion with the candidates for the Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) and FDC Ombudsperson will continue during the voting. Nominations for the Board of Trustees will be accepted until 23:59 UTC May 5.

The Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) makes recommendations about how to allocate Wikimedia movement funds to eligible entities. There are five positions on the committee being filled.

The FDC Ombudsperson 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.

The voting phase lasts from 00:00 UTC May 3 to 23:59 UTC May 10. Click here to vote. Questions and discussion with the candidates will continue during that time. Click here to ask the FDC candidates a question. Click here to ask the FDC Ombudsperson candidates a question. More information on the candidates and the elections can be found on the 2015 FDC election page, the 2015 FDC Ombudsperson election page, and the 2015 Board election page on Meta-Wiki.

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

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery 03:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC) • Translate • Get help

May 05

There are no pages or files in this category

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T26575

Hello, I've mailed this link https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:70_Joer_Befreiung_vum_Faschismus to some people and they get a "There are no pages or files in this category". What they see are the sub-categories, where again they don't see any pictures.

I've made a test on one of their computers and got the same result, even using the search function: Category:70 Joer Befreiung vum Faschismus, the error message came up.

Then I logged-in and I saw the pictures through Search:Category:70 Joer Befreiung vum Faschismus.

Logged-out, Search:Category:70 Joer Befreiung vum Faschismus - got the pictures.

Any idea what's going wrong? Some work-around for people w/o an account? Thank you! --Jwh (talk) 08:01, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I guess this is a caching issue with the varnish servers. Try ?action=purge, or tell us what happens if users who do not see it, append ?someRandomString to URL in the location bar after pressing ↵ Enter. -- Rillke(q?) 10:11, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
This is a long term issue that nobody has ever gotten around to doing anything about. Bawolff (talk) 04:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! Last night I asked two people who had the problem to try with the "basic" URL first and only when it doesn't return pictures to append it with ?action=purge . Both came back to tell me that this time all worked fine with the "basic" URL. Now do you think it will be better that in the future I'll mail the URL's always with ?action=purge to avoid any trouble? Thanks again. --Jwh (talk) 09:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

?action=purge forces a cache clear. Its preferably not to use that in links, because then the cache would be ineffective (Also it requires a click through if not logged in). If you're concerned, it would probably be better to purge the page before you send a link, and then just send the normal link. Bawolff (talk) 09:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Bawolff, excuse my ignorance - what can or should I do "to purge the page" before mailing the link? --Jwh (talk) 09:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
If its a category page (other types of pages don't have this bug), and its not showing new entries for anon users, go to the link with ?action=purge on the end first (Which will make the changes show up to anons), and then send the normal link in the email. Sending a link with ?action=purge in it in an email will cause anon users to see a click-through page which is non-ideal. Bawolff (talk) 10:06, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Got it! Great! Thank you! --Jwh (talk) 15:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

May 04

File:Lauren Cohan 2014 Comic Con (cropped).jpg and File:Lauren Cohan by Gage Skidmore 2.jpg

I'm not sure why there is a need for two separate files of the essentially the same image. The former ("Lauren Cohan 2014 Comic Con (cropped)") was uploaded back in July 2014 by Lady Lotus and is a cropped version of File:Lauren Cohan 2014 Comic Con.jpg also uploaded by Lady Lotus. Both of these files were taken from the Flickr account of Gage Skidmore and proper attribution is given to Skidmore on each file's Commons' page. "File:Lauren Cohan by Greg Skidmore 2.jpg" seems to have been uploaded by Skidmore himself (Gage) on May 4, 2015. Attribution is given in the name of the file, but for the most part everything else appears the same. I'm not sure why a new file needed to be uploaded and the name and licensing of the exsting one couldn't have simply been edited accordingly.

Also, I have a question about the naming of files. Commons:File naming simply says that names should be "descriptive, chosen according to what the image displays or contents portray" and "accurate, especially where scientific names, proper nouns, dates, etc. are used". Is it acceptable to include the name of the person who took the photo in the file name, especially when said person is being properly attributed on the file's description page? The same editor has been doing something similar for all of the images they have recently uploaded to Commons. They have been asked about this on their user talk by Ellin Beltz but no reply has yet been given. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

There doesn't need to be two of the same files. If they are the same exact file and the only difference is the Gage used "own work" instead of linking to the Flickr file, then it should be removed as a duplicate. There are also these files:
File:Jessica Alba SDCC 2014.jpg (uploaded on July 2014 by Stemoc)
File:Jessica Alba by Gage Skidmore.jpg (uploaded on April 2015 by Gage)
File:Bill Hader, 2013 San Diego Comic Con-cropped-2.jpg (uploaded on 24 July 2013 by Carniolus)
File:Bill Hader by Gage Skidmore.jpg (uploaded on 26 July 2013 by Gage)
Lady Lotus (talk) 11:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

The problem with the Picture Challenge interface

I think this issue has been mentioned before , but I have to mention it again.
The voting and submission page for it is not good.

For the Submission page , what happens is that at times I get 'Section does not exist' error , at other times someone may mistakenly upload it to the Examples section. Here , a better interface based on POTY should be implemented instead.

For the voting page ,

  1. It is not straightforward and error-prone.
  2. Users easily tend to click the place where users have already voted.
  3. Why can't we just customize the POTY page for this Picture Challenge - it is much better in layout and usability. Users' comments can be seen at the end of the voting process when the results are declared.

Why is this not being fixed? --Leaderboard (talk) 07:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

That's probably because setting up something like this requires coding skills the people behind the Photo Challenge don't have, and the people who do have those skills have many other important things to do. But I'm not even sure if anyone has ever asked them directly → @Rillke: what's your opinion on this? Do you think it might be possible to re-use some of the POTY magic for the Photo Callenges? --El Grafo (talk) 09:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
To be frank, I was always under the assumption Photo Challenge and QI, VI and FP people liked the way they were running their contests and the people who run these contests must be happy with what they have; E.g. do they want a straightforward process, at all? While we continuously increased voting volume in POTY, I wouldn't say we increased real "participation". In fact the committee almost died this year, we had to postpone things, didn't manage to announce results properly; even though things were a lot easier for us compared to last years. If someone comes up with a good concept of how things in Photo Challenge could work (including making it easier for new photographers), I guess there will be someone willing to put a few lines together. A good concept would of course not only be something roughly described in 4 sentences but a complete draft including UI, flow, considerations about that, comparison with the old process, and ideas how to gradually implement it. If the final, desired state can be achieved in small steps it's more likely to be successful. -- Rillke(q?) 12:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
I assumed that there weren't sufficient users who had enough skill/free-time/motivation to write a good "end-user-experience" for Photo Challenge. Running the POTY looks like an awful lot of work, even though it has a nicer UI. So that model doesn't really work for something run every month. But PC is too reliant on me running some programs on my PC to generate voting pages and calculate results -- that needs better automated and shared. If someone is interested in coding a better photo challenge (submission, voting, validation, results) then get in touch with me and we can figure out how to get there. I keep meaning to ask if WMF have any developer time to give to this. Photo Challenge isn't the only forum with problems here: QI review is an edit-conflict nightmare, and the presentation of Commons search results and category listings leaves an awful lot to be desired. Plenty areas to improve Commons if WMF want to spend some money or volunteers want a project.
In the meantime, there are probably some quick fixes that might help. -- Colin (talk) 13:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
I think PC is a bit different from things like FPC etc. in that it actually seems to attract a comparatively high amount of "new" users and thus I think it could really benefit from a simpler, one-click interface for submitting and voting. One year ago it was basically just a let's see if people like this at all thing, so not too much energy was spent on building the technical backbone. I think by now PC has proven to be attractive and it's time to think about how to make it run more efficiently. I guess some combination of clever bots and templates could possibly do most of the stuff that currently runs on Colin's PC. The good thing is: unlike FPC etc. PC doesn't have any specialized bots yet that would crash a whole system because of small changes ;-) If you consider the last ~1.5 years as an alpha test, now we've got the chance to "do it right" straight from the beginning.
I'm not good with templates, bots and stuff like that, but if we can gather a small team of interested/skilled people, I'd be happy to share some ideas and work on a joint concept. --El Grafo (talk) 14:33, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
@Rillke: , I could probably formulate a UI design for this , but could I have a design copy of the POTY interface so that I could play a bit with it and try for a better design for the Picture Design? As for the coding part , I am no expert on it , with me knowing only VisualBasic and some HTML. Thanks.--Leaderboard (talk) 07:31, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Should we create a subpage for coordinating/discussing this? Something like Commons:Photo challenge/UI overhaul? --El Grafo (talk) 08:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Sounds like a plan.
@Leaderboard: These are the things I learned first :) With copy you mean "live copy" that is actually running? Do you permit me to install it in your user namespace? -- Rillke(q?) 12:27, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
@El Grafo: , Not a bad idea , but if such a method is used , prominent notices should be displayed so that more users can participate.
@Rillke: , Yes , I'm looking for the "live copy" that you are talking about. I'm fine with installing it on my user namespace. , but I am a little confused on how it would work on my userspace.--Leaderboard (talk) 10:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
@Leaderboard: Here we go: Your common.js contains the code loading the configuration and main program code. If you need to disable the application, just empty your common.js. If possible, please make changes to the configuration only. Configuration members will override any value sharing the same key in the main script, so it is also possilbe to re-implement functions. Feel free to adjust the style sheet as you desire. Start viewing the gallery for voting or viewing an individual voting page. I suggest ignoring the 2014/R2 and similar first and revisiting this after you completed a working process. Good luck. Any specific questions welcome. -- Rillke(q?) 15:06, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
@Rillke: , Thanks , I've done a little bit of changes to the interface(see my userpage , I've kept a log there).
However , I have a question here. I am able to see the votelist , which does not seem to be expected. Is the interface in the vote-only mode or is it in the mode designed for counting? .--Leaderboard (talk) 16:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
The list of voters was also available during POTY. Votes are publicly recorded, like almost everything in this wiki. For counting, I had a different script that was verifying each single diff on the pages where vots are collected. I also see that you want to introduce a point system. This will be a little workload. background-image: url("//commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:3.svg"); will most likely not work because this is the file description page and not the raw image which can be found on {{filepath:3.svg}} (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8c/3.svg). Using SVGs directly however, will render the application incompatible with older browsers, notably IE 8 which is still sitting on lots of Windows XP systems. -- Rillke(q?) 23:21, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
@Rillke: , When I replaced all instances of POTY with PC(with some additional minor changes) in the main JS file, the app broke. Can you tell why?(accessible in the history page)--Leaderboard (talk) 15:55, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

You should definitely know what which change will cause, a simple find and replace operation is not really necessary here. The solution is: You have a problem you would like to "fix" (e.g. POTY appears somewhere in the text) and you address this issue specifically. Also some JavaScript debugging skills would be of help; for example, open your browser's JS console (Ctrl+⇧ Shift+K; F12 on IE) and you'll see a pile of debugging messages created by the POTY script and thus you see where it errors-out. One thing that would for sure cause breaking it was replacing potyconfig with pcconfig while forgetting to adjust it here. -- Rillke(q?) 15:30, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Rillke/Leaderboard, can I suggest you post something to Commons talk:Photo challenge and perhaps create a sub-page of that project to work on design/changes. I assume these experiments aren't ready for May's voting/submission and are a work in progress or prototypes. Feel free to question any part of the current process/arrangement. Thanks for your help. -- Colin (talk) 14:12, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
@Rillke: What's your opinion on Bootstrap? I think a partial design rework is necessary , since the current UI layout is not easy to work on. Based on my experience , it's quicker(at least when I was designing my webpages in HTML).--Leaderboard (talk) 19:13, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Filtering Category-views by license?

Howdy,

Wikimedia Commons has become a fairly useful resource for "stock photos" other than just for usage on wikipedia projects etc., but when browsing the repository for images to be used in projects the mix of licensing schemes is a constant nuisance that makes it hard to find a usable set of images with compatible licenses.

Especially when selecting images to create a "collage" of various images, such as showing two or more similar looking species of animals side by side or some such, it is often necessary to use images that have the exact same license as the various Creative Commons licenses are not at all as compatible as one would think/like them to be (cannot combine a CC-BY-SA and a CC-NC-SA into one collage with CC-BY-NC-SA for example as the resulting license would be more restrictive than the originals). Mostly your best bet is to use either PD/CC0 only, or select one important/scarce image with a different license and select all others with the exact same license and/or PD/CC0 to assemble the rest.

So the question is: How do I filter a category view on wikimedia commons to give me things like "only PD images" or "only CC-BY" or some such? I'm aware of the search option "hastemplate:" as in Coccinella hastemplate:PD-layout, but it's really not comparable to "browsing" the categories with a filter set to something equivalent.

If the software doesn't support this, wouldn't that be a useful feature to add?

