Commons:Village pump/Archive/2016/12

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

Magic Wallet - advertising

I just ran across these 4 files, which appear to be some kind of advertising (possibly a scam): Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Magicwallet.

The Description field for all these images reads: "Take action immediately to start the process of resolving your financial problems. Prof Kiiba and Mama Adah are in a unique position to help you with your financial problems." and the Author field: "Magic wallet +27730009239" ~ which seems to be a Company name and international phone number.

I don't know what Commons policy is about this kind of thing, but perhaps someone who knows more could look into the matter.
Christopher Fynn (talk)) 16:28, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Jmabel ! talk 16:53, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Failing at uploading an improved image

Hello so I tried to run white balance on https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:YAL-1_AMARG.JPG

But it looked like I uploaded an unedited photo so I fumbled around with it until realizing that it wasn't updating immediately. Now the wikipedia article seems to have the right version, but when I open it I get the old green tinted photo.

I'm a bit confused as to what is happening and what state I left the image in.. Weirdo10o4 (talk) 15:23, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Your browser likely cached the older version and was displaying it to you despite it having been updated. Try to Wikipedia:Bypass_your_cache... failing that, try to purge the Wikimedia cache. Storkk (talk) 15:44, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Your corrected version was uploaded. The thumbnail on the file page might have still shown the old version, because it was cached by your browser. The thumbnails in articles might take a while to update, that's normal (for widely used files, it's impossible for the software to refresh all of the uses immediately, the work is queued and completed later). Matma Rex (talk) 15:47, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Speravir 23:47, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposed notifications

Hello.I propose creation of new notifications:

  1. Template link: Notify me when someone links to a template I created
  2. Using Commons files:Notify me when someone uses a file I uploaded to commons (locally here and globally if "Show notifications from other wikis" selected)

Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 16:28, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

The second idea was also proposed for the Community Wishlist Survey, currently ongoing: m:2016 Community Wishlist Survey/Categories/Multimedia#Notifications for when your image is used. Matma Rex (talk) 21:11, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Malaga airport train station

I uploaded several Cercanías Malaga pictures (see Category:Spain slide scan june 1999) wich I suspect are from the earlier airport train station. The new station, opening 2010, is underground. (Category:Aeropuerto train station). Is this correct?Smiley.toerist (talk) 16:24, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Due to the lack of response I asked questions in the Spanisch wikimedia. In es:Wikiproyecto Discusión:Andalucía and es:Wikipedia:Café/Archivo/Miscelánea/Actual.Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:50, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Raoul Josset died in 1957, copyright?

Hello, Raoul Josset died in 1957, not yet 60 jears ago, so his works should be under copyright, but see Category:Raoul Josset. Have these pictures the right licences or are some or all of them copyvio? Which ones fall under freedom of panorama, which ones don't?--Havang(nl) (talk) 16:16, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposed notifications

Hello.I propose creation of new notifications:

  1. Template link: Notify me when someone links to a template I created
  2. Using Commons files:Notify me when someone uses a file I uploaded to commons (locally here and globally if "Show notifications from other wikis" selected)

Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 16:28, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

The second idea was also proposed for the Community Wishlist Survey, currently ongoing: m:2016 Community Wishlist Survey/Categories/Multimedia#Notifications for when your image is used. Matma Rex (talk) 21:11, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

2016 Community Wishlist Survey

Just a quick reminder that the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey is running (currently in the voting phase). There is a CentralNotice banner campaign promoting it, but many users have those hidden… I have not seen many of you who are active here comment on it yet. Voting ends on 12 December.

You're most likely to be interested in the following categories (but also check out the rest on the home page):

The survey is used for prioritisation of work by Community Tech and other WMF teams. You can see the status of the most-supported proposals from last year on 2015 Community Wishlist Survey/Results. Matma Rex (talk) 21:10, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

To make it more fun (in case some of us are not really willing to click the links by hand to get an idea of what this is about), here are the full lists:
Commons:
  • 1 Searching for images in nested categories
  • 2 Semi-automatic photo description and categorization tool
  • 3 Improve load time of RenameLink gadget
  • 4 Tool for mass downloading files
  • 5 Upload wizard for uploading artwork
  • 6 Use computer vision to propose categories
  • 7 View slider to compare two images
  • 8 VisualFileChange category processing improvement
  • 9 Allow hiding chosen versions of images on File page
  • 10 Backup of Commons files
  • 11 Category browsing without multimedia viewer
  • 12 DerivativeFX alternative
  • 13 Easier file description
  • 14 Implement Internet Archive BookReader in Commons & Wikisource
  • 15 Make categories sortable
  • 16 "MediaChanges" feed to track pages where images are used
  • 17 Multi-description tool
  • 18 UploadWizard: Allow providing image information (categories/description) while still uploading
  • 19 Rapid category creation
  • 20 Recent uploads patrol webapp
  • 21 Search images by OCR
 Multimedia:
  • 1 Transcode audio files to MP3
  • 2 Notifications for when your image is used
  • 3 Pick a thumbnail for an article's associated page image
  • 4 Position Maps & Media Viewer
  • 5 Reduce size of Play Button in Videos
  • 6 Slideshow support
  • 7 Support KML files for geodata
  • 8 Support SVG interactivity and animation in Media Viewer
  • 9 View location of all images with coordinates on a map
  • 10 Add DNG support (auto conversion to jpeg, Upload, Download)
  • 11 3D models
  • 12 360 Photo support
  • 13 Allow bulk uploads
  • 14 Increase file size limits
  • 15 Allow variants of an image to be derived from a single SVG
  • 16 Apple Photos sharing extension for Commons
  • 17 Computer vision
  • 18 Crowdsourcing handles to Wikimedia Commons content
  • 19 Default alt text in image file
  • 20 Also display images from subcategories
  • 21 Imagemap highlighting
  • 22 Display rectangular part of the image as parameter of File and compatible with ImageNote
  • 23 LaTeX-style referencing for images and equations
--Gryllida 23:50, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Still nothing about upgrade from Categories to Keywords/Tags ? --- [Tycho] talk 18:01, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Tycho, maybe I misunderstand, what you are meaning, but see Commons:Structured data and subpages. — Speravir – 21:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

December 02

New tool to transfer files from enwp to Commons - MTC!

I've created a new tool, MTC!, to transfer files from the English Wikipedia to Commons. It's only the second release, but it works reasonably well, so I'm advertising it for a public beta. Please let me know if you find any bugs. Thanks, FASTILY 23:20, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Nice tool, I'm gonna try that tool which seems to be better than CommonsHelper. Anyway, does this tool support bot passwords or OAuth? If not, this would be a problem, both in security and logging in. For security, I don't know if you knew this incident that happened recently, but a hacker group named OurMine hacked accounts with elevated rights (like sysop) in enwiki. Even Jimbo's account was hacked. So it seems that they could hack an account even with a strong password. In response to this, the WMF made 2fA (or two-factor authentication) available for admins, crats, oversighters, and checkusers. I am not sure if 2fA is working with third-party tools, but if not, then this would be a pain for users who have enabled 2fA who wants to try your tool. I think it would be great if your tool would support either bot passwords or OAuth. Thanks, ★ Poké95 12:20, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
If you use a strong password and if you don't use the password on multiple sites there should be no issue or pwnage. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:29, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, but still a problem for those who have enabled 2fA already. They might not able to login to MTC! properly due to the complication of 2fA. ★ Poké95 12:59, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
@Pokéfan95: Thanks for your interest! OAuth is not supported, but BotPasswords should work just fine. If you don't want to use BotPasswords, then you can always create an alternate account just for use with third party tools. -FASTILY 01:46, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

But please don't upload too much sh*t. Some files should better be deleted in enwp and never transferred.--Kopiersperre (talk) 11:05, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Don't know why you would want to transfer files from english to commons, given the recent proposal to Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2016/10#Proposal_to_halt_all_unsourced_cross-wiki_transfers. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 14:49, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
There's a huge backlog of properly-licensed images at en:Category:Copy to Wikimedia Commons. clpo13(talk) 16:29, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry a backlog is not an argument. what specific steps will be taken to review, and put back images deleted? given the fact that the automated transfer process is noted to be a problem? for example here is another image without a url source File:C.J. "Gus" Loria, X-31 Pilot.jpg what will you do to see it is not deleted? Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 14:45, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
The tool can verify such issues. I do not think it makes sense to completely ignore en.wikipedias freely licensed content that was mainly uploaded before commons existed. Streamlining the process with checks would help eliminate problems. It would be better system of manually doing everything (probably incorrectly too). It would also create a review backlog to verify the transfers unlike manual where we have no way to track the cross-wiki transfer. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 20:11, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
@Slowking4: The problem with the possible deletion of such an image (which is certainly, based on my experience with NASA images, a PD work) is just as existent with any other transfer method. The 'solution' is to hunt down the source in NASA archives, and that applies to many old direct uploads to Commons as well. Reventtalk 12:56, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
@Revent: You make it sound like we improve our standards over time... -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:57, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

November 21

November 25

Railway coach

Taken during a Spanish 1999 trip.(other pictures: Category:Spain slide scan june 1999) I suspect Oviedo. Wat kind coach is this?Smiley.toerist (talk) 15:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

(a little bit unrelated question) What brand and type of slide film was that? --- [Tycho] talk 18:05, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
I started taking pictures with Kodachrome, later on I switched to Kodak elite, wich was had a faster return. Kodakchrome could only be developed with a special proces by special Kodak facilitities. I suspect this was Elite film.Smiley.toerist (talk) 21:51, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
It is certainly Oviedo above the train station. I recognize the building behind.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:16, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

December 04

Possibility of marking the pages as a "in progress" and users as "exist"

Helo.I suggest Possibility of marking:

  1. the pages as a "in progress":I think that Commons is the most site needs to this because the large number of deletions and speedy deletion requests
  2. users as "exist":I think that Commons is the most site needs to this because the warnings about the violation images

This is useful in a lack of inconsistencies in the work, and Obviates Template:In use.Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 09:09, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure why "in progress" label is necessary. Commons is for images/files only and they are uploaded just in one step. You are probably confusing Commons with Wikipedias. I also do not understand what you mean by "exist" in relation to a user? Ruslik (talk) 16:10, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
@Ruslik0: Any page in any project may need some time to work on.e.g:Page needs a lot of time to complete, or to respond to requests Page.I see that it marked by the user to prevent other users from working on it until the first ends.Any user can be a existing (can read and reply to messages) or not I suggest the possibility of knowing the user state.Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 07:15, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

December 05

Tech News: 2016-49

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

  • You can choose to see users from specific user groups in Special:ActiveUsers. [1]
  • Everyone can now see Special:UserRights. Previously only those who could change user rights could. Other users got an error message. [2]
  • ORES can now show how likely an edit is to be damaging to the wiki with different colours. This only works for languages that have trained ORES to recognize damaging edits. [3]

Changes this week

  • You will now see categories with 0 pages in Special:Categories. Previously you did not see empty categories there. [4]
  • The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 6 December. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 7 December. It will be on all wikis from 8 December (calendar).

Meetings

  • You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on 6 December at 20:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

18:06, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Please review a license edit

Hello!

Could anybody please check whether I was right or wrong with this edit? Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 19:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

December 06

Thumbnails of large images

Hi, Currently thumbnailing of very large images, like File:Map of Hindoostan, 1788, by Rennell.jpg, does not work due to a confirmation setting to prevent potential performance issues. In phab:T147992, MarkTraceur asks for a community consensus about changing this setting. What do you think? Regards, Yann (talk) 09:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello Yann, I see no need for this (also that performance issue a community issue here). 66 MiB should not be to expect for end users, as we can see the old file you overwritten with the same MP gets rendered. There are also some other ways for this: Template:Compressed version (naming bit unlucky) and Template:Archival version. ↔ User: Perhelion 10:37, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
FYI, the issue is not 66 MB (we have many images above that), but the 182.99 Megapixel. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:43, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
PS: Yes the image has 183 Megapixel, so I guess you want a limit of 200 MP? As we can see the 183 MP seems not (alone) the limit? There is also Template:InteractiveViewer for Template:Large images.
The developers (or someone) should call first what is the actual limit, instead of ask us first what should be the actual limit. As we can see (mentioned by Zhuyifei1999) there are some images exceeding on "theoretical limit" by above and beyond. ↔ User: Perhelion 10:51, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

File:Royal Albert Hall - Central View Square.jpg is bigger both in megapixels (238.61 Megapixel) and filesize (84.29 MB) and thumbnails fine. Indeed the File Description page for that contains links to smaller versions such as 33% which use the thumbnailer. The thumbnailer will refuse to generate a 50% thumb as this is too large.