Cheers, Pudding4brains (talk) 14:18, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Intersecting content and license categories using FastCCI is the most "comfortable" method I know of; you are not the first or only only having (IMO rightly so) suggested to introduce such a filter to category pages.    FDMS  4    17:34, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Okay, that looks promising - will check it out. Thanks for the useful pointer! :o) Cheers, Pudding4brains (talk) 20:30, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
There’s also MediaWiki:Gadget-advanced-search.js: it allows filtering by license (though still a bit rough around the edges). -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 15:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Tuválkin - that's a neat visual shell for the hastemplate: thingy :o) Cheers Pudding4brains (talk) 22:50, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

April 27

Requesting help for additional PD templates

Hi,

I just uploaded a bilingual book File:Marathiproverbs00manwgoog.djvu of one author Rev. Alfred Manwaring published in 1899. On close look as per my understanding Applicable law is either UK Copyright_Act_1842 and/or Indian copyright act 1847; in either case Copyright is life of the author plus 7 years. So logically copyright period is over and the book is in public domain. I have added India PD template along with above note.

I could not locate apropriate UK PD template which will take care of PD as per UK Copyright_Act_1842 Please some one help me in adding apropriate additional PD templates as per commons requirements.

Thanks and Regards Mahitgar (talk) 07:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

The Copyright Act of 1842 is now moot. The Copyright Act in play right now for the UK says that life+70 applies. When did Rev. Alfred Manwaring die? All I can find is that he was connected with the Church Missionary Society in 1879, and he could have lived 65 years beyond that point, to where it would be copyrighted in the UK right now.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
It's recorded he left for home in 1908, but he still could have lived another 40 years beyond that.
The version you uploaded is pretty bad; I suggest uploading the PDF which is much more readable and starting with that. If necessary, it can be uploaded directly to en.Wikisource, which accepts all files that are public domain in the US, that is published before 1923.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

@Prosfilaes: Thanks for your openion. If you know for 1899 work applicable copyright term would be life + 70 years then please do delete the file since I also do not want to take any chances with legal provisions.

Rather I will wait for one more year and upload the file on Indic wikipedia at least we will likely to have better assured PD under Indian copyright act.

Still I would like to have have any references about why provisions of Copyright Act of 1842 are not applicable in UK case, just for academic reasons since I have been participating in updating copyright related help pages on local projects, so any such information will help me in improving help pages.

As far as Rev. Alfred Manwaring is concerned according to info email received (by me) from archives At churchofengland.org; Rev. Alfred Manwaring's last entry to Crockfords Clerical Directory is found up until the 1949-50. According to my previous discussions on en wikisource Author is likely to have born June 1855 , unfortunatley there is no confirmed info available online about his year of death. this online source shows a death record of Mar 1950 of one Manwaring Alfred 94 Hastings 5h 339 but still no proof that it is the same Manwaring Alfred we are looking for.

So as of now please help me getting the file deleted as suggested by you.

Thanks and warm regards,

Mahitgar (talk) 12:12, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi,
For India, it is 50 years pma until 1957, and 60 years afterwards. Seeing the above, he was born before 1859, and his works is certainly in the public domain. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:27, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
The UK seems to be the country of first publication; no evidence of Indian publication is given, and it seems not unlikely he would have just published in the UK. Given the information that Mahitgar has turned up, I'm confident in saying he died in 1950, given the death record plus the disappearance from the Crockford's Clerical Directory in that year, making it PD in India but not the UK.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
There's no Indic Wikipedia--Wikipedias and Wikisources are by language, and it's more suited for the latter. The English Wikisource is happy to host this, since it's PD in the US, which is by publication date.
The UK has passed new copyright laws since then, and those copyright laws apply to the old works. I'm not familiar with any copyright extensions that didn't apply to all works that were then in copyright(1), and many countries, including I believe the UK, restored copyright to works that left copyright that would still be covered by the new rules.
(1) When the US switched from publication+n rules to life+n rules, it left older works under publication+n rules. US copyright rules are hairy, and the old works did get their copyrights extended proportionally.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I also wanted to talk about mr-wikisource. Secondly I wanted to use portions of it on en wikibooks may be I will need to postpone en wikibook usage plans.

Thanks and rgds

Mahitgar (talk) 13:28, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Tool needed

Hi, Request on Commons:Bots/Work requests#Retrieving images from Gallica didn't receive much answer, so asking further. Could anyone help here please? Regards, Yann (talk) 17:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

May 06

Stamps from Ciskei

The nominally independent state of Ciskei in South Africa lasted from 1981 to 1994. Are stamps issued by that state now in the public domain? Paul venter (talk) 04:27, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Probably not. The rights held by w:Ciskei were probably transfered in full to Eastern Cape province or possibly South Africa. The bureaucrats in Ciskei went on strike over concerns about their pensions; you can be sure that the state that took on those debts also took on the property that Ciskei owned. (Not to mention that it's possible that Ciskei didn't own all the copyrights; a lot of postal systems don't on many of their stamps.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Too many "probablys" and "possiblys". I'll scout around for a more definitive answer. Thx. Paul venter (talk) 09:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Let me rephrase then. Yes, they are under copyright. Don't upload them here. (Since you seem more interested in definite then correct.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:47, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

file import request from mr-wikipedia

Hi,

Requesting sysop/ admin support in importing and activation w:mr:File:Licensing tutorial mr.svg from mr-wikipedia to commons.

Thanks and Regards

Mahitgar (talk) 11:52, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Handled on COM:AN --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Full size wrong side up

When this picture is clicked on for full size, the picture is shown 90 degrees turned. What is going on?Smiley.toerist (talk) 13:50, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Fixed, There was a rotation tag in exif. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:42, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Novska

There is clearly such a station and village/town in Croatia, however when I search in the Commons I only find the category (Novska–Tovarnik railway) without the station. Nova Gradiška railway station looks similar but is not the same.Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:20, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Maybe someone can use this [1]? From Google the full name seems to be: Zeljeznicka Stanica Novska (with special accents above the Z and c)Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:32, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

File:London 1908 English Amateur Football National Team.jpg

Could anyone replace Category:1908 Summer Olympics + Category:1908 in association football by Category:Association football at the 1908 Summer Olympics ? Thanks in advance. --TwoWingsCorp (talk) 14:07, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Representations of the proposed arms of Macedonia

  • fake "proposal for coat of arms of the Republic of Macedonia"
    fake "proposal for coat of arms of the Republic of Macedonia"
  • Royal Arms of Belgium
    Royal Arms of Belgium

The author of this SVG image claims that it's a "proposed coat of arms of Macedonia", and a source to the real proposal is provided [2]. This images is not the one that is proposed and this can be seen just by checking the source. This image is just the Royal Arma of Belguim with changed colors and added some kind of crown, which also does not correspond to the proposed CoA of the Republic of Macedonia. How do we proceed in that case? Obviously the image can be in Commons, since it's derivative work on another free image, but the description should be fixed and it's use should be removed from the pages that claim that it's "The proposed coat of arms of the Republic of Macedonia". --StanProg (talk) 19:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm wondering if WP:ANI wouldn't be the right place to take this user. A quick check reveals they are on some weird crusade to insert their own work into as many articles as possible, and far too often in this negligent manner. The same fake image, done by the same user, has been inserted by the same user in a dozen Wikipedias, always in English regardless of the language of the Wikipedia in which they insert it. This does not indicate a serious user, nor does their edit warring, nor this obvious error, intentional or not, to present their own redrawing of the Royal Arms of Belgium as a coat of arms of Macedonia.Jeppiz (talk) 20:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
This doesn't appear to be "false" but merely another correct rendering of the same heraldic description. Rmhermen (talk) 21:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
The Macedonian Heraldry Society have not proposed a heraldic description, but a specific coat of arms, with specific design, colors and proportions. The image above is a free interpretation of the original proposal, based on the description of the original proposal. This is the coat of arms that the Government of the Republic of Macedonia have received from the society ([3]), which unfortunately is not released under a compatible license. --StanProg (talk) 21:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Heraldically these are two compelety different coat of arms. --StanProg (talk) 22:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

A blazon has in fact been given: Or, a Lion Rampant Gules. And a mural crown with five turrets has been specified. As the rendition uploaded to commons is based upon the same blazon, and has an equivalent mural crown, it is in fact a valid representation of the same coat of arms. It is heraldically compatible and not "fake". It would have been fake if the subject was logos, but the subject is in fact heraldry, and that should be kept in mind. The logo of Coca-Cola can only be drawn one way. The basic criterion for the validity of a representation of a coat of arms is that it's in accordance with the blazon. See Template:Coa blazon. For comparison: e.g. is also a valid representation of the Belgian arms. When a rendition of a coat of arms published by a government is copyrighted it is common practice across Commons and Wikipedia to use a free, alternative file that is heraldically compatible. I would be mad if I were attempting to redraw a corporate logo, but that is not what this is about; the subject of the matter is that I am making sure the proposed coat of arms of Macedonia can be displayed in editions of Wikipedia. If others would prefer a different, free design, then go ahead and make an alternative. - Ssolbergj (talk) 00:19, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

The only difference I see is the angle of the lion – which make the "official" one semi-rampant instead of rampant as described. But it doesn't seem that semi-rampant is a valid term. Apparently the exact angle of the standing lion is not important, but another detail left free to interpretation. Rmhermen (talk) 01:49, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
That's true. And the fact that the shape of the lion is the same as is used in this other representation of the arms of Belgium, drawn by User:Sodacan, is irrelevant in terms of heraldry. - Ssolbergj (talk) 10:32, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Normally there can be used {{CoA from blazon}} but this template need a strong improvement (s. talk). ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)  13:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
This template could probably be merged with {{Coa blazon}}. - Ssolbergj (talk) 12:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

May 07

File:2006 CS Catalunya.png and similars are politically biased and inappropriate

Moved from help desk, clearly not a request for technical help. - Jmabel ! talk 23:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello everyone. I'm sorry if this isn't the best place to bring this up but I wasn't sure of where else it might be appropriate. The image in question (File:2006 CS Catalunya.png) is just one of many examples of something that has become systematic within the Catalan Wikipedia and which is entirely inappropriate. As you can see in the image, the map shows the Spanish region of Catalonia in relation to a larger map of the so-called "Catalan Countries" which is a purely political concept based on the hypothetical annexation of other parts of Spain (Valencia, Aragon, Balearic Islands), France, Italy and all of Andorra. This is a very radical political concept that represents a minority of the population of Catalonia (and very controversial in the aforementioned territories) and should not, in any way, be used to illustrate any map in any Wikipedia, including the Catalan branch. Catalan separatists are using what they believe is "their" Wikipedia to promote this indoctrination and it should not be permitted; text and images should rely and stick only to facts, not to the ideologies of any group that contradict what is recognized world-wide as de-jure (unlike Nagorno-Karabakh, the Catalan Countries are not de-facto). These "Catalan Countries" depicted here are not, and are not recognized as such anywhere in the world. Please let me know what templates can be used to point out this unacceptable bias that has been permitted far too long. Thank you.71.57.45.99 16:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Commons does not have the same neutral-point-of-view policy as the various Wikipedias. In particular, we allow multiple conflicting maps here (although we draw the line at idiosyncratic fictions by individuals). In this case, though, I think under our rules the matter is pretty clear: millions of people (albeit presumably a minority) see things this way, and a map representing their view is within our scope. - Jmabel ! talk 00:02, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
  • El señor 71.57.45.99 should take this complain to w:ca, where, I expect, his demand will be (or was already?) met with some sensible proctological advice.
As an aside, last time I checked els Països Catalans do not include the Sardinian town of Alghero as part of the hypotetical federation (not annexation, by the way), only acknowledge it as a Catalan-speaking territory aboard — just like Vall d’Aran is acknowledged as a non-Catalan-speaking territory at home. Yes, a federation of willing parts, acknowledgedment of actual linguistic reality… — concepts typically foreign to people who go around protesting about this kind of pan-Catalanist shannenigans…) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 10:54, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

May 09

OTRS: the current situation

I come here to praise OTRS, not to bury it. I have perceived a change in the way OTRS is operating, but I'm not sure if I'm right. It seems to me that OTRS has dramatically improved in recent weeks. Maybe there have been volunteers from other parts of Wikipedia encouraged to help a system that appeared to be in a state of crisis a short time ago.

Whatever the case is in fact, I would like to send the highest praise to all Commons volunteers, and my heartfelt thanks for the massive effort which is contributed every day of the year. I wish to convey my thanks to all OTRS volunteers, experienced or new, for doing an amazing job. I imagine that OTRS attracts more than the usual amount of abuse, and very little thanks, as colleagues get what they came for (or not) and go away again.

Thanks, guys & gals. You are completely unbelievable! CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 02:47, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

May 10

Shiny rails

Is there a category for rails in low lying sunlight?Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

That seems excessively narrow. I'd just categorize it in "Category:Rail tracks in Belgium". If you like, create a new subcategory "Category:Sunlight reflections on structures in Belgium" and add that too. — SMUconlaw (talk) 12:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
I'd just go for a generic Category:Sunlight reflections on structures (and throw the existing Sunlight reflections on structures in the United States‎ in there). There's really no need to subcategorize every possible subject category by location, decade etc. --El Grafo (talk) 12:21, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
I do have other examples File:Rotterdam CS lage zon.jpg, File:Surbiton train sunset.JPG, File:Andon station 08.JPG and some other I don't remember yet. When I see this combination I take pictures. Smiley.toerist.

New Category:Sunlight reflections of railsSmiley.toerist (talk) 08:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd suggest renaming it to "Category:Sunlight reflections on rail tracks" so that it is in line with "Category:Rail tracks". (Note the use of the word on rather than of.) — SMUconlaw (talk) 08:43, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Tool like 'Cat-a-lot' for inserting a given template into a selection of media ?

Hello,

I got tired of manually inserting the template:Watermarked template into watermarked media, so I was wondering if there is a tool similar to 'Cat-a-lot' that can help with this?

What would be useful is a tool that like 'Cat-a-lot' can be used to first mark a set of media, and then select the template for insertion into each description page (e.g. below any content that is not a category).

Do we have anything like that?

Thanks.

PS. I am aware that in uploading media with the 'Upload Wizard' one can specify the Watermarked template, but what I am looking for now is to fix the many watermarked images already uploaded without that template.

Lklundin (talk) 21:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Ever tried MediaWiki:VisualFileChange.js? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 22:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
@Tuvalkin: No, but I will now! Thanks. One question before I start mass-changing files: When I have selected N files (initially N will be on the order of 1 :-), entered a regular expression and validated the Diff on a selected image, is there a way to get a count of how many of my N selected files that actually match my regular expression, before I hit execute? That should reduce the risk of the famous unintended consequences. Thanks again. Lklundin (talk) 15:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

May 11

No preview or progress status in basic upload form

I'm not getting any preview of the file selected in basic upload form. While clicking on the "upload file" button, the status says "waiting for commons.wikimedia.org" without any indication that the file is being uploaded. After a long time, the upload is completed, silently. Earlier (a few months ago; at least) I can see preview and %status. Now it gives the impression that the tool is dead. I tried it yesterday and closed the page thinking it was broken. Then upladed files using ugly Upload Wizard. It was also very slow; but has progress indications. Today I need to overwrite a file which is only possible through basic form. I waited patiently and it worked although without any preview or progress indications. (Thanks all for the support; I started uploading files using the lens procured through community support.) Jee 03:05, 11 May 2015 (UTC) I can see previews of small files. Jee 07:47, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Previews are not shown for files larger than 10 MB. To preview the file, it has to be loaded into memory of the browser, for a really large file, this could slow down your web browser quite a bit as it tries to show a preview of the image (I'm not sure what qualifies as really large, or if 10 MB is an appropriate value). Perhaps the fact that a preview is intentionally not shown should be communicated to the user. I don't recall their being a progress meter at all in Special:Upload beyond what is built into the web browser. Bawolff (talk) 16:43, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
This is a plain old but robust form. It is up to the browser telling users how much data has been transmitted. It even can't be found out by client side coding and adding server-side magic will overcomplicate it again. But chances are good that while phab:T74768 is resolved (AFAIK, they have to use client side scripting for solving this), that a progress bar will be added. Meanwhile bigChunkedUpload.js provides a reliable progress bar (although not a nice interface). -- Rillke(q?) 22:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Bawolff and Rillke. Hmm; the %progress indication may be from the browser which is not showing now. Anyway, it is a very useful tool for me and will continue to use. Will try Rillke's tool too. Jee 02:20, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Whether Black and White derivatives of copyrighted work are allowd on commons ?

Moved to "Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Whether Black and White derivatives of copyrighted work are allowd on commons ?" to avoid discussions occurring in two places. — SMUconlaw (talk) 19:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Bad deletions

Many of the files deleted as a result of Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Vibhabamba - at least some of which were used in documentation on sister projects - should not have been deleted, but instead should have had their attribution fixed.

These should be undeleted, and restored on those sister projects (which, as usual, received no prior notification of the impending deletions.

I'm about to get travel overseas, so have no time for a more formal request or debate. Andy Mabbett (talk) 09:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

@Didym and Jianhui67: Any opinions? Yann (talk) 07:28, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

spam in a file description

Hi,

I came across File:Google Appliance.jpg this file, I saw some description in non-english language thus checked with google translate. I do not know that language but prima facia seems to be spam, I wish some one else peer reviews this and take apropriate action regarding the same.

Mahitgar (talk) 11:42, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I've undone this edit. Bidgee (talk) 11:53, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Question about copyright

Hi. Is there any reason why I shouldn't be able to upload this image? After all, this image of parliament was engraved before 1834.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:47, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

It's clear free as the most other posters on this page. PS: I'm sure there can be much better resolutions found... ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)  22:07, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I have uploaded it here. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Looks good, what do you say to this: zazzle, carolin, Allposters⁉ ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)  22:28, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Wow, that last one looks pretty darned good. I'll upload it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:21, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Sorry the last one is fake (and watermarked), its upscaled and compressed, yours looks better, so please revert.
@Anythingyouwant ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)  00:32, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand, the last one you suggested has a lot more bytes in it, and I can enlarge it to see more detail. Is the watermark a big problem? Anyway, how can it be fake?Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:36, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Because I have chosen the resolution manually, I see now the max resolution is 2100px (I thought I can get higher) and you can see w:JPEG artefacts (as small boxes). Must be removed, see COM:Watermarks #Unacceptable watermarks, you must also crop: COM:MFC #Unnecessary borders ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)  00:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
I have just cropped it. See here. There's just a little tiny part of a watermark at the bottom right, so it's not promotional or obstructive. OK? There are five versions uploaded so far.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:05, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I see your crop, thanks, I guess we're all set then?Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:17, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Hm* it's ok, I mean the watermark is now not readably anymore (but not optimal). Sorry my fault to give the full 2100px version not earlier, so I simply do this by myself. Maybe some admin can delete the version-history (and maybe some graphic-artist can remove the watermark completely). GN8 ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?) 01:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks.  :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:27, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Hm* :-/ thanks to Nagualdesign for rework! But unfortuntely he used the downsized version not the "full" 2100px version (with also lesser artefacts). Can you do it again please? ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)  06:59, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
I changed the license to PD-Art. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:17, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

May 12

API upload question

Can you help me here? --Jobu0101 (talk) 08:49, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

With https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/api.php?action=upload&filename=&file=&token=+\, see mw:API:Upload (with the third-party commonsapi not). --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Category:Days by day

What is the purpose of categorizing kings and other persons by day of their being of reign/end of reign and similar? I believe that a king doesn't make this date such special. --Infovarius (talk) 11:29, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

The point is, when enough subcategories (about people, like in your example) were added as childs to a given day category, to split it into Category:Reigns ended on 1234-05-06, Category:Reigns started on 1234-05-06, etc. (Maybe instead of "reigns" something broader, like "offices", "positions", or "tenures"). Meanwhile, the nexus established by such categorization means simply that, f.i., this king is somehow related to this date. (Your question is self-explanatory, actually; I’m assuming this is about dates as parent categories in kings’ categories, not the opposite, yes?) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 10:46, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Cat redirects

Funny, categories Category:Shopping mall interiors and Category:Interiors of shopping malls are redirected vice versa. No other cats, so they are orphaned as a pair. --Achim (talk) 18:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. --ghouston (talk) 02:56, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

May 13

File size problem when uploading from mobile phone

I tried to upload a few images from my mobile phone today. I could not find any way to upload from the mobile view, so I switched to desktop view and tried to use the upload wizard. After selecting the image, the upload wizard displayed the following message:

File too large.
You can only upload files with a size of up to -1 B. You tried to upload a file that is 1.18 MB.

If needed, I have a screenshot of this message, but the above text is all that the message says. Could someone relay this error to Bugzilla or, if it's already been posted, explain what the problem is? Phone OS: Android 4.4.2 (KitKat). Browser: Chrome 42.0.2311.111. Is there a way to upload from the mobile Commons webpage? The mobile site ought to have an easily visible upload link. AHeneen (talk) 00:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I had no issue of uploading via the basic upload form using Chrome 41.0.2272.96, Android 4.4.4. Bidgee (talk) 00:36, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
File wizard gets stuck on "Processing files" for one photograph (on a 100MB connection). Bidgee (talk) 00:44, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Cant upload files this evening from my laptop using Safari. 9.7 kB.

"File too large. You can only upload files with a size of up to -1 B. You tried to upload a file that is 10 KB."

I have been uploading files of this or larger sizes for years. What's up?--Smokefoot (talk) 01:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Same issue here; can't upload anything using the upload wizard. Schwede66 01:04, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi, there was a bug in the HHVM upgrade that happened today. It's been worked around for now, uploads should work again. If not, please let someone in #wikimedia-tech on IRC know. Details and tracking info at phab:T98933. Legoktm (talk) 01:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Works now. AHeneen (talk) 01:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

SVG

I just made my first .svg-image with Inkscape. But the background is transparent, but it needs to be white (#FFFFFF). Could someone help me with this? (Sorry for my bad English, it's not my native language.) S078 (talk) 16:01, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Simple: Draw a white square and put it in the background. Alexpl (talk) 16:11, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, but I don't know how to do that… S078 (talk) 16:13, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Nevermind, I figured it out. Thank you for your help. S078 (talk) 16:19, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Sry. just uploaded it. Alexpl (talk) 16:20, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Somehow yours is sharper. I have no idea how to "draw a white square", but I just open the file in a text editor and add this line somewhere in the beginning, usually just after the <def></def> statement. Delphi234 (talk) 00:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
<rect width="100%" fill="#fff" height="100%"/>
This section was archived on a request by: ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?) 11:50, 25 May 2015 (UTC): very unspecific topic for COM:GVP

Same icons uploaded under different names

What should be done in the situation where the same icons are uploaded under different names?

A example can be seen in the below gallery:

The biggest issue I see here is when a problem in one file is fixed, it isn't fixed in the others unless someone is aware that the other files exist. (As I was typing this, I noticed Nuvola apps package.svg does not have a drop shadow, while the other two do).

So what should be done in these cases? Do we submit a request to have one image deleted and redirected to the other?Offnfopt(talk) 17:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I think if they are all exactly the same and they do not have any differences, I think that the first one that is uploaded should be kept and the others should nominated for deletion. But, I may be wrong since I am sort of new to Wikimedia Commons, in a sense that I came back here only recently after a long time. From, the friendly Doorknob 747 (talk) 18:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)  :)
They are not identical: File:Gnome-compressed.svg and File:Gnome-compressed.svg have a shadow File:Nuvola apps package.svg doesn't have. On the other hand, File:Nuvola apps package.svg is the only one that doesn't have embedded raster data. It is quite customary to have several digital reproductions of old paintings, so why not handle this in the same way and let the user decide which one to use? --El Grafo (talk) 09:48, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes the shadow, I've included more (raster) versions, one version of 2 and 3 should be deleted. Because both are uploaded in near same time, it should be the one with lesser usage or lesser proper name (I tagged 2 as dupe). ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)  10:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC) ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)  17:47, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
@El Grafo, the reason for not wanting multiple of the same SVG files is because you may have one user work to improve the markup of one file while a different user works to improve the markup of the second duplicate file. At the end of the day it is a waste of effort all because of multiple copies of the same image. With SVG being a vector/textual file format, it can at times take a bit more effort to get things just right without bloating the file size. (I also noted the drop shadow in my initial post.)
@Perhelion Thanks for the information, so rule of thumb is based on file usage and naming scheme. Offnfopt(talk) 20:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I must've missed the part about the shadow. I agree that we probably don't need that one twice. --El Grafo (talk) 15:15, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Offnfopt(talk) 20:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Getting translations from Wikidata