So I don't think the problem is or should be the size of the source JPG but the size of the generated thumb. I absolutely support the ability for Commons to host large JPGs and this map is an excellent example of highly educational large images. -- Colin (talk) 11:29, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Yann, I think the correct spelling is Hindustan. Jee 12:18, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jee, I know that the modern spelling is Hindustan. ;) Here I just copied the original title of the map. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:21, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Oh! Then OK. I never know such a spelling existed. ;) Jee 12:37, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Yann, MarkTraceur, I note that Benh has just nominated at Feature Picture Candidates the image File:Paris, mairie du 10e arrdt, hall 04.jpg. This is 450 megapixels and 151 megabytes. There are no problems generating thumbnails. (Btw, the image is intended to be viewed with a special 360 panoramic viewer). So I wonder what the bug was with Yann's image. I see now the image has a new version that works. Perhaps Yann's version was corrupted in a way that upset the thumbnailer. -- Colin (talk) 21:05, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

It's probably a progressive JPEG. A standard JPEG is broken up into 8x8 blocks and can be thumbnailed one block at a time; a progressive JPEG needs to be completely decoded before it can be compressed. --Carnildo (talk) 02:18, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposed special page: File pages without files

Hello.I propose creation of a special page titled "File pages without files" Includes any file page created by mistake or redircts in file namespace and be:

  1. local includes only local pages
  2. Global (here) consists of: a section for local files and a section for commons files

This helps to delete the unhelpful pages.I do not know how I suggest this in any technical website but I think it's a useful proposal.Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 16:14, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

This could be worthwhile, and it probably can be implemented if there is interest. Some thoughts:
  • Commons has some File pages which are intentionally left without files and protected (example: File:Untitled.jpg).
  • There are many redirects in the File namespace, since we rename files all the time. I don't think a list of them all would be very interesting. (We don't have a special page for this, but you can view them using the API: [5].) If anything, I would be curious to see pages which are redirects and also have an uploaded file, since that would clearly be a mistake.
  • I don't understand what you mean with the local/global distinction? For what it's worth, on wikis that use Commons as file repository, pages in File namespace without a file are quite common (e.g. for files that are "featured" locally, but uploaded to Commons – example: pl:Plik:!-tylewice-wiatrak-windmill-abri-2013.jpg), so I'm not sure if the proposed special pages would be useful outside of Commons.
Matma Rex (talk) 21:35, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't think a special page is necessary. I have a quarry query to identify just this issue. Unfortunately it does not work just yet as the query takes more than 30 mins (current limit). I will try to resolve this issue. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 19:18, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Isn't that a bit complicated? Something like 
SELECT page_title FROM page LEFT JOIN image ON page_title=img_name WHERE page_namespace=6 AND page_is_redirect=0 AND img_name IS NULL LIMIT 20;
seems to work and returns some files in Category:Commons prohibited file names. Haven't tried it without a limit. Multichill (talk) 20:19, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
I wanted to limit sizes to with the complicated query so that the join is over minimum number of rows. It keeps exceeding the 30 minute limit so I get nothing back. :( -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 23:22, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
What I have currently User talk:とある白い猫/Sandbox 2. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 18:08, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
The query is simple to write, but if you change LIMIT 20 to something more practical, it will take hours to run because it has to scan all the file pages in existence (some 35 million of them). I don't actually see how to do this performantly. Matma Rex (talk) 13:21, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
@Revent: :P -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 18:12, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I run Multichill's query with limit of 100 DISTINCT files and tried few other queries and they returned:

  1. Files in Category:Commons prohibited file names
  2. about 20 file description pages without files, which I deleted
  3. file redirects that someone is proposing to delete, like File:Villa Vassilieff @ Montparnasse @ Paris (30836586630).jpg
  4. image subpages, like File:Red-billed toucan at Birdworld 01.jpg/Series
  5. ~560 false alarms, like File:War Memorial, Nelson Square, Bolton (3).JPG or File:War Memorial, Tealing - geograph.org.uk - 1628939.jpg or files where img_name should not be null. Most of those have filename starting with "War Memorial".

--Jarekt (talk) 16:46, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Coyau's death

Greetings, we have just been informed that Coyau has died. Many of us knew him; for those who did not, he was a prolific contributor on Wikidata, Commons and Wikipedia, as well as on the French-speaking Wikisource and Wiktionary. A commemoration will be held in Paris later this week, further information will follow. -- Pyb et Ash_Crow (talk) 12:08, 6 December 2016 (UTC) (for translation Rama (talk) 13:01, 6 December 2016 (UTC) )

My condolences. :-( --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:23, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
We have lost a potential photographer! Biswarup Ganguly (talk) 14:57, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Governance of page protection rights

I am disappointed that several of our most active administrators have pre-agreed to re-raise two deletion requests, and ignore other files, by using a sysop-only protected discussion page. I raised an objection to this behaviour last week and it was brushed off as a "drop in a bucket". This use of the protection right is not an exception to COM:Protection policy.

It is strange and disturbing to see several administrators pre-agree with the original closing administrator [6] "I propose, and Revent and Jcb agree, that I open a new DR for each of the two, with the DR comment written as above. If you agree, after I post the DRs, you and the three of us will not comment on the DRs and will let them run their course entirely in the hands of our colleagues."

The outcome is a pre-agreed certainty, as any closing admin would have to have the chutzpah to go against the covert self-selected group decision, where only invited administrators could participate. Unfortunately behaviour like this makes a nonsense of the intent of deletion requests being an open consensus discussion.

It is worth noting that the new deletion nominations failed to mention this background, which if there was nothing to hide, they would have as there is long discussion, evidence and analysis on the admin-only protected discussion.

I suggest that an administrator, or 'crat, close the re-opened Deletion Requests without action, and invite those that have an interest in seeing these two files deleted, make a new presentation, openly and fully presenting the prior analysis and discussions that were held away from open talk pages.

I welcome opinions, including the administrators that took part in this effectively closed "pre-agreement", Yann, Jcb, Revent and Jameslwoodward who may want to explain why side-stepping open discussion was in the best interests of the Commons community and the correct use of sysop rights. --Fæ (talk) 21:00, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

@Fae: Frankly, I was displeased by Jcb creating his 'private' discussion page, and if you look at it you'll see that my main input there, for most of the files, was to simply repeat what I had previously said at UDR, explaining why most of the various files were clearly ok. I suspect that, based on comments I have seen, none of the other participants were particularly happy about it, but as Jim pointed out such private discussions can happen off-wiki as well, so doing it on a talk page is actually a bit 'more' transparent... it's a talk page in Jcb's user space, so he has every right to ask that only certain people edit it (though using protection to enforce that was out of scope of the tool, IMO).
There was no 'agreement' to delete the images... the agreement was to allow the rest of the community to consider them at DR without us taking part, after we had tried to nail down the factual issues. I think not mentioning the previous discussion was in fact an attempt to not bias that discussion... saying we will not take part, and then pointing out where we had talked about them, would be rather counterproductive, and if a closing admin was unaware of the previous discussion then he would not be overruling it. Jim's DRs mentioned the actual factual information about the files themselves, without the previous drama, and the scope of DR is to determine the status of the works themselves, not to sort out who was right or wrong in previous actions. Your edits to those DRs in fact make it less likely, IMO, that any closer will impartially look at the status of the works themselves.
If you think that it is my opinion that both images should be deleted, you are mistaken. Reventtalk 21:26, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
The problem began when an involved admin decided to disallow the DRs and to speedy close them. Every step from there was avoidable if the first error would not have taken place. Jcb (talk) 22:14, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Just to be clear on this point, you are blaming Yann for forcing you to make a discussion page protected against the community agreed policy that governs your sysop rights? That seems, surprising as a justification. --Fæ (talk) 22:20, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
does not surprise me at all: it is always the other editor's fault. the vandals made be become an asshole. fundamental lack of ownership of behavior. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 17:39, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I think Fae has this whole situation wrong. Certainly there is no pre-agreed deal here. I proposed to Jcb, Revent, and later to Yann that I open a new DR with specified language precisely because the four of us disagreed rather forcefully about the images. The four of us have agreed not to comment at the DR in order to leave our colleagues the opportunity to make a decision without our disagreement coloring it.

Although I agree that the protected discussion was probably not a great idea, there is nothing in the rules that would have prevented us from having a private discussion by e-mail, so I did not take Fae's original complaint to me very seriously. As it is, having the discussion on Jcb's sub page means that all of the discussion is on the open record here, rather than being on private e-mails. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:01, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

No exception has been put forward, the protection policy is not advisory. It states "This page is considered an official policy on Wikimedia Commons. It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that everyone must follow."
If you feel this is too much, then make a proposal to change it. In the meantime all administrators are required to comply with it. --Fæ (talk) 23:08, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
hey, i think it's great that they chose to disclose the decision they pre-agreed to. just let us know if you all want to keep the files. let's dispense with DR and the folks can just let us know which files they choose to delete, dispense with any discussion. and i see the doubting of sources of low risk items continues.
"Protected "User:Jcb/temp": To prevent drama, talk page is open " you may delude yourself that misusing page protection prevents drama, but rest assured, this is why commons has such a low reputation. the childish behavior tends to undermine what little credibility you may have had. the mass upload tools work just fine on english. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 03:31, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
@Slowking4: Just to be clear, who exactly are you criticizing? Jcb, for protecting the page (which I agree was out of scope for protection), or the rest of us for engaging in the discussion without wheel-warring by unprotecting the page? Reventtalk 08:28, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
that is a blanket condemnation. you can count yourself in. when you countenance open abuse of admin tools, then you are complicit in the conduct against policy. either desysop the disruptive admin, or you are part of the problem. and personalizing the negative feedback is part of the problem also - just to be clear. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 19:46, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

November 30

DEM L316 in Dorado

File:DEM L316 in Dorado.jpg was deleted at 00:17, 28 August 2012, for copyright concerns, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:DEM L316 in Dorado.jpg. Now the exact image has returned as File:DEM L316- Supernova Remnants Deconstructed (Two supernova remnants in the Large Magellanic Cloud galaxy.) (2941492404).jpg. Should the page histories be merged? --Marshallsumter (talk) 18:33, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

This is not the same image. Ankry (talk) 21:36, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
The persistent link for File:DEM L316- Supernova Remnants Deconstructed (Two supernova remnants in the Large Magellanic Cloud galaxy.) (2941492404).jpg takes you to the same image File:DEM L316 in Dorado.jpg, but I see what you are referring to File:DEM L316- Supernova Remnants Deconstructed (Two supernova remnants in the Large Magellanic Cloud galaxy.) (2941492404).jpg is out of focus. The date of release for both images is November 15, 2005. --Marshallsumter (talk) 22:53, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Getting special photography equipment

I don't know if this is widely known here, but I just learned about a WMF rapid grant opportunity for photography and videography equipment. The general approach is that a chapter or other affiliate group can request up to US $2,000 for equipment that will be shared among the group. It requires a practical plan for what will be accomplished, but if you've been wishing that you could do a particular project (Panoramic photos? Stereoscopic images? Underwater videos?) and can't do it because it requires some specialized equipment, then you might be able to team up with others in your area to get a grant. There are also larger sums of money available through the other grant programs.

See m:Grants:Project/Rapid for more information. I'm not involved in the grants, but I've met a couple of the people on that team, so feel free to ping me if you need help figuring out who to contact there. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 22:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

December 08

October results of Commons:Photo_challenge

Gardening: Entries • Votes • Scores
Rank 1 2 3
image
Title Scarecrow at Baddesley Clinton Gardening_in_London Old gardener sows beetroots in Estonia
Author DeFacto Ibex73 Maasaak
Score 15 11 11
Water Supply Infrastructure: Entries • Votes • Scores
Rank 1 2 3
image
Title Supply of drinking water in Hong Kong Water tower near Mittweida, Saxony, Germany Marmeaux, old wash house in Burgundy, France
Author Cccefalon Kyriondaniel Ibex73
Score 26 21 16

Congratulations to Cccefalon, Kyriondaniel, DeFacto, Ibex73 and Maasaak. Please check out this month challenges: Holidays and Appliances. -- Jarekt (talk) 04:37, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

What do we need this guideline for?