Is there currently an effort to enable use of Wikidata to get translations, and if yes, where can I follow the progress and/or help? Thanks --Reinhard Müller (talk) 09:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Reinhard, for this to properly work we first need arbitrary access to Wikidata items. Take for example Haarlem and Category:Haarlem, Haarlem is connected to d:Q9920 so we can use all the data (including translations) from this item. On Category:Haarlem we can't access this data, because this category is connected with a different item. With arbitrary access we can access the other item opening up a whole new world of possibilities. At the moment arbitrary access is being rolled to the first wiki's. We have several open bugs:
  • T49930 - "Allow accessing data from a Wikidata item not connected to the current page - arbitrary access (tracking)", the general overview bug
  • T98307 - "Deploy usage tracking and arbitrary access to commonswiki", enable the feature here
  • T89594 - "Use the arbitrary access to Wikidata feature on Commons (tracking)", all sorts of nice things we can do with the data
  • T89601 - "Build a Multilingual tag alternative in LUA using data from Wikidata", that's probably closest to what you want
How are your LUA skills? ;-) Multichill (talk) 19:47, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi Multichill, thanks for your reply, these links are certainly enough to keep myself up with the progress of this issue. I had a look at LUA and might try to play around a little with it when arbitary access is enabled. --Reinhard Müller (talk) 23:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
@Reinhard Müller: actually, we should have started with converting our templates to LUA yesterday. I was talking about that with @SamB: on irc:
First existing functionality has to be reimplemented in LUA, tested, debugged, deployed etc and when we're finally done, we can add new things like grabbing data from Wikidata. Multichill (talk) 19:59, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
@Multichill: : I'm not sure I fully understand. Which templates would you reimplement in LUA right now? --Reinhard Müller (talk) 20:59, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
@Reinhard Müller: : Well, any of those which we're hopeful to ad Wikidata support to once we have arbitrary access, like {{Authority control}}, {{Institution}}, and {{Creator}}, will first need their basic functionality reimplemented in Lua, and unlike the Wikidata features, we can start on the basic functionality now. The tracking ticket for places we want to use arbitrary Wikidata access is:
If we don't start now, then we'll look kind of silly when they finally roll out arbitrary access and nothing seems to happen. —SamB (talk) 02:18, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Ah, obviously I needed Commons:Structured data to understand where this is heading :-)
Sounds like an interesting project. If a rainy weekend comes up, I might have a look, but please don't hold your breath! --Reinhard Müller (talk) 16:49, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I make extensive use of Wikidata for the translation work that I do. Unfortunately a recent change to the formatting of Wikidata makes it very difficult to use now. I used to be able to just copy and paste the list of wikis with the file names into a spread sheet, but now I can not do that and just get garbage instead. That is an inexcusable change to Wikidata that needs to be corrected, so that the data, the wiki, whether it is FA/GA, and the file name, are in columns that are tab separated to enable using copy and paste. As a work around, you can get an unformatted copy of the data at https://www.wikidata.org/w/api.php?action=wbgetentities&format=xml&props=sitelinks&ids=Q42 (change Q42 to the item number that you want). There is also a third party display that can be used at https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1MGXcpD0SPFlkmzQonnf1xLIYxeGTpIlDvy3WjePPcqQ/edit?usp=sharing

To use it just change the query to the Q item you want and select the wikidata formatting that you want from the tab that says "Wikidata". You have to be logged in to Google to use it. Delphi234 (talk) 15:20, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Category:Petrol stations in Massachusetts and similar categories for other locations

I do not understand why we have changed this from Category:Gas stations in Massachusetts. The word "petrol" is not used in the United States. Categories are supposed to help people, especially people who are unfamiliar with Commons, to find images that they need for one reason or another. A person coming to Category:Buildings in Massachusetts to look for images of gas stations will conclude, incorrectly, that there are no images of gasoline stations in Massachusetts on Commons.

The following is from Commons:Naming_categories#Principles:

  • "Names of Commons categories should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists.
  • Category naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making categorization of media files easy and second nature."

We could argue all day whether the majority of English speakers use the word "gas" or the word "petrol", but it is clear that the word "petrol" is not used at all in the United States and therefore in following this principle it should not be used for locations in the United States. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:53, 7 May 2015 (UTC) @Jameslwoodward: this has already been reverted (or, more accurately, reversion has been requested of a bot. - Jmabel ! talk 14:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks both for the note and for the action. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:45, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
The only acceptable pinciple is that of terminological stability. Assuming that there is not a regional variant in the named object (as seems to be the case) we need and want the same word for the same concept regardless of location. Local specific of English dialectology, charming as they might be, are irrelevant, as are the stated concerns of addressing a local user’s base. There is only two ways about it, one right, and another wrong:
or:
There’s no 3rd alternative. If dialect diversitity (within English) is a principle to be held above terminological homogenity, then language diversitity should matter too — for the same exact reasons, now applying globally, not only within the confines of the English speaking world. It seems that it is still necessary to stress that English in Wikimedia Commons is a mere commodity, naturally chosen on practical grounds, and that its dialectological diversitity is for us a nuisance — quite opposite to what happens in the English Wikipedia. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 19:49, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Two more examples:
  • The same for the quaint use of "trolley" and "street car" for selected cases of what is termed a "tram" everywherelse, regardless of local language use.
  • The same, too, also for instances of exoticistic use of unnecessary non-English terms in specific countries/regions, such as "azulejo" instead of "tile" when used in Spanish- or Portuguese-themed categories.
(And there’s whole giant bunch more of these to get rid of.) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 20:05, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
For the record, w:en itself uses "en:Filling station" as the base term, with the appropriate terminological and dialectological discussion. Would it be suitable to rename the whole tree in Commons? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 11:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Possibly, although maybe "service station" would be better. --ghouston (talk) 11:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
I support using "gas station" in articles about facilities in the U.S. "Petrol" just makes me think of "Petrel", a seagull-like bird. BD2412 T 15:16, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Way to miss the point. (Also — articles…?) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 18:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Recognizability of category titles matters. Are there people in the English-speaking world who would not recognize "gas station"? BD2412 T 19:55, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
It should at least be expanded to "Gasoline stations", and according to Wikipedia that name is only used in North America. What do you think about "Filling stations" or "Service stations"?. These establishments do sell other prducts, like diesel and gas (as in LPG, not gasoline). --ghouston (talk) 05:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Only used in North America, where 70% of the native English speakers live.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't think there's any Commons policy to use a particular variant of English. The category tree is currently using a regional variant, "Petrol stations", which was the cause of the current discussion, and switching to a different regional variant is unlikely to help much. --ghouston (talk) 10:56, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Filling stations, service stations, fuel stations, all would be preferable to "petrol". The Wikipedia article is at w:Filling station. No one actually calls these "gasoline stations". BD2412 T 17:50, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
We have a general principle of locality on Commons. For instance we have "Railway stations in the United Kingdom" (because railway station is the British term) versus "railroad stations in the United States" (railroad being the American version). There is no such thing as a "gas station in Dorset", as no one in Dorset would use such a term. If there were a "gas station" in Dorset, it would presumably be a railway station serving a natural gas plant. "Petrol stations in Dorset" is correct, "Petrol stations in Massachusetts" is not. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:13, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
I hadn't heard about this. That would mean Tuválkin's second option with Category:Benzineras in Catalonia, and who knows what in Chinese. --ghouston (talk) 22:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Shouldn't that be Benzineras de Catalunya? Of course this variant fails the "category names in English" policy. But if we used the regional names, maybe Petrol stations in England, Gas stations in the USA and Service stations in Australia, then what would be used for non-English countries? A single name for the whole category tree is by far the superior option. --ghouston (talk) 22:37, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Only for the top of the tree. The branches need to be named using category names that make sense for that location. Gas stations in the U.S. for example. There is nothing wrong with Petrol stations having categories that include gas stations and service stations as well as petrol stations. Delphi234 (talk) 15:26, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't know. Logically the name doesn't matter much and it's better to pick one and use it everywhere. However if this idea is unpopular, then maybe you are right and we just have to put up with it until categories become translatable. After that, you'll presumably see "Petrol stations" everywhere if you select British English and "Gas stations" if you select American. There would be similar problems unifying the names of other categories that appear to be the same thing, such as Category:Terraced houses and Category:Row houses or the subcategories of Category:Controlled-access highways by country. --ghouston (talk) 22:39, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
I may be exaggerating the capabilities of Wikidata: it seems it doesn't support multiple versions of English [4]. In that case, there will actually be necessary to pick a single name if in future "Structured data" means that category intersections are specified dynamically (so that categories like Gas stations in the United States no longer exists, but are formed from "Gas stations" (or whatever the category is called) and "United States". However as I mentioned below, I don't think this is happening soon. --ghouston (talk) 23:28, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I wonder how soon it will be until one will be able to "view" category names in languages other than English while seeing the category trees. It would be especially helpful for Chinese, Japanese, and Korean viewers and editors. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:48, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I suspect it won't happen for years. Such a change would be probably be based on Commons:Structured data, which is currently on hold, and is nowhere near to encompassing categories. --ghouston (talk) 22:22, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

commonsarchive.org

Hi, The site http://commonsarchive.org/, which hosts RAW file for Commons is down. I tried to contact Dcoetzee, but no answer so far. Any idea what to do? Regards, Yann (talk) 20:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, he has been banned by the WMF and might not have anymore interest in this. --Túrelio (talk) 21:00, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, obviously. But this service is quite useful. Who could host such a site? And how to get a copy of the files there, if possible? Regards, Yann (talk) 21:17, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
@Yann: I just had a successful connection to the site. Apparently the DNS entry (somewhere) has expired, but googleing "commonsarchive.org" revealed its IP address is 50.17.253.13. Adding "50.17.253.13 commonsarchive.org" to local /etc/hosts, and navigate to http://commonsarchive.org/ should work. I think it's better to set up a DNS entry somehow. In the meantime, I'll see how to backup this wiki, as it might get broken anytime. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 07:20, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Right. It works for me that way. Thanks, Yann (talk) 07:52, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Yann and Zhuyifei1999 --The Photographer (talk) 22:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

@Yann and The Photographer: I backed up all the (publicly visible) revisions and all the current versions of files with the help of my modified version of wikiteam. Shall I create a read-only wiki to import them or publish the dump? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 12:05, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, whatever you can do. Yann (talk) 12:18, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
@Zhuyifei1999: Yes, please, you saved my life!, let me know when it is ready to change commonsarchive template. We hope that this problem can be solved soon. Everything seems to be that the domain expired and the owner is on vacation. --The Photographer (talk) 13:09, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
@Yann and The Photographer: All dumped are imported to tool labs, and I'll setup short urls tomorrow. I can't enable open registration because of the tool labs rules though, so this can't be a permanent solution.

@Yann and The Photographer: You can login via oauth now after oauth consumer ff6b05e3444853dac5c7f4b68c497bc7 is approved :D --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 09:34, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks!!! Zhuyi!!, what do you mean about "temporal solution" and i cant login:
Application Connection Error

"Commons Archive" is not approved as a Connected App. Contact the application author for help.

Connected OAuth app not approved, E005

BTW. I sended a email for Steinsplitter about severals problems for upload new RAWS, about of max file size and upload wizard. Thanks. --The Photographer (talk) 13:08, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

@The Photographer: Well, the OAuth app waiting for approval, so I just temporary disabled oauth. You should be able to login normally.Approved, could you retry login? Also I fixed max file size today during my IRC chat with Steinsplitter, could you do a test upload and see if it works? And do you mean I should install upload wizard? I just installed it :) --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 13:34, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • @Zhuyifei1999: I have two users this, and this, could you unificate it in "The Photographer", every commons user can log in commonsarchive wmflabs?. Please install upload wizard and chunked uploads, I need upload a RAW of 6 GB. I need upload 7zip, zip, rar, png, raw, dng...etc. I dont know if you know some way to check if a zip,rar or compressed file has a binary or password. Because we dont want virues there. Can I kiss you ? --The Photographer (talk) 14:45, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
I think it would be a security issue to allow 6 GB uploads. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:50, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
In the project Commons:Project to create spherical panoramas of important monuments, we are working (assuming a 5D Mk iii full frame camera) with the follow:
  • 14mm rectilinear: 12 shots and 98 megapixels (two rows of 5 and a zenith and nadir)
  • 16mm rectilinear: 14 shots and 128 megapixels (two rows of 6 and a zenith and nadir)
  • 24mm rectilinear: 24 shots and 289 megapixels (one central row of 8, two rows of 7 and a zenith and nadir)
  • 28mm rectilinear: 27 shots and 394 megapixels (one central row of 9, two rows of 8 and a zenith and nadir)
  • 35mm rectilinear: 42 shots and 616 megapixels (two central rows of 11, two rows of 9 and a zenith and nadir)
  • 50mm rectilinear: 58 shots 1.2 gigapixels (one central row of 16, two rows of 15, two rows of 10 and a zenith and nadir)

The more pixels you got the file will become bigger, in this case a panoramic of 245 images with a D300 camera make a bigest dng file ~ 6 GB ziped. --The Photographer (talk) 16:12, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Wow 6 Gegabytes! Even commons, which has a better backend than labs, can't deal with such a huge file. Would you break it down to smaller zips and try the upload? I'll work on the chunked upload feature tomorrow. As for who is allowed to login, it's currently decided that all autoconfirmeds and confirmed users on commons are allowed to login. Login of non-autoconfirmeds are not very necessary as they are new to commons anyways, and they might simply be spammers. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 17:18, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
If you have the free space (I'm not sure what the space limits on labs looks like), you could transfer it to your labs account via scp, and then run importImages.php to import it from the local file system. Bawolff (talk) 21:15, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Afaik 6 GB isn't a problem for labs nfs. But my internet connection is not good enough to download and upload 6 GB within a reasonable amount of time (nor I think Steinsplitter can). --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 01:00, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
@The Photographer: You can opt-in for Chunked uploads in toollabs:commonsarchive/wiki/Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-uploads, tested with a pdf version of Voynich manuscript --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 01:54, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Zhuyifei1999 for your help. I didn't know it is possible/allowed to install MediaWiki on the Labs. This looks like a good solution for the forseeable future. As I am admin on this archive, I will keep a watch about potential issues. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:05, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

@Zhuyifei1999: Can you try setting $wgTiffThumbnailType = array( 'jpg', 'image/jpeg' ); at the bottom of LocalSettings.php? Some raw file formats are close enough to tiff, that that might be enough to make them have thumbnails. Bawolff (talk) 21:51, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Tested, it worked, but it consumed a lot of time and memory to generate the thumb, making rendering very slow. I'd rather not risk the tool getting deleted because of too much consumption. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 01:00, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Domain Status: pendingDelete -- http://www.icann.org/epp#pendingDelete -- perhaps someone can grab the domain as soon as it is "dropped from the registry database". -- Rillke(q?) 22:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

How do I contact another user to tell him I appreciate a specific contribution of his to a specific wiki page?

Hello, I wish to contact "user:johndoe" to tell him a specific ONE PIECE of content he added to an article, was very impressive? I do not wish to use the content, alter it, or even see it again. So please do not think I need a different page I have already seen. While researching cuttlefish bones, I was very impressed with his "Aligned flight through image stack of µCT-data of a cuttlebone, top view.ogg" and I think it took him a long time to create this content, and would thus like to let him know his time was appreciated. How can I contact "User:johnDoe" to tell him myself, I appreciate this specific contribution/graphic to the Cuttlebone wiki? AND; Is this type of contact to show appreciation discouraged by the wiki community, because it may be considered a waste of a possibly busy author's valuable time? Thank you, Perry in Florida USA

If you look at the page history, there is a link you can use to Thank that edit. Alternatively, you can simply leave a comment into "user talk:johndoe" telling exactly what you said above. Platonides (talk) 22:56, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
To expand on that (the last question): Thanking users is highly encouraged. Basvb (talk) 00:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
And greatly appreciated. Simply thanking someone can make the difference between them taking the effort to make another contribution, or not. Delphi234 (talk) 15:41, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

May 08

Noctilucenta font release

Just an update, the libre font discussed earlier has seen its first release, under the name “Noctilucenta”! Go get it now!—♥ Kelvinsong talk 15:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Wow! -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 22:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks!!—♥ Kelvinsong talk 23:16, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Wow!++ Jee 03:06, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
How could we further promote the font? I really like that font for reading texts on screen in it. -- Rillke(q?) 22:18, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Any plans making LaTex packages? -- Rillke(q?) 22:19, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I would also propose to get this at meta:SVG fonts!? ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)  23:16, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks y’all!! <3 @Rillke the main problem is not enough people know about Noctilucenta—it currently only has 17 downloads and ten notes on its github repository… && I might make LaTeX packages once I fill it up with a more complete set of math symbols because right now it’s still missing a few important ones I think @User: Perhelion Dunno how to upload it to the wikimedia server but if you know how by all means do so lol!—♥ Kelvinsong talk 21:25, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
User:Kelvinsong, Noctilucenta is missing "ɮ" (or was, when I downloaded it). Any special reason? It is merely a conjoined "l"+"ʒ"… -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 10:53, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
I left out the digraph IPA letters because they are deprecated—i think you’re supposed to just write “lʒ” now—♥ Kelvinsong talk 12:52, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
That means that Noctilucenta is useless to typeset old documents using those deprecated characters, as well as new and old documents pertaining those deprecated characters. Too bad. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 19:56, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Alright I’ve released a new version that contains said glyphs @Tuválkin—♥ Kelvinsong talk 00:13, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Yay! -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 01:31, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Try to get it into Google fonts ;) Other things you might want to consider are release debian/ubuntu font packages etc. I'm sure some folks can help. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

@Kelvinsong: The "download font" buttons on your landing page returned 404. --99of9 (talk) 04:32, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

That's because Kelvinsong updated to v.1.01 (digraph IPA letters). Grab it from https://github.com/Kelvinsong/swiftday/releases -- Rillke(q?) 08:20, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
@99of9 this has been fixed—♥ Kelvinsong talk 20:36, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Question about images in a category

Pierpao submitted a bot request and I noticed there are currently a large number of pictures in Category:Files uploaded by Russavia (rename) and I wanted to ask about a couple things regarding those images and this has nothing really to do with Russavia but as a general question as I learn about things here in commons. Sorry if this example is a sensitive subject.

  1. Is it really appropriate to have user based work categories like this? I get needing to have maintenance categories but this seems unnecessary. Additionally so in this case since the user isn't allowed to edit.
  2. Several of the images in that category have borders. Should we mark them to have the borders cropped?
  3. Most importantly of the questions IMO, several of the images in this category are marked with a copyright tag. Should these even be allowed in commons if they are copywritten in this way. One example is this one but there are quite a few like it. Reguyla (talk) 17:16, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  1. They need to be in some kind of maintenance category so that people can find files which have been identified as needing renaming. Either keep them in the current category, or put them directly in Category:Media requiring renaming without the related template. I don't see any big need in changing the way the files currently are grouped.
  2. Yes. The first file I looked at already was in Category:Images from Flickr with borders.
  3. File:20100524- DSC6204 (4871747439).jpg has a copyright notice in the border. This means that you need to consider Commons:Watermarks#Legal issues with the removal of watermarks before removing the border per 2) above. These watermarks are allowed but unwanted. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:37, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Stefan4. Reguyla (talk) 20:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Fixed this one. Yann (talk) 07:26, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
I fixed several hundreds of files from these categories. But still more to do: 0 and 0. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:52, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

New graphing and mapping software

If you want to know more, then there's an upcoming talk about the new Vega-based graphing system this week. It's 13:00 PDT on Thursday, 14 May, which I think works out to 21:00 UTC. If you're interested, the link is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7DTn9jHnI0 There should be a demo as well as some technical information about how the system is built. Please share this link with anyone who may be interested. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 02:17, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

To get an idea of the sort of things you can do, here is a pie graph of how big all the subcategories of category:Sunsets_of_India_by_color are:


Bawolff (talk) 02:52, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I do hope someone in the development team has run through "The Visual Display of Quantitative Information" by Edward Tufte and similar works - especially the concepts of data-ink ratio (maybe data to screen-real-estate here) - look forward to this and I hope it is not all about pie charts. Shyamal (talk) 06:40, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Other examples are on MediaWiki. Bidgee (talk) 08:07, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Interesting, very very interesting. Thanks for the info. --El Grafo (talk) 12:22, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The video has a count down clock on it that shows how soon it will be starting. A bit over four hours from now. Delphi234 (talk) 15:33, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
    By the way, I would hardly call SVG and PNG's "last century". While the new graphing functions are handy they are not by any means a replacement for having a separate image, which offers many significant advantages. For example, you can create a chart on commons and it is instantly available everywhere. Create it on a wiki using graphing and you have to recreate it and separately maintain it on every wiki where it appears, which could be on over 100 separate wikis, each in their own language. One of the tricks that I use is to use {{CURRENTYEAR}} on each wiki if I know the chart is updated frequently, so that it never has to be changed, and every year will automatically display the right year for the chart date range. Delphi234 (talk) 15:55, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree, especially about the SVG - seems like it would have been easier to render SVG markup generated by a LUA module for instance. The SVG specification allows for parameters. Shyamal (talk) 03:00, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Of course images are not dead - after all, Graphoid, the Graph's backend, generates them to make page loading faster. My point was that we shouldn't post images that are very hard to change, when we can post the source data + graph info that converts that data into a picture or possibly even animation (once available). SVG is fairly complex to work with, and PNGs cannot be modified at all (need to be regenerated from the source). On the other hand, you do raise a very valid point that graphs, or more generically - any pages - cannot be transcluded from commons. That is a huge limitation in my opinion, and we really should work on allowing common repository of templates and lua code, usable by all wikis. --Yurik (talk) 14:33, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

@Shyamal: I was more interested in playing with the ability to create graphs from data about the wiki then the type, so I used a pie graph as it was the first example I came across. The graphing extension supports a wide variety of graphs types, and I believe you can even tell it to draw rectangles or other things in order to make custom graph types. As a matter of fact, the graph extension is not an entirely new graphing system, but actually taking an existing graphing program (Vega), and graphing (If you'll excuse my pun) onto MediaWiki. Bawolff (talk) 19:50, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

@Bawolff: I realized a bit later, after posting, that the Vega system is more generic. Shyamal (talk) 03:00, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
As a reminder, this is about to start now at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7DTn9jHnI0 and #wikimedia-office on irc. Bawolff (talk) 19:59, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

May 14

Deletion request question

I’d like help understanding why a deletion request was denied. The photo was originally titled “Church of Scientology Boston”. If you type that into Google search the commons photo (of the Church of Christ, Scientist) will show up. It’s not until you actually click into the commons picture that the new name shows. I think I understand why retaining licenses are important but this photo was misnamed for the first five years (only the description was changed four years ago). It’s only been correctly named for the last year.

User BASVB suggest using rename for this. How will that take care of the issue mentioned above- google image misdirecting and numerous years of being mislabeled? Is having five years of people potentially misusing a file worth keeping it for the one year it was correctly labeled? Thanks

Counter steer (talk) 19:07, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the image is now correctly named and labelled as File:Church of Christ, Scientist Boston.jpg. Typing "Church_of_Scientology_Boston" in Google leads you to File:Church of Scientology Boston.jpg as first result, which seems correct, too. Then, where is the problem?--Pere prlpz (talk) 22:20, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Google is probably finding the redirection link File:1408 px - Church of Scientology Boston.JPG that you already linked to. Maybe you'd have had more success asking for this link to be deleted, than trying to delete the correctly-named image itself. (I don't know if Commons has any policy about deleting misleading redirections.) --ghouston (talk) 01:06, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Google doesn't seem to be very aware of redirects. At least, the main reason given by proposers of widespread renaming policy is that Google just uses present file name. Then, I suppose that any remaining wrong Google search is just caused some cached result and will be fixed soon.--Pere prlpz (talk) 09:57, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the info, Pere prlpz, as I see it, the problem is that the second image that comes up in the search you mentioned, is also stored on commons.Wikimedia, but it's a different church. It's been two years since the file was moved. Since two years haven't corrected the issue with Google's cache, can the original file be deleted as --ghouston suggested? The whole time it was mislabeled it was misdirecting people. Keeping the two files that were created after it was correctly labeled means those linked to either renamed files will stay connected, while those linked under the old name were provided faulty info and unfortunately will loose the connection. Counter steer (talk) 16:50, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Google images always shows weird result after the first ones. If there is no clear result, even the first one might be weird. I think the problem is the way Google works, not the redirect. Pages linking both images and linking to Scientist and Scientolyo probably help to mess work engines. Deleting the redirect won't fix that. Furthermore, if people is misusing the image online, they will be fuelling Google misguiding.--Pere prlpz (talk) 22:11, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I've changed the redirect to point to the Scientology building. Anybody using the link was probably confused anyway. Now we can find out, giving a few months, whether it has any effect on Google image results. Alternatively, please revert my change if you think it's a bad idea. --ghouston (talk) 22:51, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you both. Counter steer (talk) 14:45, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

May 15

File:Can456man一二三名刺.JPG

please see the deletion request page. There is a dispute regarding photo of a Japanese celebrity, allegedly raised by a JAWP user Can456man claiming that he/she is from the celeb's management agency --Puramyun31 (talk) 01:27, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Batch deletion of files within a category

Hi, I've imported a number of files using the Flickr2commons tool, but have unfortunately messed up both the filename prefixes and the descriptions in these files. I think the easiest way to fix this would be to delete them all and re-import them again with corrected prefixes and descriptions. How would I go about doing this? I don't really want to add a delete request for each file individually. I believe that submitting a category deletion request only deletes the category and not the files within. Or can I batch-fix the filenames and descriptions?

All the files are in this category. I only want to delete/fix the files in the category, not the category itself or its subcategories (and their files).--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 07:10, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Bots/Work requests might be a good place to address this matter. VisualFileChange allows mass-deletion and edits on files contained in a category, including adding templates like {{Rename}} and using patterns from the file name grabbing information from the file's metadata. If you would be a little more specific about what should be changed, assessment whether it could be done without deletion - which is generally the preferred way to go - would be possible. -- Rillke(q?) 07:57, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
@Rillke: Thank you. Those tools look handy; I'll have a look at them. The things I need done are:
  1. In each filename in this category, replace "Tua Pek Kong Temple -" with "Ping Sien Si -".
  2. In each file's description, replace "[[w:Tua Pek Kong Temple, Sibu|Tua Pek Kong Temple]]" with "Ping Sien Si Temple".
  3. In each file's description, replace "[[w:Sibu|Sibu]]" with "[[w:Perak|Perak]]".
--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 10:09, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
@Cpt.a.haddock: Okay? (configuration, settings in profile) -- Rillke(q?) 11:15, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
@Rillke: OK x 100! Thank you! --Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 11:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

When are duplicates (with different licenses) not duplicates?

(As ur policies says, difficult/disputed admin decisions can be discussed on VP.)