It might be interesting to see that we can upload a nude photo of someone taken in a bathroom without knowing if she is really consent with her photo on the net. This is while the most related guideline, i.e. Commons:Photographs of identifiable people, says consent of the model should be provided. If it's so, why can't we delete such photos referring to the guideline? What do we need the guideline for? Pinging User:MichaelMaggs for attention. --Mhhossein talk 13:31, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the ping. I see that the DR was quite extensively argued, and that the conclusion was not one you agree with: perhaps because it was based on US law/practice which is very different from that of your own home country. If you believe that COM:IDENT ought to be modified, do make a specific wording proposal on the discussion page. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:11, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
What part of the official guideline do you believe mandates the use of model consent for images of nudes? Note that "Violet Sparks" is the name of a drag queen, and highly unlikely to be a real name. --Fæ (talk) 13:47, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
User:MichaelMaggs: You're welcome. No, I'm not arguing based on my home country's law rather I'm using the guideline as a ground. Do you say that per US law, photos of identifiable people taken in private can be published on the net without the subject'd consent? --Mhhossein talk 10:33, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
This has been argued to death and you are using a strawman argument here. The point of contention in the DR you referenced was not whether photos of people in private places can be published without their consent, but whether we could assume that consent was given in this particular case. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 10:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
"whether we could assume that consent was given in this particular case" is a self made criteria already fabricated by you. No law, no policy and no guideline allows us to make such an assumption. --Mhhossein talk 10:49, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
It's not a criterion, but it's what the discussion was about. To be honest, I don't see the point discussing this further with you, since you keep on arguing the same points over and over, even if it is explained why your assumptions and interpretations are wrong. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 11:06, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Leaving the discussion will be kind of you, as you insist on ignoring the explicit parts of the guideline related to our discussion. Thanks.--Mhhossein talk 12:21, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Mhhossein -- This is fairly obviously a carefully-posed picture, not a candid snap. I slapped a personality-rights template on it (something which definitely should have been done before!), which should resolve most valid issues. On Commons, model-releases are necessary for commercial re-use of images involving identifiable people, or possibly for age verification in some cases, but not ordinarily for images such as File:Violet Sparks 2350.jpg... -- AnonMoos (talk) 19:33, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment AnonMoos. A question: What happens if that "carefully-posed picture" were meant to be printed on a magazine cover and were not mean to be published on the net? Where did you find that claim? When some photo is posted on commons it might be used for commercial' re-use. --Mhhossein talk 12:19, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
If someone outside Commons uses commercially a photograph which he doesn't have the right to use commercially, then that's usually a matter between the photographer and/or photographic subject and the mis-re-user -- Commons itself is not generally directly involved. Personality rights apply to the even most boring prosaic humdrum photos of living identifiable people. And paid models ordinarily do not have any control over where photos will appear. Any current magazine cover of a remotely prominent magazine will end up being on the Internet anyway... AnonMoos (talk) 12:57, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Are you serious? Every one is allowed to freely use files on Commons for commercial goals! It's an established fact in our project. How could you say that the model is a paid one? Please discuss based on policies or guidelines. --Mhhossein talk 17:36, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Everyone has the right to re-use Commons images for commercial purposes as far as copyright goes. However, there may also be NON-COPYRIGHT RESTRICTIONS which may further constrain what would be allowed by copyright alone. See Commons:Non-copyright restrictions, which declares itself to be an "official guideline"... AnonMoos (talk) 23:28, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Good, then the pics should be deleted per official guideline: "Some non-copyright restrictions, for example defamation or child pornography laws, might make it illegal to host certain images on Commons. Such images are of course not allowed, whether they have a free license or not. The most important such restrictions are personality/privacy laws which do not allow photographs of identifiable people which were made in a private place, unless the depicted person gives permission." Clearly, we have no permission from the depicted person. --Mhhossein talk 11:35, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Are you then suggesting that by that logic virtually all formal portrait photographs should be deleted, since they are typically taken in private places (photographer's studios, for example)? There is no reason to think the subject of this photo did not give permission for use of the photo. The issue isn't whether we have a written permission on file, but whether we believe such permission exists. And, unlike copyright, this isn't a matter where slight doubt is sufficient to say no. Commons doesn't have nearly as extreme a precautionary principle over personality rights as we do over copyright. - Jmabel ! talk 16:16, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Not exactly. I'm suggesting that per COM:BLP, "personality/privacy laws...do not allow photographs of identifiable people which were made in a private place, unless the depicted person gives permission." There's no reason to think that such permission exists unless you can show it, albeit not by guessing or speculating, but by providing links to the permission. --Mhhossein talk 14:55, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
And how does that not apply to virtually every portrait photo we have? - Jmabel ! talk 18:20, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't know/care, although they might also fall under this category. Per COM:BLP#Examples, and other parts of the guideline, "Nudes, underwear or swimsuit shots, unless obviously taken in a public place – even if the subject's face is obscured," typically need consent. --Mhhossein talk 04:58, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Mhhossein, please stop trying to wrongly influence our decisions. Carl Lindberg has explained you in very detailed words and in several places why these images are OK here. Thanks, Yann (talk) 18:06, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

And I explained why he was wrong every where. Sorry, you were unable to answer my question at the TP. Please let the discussion progress without being disturbed. --Mhhossein talk 18:10, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
@Mhhossein: I don't think anything is going to be accomplished here. If you have suggestions for tightening the consent guidelines, please propose them at Commons talk:Photographs of identifiable people. If you think the guidelines were wrongly interpreted or not applied, please create a new deletion discussion. I agree that this photograph is potentially in violation of the guidelines, but there are some mitigating factors. For example, the image is publicly published elsewhere by someone who appears to be a professional model photographer, so there is at least a plausible claim that consent can be assumed. Such discussions, however, belong at Commons:Deletion requests, not here. Kaldari (talk) 18:40, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
But please note that any DR has to provide new arguments. Considering the lengthy discussions at at least four different places, I doubt there will be any. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 18:48, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Sebari: I agree with about a requirement of a arguments.--Mhhossein talk 19:26, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Kaldari: Please note that we had a DR on this. I invited you to the discussion because you had closed a similar discussion. --Mhhossein talk 19:29, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Help using Python's requests library to upload using MW:API:Upload

Perhaps a Commons Upload API guru who can help lurks here, I realize it's a long shot, but I've already asked at IRC and on the API mailing list to no avail. If anyone has had any success with this, I would greatly appreciate if they could tell me where I'm going wrong with User:Drudgebane_Storkksbot/uploader.py. I am not the only person who is having the identical difficulties (cf. 1, 2). I am not trying to do this using a ready-made bot framework. FWIW, I get the identical errors using analogous code with Julia's requests.jl module. Storkk (talk) 18:48, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Have you tried Attempt #3 without headers=headers (or headers with only UA set)? Content-Disposition should be part of the request body, and not the request header, in which case the request is not understandable. Also Content-Type should have some boundary settings not present in your headers. These are my guesses. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 19:24, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Zhuyifei1999 - we have a new error, and one that I wasn't expecting at all... After loggin in, Attempt #3 without headers=headers gives "error":{"code":"mustbeloggedin","info":"You must be logged in to upload.","*":"See https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/api.php for API usage"}. Same with just the UserAgent. I really don't know what's going on now. Trying an old attempt afterwards (without logging in again) gives the old errors again, no mention of login issues. I will update User:Drudgebane_Storkksbot/uploader.py. Storkk (talk) 19:43, 7 December 2016 (UTC) ... it actually does log me out. WTF? Storkk (talk) 20:42, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
@Storkk: don't try to invent the wheel yourself. Just use pywikibot and save you and us a lot of time. Multichill (talk) 22:02, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your advice Multichill, however I am not trying to do this using a ready-made bot framework. I want to understand why it doesn't work. Actually getting the files uploaded is somewhat secondary, and the backup plan if all else fails is still not to use a bot framework, but to try to upload from url. Storkk (talk) 22:27, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Compare: "I am working on building my new dining room table and I'd rather not buy a prefabricated one... I am having a real problem with dovetail jointing." How I read your answer: "Go to IKEA already!". Storkk (talk) 22:39, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
@Storkk: I just ran on my own laptop and I see the reason. Do check_login twice, the second right after the first, and you'll see what's wrong (poke me if not) :P --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 02:14, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
(I just uploaded a random file with this) --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 02:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you so much, Zhuyifei1999! All due to my misunderstanding of how cookies work (never done HTTP stuff before). I thought that I needed to keep copying the response cookies to make sure the session didn't get lost somehow, but effectively this was causing the error. Setting cookies once seems to work a charm. I will go put some working python examples (and perhaps Julia) onto MW:API talk:Upload. Thanks again! Storkk (talk) 11:11, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Panorama template

Hi,

I'm duplicating an issue I raised on the template talk page since the audience is probably larger here.

We currently have issues with correctly conveying an immersive panorama (360 or even full spherical 360x180°) to the viewer. They are presented with an equirectangular view which is misleading and is not what shall be viewed.

It's a bit frustrating because I feel we don't miss much to provide a much better experience. I'd like to have a template for that:

  1. it shall be based on the current panoviewer, which is based on Pannellum
  2. because it's based on pannellum, it would allow any framing and offer the possibility to drag right from the frame to move the point of view.
  3. it shall fall back to a plain picture if the browser doesn't support it.

And in very short, it should be handled like how Facebook handles 360 panorama in the webpage and app (we have to keep in mind that wikipedia is viewed on mobile devices app too)

So my questions :

  1. Is anyone capable of writing such a template quickly?
  2. if not, I can try. In that case, can we use raw html in templates? I remember raw html could be enabled or disabled and I doubt it's enabled on Commons or wikipedias.
  3. In case it would be necessary, where can I get special access to wikimedia's servers to fine tune tools or plugin? I don't want to harass the maintainer of Panoviewer.

Maybe this should be handled by MediaWiki software itself. Any clue to where I shall ask for help?

Thanks for your help - Benh (talk) 10:49, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T138933
Tracked in Phabricator
Task T151749
Tracked in Phabricator
Task T105789
Tracked in Phabricator
Task T70719
I run into the same message on Commons_talk:Templates#Panorama_:_template_with_raw_HTML and Commons_talk:Featured_picture_candidates#360_Panorama_template. I think it is a better practice have discussion in a single place and maybe invite people on other forums to join. By the way, the discussion about Pannellum like viewer can be found on several (overlapping) phabricator tasks. It might be good for those familiar with the matter to review those discussions and add to them if needed. --Jarekt (talk) 13:14, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes I'm sorry. Though a long time contributor, I'm not so used to the best practices and etiquette, and thought I'd try to broaden the reach for my request. Thank you for pointing me to there. I'll have a look. - Benh (talk) 13:32, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Exif metadata and search

Hello Commons. About a month ago the Search team at the Wikimedia Foundation updated search to enable searching for files by metadata properties. You can search for files by file size, type, width, and more.

There’s more metadata we can expose, perhaps via tags in Exif metadata. [7] The English Wikipedia article covers many of the general tags. There are more comprehensive listings of EXIF tags elsewhere online. [8] [9]

So, the questions we have for you: Would it be helpful to expose Exif tags to search for Commons? How could you see it be used? If it would be useful, what tags would you consider the most useful and a priority?

A related question. For folks following along with the structured data project, would you see this search feature as useful? Is it duplicating efforts?

Thank you for your time and please let me know if you have more questions. CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 18:07, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I would like the assumption that the EXIF data is well formatted to not be a constraint. When I use the wiki database to check through EXIF headers, I find lots of interesting things buried away in ways that it probably should not. The ability to search as much as possible of the EXIF data for wildcard matches would be great, and this could for example help greatly with finding files with unexpected copyright statements in description fields, colour profile data intended for printers rather than screens leading to poor on-wiki display, files with different types of date statements that may conflict with the date chosen for information, or discovering files with odd EXIF elements showing the files may have other compressed files hidden within it, potentially indicating misuse of the Commons site as a host for nefarious purposes.
I have no idea if there are technical challenges, but having the EXIF available as a long text string that can be used in handy simple search or regular expression searches, would be a lovely feature for the Commons advanced search capabilities. --Fæ (talk) 18:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
It's a bit trickier since a lot of EXIF data are not textual - e.g. coordinates, or camera settings, or photometric data. That's where intersection with structured data comes in - what we did essentially with file metadata is implement kind of micro-structured-data on top of ElasticSearch/Cirrus. We could keep going in that direction, but that would also mean we intersect more and more with structured data use case. Which may be ok, I don't know - we'd like to hear opinions on that. Also, it means we need to target specific fields - unlike Wikidata, ES solution requires predefined fields (it's one of its weaknesses) and then we'd need to have the list of such fields. We could as a preliminary step to extract all known text fields into a big text blob and make that searchable, but it may make it a bit weird - it would not distinguish between image description and camera make, for example. Maybe there are better ideas for how to do it, let's think about it. --Smalyshev (WMF) (talk) 19:16, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
It isn't just EXIF tags we might be interested in, but also XMP and IPTC data. The EXIFTOOL (already used by MediaWiki) provides an excellent means to extract this data from most media file types. There are a variety of output formats possible from that tool. One problem is the tags are somewhat structured into groups and sub-groups so individual tags might be included in several groups and may even appear to contradict at times. The duplicates are a minority, thought, and for most tags, the simple "Name: Value" pairing that EXIFTOOL outputs could be extremely useful. Note that without an up-to-date version of EXIFTOOL, many tags (especially MakerNotes) are impossible to interpret, but once interpreted they are valuable. While the names are suitable for exact-match searching, whether any given tag is present or not is highly variable and at the whim of the camera manufacturer, the editing software used, and the export options made when generating a JPG. Some basic software (like Paint) simply strip out all EXIF. Also note that some tags make sense as a number rather than as text (e.g. exposure length, aperture, ISO, exposure compensation). One might be interested in high-ISO images and choose ISO > 800.
I would think that analysing images for dodgy embedded files (other than thumbnails, which are standard) would be part of the upload tool.
Is there any reason why one could not include all the tags that EXIFTOOL extracts by default, and then have a page that documents those which most people may find it useful to search for. Unfortunately, it will not be possible to search images and find all photos taken by Sony cameras or with a 80mm f/2.8 SAM lens because many many photos will simply lack that data. -- Colin (talk) 19:13, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I believe Metadata from Exif etc., is stored in some kind of PHP-formatted array in a single database field. Transferring that into some kind of text blob doesn't sound like much progress. I'd consider if there's a better way of storing that data that retains the structure, and allows querying individual fields by the API as well as search. Maybe it could go in the Wikidata-on-Commons database, although you can also ask if it should be editable or not. Note that there's some bizarre stuff in there, like multiple megabytes of OCR'd text in certain scanned text files. --ghouston (talk) 23:29, 8 December 2016 (UTC)