OT: RRZEicons bad quality, AnonMoos had fixed most in whitespace and dimension

Cleaning or maintenance seems always be very difficult thing on Commons and more like a senseless doing, because people doing different things to the same issue. Concrete here, normally and common is, that whitespace is not a reason for keeping duplicates, normally and common is, that duplicates have not another license and author (normally and common is, that admins answer to his admin-decisions… but not on Commons as so often). What is this, can we give this as an extreme real example to the Commons policies? What is your opinion here? ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)  12:27, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

@Perhelion: Are all uploads of User:RRZEicons icons derived from the Tango project? If the only thing changed is some white space margin/padding, clearly all of them are copyfraud and out of scope anyway. I don't see a reason to keep such unused duplicates. --McZusatz (talk) 16:34, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your statement and opinion, that's also my opinion. The RRZEicons-set have a relatively amateurish quality (as you can see on every icon, see right, also noticeable on the filesize) some have also included raster-images (for example all people icons). But not all are full derived from the Tango-set, nearly all are combinations of existing symbols. IMO the tweaks are bad, like very dark shadow or only darker contours, or only colour changes, but this is not the topic. ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)  20:52, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Perhelion -- no-one disputed that the images had basically the same vector data, but that doesn't in itself necessarily mean that they're fully interchangeable and therefore functionally equivalent. The other issue was not raised in the original deletion nomination, and would better be addressed for all files simultaneously (not one at a time). AnonMoos (talk) 08:06, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello AnonMoos, that is difficult. What do you mean with "other issue"? If it means "copyfraud", this appears not to all and was also mentioned in the original deletion nomination. ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)  13:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

May 16

Flickr2Commons partial uploads

While doing license reviews yesterday and today, I've noticed a few uploaded using F2C that didn't fully upload. Doesn't look like a big issue, but each file had a different uploader. Maybe a minor bug. I've overwritten them directly, but they still need to be reviewed:

Hope that's all. Thanks. INeverCry 09:08, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

The British Library has media related to Magna Carta.

I thought people might enjoy this embroidered version of the Commons logo, taken from Magna Carta (An Embroidery), a 40-foot long recreation in needlework of the en-wiki article Magna Carta as it stood in May 2014, that was unveiled at the British Library on Thursday.

Further images at c:Category:Magna Carta (An Embroidery). Jheald (talk) 14:01, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Could you please link to the files (eg. [[:File:Embroidered_commons_logo.jpg]] = File:Embroidered_commons_logo.jpg), rather than displaying them? Bidgee (talk) 14:32, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
I could do that, but I thought people might like to actually see them. Incidentally, why isn't the indenting working when there's a left-justified image? Jheald (talk) 16:03, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Jheald, left-floating of blocks and indentation doesn’t play along together (especially horrible if there’s bulleting), that’s a long standing issue in HTML. I took the liberty of floating both images to the right. (Were this Arabic or Hebrew text, they should be floated to the left.) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 12:52, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
To be frank, I don't like the commons logo at all; looks too similar to the mars symbol, or even worse with its 8 spears. -- Rillke(q?) 19:31, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, I enjoyed it, even if no one else did... AnonMoos (talk) 08:09, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I liked it. Instead of just the t-shirts at https://store.wikimedia.org , WMF should sell some classy shirts with project logos embroidered on, imo. Bawolff (talk) 09:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Selling? I think WMF has enough money to give a t-shirt for free to commons volunteers :-P. Or a commons coffee cup? --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:00, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Very cool, to see our logo (fugly or purty) in the “flesh” like that. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 12:52, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Give someone you appreciate a t-shirt

Dear all,

do you know any awsome Wikimedians? Nominate them for a free Wikimedia t-shirt. It is just like a barnstar, only you can wear it.

All the best, --ThePolish 14:15, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I thought that had ended, seems I was wrong! Bidgee (talk) 14:30, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
It has started another time and will continue. :D --ThePolish 08:54, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

May 17

File:Vladas Dzindziliauskas 1933.jpg Deletion

Hi,

What was the problem with the file Vladas Dzindziliauskas 1933.jpg that was deleted by Edgars2007 request? Possibly Edgars2007 has some strictly personal problems with this file.

All the files, that I'm uploading (exept two Rema Abdo 1984 LA.jpg and Balys Giedraitis.jpg that was not made my me; and I've no claims about those two) are legal and has all leagal rights for sharing it in Lithuania. The most of my shared files goes from the personal archives of people that are on pictures. The most of those pictures were kept hidded by the family members (in many cases risking to be prosecuted by the Soviet Communist regime and it's watchdogs - KGB) during all the second Soviet occupation of Lithuania (1944-1990). Now we are free and can uncover and share our historical pictures without any risk to be prosecuted by KGB. I hope that Wikimedia has no problems about freedom of Lithuania.

Please return the file Vladas Dzindziliauskas 1933.jpg that I've spent a more than a few hours to be prapaired and made ready to be published on Wikimedia on it's proper places: Hereand here

I've hundreds of other interesting, original and very rare (restricted by the Soviet Communist Regime in Lithuania for many years), but the same legal files about the First Republic of Lithuania (1918-1940) to be shared here, but I don't want to waste my time and effords because of someones like Edgars2007 personal state of mind. I suppose this person somehow missunderstood and became angry on me, when I've tried to share the file Rūdolfs Jurciņš 1934.jpg - old friendly carricature - drawing by Lithuanian artist A. Čepas of Latvian sports celebrity from 30-ties on Latvian Wiki page about this famous Latvian pre-war basketball player.

By my opinion it was very stupid and inappropriate reaction by the colleague Edgars2007 from Latvia, because all the sports celebrities in pre-war Lithuania and also Latvia were very popular models for such graphic artists like A. Čepas and others. The degree of popularity of famous Lithuanian and Latvian pre-Soviet occupation sports stars can be indicated now by the quantity of caricature portraits of them, that were published then. Because the quality of photography in the pre-war press was comparatively law, the caricature drawings were so popular. So my sharing the file Rūdolfs Jurciņš 1934.jpg on Latvian article about the Rūdolfs Jurciņš was not of any bad intentions, but otherwise - I just wanted to illustrate how popular he was (also in Lithuania).

You should correct the author and source information of most of your uploads. For example you describe yourself as the creator of the drawing File:Antanas Lingis 1934.jpg and you declare copyright on it. In fact you are not the creator, the creator is likely not unknown and the copyright status is unclear. Regretably you provided false author and source info with the majority of your uploads.
To answer your question: The problem with named files is that you provided false information and that the license you selected is obviously wrong: You are not the copyright holder, the file has to be public domain for a verifiable reason. With your first upload (File:E J Harrison-Mark Twain.JPG) you did everything right, regretably thats the only good upload I found. --Martin H. (talk) 11:38, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees elections 2015

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

Voting has begun for eligible voters in the 2015 elections for the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. Questions and discussion with the candidates for the Board will continue during the voting.

The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees is the ultimate governing authority of the Wikimedia Foundation, a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization registered in the United States. The Wikimedia Foundation manages many diverse projects such as Wikipedia and Commons.

The voting phase lasts from 00:00 UTC May 17 to 23:59 UTC May 31. Click here to vote. More information on the candidates and the elections can be found on the 2015 Board election page on Meta-Wiki.

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

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery 17:20, 17 May 2015 (UTC) • Translate • Get help

And to showcase what’s have been WMF’s work this last couple years, today login is borked and cat-a-lot stopped working. A stern remind on how to vote. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:49, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Turns out it is “only” central login that’s broken today. It is showing me pages with only some of my preferences implemented, so cute. Hitting refresh a few times fixes it, eventually. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:55, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

May 18

"Caves of" or "caves in"

Hello, should one speak of "Caves of" or "caves in", e.g. Caves of France / Caves in France ? --Havang(nl) (talk) 10:51, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

As all 104 subcategories of Category:Caves by country use "Caves of X" I´d keep it that way (although "Caves in" would seem more logical to me because it refers to geographical location instead of possession - but I wouldn´t bother to change hundreds of categories just to be a little more correct). --Rudolph Buch (talk) 11:07, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree that "in" is the correct usage but given that the vast majority of similar categories use "of", it isn't worth the effort of changing the names as well as moving potentially hundreds of files. Green Giant (talk) 12:24, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I can fix it using my bot if you like? --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:21, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Well if you're volunteering...then yeah I would support changing to "in". Green Giant (talk) 15:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Correct also small to capital in Category:Caves of kurdistan. --Havang(nl) (talk) 18:50, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
✓ Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:54, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
How many subcategories of Category:Geography by country could this potentially apply to? Lakes, mountains, beaches etc.? --ghouston (talk) 22:56, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

@Steinsplitter: , don't forget to fix any category redirects that result from this - just now Category:Caves of the United Kingdom redirected to Category:Caves in the United Kingdom and vice versa. I've fixed that one, but there's probably more.   An optimist on the run! 06:07, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

@Optimist on the run: Fixing what exactly? Looks fine for me. --Steinsplitter (talk) 06:10, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
See [5] Optimist on the run (logged on as Pek the Penguin) - talk 06:52, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
There is nothing i can do. It has just moved the cat description. --Steinsplitter (talk) 06:59, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Surprise: there are many more to do, if it's worth to do: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=Category%3ACaves+of&title=Special%3ASearch&go=Go . --Havang(nl) (talk) 09:35, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. I am going to call this an exercise in futility. Of is more grammatically correct for an object that is associated with a location than in, even though it is technically within a geographical location. I see 2200 of one 2400 of the other, with no reason to move one to the other just to make them the same, when you are actually slightly changing the meaning. A cave that spans three states, but is associated with Kentucky, can never be called "in Kentucky". Delphi234 (talk) 20:27, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Africa 2015

We are discussing themes for next fall photo contest. If you feel like weighing in and making suggestions, please do Commons:Wiki Loves Africa/2015 theme ideas Anthere (talk) 11:19, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

May 19

Trouble uploading video... upload restarts over and over

I'm trying to upload a video to File:Black_slug_at_Medieval_graveyard_near_Lewino_Poland_17_May_2015.ogv. It's about 90MB. I'm using the Upload Wizard. The first time I tried it gave me some error (forget what exactly) and said to retry. Now every time I retry, the upload progress bar counts down to zero, and then restarts with a larger and larger expected time for the upload to finish. But it never finishes and quickly get to the point where it will take longer than a day to upload. My internet connection is fine so it's something on the Common's side. Ideas how to proceed? Jason Quinn (talk) 10:14, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Moved question to Commons:Upload help#Trouble uploading video... upload restarts over and over. Jason Quinn (talk) 15:54, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

ship cabins

There doesnt seem to be a category for passenger cabins on ships. There is Category:Berths (sleeping). Most cabins are standardized by compagny so please dont make a subcategory per ship.Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

There’s some stuff at Category:Ship compartments. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 12:40, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
I made a new Category:Ship cabins. Unfortunately Cabin is a word used for lots of things.Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:18, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Help with new template

Hello. I created a new template for images made by INPE (a Brazilian space research agency) which makes a lot of Remote sensing images, licenced under CC BY-SA. However, I can't manage to make the template to display the correct licence (it shows CC BY Brazil for some reason). Can anyone help me? Mateus S. Figueiredo (talk) 23:45, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

@Mateussf: You've used {{Cc-by-3.0-br}}, which gives you CC-BY Brazil. If you want CC-BY-SA Brazil, you'll have to change that to {{Cc-by-sa-3.0-br}} (note the additional "sa"). However, it seems that they use the "unported" version, so what you really want is {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}} (without the "br"). Hope that helps? --El Grafo (talk) 07:59, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
It did help. I wasn't sure where the problem was but now I've located it. Thank you very much! Mateus S. Figueiredo (talk) 14:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

May 21

Do we have any standard about form of date in the Information template?

Do we have any standard about how to fill in date in the Information template? I keep having people make changes opposite to my uploads; that is, if I do it one way, people will "fix" it to the other and vice versa. For example, if I put a date like 2009-12-10 I've had people turn that to {{taken on|2009-12-10}}, but I've also seen people remove {{Taken on}} and turn it back to 2009-12-10; I've had people or bots turn, say, {{other date|circa|1935}} to {{circa|1935}} and vice versa. - Jmabel ! talk 03:12, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Information has a whole section on filling out the Date field. Sadly it doesn't say anything about specifying the time zone. --ghouston (talk) 03:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
As the documentation of the {{tl|Information} template explains the date field is for "Date of creation, when the original source (such as photograph of 3-D scene, digital file, or original 2-D artwork) was created". In my opinion, in case of most photographs form "2009-12-10" is preferable to {{taken on|2009-12-10}}; however you might have a case when you are photographing a sculpture and would like to provide date of creation for the sculpture and for the photograph, and then {{Taken on}} might be handy. As for {{other date|circa|1935}} and {{circa|1935}}, they are exactly equivalent as they both call module:Complex date. I usually do not like multiple templates that provide exactly the same functionality as they just add to the confusion, and my bot might have been converting {{Circa}} to {{other date|circa}} years ago, but at this stage both templates are with us to stay. Historically {{Circa}} begone it's life as shortcut for {{other date|circa}}, which become it's own template in order to fix "expansion depth limit" problems, but now both templates are just an interface for module:Complex date. --Jarekt (talk) 12:22, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Then I will stick 2009-12-10 rather than {{taken on|2009-12-10}} and {{circa|1935}} rather than {{other date|circa|1935}}, on the theory that simpler is better. I wish people would stop screwing with them once I do this, though. - Jmabel ! talk 15:06, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

What does the template int:wm-license-artwork-artist etc mean in Template:Artwork? and more

The Naturalis museum i work with as a wikipedian in residence would like a new comprehensive data ingestion template for a natural history museum (so plant/animal species, books/journal articles, and art about plants and animals must be catered for). I am in doubt whether i should imitate Template:Shipwreck or Template:Artwork. Shipwreck has a separate /layout file, Artwork works with - to me - arcane templates like int:wm-license-artwork-artist which produces the nice blue field name - i can't find the source template for this, probably dumb of me, so i can't adapt it to new variables. Can expert(s) give me some advice? also on the whole business of making such a template elegantly? Thanks a lot, kind regards, Hansmuller (talk) 10:27, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

PS. I tried out some at User:Hansmuller/Naturalis, Template:User:Hansmuller/BioHist and User:Hansmuller/BioHist Hansmuller (talk) 10:40, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
int means transclude from mediawiki namespace plus some translation magic based on user preference. See mediawiki:wm-license-artwork-artist and mw:extension:WikimediaMessages (the "why" is kind of complex and involves some historical and technical factors). Bawolff (talk) 12:01, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
By the way, the "source code" for mediawiki:wm-license-artwork-artist is at [[6]]. There is some explanation of "int:" at Help:Namespaces. --Jarekt (talk) 12:27, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

{{CC-BY}}

Why does {{CC-BY}} redirect to {{Cc-by-1.0}} instead of {{Cc-by}}? The problems with the {{Cc-by}} template also apply to {{CC-BY}}. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:05, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Image question with possible problems in background

I would like to accept the permission statement for File:Liran Dan.JPG

but I am concerned about the background image. I know about the concept of de minimis, but this may not qualify.

One option is to request that the uploader crop the image, if the goal is to provide an image of the subject. Another option is that we could do it ourselves.

The current use of the photo doesn't seem to require the background, so cropping might even be helpful. However, I'd like some feed back on best steps forward.--Sphilbrick (talk) 15:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

There is way too much focus on the background for this to be de minimis. The man is not even in the middle of the picture. If we need a picture of the man, then the picture needs to be cropped so that most of the background goes away. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:02, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Stefan in that it isn't DM, based on my understanding of COM:TOO#Israel that the threshold is somewhat higher than the UK but still lower than the USA, which affects three of the background images. I'm guessing that about two thirds of the file needs cropping away. Green Giant (talk) 23:21, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

May 22

Preview?

Is preview not working? I updated a file, but there was no preview. The file uploaded fine, but I rely on preview to make sure that I selected the correct file. Delphi234 (talk) 23:50, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Preview appears to be back now. Delphi234 (talk) 02:46, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

May 23

Notification of DMCA takedown demand - A village in Gandaki, Annapurna Range, Nepal.jpg Takedown

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):

To discuss this DMCA takedown, please go to COM:DMCA#A village in Gandaki, Annapurna Range, Nepal.jpg Takedown Thank you! Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 08:04, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Uttar Durgapur ,Shyampur , Howrah submited by Totan Nandi

village name - Uttar Durgapur , post office of vill. -Uttar Durgapur , Police Station -Shyampur Police Station , Name of Block of this vill. - Shyampur (II) , Nearest picnic spots -Gorchumuk (58 gate /attanna gate ) & Gadiara , Temples of vill. - Sitala Temple , Shiva Temple , kali Temple etc. School of vill. - Durgapur B.A. High School (H.S.) & Durgapur Boys Primary School & Durgapur Girl Primary School etc. Market of village- Joi Guru Market . Grame Panchaet Member - Gopal Gayen , Ideal Teacher - Pranab Mondal , Brilliant Student -Sumana Hazra , Shabani Hazra , Supriti Bera , Sourav Hazra , Sushobhan Nandi , Shantanu Hazra etc. Ideal Bisness Man -Sukumar Santra , Engineer -Koushik Nandi , TV Channel - Durgapur Cable , Tali Karkhana - Hazra Brothes , doctors - Uttam Das , Swapan Das , Club - Durgapur Jajabar Sangh , Boul Singer - Dibakar Sen , Dances - Bulet Gayen , Subhankas Das , Mastar Sanjay , Samnath Bag , Monatosh etc. Rabindra Sangite Singer - Pampa Chakrabarti , writer of boul song - Dibakar Sen & Sushobhan nandi . Commiunity organization - Durgapur Mahila Samiti. Submitted by Totan Nandi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Totannandi55 (talk • contribs)

What do you want to tell us by this? --Túrelio (talk) 09:46, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Category:Wikidata_desde_Wikipedia

Wrong language, please rename category. -2A02:810D:27C0:5CC:19D:4544:A304:BFC5 13:16, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done Thibaut120094 (talk) 15:47, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

May 25

There should be a anti-pornography project of some sort on Wikimedia Commons.

Note: I am not talking about images that have arrows pointing to parts that have text stating the names of those parts, I do understand that they are allowed on wikimedia commons. But, what I am going to be talking about are images that do not.contain text and do not show any educational significance.

There are images if one searches genetal or mammilary parts, that do not have arrows and text.showing theire educational significance. Now I do understand if there is just one image like that I can understand I does have some sort of educational purpose since one can clearly be able to understand it from a clear unarrowed or texted image, but when there are multiple different images of it with no arrows or texts depicting the parts of it, it evidently.states that it was uploaded for non educational purposes. Multiple images like these almost count towards phonographic images, which according to the rules of Wikimedia commons, is not allowed.

This is the reason why I am suggesting there is a anti-pornography project in Wikimedia commons, where the projects purpose is to find these images and alert admins or higher account authority to remove those images, and warn the phonographic up loaders about the wrongs that they are doing.

I hope that this is taken under consideration. Thanks in advance. From the friendly, Doorknob 747 (talk) 23:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

We should certainly delete all files which are illegal under United States law, and not allow multiple redundant low-quality drunk cellphone penis selfies to accumulate. However, pornography is not actually outside of Commons scope in all cases. See Help:Sexual content etc. AnonMoos (talk) 04:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
It should be made much more clearer on what they consider uneducational and educational on non low res pics, if you search "vagina" you will find countless numbers of images, but, you may find multiple images that are exactly or look exactly the same. What I really mean is that, it is OK if there is one of each of those types of different types of images that you can find, but, then there should not be multiple of them. Example, if there is a image of a vagina taken upside down and an image taken side ways of the same person, one of those images should be deleted since they are showing the same thing. There is no educational purpose of uploading images that are similar to images that already exist in here. From, the friendly Doorknob 747 (talk) 18:08, 26 May 2015 (UTC)  :)
We very rarely have too many images. There is nothing wrong with multiple similar images, unless it becomes excessive, such as low quality penis selfies. It would not be good to delete an image just because it was taken in a different orientation - someone might want to use one, someone else the other one. I would not be concerned about multiple similar images unless it got into the hundreds. I think that the only image that we have of Type IV FGM is not even a woman, for example. Delphi234 (talk) 03:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

May 26

Commons:Bureaucrats/Requests

There are a few new crat candidates at Commons:Bureaucrats/Requests if you're already not noticed. Jee 06:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Bureaucrat Bonanza

As is customary when requests are made for advanced rights, I'll add this notification that two more nominations were made after Jee's announcement. This brings us to a total of 7 nominations:

Regards, --99of9 (talk) 00:35, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Font changed in (some) user boxes?

Is this only me seeing these two user boxes in different fonts?

Village pump/Archive/2015/05 is the unique login of this user for all public Wikimedia projects.
This user has created a global account and the main one is on Commons.

(I’m using Monobook.) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:49, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Never mind, it went away now: Both boxes showing Monobook’s default again, not Vector’s. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

May 28

6,000 files missing permission

I'm not sure how we best handle such situations, but there is one in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Files from the Seoul Metropolitan Fire and Disaster Headquarters. I think that it is also a good idea to mention this at the village pump since it affects quite a lot of files. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Necessito de Ajuda Pois Duas Fotos Minhas Foram Eliminadas e as Outras Estão em Análise

Necessito de Ajuda Pois Duas Fotos Minhas Foram Eliminadas e as Outras Estão em Anãlise[editar] Eu tirei as fotos de patrimônios históricos e públicos da cidade de Ilhéus e de outras regiões e dois usuários solicitaram eliminação imediata dos seguintes arquivos : File:Morro de Pernambuco Ilhéus Bahia.JPG e File:Baía do Pontal - Ilhéus Bahia 1.jpg . E solicitou aviso de eliminação dos seguintes ficheiros se assim a comunidade permitir após análise : Affected:

Os usuário que solicitaram foram: Yours sincerely, Yann (Discussão) 19:26, 28 May 2015 (UTC) e Achim (Discussão) 19:13, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Solicito uma revisão, pois essas fotos foram retiradas por mim e necessito uma resposta de qual o motivi do pedido de eliminação ?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Max Muller Dos Santos Bispo (talk • contribs)

May 29

Where?

I suspect around Helsinki with the M suburban train. Meanwhile I managed to classify nearly all European pictures from Category:Images uploaded by Natuur12 (clcean up2). From nearly 380 pics to less than 160.Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:35, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Helsinki central railway station, before 2001-2003 rebuilds. MKFI (talk) 05:33, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

There are stil 3 European pic of diesel locs wich I cant locate. I suspect a Baltic state.Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:50, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Class Tep 70 it seems. (Cyrillic signs + soviet logo + Google) --Sebari (talk) 18:55, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Maybe this wil provide more local information.Smiley.toerist (talk) 22:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, the serial number seems to be TEP70-0052 (in cyrillic), which was a locomotive of soviet railroad (SŽD). The tags on Flickr for those two images include Estonia. But several russian train enthusiast pages seem to hint at the fact that it is driving for the South Eastern Railway or the October Railway nowadays (both subsidiaries of the Russian Railway). So probably a russian locomotive in Estonia? --Sebari (talk) 15:17, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Likely: the photografer seems to spend most of his time in Estonia. I try to get the photografer category sorted by date but this takes a lot of time. He cant be in two countries at the same time.Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:43, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
One closer to home. Location?Smiley.toerist (talk) 08:28, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd say the EWS locos are somewhere on the Midland Main Line because the photos either side of it on the Flickr photo stream it came from are at Loughborough and St Pancras. It could be Leicester, the tower blocks in the background seem to fit with this image from Google Street View. Gasheadsteve (talk) 14:01, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

@Smiley.toerist: - Consensus at en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways is that the British photograph is Leicester.   An optimist on the run! 21:41, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
From wich station in Tokio? From the timing it must be in Tokio. By the way the camera has a time difference of about 9 hours with Japanese time.

May 20

Ideas on how to allow for navigation of categories for non-English speakers? (particularly non-Latin language users)

I have used and contributed to the Wikimedia Commons for several years, and one thing I have noticed is that navigation for users of non-Latin/non-European languages may have a difficult time

Reasons:

The Commons should make use easier for existing userbases which use non-Western languages. In particular: Arab League, the former Soviet Union, Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong, Macau, and ROC/Taiwan.
With more and more users from Mainland China coming online, the Wikimedia community should cater to and serve them to expand Wikimedia's global knowledge base and impact.

In particular I am very interested in making Wikimedia easier to use for Chinese, Japanese, and Korean users. Currently category names cannot be configured to appear in languages other than English, so navigation is difficult for these users. I want to have an alternate navigation system to allow ease of use for these users.

One idea is to implement navigational images such as those in Category:Eiffel_Tower. Langswitch can be implemented over each label, so the labels of the navigation images CAN be changed to be displayed in East Asian languages. In particular I want to implement this in categories of major world sites/destinations and also major sites in Japan, South Korea, Mainland China, Taiwan/ROC, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Singapore, Hong Kong, Macau.