Probably a good idea to add at least one that was originally requested: Bare minimum required Exif:

Basic stuff:

  • Upload date "fileuploaddate: > 19/12/2015" (Sortable)!!!
  • Videos and audio were seemingly left out:
    • Audio duration
    • Video Duration
    • Video Frame / audio bitrate (if even possible)

A better solution would be as probably something like a "Special:Exif" that indexes and collates all fields in an easy way to navigate, and would be pretty important if something like this treasure trove ever comes to commons: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T152632

If such a special page is made, then only the most important ones would need to be added to the default search, too many options is always a bad thing.197.218.81.177

December 09

Commons' app for android

Hi everyone my name is Gustavo Woltmann, I am an assistant in a publishers office. Just thinking if there is an app made for Commons applicable for ios and android users? If there is, can you send me the name of the app so I can start downloading it? Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gustavowoltmann01 (talk • contribs) 06:57, 09 December 2016 (UTC)

Please, see Commons:Mobile_app. Ruslik (talk) 20:22, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

French book on horses with Commons pictures

Hi, A book about horses with many pictures from Commons is going to be published in France in January 2017. For details, see Commons:Bistro#Remerciements aux photographes de chevaux qui ont mis leurs travaux sur Commons. Yann (talk) 23:33, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

December 10

discussion of possibly problematic categories

It's been suggested that this discussion maybe should have been here instead, so providing a pointer for the broader community: Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Massive creation of questionable categories. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:01, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

New NASA animated gifs

I hear they're awesome! Can we mass upload them? Is someone already working on this? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:52, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Hoar frost on trees?

In my opinon most (if not all) of the images in this category (and its subcategories) are not hoar frost but rime (deposit of ice due to freezing fog) or even simply crystallized snow; usually hoar frost do not form ice deposits on trees and vertical objects but only on horizontal surfaces such as ground, roofs and so on. Hoar frost is possible on vertical objects only when they are made of metal or other materials that lose quickly their superficial temperature; a rarer kind of hoar frost (advection hoar frost) may however form ice deposits on trees but the amount of frost is generally tiny.--Carnby (talk) 13:45, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

This probably needs to be addressed at COM:CFD. lNeverCry 02:12, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, I nominated that category for discussion.--Carnby (talk) 23:21, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Mannequin challenge

Mannequin challenge by the students at the University of Jordan

Mannequin challenge by the students at the University of Jordan was produced in collaboration between Wikimedia Levant and University of Jordan engineering students. It toke the students two weeks to put the scenario and train. Video recording was done using a mobile camera (low budget). Total students worked on the project:125. Free music and audio produced by Zwirek for this project. --Tarawneh (talk) 20:42, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

December 12

Roman numbers or Roman numerals

I recently added a few more under Category:Roman numerals andsuddenly noticed this:

I have been using "number" and "numeral" indistinctly. This should be harmonized: Which is the right one?, or, if both are good, which is the better? -- Tuválkin Tuvalkin ✇ 20:29, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

"Numerals" refers to the symbolic form, so it would be "Roman numerals". Both "1000" and "one thousand" are the same "number" but "1000" and "M" are not the same "numerals". -- Colin (talk) 20:48, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you! (And this will cause an unglorious spike in my editcount: A good example of how number of edits is not a useful metric for valuable activity, as I could have done it right at first in a single edit.) -- Tuválkin Tuvalkin ✇ 21:12, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

December 07

Does anyone recognize the artist's signature on File:Campos de concentracion4.jpg? It does not seem to be the same as the uploader's user name, but I can't figure of what it it actually is to see if the image is in the public domain or not. There are three other files in this upload: File:Campos de concentracion.jpg, File:Campos de concentracion 2.jpg, and File:Campos de concentracion 3.jpg Imedeiros (talk) 00:47, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

@Imedeiros: I can't read it, but if these are by es:Ignacio del Río then they should be deleted... see Category:Ignacio del Río. I don't, unfortunately, see examples of his work online to compare the signature. Reventtalk 06:51, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

When the file will be reviewed?

Hi, I am new user. I had upload file on 24 November but it did not have any review. I am worried about i did something wrong since the others pass the review instantly. When the file will be reviewed?Cpcam065099 (talk) 09:06, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Cpcam065099, thank you for asking here. I'm not an admin, but checked your claim and can confirm that http://silvermango22.tistory.com/2 currently correctly states http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed (.ko) as licence. I added {{LicenseReview}} to help admins finding it while knowing admins are few and busy here. :) --.js (((☎))) 09:33, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
{{ping|Cpcam065099|.js|p=]] – as side remark: For license reviewing it does not necessarily need an admin, cf. Commons:License review. — Speravir – 18:39, 10 December 2016 (UTC) Oops, wrong bracket pair, hence with right pairs: @Cpcam065099 and .js. — Speravir – 18:41, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Completed by INeverCry Dec 10 - --WPPilot (talk) 01:36, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Duplicates

Few time ago I've queried DB and found that [at that moment] on Commons were 3350 files with at least one duplicate (having identical SHA1 hashes) for each, and a total of ~4400 duplicates which should be deleted. This project definitely needs a tool for assisted dealing with duplicated files (deletion and pages merging if needed). --XXN, 23:20, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Can you create a list of them? Ruslik (talk) 18:12, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Here is list, but it is incomplete - the longest rows were truncated by the system, and query took 43 minutes to execute:(
On Special:ListDuplicatedFiles you can see a 'live' version (cached) of the duplicates list. --XXN, 23:39, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Some strange entries we can see here. For example File:Abhandlung von den Zähnen (Pfaff) 219.jpg has 612 duplicates. 612, Caaarl! Similar situation is with next ~10 entries in Special:ListDuplicatedFiles. WTH is this? --XXN, 12:01, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
@XXN: Some (unusual) duplicates are intentional. The file with 612 duplicates resulted from the replacement of 'large' images of completely blank pages, in books, with 1x1 pixel placeholders. Reventtalk 05:10, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Wikicology (talk) 10:45, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Category:Gamma Ray and Category:Gamma Ray (band)

Hi! There are duplicate categories Category:Gamma Ray and Category:Gamma Ray (band), both with images about the musical group. I can move the files to appropriate category, but which should it be? There’s also a gallery page Gamma Ray. –Kooma (talk) 19:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! I merged the Wikidata items: Q9458203. –Kooma (talk) 20:07, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Wikicology (talk) 10:44, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

SD template not visible in the redirect page

I just added a {{SD}} template to one of the wrong redirect to my own upload [10]. Template is not visible in the redirect page and actual content page instead of redirect page is indexed in the Category:Other speedy deletions. I remember I have done this in past, this new behavior is weird.--Praveen:talk 02:49, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

@Praveenp: Just insert the template before #REDIRECT keyword: Special:Diff/226302196. --jdx Re: 06:51, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
--Praveen:talk 09:14, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Wikicology (talk) 10:44, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Intelligence Community Statement on Review of Foreign Influence on US Elections

Is it just me or does this PDF appear blank in Wikimedia Commons, but fine at the source link ?

Any idea how to fix it ?

Sagecandor (talk) 19:46, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Wikicology (talk) 10:43, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Drones

Drones: We are running a program for Drones, next month and perhaps it would be nice to have something that promotes the contest.. If we have something to direct people too I would be willing to post in the DJI groups to get the ball rolling. Any ideas? --WPPilot (talk) 18:10, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-50

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

  • Users who have Yahoo email addresses could not use Special:EmailUser to send emails. This has now been fixed. Emails will now come from a @wikimedia.org address. Users who get an email from you will still reply to your email address and be able to see it. [11]
  • You can now see how many categories and pages there are in the categories in Special:TrackingCategories. This is to help you find pages that could need attention. [12]
  • Markup colours for reviewed and pending revisions in the page history and recent changes and logs now match Wikimedia standard colours. The "You have a new message on your talk page" notification will have a slightly different colour. [13]

Problems

  • Because of work on cross-wiki watchlists global renaming is not working. The plan is to turn it on again on 16 December. Global renaming was turned off for a while in late November and early December as well. [14]

Changes this week

  • The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 13 December. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 14 December. It will be on all wikis from 15 December (calendar).

Meetings

  • You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on December 13 at 20:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

19:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Clarification of the Precautionary Principle for 100+ years old photographs

I have been chasing up on some deletions of old photographs where there has been confusion on the use of the terms "anonymous", "unknown" and "publication" in various national copyright acts, some of which have no clear statements about works with unknown artists (or orphan works). It is a truism that almost any old photograph with an unknown photographer can be put up for deletion, and using the weak arguments that we have not "proven" a specific date of publication or we cannot "prove" that the photographer is unknown (which puts aside that we have been unable to "know" the photographer and instead demands proof of a negative) can easily result in losing what is almost certain to be public domain material. The consequence of these types of weak deletion arguments is that we invest significant volunteer time in debating obscure copyright law over the meanings of these words, rather than focusing on whether reasonable effort has already been made to determine copyright, which is all that is ever legally required to host images on Commons.

I propose the following clarification to Commons:Precautionary principle:

For photographs demonstrably 100 years old or more, where reasonable effort has been unable to determine the name of a photographer or a claim of copyright, the default presumption is that the level of doubt is not significant that reproductions and scans of photographs are in the public domain.

This clarification puts Commons and the Wikimedia Foundation as the project's host, at no legal risk, so long as whenever challenged with a reasonable assertion of copyright, photographs are reviewed in a timely manner, or taken-down as a precaution.

I am proposing this on the Village Pump rather than on the policy talk page, as the level of interaction there has been almost non-existent for past proposals. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:17, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

To have any sensible discussion you also have to take account of geography. In Europe all postcards without an authors name on it are considered orphan works and we have a European law covering this: This is the Anonymous-EU license, used for an enormous amount of uploads. As this is mostly local content the US license is irrelevant. In the past some American Wikimedia busybodies have deleted some of this EU content based on US law concerns, without bothering to look at the usual practice. Its legal in Europe and there is no legal risk. Once a work can be attributed to an author it is no longer anonymous. Anyway there where no records kept by the postcard editors. They used the work of local photografers or send someone to the region to take pictures. (And then cleaned the old archives for space) An archive of for example Nels postcards would be of great value to historians but it does not exitst.Smiley.toerist (talk) 22:58, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