Does anyone have any other ideas on how to implement alternate navigation systems for users of East Asian languages? WhisperToMe (talk) 08:54, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Why would English category names be less alien to, say, a monolingual Spaniard, than to a citizen of (officially English-speaking) Hong-Kong or India? What is a “western” language? (Ask a linguist: they dont have use for that concept.) Is a Hebrew-spelled Romance language like Sephardic more or less “Latin” than Latin-spelled Malay or Basque? Why would Japanese (of all people!) need your help in the use gadgetry? If we’re going for stereotypes here, at least let get them straight first… This mixing up between languages and alphabets/scripts, between content and interface — this is all very strange.
Anyway, there is some work going on, apparently (see above), to separate category names from category “essence” (as it is now, a category is its name, it is merely a “tag” (a collection of tagged items in a free-form tree-like structure), and by policy they are in English unless when it is a proper name), but it seems to be still in the realm of vaporware.
-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 12:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
They're less alien to speakers of European languages because oftentimes people can rely on cognates. Victor H Mair, a Sinologist, talks about this here when explaining why it's harder for an English speaker to leatn Chinese compared to Spanish: http://pinyin.info/readings/texts/moser.html - In the case of South Asia the administration and mattersof business, and especially things related to science and technology, are done in English instead of the South Asian languages WhisperToMe (talk) 14:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
In general there is need for localized categories. It should be no problem, if all categories would be translated and redirected to the english named ones. Even for me as a westerner it's difficult to find the most appropriate category.--Kopiersperre (talk) 21:17, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
I also support having non-English category names redirect to English ones. I think that in addition there is a need for displaying category names in non-English languages. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:45, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Is that technically difficult? Dentalplanlisa (talk) 22:46, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

OpenOffice Document made by myself

I would like to upload a Organizational Chart made by OpenOffice programme, but i can't able to do (It seems Commons doesn't allow ".odp" files). My programme is available in these format: odp, odf, sxi, sti, ppt, sxd, uot, odg, . What ot those is the most appropiate?. --Ravave (talk) 18:39, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

OpenOffice Draw supports SVG export, which is a good file format for such graphics and allowed on Commons. --rimshottalk 22:52, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Interesting. I use Open Office Calc to create images, and then copy and paste them into Paint, to publish them as a png, but I can in fact copy and paste it into Open Office Draw, which creates an svg that looks sort of okay in the browser, but is not rendered at all here. See File:Swansons-law.svg. Totally trashed, but if you click on it it looks fine, well sort of - it is not formatted very well, but at least the legends are not all bunched up in one corner. Delphi234 (talk) 00:44, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
"Clicking on it" means that your browser's subsystem or chosen program for handling SVG displays it, which is different for different people. There are incompatibilities between the generated SVG file and the RSVG program which I fixed... AnonMoos (talk) 01:38, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Is there an easy way to fix them? For me it was an interesting exercise but not a very useful tool, unless there is an easy way to make it compatible with RSVG. Delphi234 (talk) 02:43, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
I mainly eliminated the multiple redundant x-coordinate values in text positioning specifications. They're of very limited usefulness unless you know with 100% certainty that the SVG-displaying program will use exactly the same font as the SVG-creating program (not the case here), and the "RSVG" software used on Commons chokes on them... AnonMoos (talk) 04:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


Thank you very much to you. You have been helpful. I just uploaded as PDF format and now is free. If you want to use on Wikipedia, go ahead!. --Ravave (talk) 08:11, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

However, PDF files thumbnail as JPEGs, and it's often difficult to control PDF-file margins. AnonMoos (talk) 04:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Just throwing this out here: Export as PDF and use pdftosvg. This will probably export the text as curves, but I will look exactly like the PDF (which will look exactly like the OpenOffice document). --Dschwen (talk) 04:02, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
pdftosvg -- Rillke(q?) 20:42, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

animal sounds!

As best as I can tell, these aren't in Commons: [7] -- cc-by-sa animal sounds from the Museum fur Naturkunde in Berlin. An uploading project? -- Phoebe (talk) 02:43, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

As they are in mp3 format wouldn't they also require reprocessing? Rmhermen (talk) 23:15, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

The Atomium: copyright law.

I was looking for a picture of the Atomium (a structure in Belgium) and found that none existed on its English Wikipedia page. Then I learned that all photographs of The Atomium are automatically copyrighted according to Belgian law. However, they are not according to U.S. law.

I noticed a concerted campaign to | delete all photographs of the Atomium from both Wikipedia (where such copyright strictly does not apply as Wikipedia follows US copyright), and Wikimedia Commons, where such copyright as exists in Belgium may not apply to images posted here.

Wikimedia Commons copyright policy is that an image must be allowable in both the country of origin as defined by the Berne Convention, and in the U.S., and possibly other countries involved.

A US person taking a photograph of the Atomium could be said to have their "art" originate from their country of origin, if they post this work in the US. Even if they don't, some recent case law says non-US persons posting their works to US servers make the US the country of origin.

Thus, it seems clear to me that if a photograph of the Atomium is put on a US server, or if it is published by a US person on US soil, its country of origin would be the US, and thus allowable under Wikimedia Commons copyright policy. In any case, it would be allowable under any circumstances under Wikipedia copyright policy.

Assuming that there is no debate regarding this, what can be done to make sure that new photographs of the Atomium posted on Wikimedia Commons or at least on Wikipedia are not repeatedly deleted? (or, at least, moved to Wikipedia) --Agamemnus (talk) 19:45, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

In case of sculptures and architecture we always need to think about copyrights of 2 people: the sculptor/architect and the photographer. Both of those copyrights must be allowable in both the country of origin and in the US. A US person taking a photograph of the Atomium maybe can claim country of origin as US, but the architect's country of origin is still Belgium as you say there the work is copyrighted. --Jarekt (talk) 20:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Isn't this (considering both the architect and photographer) a concept of Belgian copyright law, rather than US copyright law? --Agamemnus (talk) 20:43, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Hmmm. But the country of origin of the Atomium as an artwork in itself is obviously Belgium and every picture of it would be a derivative work thereof, which at the very least makes the situation more complicated. Also it seems questionable to me whether the Atomium would qualify as a building rather than an artwork/sculpture under US copyright ("intended to house individuals", see Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#United_States) … --El Grafo (talk) 20:21, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Let's say that it is artwork, for the sake of argument. A photograph of a (copyrighted) 2-dimensional artwork would definitely have copyright restrictions in the US, since otherwise the concept of 2D artwork copyright would be meaningless. But photos of 3-dimensional artwork, displayed in a public space? I do not see how it can be restricted under US copyright law... --Agamemnus (talk) 20:53, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
It's restricted because it's not explicitly allowed. Please read the whole section of COM:FOP I linked above: There is an exception for architecture in US-law, but none for artworks such as sculptures even if permanently installed in public places (unless they're old enough to be free because of age). --El Grafo (talk) 21:12, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
By the way, checking some stuff online, it seems clear that the Atomium is definitely able to "house" individuals, as each sphere has actual rooms you can walk around and presumably (if you wanted to) even live in.--Agamemnus (talk) 04:58, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Copyright law in the US does not work by exclusion. Photos of buildings are explicitly excepted from copyright issues, but if 3D artwork is not explicitly excepted, it does not mean that the copyright of derivative work automatically belongs to the owner of the copyright of the artwork, nor that such a copyright for derivative works can be even assigned. This section you cited actually mentions Gaylord vs. The United States, 2008, which involved the US Postal Service selling a stamp depicting a photo of Mr. Gaylord's Korean War sculpture. The court found that the United States did not infringe on Gaylord's copyright of the artwork. The court did say that the building exemption doesn't apply to sculptures, but the plaintiff asserted that reproductions were owned by him as well, and the court did not say this was the case. --Agamemnus (talk) 22:00, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Let me add that I see that this was overturned by the US Court of Appeals in 2010, and the court found that it was not fair use. In neither case however is there an affirmative stance that the photos themselves are copyrighted by the author. --Agamemnus (talk) 00:17, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Hopefully this will become a thing of the past, if Julia Reda's report is accepted. Highly unlikely, but we can dream can't we? Green Giant (talk) 21:15, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
This is fascinating :) Out of curiosity, there are a few paintings of The Atomium available for sale. Is such use acceptable? Perhaps a photograph of one of them could be arranged :) --Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 08:11, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
It's not the fact it's a photograph, but that it is a derivative work of the structure that makes it not ok. That means there is no difference between a photo and a painting, its just when FOP is relevant, the overwhelming majority of the derivative works are photos.
I don't get why there isn't an image on en.wp - surely fair use would make it acceptable there?--Nilfanion (talk) 09:41, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Such an image formerly existed there, and it was properly tagged with {{Do not move to Commons|reason=USonly}}, a template that says "This image is free in the US but not the source country". I don't know what happened to it. Nyttend (talk) 12:30, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Found it. The file was deleted per this discussion. Deletion reason was nothing to do with the Atomium, but simply a Flickr license change. That meant the copyright of the photo was questionable, as en doesn't have the Flickr review process.
Replacement image should be easy to find, but ideally, should not be from Flickr.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:49, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Right. There was no way to prove that the Flickr user ever had used a free licence for the photograph, so it had to be deleted. Should be easy to replace by another photograph, for example by uploading de:Datei:Atomium 2011 sued.jpg to enwiki, or by taking another picture from Flickr. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:21, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
This one on Flickr looks pretty good to me though, and this one on Flickr is public domain, although it is taken on a cloudy day. I also found one on the University of Virginia's site, but I don't know what kind of license would apply for public US university content... --Agamemnus (talk) 04:58, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

May 30

URGENT: Upload wizard for WLE does not work properly

We have a strange bug in the WLE upload wizard for Russia. Many people report that they can't upload anything and provide the following screenshots: Upload wizard does not load in Google Chrome, no Upload button in Firefox, the wizard shows the upload but does not proceed to the copyright information. However, I can upload images normally and never encounter any problem of this kind. On the other hand, several people reported this problem already, so it is likely on the Commons side. We really need to solve this now, because many people will try to upload their photos tomorrow during the last day of the competition. --Alexander (talk) 16:52, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Several people also reported the problem here. Sadly, there is no response so far, which is totally unacceptable because image uploads are the most basic functionality of Wikimedia Commons. --Alexander (talk) 17:00, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
I can not reproduce it in FF either, I uploaded several images earlier today without problems.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:30, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
My bet would be ResourceLoader issues since oojs UI is a new dependency. This change was recently deployed; maybe someone could just roll it back for the remaining hours of WLM; or maybe not since it's not SWAT deployment window. In any case it's the result of the Foundation's smoke testing at Commons. -- Rillke(q?) 17:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
If you know how to roll it back or whom to ask, please, do it ASAP. --Alexander (talk) 17:52, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

The code files got a new timestamp; please try again; if it doesn't work: In order to get the latest versions of them, do the following on Commons:Upload Wizard: Please purge your browser’s cache. (You only need to do it once.)

Operating
system

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

If this doesn't help, please delete the entire browser cache and cookies. Then re-launch the browser and try again. It looks like some dependencies of Upload Wizard were not loaded properly. -- Rillke(q?) 18:36, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Rillke, I don't know what happened exactly, but people who had problems with the upload wizard report that they can use it now. Thank you very much for solving this problem! --Alexander (talk) 22:06, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Someone with shell access (hoo) "touched" the files so they got new timestamps and ResourceLoader was forced to re-load and re-compress them. Of course, we still do not know what the underlying issue was but I guess, since the new MediaWiki version has been rolled back and deployed multiple times, that it (ResourceLoader) got somehow confused. -- Rillke(q?) 09:20, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the screen shots and for aggregating the reports, btw :) -- Rillke(q?) 09:20, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

multi image uploader does not work properly

I upload the multiple images, and when it says fully uploaded, and the preview icons of the images appear. When I go to the next step page, the images dissapear and it shows like as I no images have been even been uploaded :( . Can someone tell me what could be the possible problem of this? From, the friendly, Doorknob 747 (talk) 16:57, 30 May 2015 (UTC) 😃.

Use a less magic method from Commons:Upload. We are not entitled to fix UploadWizard issues. If we do on-site we run in danger being de-sysoped (removal of administrator rights) or our possibilities being locked down through super protection by Eloquence for violating the Foundation's rights to deploy whatever software they like to Commons. -- Rillke(q?) 17:44, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Wait, the Wikimedia Foundation does not look at this page even? That's not right though, how would they then be able to see any suggestions here? Does one have to tell them on the Wikimedia Foundation website, then they will only be able to find out about this problem and fix it? 😞 That is a lot of work for something like this. Does the Wikimedia Foundation even know about this problem? I doubt it, since, if they knew about the problem, they probably would have fixed the problem by now. From, the friendly, Doorknob 747 (talk) 15:50, 31 May 2015 (UTC) 😃.

The code files got a new timestamp; in order to get the latest versions of them, do the following on Commons:Upload Wizard: Please purge your browser’s cache. (You only need to do it once.)

Operating
system

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

If this doesn't help, please delete the entire browser cache and cookies. Then re-launch the browser and try again. It looks like some dependencies of Upload Wizard were not loaded properly. -- Rillke(q?) 18:37, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

May 31

How to access image size through API?

It may be a very simple question, but I can't find any answer to it. For WLE purposes, we want to separate low-resolution images that have no chance in the contest and may be potential copyvios. Is there any API function that will give me the image size without downloading the image itself? --Alexander (talk) 10:46, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Take a look at API:Imageinfo. For example:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/api.php?action=query&titles=File:Dzerzhinskogo17%20Volgograd.JPG&prop=imageinfo&&iiprop=size
will give you the desired info.--Wdwd (talk) 15:42, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Great! That's exactly what we need. Thank you! --Alexander (talk) 20:42, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
@Atsirlin: I think it would be much more efficient to run a SQL query against the database replicas on WMFlabs unless you have less than 10000 candidates. -- Rillke(q?) 20:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Good to know. Well, this time we have slightly less than 10000 files, but I absolutely agree that for bigger datasets SQL queries becomes essential. --Alexander (talk) 20:58, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2015/05&oldid=214952351"