  •  Support as proposer. --Fæ (talk) 10:17, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support, with the modification that we should design and require a template that points out this fact, instead of just using some existing PD-old template. (Also, I think this should be a formal RFC.) --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 10:38, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support though we should also have a solution for image from European National Archives from the range 70-100 years old that don't list an author for example. (Clearly PD-anon-EU of course but still, EU copyright law is confusing so I rather take away as much beans as possible :p) Natuur12 (talk) 14:18, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
100 is slightly arbitrary, however it is easy to remember. As per Srittau's suggestion if we have a general template explaining the no-copyright-known equivalent, this can say it applies to apparent 100+ year old photographs, but also encompasses a couple of other situations where any risk is well below our community understanding of "significant" doubt. Plus the template could provide a help link for anyone with copyright information to supply and does not want to spend time understanding how deletions work etc. --Fæ (talk) 14:26, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  strongly oppose adding to Commons:Precautionary principle. I have no strong opinion wrt adding it to the correct place which is Commons:Licensing#Material in the public domain. A "principle" is "a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behaviour or for a chain of reasoning." Thus our guidelines and policies on what material we host are derived from that principle, and others such as The Definition of Free Cultural Works. Let's keep it simple: "The precautionary principle is that where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file, it should be deleted." That's all we need to say. The specifics of how to handle 100-year-old files goes in guidelines and policy pages that build on that principle. -- Colin (talk) 17:10, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Based on Carl's comments below, I change my vote to also oppose the text in any location. It's clearly one of those "for every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong" situations. Any guidance would need to be country-specific at the very least. -- Colin (talk) 20:23, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Please read m:Polls are evil for why discussion is far more important than jumping feet first into a poll. -- Colin (talk) 17:10, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Yann (talk) 17:24, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I'm with Colin here. This might be a good policy, but not as an amendment to the precautionary principle. - Jmabel ! talk 20:37, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support 100 years is a conservative line. Fæ, you recently started a discussion to ask about drawing a line in time, and it came to agreement that 100 was a good place, right? Can you link to that older discussion? I am not sure that I understand Colin. It sounds like the objection is confusion about the word "principle", and if that is a loaded term which has more meaning than only the text in the body of the page, then the title of the page could be changed from "precautionary principle" to "precautionary policy" or any other neutral term. "Precautionary principle" is a cliche term with a history of use, and personally, I think that many users will recognize the meaning of that term and understand that it has a special meaning and is not really a principle at all. Still, Commons is a multilingual platform, and perhaps the title should use simple English without any cliche. In that case "principle" might not be the right term for the content of that policy. We do not even have a "principle" designation in Commons - it is not a term which applies to anything here. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:57, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
User:Bluerasberry there is no confusion in my mind or on Commons as to what "principle" means. I suggest you look at the place where I suggest this amendment might reside, and you will see that it obviously fits in another policy page which deals with specific examples that derive from our principle. The suggestion by Fae should have been done as a discussion rather than a poll, where the community together would come to a consensus as to how to clarify our position. Polls are evil. -- Colin (talk) 22:24, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Okay, that seems reasonable. I think this is where I am -
  1. Post the statement to Commons:Licensing#Material in the public domain (or propose to do so). One place is as good as another, and this place seems like a repository for all the rules
  2. In Commons:Precautionary principle, change " The precautionary principle is that where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file..." to "The precautionary principle is that where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file..." We have a system for determining "significant doubt", and it seems to all be at Commons:Licensing#Material in the public domain. By making this change, we preserve the text that is well supported but also make room in a more appropriate forum for more development. I think that typical readers of that policy will want to know how we determine significant doubt, so it seems fair to connect that phrase to an explanation.
Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:08, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
I think this discussion should stick to adding a clause to the COM:L section where it fits. The precautionary principle applies to far more than whether an item is in the public domain so linking "significant doubt" to that section of COM:L is not appropriate. The point of a principle is that it is just a principle. How we determine "significant doubt" is not fully described in policy or guideline. The above proposal is an example of a presumably common issue for which some community consensus can be agreed. There are many other cases where "significant doubt" must be determined on a case by case basis and community consensus at DR. The link suggestion you propose, where "typical readers of that policy will want to know how we determine significant doubt" is unhelpful as we deliberately don't want to attempt to describe every determinate of "significant doubt". Trying to do that might lead to someone saying "This isn't one of the policy cases of significant doubt". -- Colin (talk) 09:11, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Colin I agree that we "deliberately don't want to attempt to describe every determinate of 'significant doubt'", but right now, some determinants exist on another published page and other ones exist in the minds of Commons users. None of the policies and guidelines are perfect, so in cases where we have some published guidance, then I think we should link to it for the sake of helping people who do not already have the culture of the matter in their minds.
If we use an odd term, like "significant doubt", then I think it is fair to connect that term with the best information community has published on the topic. As I mentioned before, I am ready to acknowledge Wikimedia Commons Commons:Policies and guidelines because we gave those terms meanings here. I am not ready to hold another class of concepts, "principles", in a special higher regard because we have not come to any agreement that "if something is a principle, then we keep it simple, and do not link it to further explanation". I do not agree that "significant doubt" is a universally understood concept and I think that either it can be explained on that page, or that it is fine to link to an explanation elsewhere.
I would support the addition of whatever disclaimers are necessary to emphasize that your concerns are serious - "not fully described", "must be determined on a case by case basis", no one should use the stated rules as an authority over community consensus, and I would even agree to warnings like "this guidance is confusing and problematic", because even good text is so difficult to interpret. Still, we should present the best that we have. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:14, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Bluerasberry, with respect, the Precautionary Principle has been around since 2008, added by MichaelMaggs, and the community has not felt the need to alter it much nor have any problem with trying to fit it into concepts from Wikipedia. To be honest, this proposal never should have suggested changing that page and in fact the proposed sentence should contain a link on "the level of doubt is not significant" to the PP. So this is becoming a distraction and I'd rather leave fussing about exactly what words to use to those who nominate, review and close our deletion reviews on a regular basis. -- Colin (talk) 15:31, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support you cannot prove a negative, the wording has always bothered me. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:19, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The global solution to a regional specific problem is just too glib- we have a vast archive of images that we want and have a duty display, and we are failing to understand that law in some countries is interpreted in a different way. I'm with Colin here.--ClemRutter (talk) 11:41, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose 100 years is too small, a photographer who take a photo at 20 year old and died at 80 years old, the photos is then protected until 30 years more after the "100 years" has passed. + unknown is not the same as anonymous, an anonymous publication is made with evidences, without those evidences no one can say a publication was anonymous. Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:35, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support I have suggested this in several places. However, I agree that PRP may not be the place for it and that this may not be the place for the final discussion on such an important topic. And we certainly need a new template, much as {{PD-Art}} codifies our use of the Bridgeman decision.
Christian, I agree that there is a reasonable chance that a hundred year old image is still under copyright. I have been using 120 years as the period beyond which we could assume, without a significant doubt, that the copyright had expired. And, of course, by stretching hard you could argue that almost any photograph might possibly still be under copyright (10 year old takes photo in 1845 and lives to be 111). However, I think that at 100 years we are so far back that the likelihood of a problem approaches zero -- it is certainly less than the likelihood of a problem with any image uploaded by an unknown person as "own work" when we assume good faith.
More broadly, we often deal in uncertainties here. We approve OTRS messages that purport to be from the copyright holder if they feel credible. We accept claims of "own work" all the time. I can't prove that most of the images I have uploaded are, in fact, "own work" and the same is true of almost all the "own work" images we accept. We accept them because it is policy to "assume good faith" and because we believe the risk is low. So we are frequently balancing the risk of a problem against the reward of keeping an image. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:00, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
And I suppose their is less of a problem now with the frequent use of take down notices. Most are accepted and the material deleted, problem solved and no risc as long as sufficient provenance research is done. It is fairly theoretical anyway. Once the author is dead, it is very unusual that the descendants know that this picture is taken by their father. Certainly if it is an ordinairy picture among the many.Smiley.toerist (talk) 14:24, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Hrm. I think, in general, we often do assume that photos are published in the era they were taken, unless there is documentation or indication otherwise (photo came from a photographer's private archive, for example, or from heirs of the artist). I think the unpublished situation for photos is more of a theoretical doubt, not a significant doubt, in terms of COM:PRP, most of the time. Assuming anonymity is a lot harder though, for me. Orphan works suck, but that doesn't help someone if they use a work from here and it turns out the original publication was in fact attributed. You do need to have some evidence that a photo was published anonymously in many cases. Sometimes there is a name, so it's definitely not anonymous, and we just don't know life dates. And the 100-year limit on its face may not comply with U.S. law -- if truly unknown, then the U.S. term is the earlier of 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, so 120 would be a safer limit if we are going to assume anonymity. Yes, if we assume publication it would only be 95 years, but that's a double assumption then -- if we are going to have a fixed cutoff, we may want to be more on the conservative side there. 100 years is really not long enough to assume that a 70pma term has expired (might be better for 50pma countries). I think that is why we have never had an explicit cutoff -- a "sensible" line can change a lot based on the laws in the country of origin, and their specific terms. For the U.S., photos that old are usually published and therefore OK, so this is more a country of origin issue. It might be hard to make a generalized rule though that is good for all countries. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - 100 years as a general rule is way too short. Many countries have a PMA+70 rule, so that a picture easily still can be copyrighted if it's 100 years old. Also there are even countries with a longer copyright, e.g. PMA+100 in Mexico. Jcb (talk) 17:45, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Just as a side mention, I think 80pma is currently the longest actual effective terms (Spain for the most part and Colombia). There are some countries which are transitioning to longer terms by just putting a freeze on expirations until they get there (Mexico as mentioned, Cote D'Ivoire, Jamaica just recently), but their effective terms are lower since they are in transition. For example, Mexico was 30pma until 1982, and the increases to 50pma, 75pma, and 100pma were all non-retroactive I believe, meaning the actual cutoff line there is died before 1952 -- so basically 64pma this year, 65 pma next year, etc. It will be a while before those longer terms have actual meaning. (Mexico also had a registration requirement before the 1950s so even then a lot of works became PD anyways.) But 70pma is very common, and 100 years is a bit short for that, I agree. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:15, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Not in PRP?

Hi, I noticed that several people agree with the proposal above, but said "not in the Commons:Precautionary principle". @Jarekt, Jmabel, Colin, and ClemRutter: So where do you propose to add this?

To be clear, I think the above discussion should stick to whether we agree or not with the principle, and then discuss here where do we add this agreement if it reaches a consensus. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:34, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
For the record, I also think that COM:L is a better place (maybe with a reference in PRP), but in the end I don't think that it matter much. What matters is the rule. Details can follow later (per Yann). --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 20:37, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Pretty much with Sebari on this (and I do think this probably deserves an RFC). I can go either way on the proposal, but I don't want to see Commons:Precautionary principle start to get cluttered up with a bunch of specific rules. - Jmabel ! talk 01:45, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
@Clindberg: As the person here I respect most on copyright matters, do you have any comment on this? - Jmabel ! talk 01:48, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Pre 1923

We are in year 2016 as of this post. 100 years prior would be 1916. We treat content before 1923 as in the PD under {{PD-old-auto-1923}}. This is a matter to consider based on the laws and regulations when we reach 2023. Like many I expect a massive change in copyright law by 2019 based on the age old pattern. If such a massive change does not happen, that alone is a massive change. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 19:15, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Am I completely wrong? Is this not valid? -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 18:01, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
No, we don't treat content before 1923 as PD. Content published before 1923 is PD in the US, which is not sufficient for Common's purposes.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:50, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
there is no talk currently in US congress to extend the mickey mouse terms, so get ready for massive change there. however, there will be no massive change to the toxic culture at commons where admins will fight for their right to delete 100 year old items. they are right and everyone else is wrong. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 16:14, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Category

For reference, I created Category:Deletion requests of old files with unidentified authors, where we can collect these kinds of DRs. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 13:53, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Moving forward on the commonscat linking to commons gallery thing

Pinging:

Please see here. Could someone please give this a go and give some feedback here? Many thanks.

Convenience links:

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:48, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

  • We discussed linking galleries to categories. Are you now proposing (per the title of this section) to link categories to galleries? - Jmabel ! talk 00:00, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  • The suggestion is to put something like
    ( function ( mw, $ ) {
	'use strict';

	var
		a = $( '#mw-normal-catlinks > ul > li > a' ).clone(), // main a only, not the added cruft
		see = $( '<div style="border: 1px solid #aaa; padding: 5px;">' +
			'For more images, you may want to see:<ul></ul>and subcategories.</div>' );

	if (( mw.config.get( 'wgNamespaceNumber' ) === 0 ) && $( '.gallery' ).length && a.length ) {
		$( 'ul', see ).append( a );
		a.wrap( '<li></li>' ); // wrap after append, because the elements need parents
		$( '#mw-content-text' ).prepend( see );
	}
}( mediaWiki, jQuery ));
    in MediaWiki:Common.js. --Unready (talk) 00:34, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
I had problem with twinkle but can you repairs? Murbaut (talk) 02:22, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  • To be clear over what this is about: Wikipedia Commons category links often end up at Commons galleries that contain only a few images. In those cases the link should go to the main category. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
    I'm not certain that's clearer. The suggestion from Commons redux was to put something like
    at the top of the mainspace pages with galleries. (In this example, on Vending machine in mainspace.) Content generated dynamically by templates is infeasible, because a template, including invoked Lua modules, cannot know the categories of a page. The options are:
    1. Users double-enter the categories, once at the top of the page in a template and later to actually categorize the page. Double-entry seems problematic to me because of the extra maintenance.
    2. A bot double-enters the categories, running periodically to clean up any mismatches. This option is still extra maintenance, except it relies on a bot.
    3. Generate the list dynamically after the parser has rendered the page and the categories are known. That's what the JavaScript above does, styling aside.
    If the intention is something else, then the requirement needs to be stated clearly: what link on what page pointing where. --Unready (talk) 05:38, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
    Thank you and huge kudos to Unready for continuing this here. I am so, so out of my depth with code and all that sort of thing, that I would be much more comfortable letting others iron out details here while I watch. I hope that is okay. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:37, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
    I'm not really championing the effort, just explaining my suggestion. --Unready (talk) 21:43, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
    Fair enough. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:18, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

For the record: Unready has kindly created code and is explaining it. Anna is totally and hugely 100% championing this idea. Whether or not someone can champion their own idea is another matter. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:18, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

 Question Why can't we force the category view in the first place? Most galleries are rubbish anyway. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 13:05, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
"Champion" as a management term means more than simply being in favor of something. Here is the process I suggested elsewhere previously, slightly paraphrased.
  1. Be sure that the code does what people want. People can put it in their personal js temporarily to test. If people don't want it, want something different, or have alternate solutions, we need to know.
  2. Ask for comments on a more concrete proposal as an RfC on Commons:Village pump/Proposals. The proposal should probably put any styling in Common.css. If the proposal is accepted, the admins implement it.
We're at step #1, so does it meet requirements? Are there different requirements? Are there even any requirements? --Unready (talk) 21:04, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Wait a sec. Is this code thingy for individuals to put in their individual pages to set their preferences for where commonscat goes? Does this have anything to do with changing where links end up, i.e. at gallery or main cat?
I thought this was about some sort of bot that could go around and add a box to the top of all galleries that says "This is only a gallery. For a complete list of all images in this category, please click here."
Or maybe a bot can figure out if a gallery contains a scarce few images or hasn't been modified in ages, and at the same time, the cat has tons of images, then the Wikipedia commonscat link could automatically be changed to go to the cat rather than the gallery? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:39, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
The code would go in MediaWiki:Common.js, but people can and should test it in their personal js. There is no bot. As I say above, a bot is not the way to go. --Unready (talk) 01:14, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Okay, I have no idea what MediaWiki:Common.js compared to personal js. I'm staying out of this. My brain is way, way too tiny in this regard. Don't try to explain it to me. That would be like trying to explain physics to a hamster. You boffins sort it out. :) Sorry to butt in. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:06, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Is this going to stall out again? Does anyone care? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:55, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

@Anna Frodesiak: can we have a proposal on Commons:Village pump/Proposals per Unready's suggestion above? This is a UI change and someone may not like it. Btw: since this isn't a crucial UI feature for logged-in users, I believe this should be implemented as a gadget instead for ease of disabling. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 06:10, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
At this point, based on a lack of responses, I'd have to say not a single person has tried it to see if it's what anyone wants to do. Given some of the discussion above, I'm not even certain there's agreement on what the requirements are. --Unready (talk) 07:52, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I posted here: Commons:Village pump/Proposals#Box in galleries indicating main category Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:35, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

December 03

Strange error message

New file mover here. The dialogue box that pops up when I batch rename files says:

Some edits exceeded your rate limit of $1 edits per $2 seconds. Please let this tab open until this dialog disappeared or you got a positive response from the tool you are using. It will take approx. NaN seconds to complete this task.

Are $1, $2 and NaN supposed to be given values, and were they generated properly before? Thanks, Jc86035 (talk) Use {{ping|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 13:24, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

This may answer your question: $wg Rate Limits--P.g.champion (talk) 22:36, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I messed up a category

I changed the name of a category, and then tried to change it back, but it messed up. It was "Vehicles of the Toronto Police Service", and I tried to change it back to "Automobiles of the Toronto Police Service". Sorry about that. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 20:13, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: You can just move the media back to the original category. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:46, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I tried but go an error. I don't want to mess it up more. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:12, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
I can't quite understand what you intend to do, so it's hard to do it on your behalf. Do you simply want to move Category:Vehicles of the Toronto Police Service back to Category:Automobiles of the Toronto Police Service, or is there something else you have in mind? - Jmabel ! talk 06:06, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Sorry for not being more specific. What I want to do is go back in time and not do what I did yesterday after I uploaded this excellent photo of a Toronto police van which is used to transport prisoners. I uploaded the photo, and then started to add categories. There was already a category called "Automobiles of the Toronto Police Service", but the photo I uploaded is more of a large van, not really an "automobile", so I changed the name of the category to "Vehicles of the Toronto Police Service", which I thought would be more inclusive. After doing that, I noticed that the category was in fact only filled with automobiles... plus my lonely photo of a large van. So I tried to undo what I had done, but it didn't work. I can't recall exactly how it didn't work, I can only tell you that moving photos to a newly-created category is easier than moving them back to a category they had been in. Plus, there seemed to be a parent/child conflict with the category. I've never moved a category (and certainly won't be doing it again!) but now I need to un-do what I did. The good news is, I added the photo I uploaded to the category "Prison vans". Thanks again for your help and sorry for making a mess. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:50, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
OK, I'll sort it out, and we probably should have both categories. - Jmabel ! talk 16:38, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your help! Magnolia677 (talk) 21:26, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Vans are included in automobiles in Commons. But in British English, I don't think a van is a car, and I thought a car was the same as an automobile. But who knows, language is murky. --ghouston (talk) 22:17, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

December 13

December 14

Portable Antiquities Scheme (UK) has open-licensed images

Is anyone doing systematic uploads of open-licensed images from finds.org.uk, such as that on [15]? FYI, @Baomi, Magnus Manske, and Fæ: , who have each uploaded some in the past. Andy Mabbett (talk) 14:08, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I'll add it to my planned upload projects. I recall doing some past uploads, but I think the site has been revamped since the last time I looked at it and I agree that a systematic upload makes sense. You can nudge me about it at User talk:Fæ#Portable antiquities --Fæ (talk) 07:28, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

New way to edit wikitext

Summary: There's a new opt-in Beta Feature of a wikitext mode for the visual editor. Please go try it out.


We in the Wikimedia Foundation's Editing department are responsible for making editing better for all our editors, new and experienced alike. We've been slowly improving the visual editor based on feedback, user tests, and feature requests. However, that doesn't work for all our user needs: whether you need to edit a wikitext talk page, create a template, or fix some broken reference syntax, sometimes you need to use wikitext, and many experienced editors prefer it.

Consequently, we've planned a "wikitext mode" for the visual editor for a long time. It provides as much of the visual editor's features as possible, for those times that you need or want wikitext. It has the same user interface as the visual editor, including the same toolbar across the top with the same buttons. It provides access to the citoid service for formatting citations, integrated search options for inserting images, and the ability to add new templates in a simple dialog. Like in the visual editor, if you paste in formatted text copied from another page, then formatting (such as bolding) will automatically be converted into wikitext.

All wikis now have access to this mode as a Beta Feature. When enabled, it replaces your existing wikitext editor everywhere. If you don't like it, you can reverse this at any time by turning off the Beta Feature in your preferences. We don't want to surprise anyone, so it's strictly an opt-in-only Beta Feature. It won't switch on automatically for anyone, even if you have previously checked the box to "Automatically enable most beta features".

The new wikitext edit mode is based on the visual editor, so it requires JavaScript (as does the current wikitext editor). It doesn't work with gadgets that have only been designed for the older one (and vice versa), so some users will miss gadgets they find important. We're happy to work with gadget authors to help them update their code to work with both editors. We're not planning to get rid of the current main wikitext editor on desktop in the foreseeable future. We're also not going to remove the existing ability to edit plain wikitext without JavaScript. Finally, though it should go without saying, if you prefer to continue using the current wikitext editor, then you may so do.

This is an early version, and we'd love to know what you think so we can make it better. Please leave feedback about the new mode on the feedback page. You may write comments in any language. Thank you.

James Forrester (Product Manager, Editing department, Wikimedia Foundation) --19:32, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

The image map is frozen

The tool "Commons on OSM" linked from the {{Location}} template have again not updated data. Last displayed photos are ca from 16 November 2016, the newer photos are not visible in the map. Such failures are not rare.

Is there any way how to make this tool more reliable? Could someone create an explanation page which should be linked from the template? The linked Commons:Geocoding page says nothing factual about these failures and delays. --ŠJů (talk) 22:34, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

December 15

Commons app (Android) update - v1.41

Hi all,

We're excited to announce that we've rolled out several updates and bugfixes for the Commons Android app over the past couple of months. Some of the major ones include:

  • Automatic addition of geocoding template if uploaded image is geotagged
  • Category suggestions based on the title entered for the image
  • New, more detailed tutorial to educate new contributors on what types of images should or should not be uploaded (special thanks to Pine for sharing his Commons educational script which was used as the basis for this)
  • Check for whether or not the file already exists on Commons, to prevent upload of duplicates. Currently it is only a 'soft' check, so users are notified but still have the option of choosing to continue with the upload, but after this feature has been live for some time without any bugs, we may consider implementing a 'hard' check that completely prevents duplicate uploads. Even the 'soft' check should prevent unintentional duplicate uploads, though.
  • The kind folks at translatewiki.net are helping us set up a translation project for our app, so hopefully localization should improve in the near future.

Thank you all for your support and encouragement thus far! Feedback, bug reports, and suggestions are always welcome on our GitHub page. :)

Misaochan (talk) 04:54, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Old military image, new reproduction

How to deal with this image: Potsdam Luftbild 1945.JPG? It is without any doubt originally a photograph made short after the bombardment of Potsdam, Germany, on 14 April 1945 by the British Royal Air Force. Making photos for control after operations was a standard proceeding of the Allied forces. The uploader claims to have photographed it himself in July 2016 in an exhibition on the Alter Markt in Potsdam, alas only in Dewiki, cf. de:Spezial:Diff/153309953/156087660. Questions I have:

  • Should we add something to source attribution?
  • What is with the dates? I actually prefer 1945 as denomination.
  • How about the license tags? Is a CC license right here or would we need another, because the image was made by armed forces?

If you can read German, see also de:Luftangriff auf Potsdam. — Speravir – 21:57, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

We can keep the file, but date, author and source should be changed. The copyright has expired (Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United Kingdom#Crown copyright work created before 1957), license tag is {{PD-UKGov}}. MKFI (talk) 07:45, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, MKFI, especially for pointing to the appropriate license tag. Since there came no other statements, I call this section as done. I’ve updated the file description. — Speravir – 00:51, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Speravir 00:51, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Script to confirm rollbacks before performing it

Hi, is there a script for rollbackers to confirm their rollback first before performing it? Sometimes, I accidentally click the rollback button which would rollback an innocent edit. I would like to prevent myself from rollbacking innocent edits. Thanks, ★ Poké95 02:35, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Please, see en:User:MusikAnimal/confirmationRollback. Ruslik (talk) 19:45, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
It worked, thanks! ★ Poké95 02:33, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ★ Poké95 02:33, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Scripted & automated tasks on human accounts

Thrice now my requests for higher access for my bot has been declined. We as a community should reach a decision on the matter because this is ridiculous.

Protected pages, bulk update of OTRS requests, bulk admin actions are all in the domain of bots. Not humans. There is a very disturbing trend of "just use your human account with higher access for bot tasks" as well as a number of bulk scripts that are regularly used by human accounts. Unauthorized use of bots like this should be discouraged (or even blocked/banned) not encouraged/required.

If we will not allow bots to freely update pages, I feel we should retire the bot flag.

  • I WILL NOT use scripted/automated bulk tasks under my human account.
  • I WILL NOT edit protected pages leftover from a routine bot task.
  • I WILL NOT manually process bulk OTRS permission requests where the ticket applies to multiple files already uploaded to commons.
  • I want to get stuff done without wasting my time on routine trivial tasks a bot can handle.

You LET bots upload files but you do NOT let bots update OTRS tickets in bulk.

-- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 15:39, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

If there are good and well defined reasons included in the bot request for the sysop rights to be applied, then it would be accepted. As far as I could work out, the reasons given appeared fairly ad hoc, rather than for well defined tasks that required the rights. I suggest rethinking your approach to the job you want to do, so that the request reads as specific and limited. --Fæ (talk) 15:45, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
What you are asking is impossible. The very nature of bot use involves large number of files which means broad definitions which is turned down for being ad-hoc. If I identify a very limited scope then I am told to make the edits manually since it isn't that many files.
First I requested the global ability to edit protected pages (primarily to deal with protected double redirects on over 700 wikis), this was declined on the grounds of "no problems". Then I requested an admin flag here on commons to deal with protected pages on commons (for a number of tasks) which I withdrew when people opposed on the basis of "unnecessary" and "no higher access to bots".
Lastly, I merely requested OTRS permission which adds no special privileges. All the bot would gain would be to tag OTRS tickets. I am told to do them by hand or modify the commons abuse filter. This has a very specific and limited use. If we do not wan't bots to deal with routine tasks, what is the point of the bot flag.
-- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 15:46, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Well, thank you for telling us what you are going not to do, but as in your previous requests I'm still missing a strong argument why we have to join the ultimate workflow of yours against all commons sense. Especially OTRS ticket additions should be noticed by the uploader on his watchlist, so using a bot flag here is a no-go for me. --Krd 18:17, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
@Krd: I am asking you to handle the manual labor for me since you decided this is not something the bot should do. It is a task my bot can perform within seconds which you do not allow. Your opinion is the law here. At the very least JUSTIFY your position. Give a strong reason why bots are not allowed in editing protected pages or bulk update OTRS tags. This is a routine non-controversial task. We never required strong arguments for bot tasks before. Why are you demanding it?
For example, please explain to me why the uploader needs OTRS tagging in their watchlist? Why would they not need to see re-categorization and other routine tasks? Why explicitly OTRS? If the files aren't tagged with the permissions license, they will be deleted as the permission known to the OTRS ticket isn't communicated to the file description page.
-- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 19:34, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  • The bot in question is user:タチコマ robot. The declined request for bot admin rights is at Commons:Administrators/Requests/タチコマ robot. とある白い猫 I appreciate your interest in doing tasks with a bot. I hope that you understand that there has to be some regulation. Right now, I do not see either on the bot's page or in the request a description of what the bot will do. Can you point to at least 1-3 sentences of description of why you want the bot to have admin rights? Do you think this is too much to ask? It seems reasonable to me to request an explanation before rights are given. Is there a misunderstanding here? Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:37, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
    • @Bluerasberry: My bot has two roles. First is double redirects. The other is find and replace tasks. It has been processing these for years. The bot processes hundreds of thousands of pages for routine tasks per year. The bot cannot edit protected pages or update OTRS template in bulk. I don't want to go through hundreds of thousands of pages manually to identify the 2-3 protected pages and then perform a routine edit. Likewise I do not want to make 40 individual edits on OTRS tagging. The problem here is that I am unwilling to engage in manual labor that the bot can handle trivially. This is the purpose of bots. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 19:34, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
    • Just to clarify the lists on my plate are User:タチコマ robot/list(Ticket:2016112810007364 - 40 files) and User:タチコマ robot/list2(ticket:2016112110010603 - 35 files). -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 19:54, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
とある白い猫 I still am not sure I understand. I see at Special:Contributions/タチコマ_robot the bot is already doing all sorts of tasks, and this use has been approved for a long time. If I understand correctly, that bot is not allowed to do those same tasks on protected pages, even though the task it does has nothing to do with the cause for page protection. Can you give an example of what you want the bot to do with OTRS templates? Is it already doing OTRS template work, or is this a new task and something that is restricted to admin bots? I regret asking you to do a manual example, but if need be, can you do one OTRS replacement to demonstrate what it is that you want the bot to do? I am not aware of what might be restricted to admins for OTRS templates. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:47, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
@Bluerasberry: Certainly, the bot is incapable of editing protected pages. Just like how ordinary users cannot edit protected pages. Pages are protected for all sorts of reasons but mainly for abuse (such as repetitive vandalism) or the risk of abuse (such as files used on main pages that are temporarily protected). If these pages happen to be in a group of files that are being updated, the bot will simply skip the protected pages. As per the Commons:Administrators/Requests/タチコマ robot decision, the bot will not edit protected pages. I have reviewed the ticket:2016112110010603 which grants us the ability to freely license the 35 files mentioned in the OTRS ticket. In this case, the bot would replace the {{OTRS pending}} template with {{PermissionOTRS}}. Only users with a global "OTRS Member" permission can modify this tag. "OTRS Member" permission does not offer any special access beyond that. The idea here is for the bot to perform a thankless repetitive task so that I do not have to. While the bot preforms those, I can focus on other tickets instead. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 02:42, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
とある白い猫 Okay, that checks out. You as a human will manually read OTRS tickets, and once you have made a human decision, then you will use the bot to automatically update the templates on a set of files. The problem you have had is that only accounts with the "OTRS Member" userright can edit these files, so since your bot has neither that or admin rights, then your bot has been unable to do this tedious task.
You have a record as an experienced and trusted user and have admin status on Commons. Your bot is approved to run, and you are a person who has had advanced rights, and you have described an appropriate bot function which requires advanced rights.
I looked again at Commons:Administrators/Requests/タチコマ_robot. If I understand correctly, Krd opposed the granting of rights because it is "not shown why manual bulk tasks cannot be done with the main account". I see a collection of tedious tasks waiting for this bot, including User:タチコマ robot/OTRS/2016112810007364, and as I understand changing the templates in this list is a noncontroversial thing to do and I also feel that it would be tedious to update these 40 files by hand. This seems like bot work to me, and the bot cannot do this or similar updates for sets of files without advanced rights.
Krd, it sounds like you had a concern about limits on the bot. Would you approve this bot to update OTRS templates on Commons as described here? What about this task makes you hesitate to support the granting of rights? Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
@Bluerasberry: That pretty much sums up what I hope to achieve. The two different OTRS tickets I have at the moment have 40+35=75 files total for the time being. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 19:46, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
とある白い猫 I might be offline for a few days but unless someone raises an objection, I advocate for your bot to get the userright. I read the previous opposition and I think the problem was that people wanted a clearer statement of what tasks the bot would do. If you were imagining that the bot would do anything controversial then speak up, but otherwise, this all seems routine and acceptable. You have my support. If I lose this thread ping me again. Sorry for the bureaucracy but you know how it goes here, and I will continue to advance the approval process. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:19, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
@Bluerasberry: Not much happened sadly. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 16:11, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
So could I please have any response here? Aside from Krd whom rejected the notion of giving OTRS access to the bot. I do not understand the reason of this push back. I have bulk tickets to close positively. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 12:11, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

This has sat without further response for six days. I have nothing to add, but I'm writing here so it doesn't get archived without being dealt with. - Jmabel ! talk 16:44, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I am unclear what action you are expecting for this thread to close. There are 40 files mentioned, and as far as I am aware, any account can change OTRS templates without anything blowing up as there is no such thing as special "OTRS Member" user rights for editing, apart from avoiding warning flags in the page history. I suggest it is done as housekeeping by an account with a bot flag, and if someone complains that the edits are tagged as non-OTRS member adding OTRS templates, they can be pointed to the discussions. This use of the Village Pump was not great, this case has been discussed in multiple venues when it would have been better to keep discussion in one. Reopening the case until you get the decision you want is not a good way to build understanding, or address the original requests for a clear explanation. I stopped actively following or contributing to this thread for those reasons. --Fæ (talk) 19:18, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Monuments winners announced

Winning picture of Wiki Loves Monuments 2016

Hi all,

it's great to be able to finally announce the winning images of Wiki Loves Monuments 2016! You can find the winning images on Wiki Loves Monuments 2016 winners, and the full jury report is available here.

Best regards,

Effeietsanders (talk) 19:10, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
(international WLM jury coordinator, on behalf of the international team)

Reviewing files license

I just found two sites with free CC licenses. I'm uploading some files and wouldd like someone else to review them. What template should I use? BTW I'm leaving the sites here, it may be useful for everybody The Noun Project, Animals Clipart Mizunoryu (talk) 12:19, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

@Mizunoryu: Please use {{LicenseReview}}. Thanks, ★ Poké95 12:26, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you!Mizunoryu (talk) 12:29, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
You're welcome. ★ Poké95 12:40, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ★ Poké95 12:40, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

NC-ND is allowed?

Or ... what's going on? Can anyone explain? Ed [talk] [en:majestic titan] 01:53, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Pinging Ritchyblack. Ed [talk] [en:majestic titan] 02:10, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Free Art License is conformant. He's welcome to offer any other license in addition. - Jmabel ! talk 04:42, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
whenever you (Personal attack removed) want to stop the hybrid license nonsense, go for it. using the SA or NC ND to force email for reuse terms is particularly clever. or maybe an FAQ for the periodically incredulous. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 01:49, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
wow, kids is a personal attack? hillarious. stop the madness. or get laughed at. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 02:13, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be wording to state that the end user can re-use the image under either license? I don't delve into the dual licensing stuff much, but it seems like the use of such a template couldn't force an end user to re-use under both licenses? — Huntster (t @ c) 21:45, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Deletion If these media are actually licensed with NC-ND, then they must be removed from here. The uploader can relicense them to make them more free but we cannot host them. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:52, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
That's not true as I understand it. So long as the end user has the option of a free license to use, any number of other licenses (free or otherwise) can be included with the image. That's my whole question here: that template, and any others like it, need to make it clear that the end user can choose which license to use, and that they don't have to abide by both (or more) licenses. Look at some of the templates in Category:Multi-license license tags, for example, which do it correctly. — Huntster (t @ c) 00:05, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
I would agree with you if there was more evidence this is confusing. I didn't think there was, but it is concerning that one of the most prolific Wikipedia editors of all time is confused by it. That said, even templates like {{Dual-gfdl-cc-by-sa-any}} don't make this point explicitly. If we must mandate clarification, I'd start with templates like that first. Storkk (talk) 10:12, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Can we come up with standard text that says something like "You can choose one or both of the following licenses: "? Also, can an admin unprotect this? Ed [talk] [en:majestic titan] 18:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
This should be a variant on {{FAL or cc-by-nc-nd}}, for just the specific BY-NC-ND version. Reventtalk 17:33, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
don't know why you would want to undo the protection by banned users. how about a survey of protection and unprotecting as appropriate? Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 02:16, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
@Slowking4: I'd just like to make it clear that you can choose one of the licenses. That's not clear at all right now. Ed [talk] [en:majestic titan] 01:27, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
hey, it is perfectly clear to me. it's the license purists who wonder at this hybrid nonsense. see also Commons:Deletion requests/User:Fir0002/credits why you won't go to CC for the future, and mark historical i don't know. and why an historical hybrid license is protected, i don't know. it is all very confusing and tl;dr. maybe an admin will wander in and fix the old license of someone who hasn't uploaded in 2 years. maybe a few more FAQ's are in order. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 01:48, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
@Slowking4: I'm glad that it's clear to you. It isn't to me and I suspect others, hence my request to unprotect the page so I can address it. Thanks! Ed [talk] [en:majestic titan] 19:18, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
It was also apparently unclear to Koavf just above. Would you describe him as a license purist or a clueless noob? Storkk (talk) 19:50, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
i will let you sort yourselves into which category you belong. all those people who voted keep hybrid licenses can fix their FUBAR. or the people venting unproductively on VP. clearly you cannot harangue the uploader since they are long gone. and i don't want to hear it. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 00:50, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
@The ed17: Before even considering messing with users' custom license templates, please consider gauging support for a change in templates like {{Dual-gfdl-cc-by-sa-any}}. I think the unprotection you requested is premature. Storkk (talk) 10:42, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
@Storkk: I would simply like the opportunity to add "Choose one of the following:" to the confusing license header. I'll be happy to start a discussion on other related templates when I have time, but this should be an incredibly uncontroversial action to prevent confusion. We're here to facilitate re-use, not confuse people. :-) Ed [talk] [en:majestic titan] 09:21, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
While you and Justin have indeed professed to being confused by this custom user license template, you have not demonstrated that we have enough of a problem, in my opinion, to unilaterally override the licensing choices of a user who could reply (if they were still here) that they were simply following well-established practices as indicated by templates such as {{Dual-gfdl-cc-by-sa-any}}. So no, I will not be unprotecting that template until there has been strong community consensus demonstrated that some kind of {{Dual license}} boilerplate is required for all dual licenses. I would certainly support adding clarifying wording to, e.g. Commons:Reusing_content_outside_Wikimedia/licenses except that it is already in the second bullet point. Storkk (talk) 10:47, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
@Storkk: Are we misunderstanding each other? In what way is clarifying that you can choose one of the templates "unilaterally overrid[ing] the licensing choices of a user"? I'm legitimately surprised that you are actively advocating to confuse users when there's an unequivocally easy solution. You'll note, I'm sure, that those dual-license templates don't actually link to Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia/licenses, so I don't see how that solves the issue. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:39, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
@The ed17: the choice of how to format and present the licensing was his. If you override it without his input and without a clear consensus to do so, I would call that "unilateral". I am struggling to understand why you think the previously mentioned Template-namespace templates are not confusing while these are, or why you are otherwise refusing to start there. Storkk (talk) 10:13, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
@Storkk: These templates are meant to facilitate reuse, not confuse readers. Of course the other templates are confusing as well, but there's no clear place to start a discussion. It would seem like this issue applies to far more than just one template, so would this page not be suitable? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
@The ed17: Sure, this page is fine. Storkk (talk) 22:34, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I think this license has been incorrectly added to a lot of files. For example, this diff shows the file was available under the FAL license for months and it was only after becoming promoted to valued image that the restrictive template was added. That is not OK. Jane023 (talk) 17:00, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Which more restrictive template was added? The file is still available under the Free Art License. If a re-user does not wish to abide by the terms of the FAL, they can choose CC-BY-NC-ND instead. Like any other dual license template, you are not required to simultaneously abide by both licenses stated. Storkk (talk) 17:30, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
The second license has been added to the first. Not OK. In thhe case of a book cover made after a PD image, there may also be two licenses; one for the text and one for the image. DO you call that a dual license that can be "chosen" as you put it? I think not. Jane023 (talk) 20:01, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
A situation where there are two copyright interests (and so you can think of the restrictions being "additive" in some sense), is not particularly relevant. Here, the second license is an additional option, and it cannot restrict further than either individually, as is made clear in the second bullet point at Commons:Reusing_content_outside_Wikimedia/licenses. You are, however, the third person to profess confusion at dual licensing in this section, so perhaps one of you who are confused should start an RFC? I cannot, since I do not understand your confusion and thus cannot present the reasons for your confusion cogently, nor am I in a good position to suggest the best way to resolve the situation or advocate on its behalf. Storkk (talk) 22:06, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
hey User:Jane023 welcome to the hybrid theocracy. as long as it is "libre" ideology, NC ND is ok. the idea that an uploader can go restrict their license from libre to NC ND is wrong for flickr, but ok for commons. lol [16] all those german photogs gotta make a living, i'm just so glad they left behind their work, like toolserver. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 19:10, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Non-consensual nudes?

Category:Upskirt has a new sub-category Category:Upskirt (on purpose). This implies that images that are not "on purpose" are unintentional (read non-consensual) nudes or otherwise invasions of personal privacy and personal space. Meaning actual, rather than pretend or performative, voyeurism. If we believe an image is actually victimizing the subject, we cannot host it. If we do not, then it must be consensual, or "on purpose". Any upskirt photo that does not belong in Category:Upskirt (on purpose) should be deleted.

Considering how few of these images have any educational or other identifiable benefit, any questionable cases might as well go. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:30, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

At a cursory glance I don't see many problematic images. I think the "on purpose" is meaning it's upskirt on purpose, rather than being merely an angle which happened to catch up a skirt. I'm not sure there's much of a distinction myself, and I'd support the deletion of the on purpose category as a meaningless differentiation. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:29, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Yes, I agree with Dennis here. In addition, I see a lot of junk in this category and the parent one. A massive cleaning is needed. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:23, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
I loaded this file recently. Here is another view of the same building. When I took my original photograph, I included the river, the river bank and a snmall group of people on the river bank. When examining the image before submission, I noticed that one of the people was a woman who was in the process of undresing, so I cropped that bit out of the image. I think that this is a good example of unintentional [semi-]nude - she was wearing knickers. I think it appropriate that the privacy of the woman in question be respected and as such I see no reason for a Category:Upskirt (unintentional). In light of this, the scope Category:Upskirt (on purpose) serves no purpose. Martinvl (talk) 23:15, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
An alternative reading is that the (on purpose) category is for those cases where the subject (how come we have none of men in kilts?) is visibly trying provide a view under the skirt, as opposed to those where the subject is trying to prevent it, or is unaware. Presumably in all these the subject is a model who is aware of the photographer's intentions and consents to be photographed. If that's the case, maybe only a more clear title is needed. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:51, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
If we keep a category for 'posed' upskirt photographs, we should probably include the actual word 'posed' in the category name to be unambiguous. Reventtalk 05:14, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 Question Why Category:Can-can dancers and its subcategories included there? Jee 11:11, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
@Jkadavoor: Because the French cancan danse derivative from the Can-can danse is a daring and erotic dance where women shows deliberately what's under dress and petticoats. So yes it can be relevant to include this in Category:Upskirt (on purpose) as it is indeed in purpose. And this is even the purpose of this dance. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:50, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Christian, it is about "Can-can dancers"; not "Can-can dance". That's why it included Category:Jane Avril and Category:Grave of Avril (Père-Lachaise, division 19). The pictures in those categories (grave of Avril, paintings by Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec) has nothing to do with "upskirt". Jee 02:49, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Apparently she practiced this dance, and even likely she was well know for that, and thus she deliberately showed the "underside of her skirts ", but yes maybe that only the photos of dancers indeed showing the underside of their skirts, should be categorized into Category:Upskirt (on purpose) and likely not the entire category of a dancer, because this is very true that the photos from her tomb as well as her portrait, or when she is eating, are not relevant into this category. Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:53, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks; removed. Jee 06:22, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Peruvian gate

looks at first glance very similar to the gate in Category:Casa del Moral, buts its not. Is this another building/gate in Arequipa?Smiley.toerist (talk) 23:55, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

@Smiley.toerist: See http://www.alamy.com/image-details-popup.asp?imageid={4C477C37-440A-439B-86BB-90871567EF0A} and https://lori.ru/21198019. From the bit of lettering in the latter, it appears to be a bank. Reventtalk 05:17, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Here we are on Google Street View. It's "Casa Ricketts", at 108 San Francisco in Arequipa. Reventtalk 05:22, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Just renamed it, FYI. Reventtalk 05:27, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I also renamed the linked picture of the courtyard. I did some further work: set the correct timing of my pictures (time schift of 5 hours) and added two categories: Category:Plaza San Francisco (Arequipa) and Category:Lagunillas Santa Lucia Puno. The fligth was from Arequipas to Cusco via Puno. I cant localize this lake: File:Arequipa Cusco fligth 09.jpg It should be between Puno and Cusco and there are several candidates. If some of the other pictures taken from the airplane could be localized it would be appreciated. For example: File:Arequipa Cusco fligth 04.jpg (This should fairly close to Cusco, from the time). Wich volcano File:On route to Colca Valley 10.jpg is this? (I suspect El Misti, but I am not certain)Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:53, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

December 16

Images by Urbain J. Kinet

I've just uploaded 434 images by Urbain J. Kinet, circa 1980 and recently made available with no known copyright restrictions by the Department of Geography at UC Berkeley. They cover a variety of countries and subjects.

Please help to add categories, and make use of them on our sister projects. Andy Mabbett (talk) 20:47, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

December 17

When sports teams move

When sports teams move from one city to another, we seem to be inconsistent about how we handle this in terms of categories. For example, Category:Seattle SuperSonics continues to exist as a subcat of Category:Oklahoma City Thunder, which is as I think it should be. However, there is no Category:Cincinnati Royals as a subcat of Category:Sacramento Kings; instead, everything about the Royals years seems to be lumped into the latter category (although I see that a level down Category:Sacramento Kings players has a subcat Category:Cincinnati Royals players, and there may be other such). I would think we should have a separate Category:Cincinnati Royals. Does anyone disagree? - Jmabel ! talk 01:30, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I think it would be best to have a category tree with a super cat for the team as a whole and two sub cats, one for each of the names/cities. The latter can then be put into the appropriate city cats. This would be the least confusing and "cleanest" solution in my opinion and also avoids the question which team name should be sub cat of which. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 08:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
I believe literally none are currently done that way, and what would you call the category for the "team as a whole"? There is no constant name over time, that's the whole point. I think it's entirely appropriate that, as for almost anything, the top category is the current name; what I'm saying is that we need a subcat because a game photo of the Cincinnati Royals should not be directly in Category:Sacramento Kings. - Jmabel ! talk 19:00, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Newbie question

I uploaded this File:Spilosoma extrema.png. It is still under copyright and should be deleted. How do I do this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThorbyTech (talk • contribs) 06:50, 16 December 2016 (UTC) ThorbyTech (talk) 06:53, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Nevermind, I figured it out. I added a tag to the image requesting speedy deletion.ThorbyTech (talk) 07:27, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

This looks OK to me. Yann (talk) 10:06, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
@Yann: the source is a German book and appears to be from 1943... I don't know where the 1910 date comes from. Is there evidence that the author died before 1945? @ThorbyTech: you seemed to be pretty sure it's still under copyright. It would be helpful to know why. Storkk (talk) 10:27, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
If I am reading it correctly, and I may not be, the slide photographer appears to be Franz Daniel who died in 1985. Storkk (talk) 10:36, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
I took the picture from http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/bibliography/15739#/summary. Volume 33, 1943, which states "Copyright & Usage:
License Type: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/

Rights: http://biodiversitylibrary.org/permissions Copyright Status: In copyright. Digitized with the permission of the rights holder." ThorbyTech (talk) 18:25, 16 December 2016 (UTC) @Yann and Storkk: — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThorbyTech (talk • contribs) 18:27, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

The Commons does not allow licences with only non-commercial use. Its anyway a small fuzy image of not much use.Smiley.toerist (talk) 23:53, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Nominated for deletion. Storkk (talk) 11:57, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Advise required

Dear Admin

I hope that you all are doing well. could any one please let me know why the page was deleted? I was hired as a contractor to form the product and to give promotional training to its users which is why I had formed the page which was deleted.

Truly

Talal shaikh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Talal shaikh (talk • contribs) 15:22, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

See COM:SCOPE. Commons is not meant to be a vehicle for commercial promotion. Also, you should not edit a deletion discussion once it's been closed. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 15:27, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

December 19

Commons:Grandfathered old files

Recently we have had a discussion at Commons talk:Grandfathered old files about the cut-off date. At this moment there seems to be a consensus that the date in the guideline should change, but not yet a consensus about which new date would be suitable. There are two good candidates at the moment, one with 5 votes and one with 3 votes. This difference and this number of votes is very small to build a consensus on. I would like to invite you to read Commons talk:Grandfathered old files and to vote, so that a change of the page could be based on the input of more different users. Jcb (talk) 16:36, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

why don't you admins merely announce what your rubrics are? no input needed from lowly editors. or how much are you offering to vote with you? the pretense of asking for more input looks merely like vote stacking. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 02:13, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
  • What on earth prompted that outburst? Two possibilities (both of them amenable to me) seem to be getting roughly equal support, so Jcb canvassed for more participation. If you have a problem say what it is: an apparently random burst of anger is not useful to anyone. - Jmabel ! talk 03:21, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Slowking, you are in the long grass for this one. I'm no admin and there's no cosy admin club for this discussion. There is no reason to believe anyone might have vested interests. The issue of grandfathered files is a bit of an insider topic, but is important for a fair number of files that have been hosted on Commons in the years before OTRS existed. I encourage more non-admins who are interested in maintaining our older files to take a look and give their considered views about where to draw this debatable line in the sand. :-) --Fæ (talk) 11:18, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
i'll tell you what provoked it. we have an admin who goes around deleting 100 year old files by "no source" circumventing DR, blocks users to delete files, and admin locks talk pages. you wouldn't need all your pseudo-policy discussion if you dealt with your admin problem. now he is creating imaginary bright lines? and asking my support? frankly, participating in their corrupt practices is a little dirty. count me out. a bright line for old files is inherently wrong-headed. you must examine and source each file. the lazy deletionist cannot be bothered. he wants permission to mass delete everything after the line. we have another admin who talks about "black line rule" about not modifying CC licenses, except when that modification is "for media". there is no reason here; it is all will to power. you should expect the "outbursts" to continue - it is really grumbling of the reluctant participant. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 17:17, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

False duplicate

I was putting the duplicate template on when I noticed there is a difference: A dog face. File:Wititi perro.jpg The picture is probably photoshopped from File:Wititis.jpg. Probably some joke being played.Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:00, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Fake version deleted, and correct version replaced in article. Rodhullandemu (talk) 10:33, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done, But it is worrying that this fake picture lasted for six years in the Commons! I suspect that some pictures are not looked at very often. In this type scene persons often wear masks so unusual faces are not noticed. It is only because I was categorising the images that I noticed the fake duplicate. If there was no original picture it would have lasted even longer.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:04, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Question about the picture size here on Wikimedia

Dear Wkimedia community, I have a question about the right way in providing to the community here pictures. I am a visual artist and easy to find under my name Katerina Belkina. A while ago I decided to upload some of my artworks on the wikimedia platform to offer other community members to create here a interesting content especially on wikipedia. I uploaded my artworks in a small picture resolution around 400px horizontal. Now I found out that other users uploaded the same artworks but in a much higher picture resolution. The problem: when I decided me to provide to the community my artworks I was thinking when I upload them in a small resolution that is perfect for web usage I can protect them for a usage in printing. Please let me know is it my right to change them back to the smaller resolution? Because other users changing them permanently back to the high resolution. I looking forward to get your opinion about this issue. Kind regards Katerina Belkina Katerina Belkina (talk) 01:13, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

In short Ritarisk uploaded higher res images (can't link these via diffs due to laptop issues), and the author of those images (Katrina) has an issue with higher res images being used, There's currently a discussion on my tp too, As far as I'm aware images could be replaced with higher res ones?, If not I'd happily revert, Thanks. –Davey2010Talk 02:07, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
I seem to remember there was some question a while ago about whether a high resolution version of the same image counted as a different work for copyright purposes, and that therefore uploading a low resolution copy was accepting that any higher resolution copies were also released freely. I'm not sure what came of that, but FWIW I'd favour deleting the higher resolution images if the author doesn't want them here. (Relevant category is Category:Katerina Belkina). -mattbuck (Talk) 14:58, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I moved this from Commons:Forum, since the discussion is in English. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 13:47, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

My understanding is that when someone has released an image under a license, the license is valid only for that particular resolution or a lower resolution. If we want to upload the same image with a higher resolution, we need to check that the license is valid for the higher resolution as well. This isn't a problem for instance when we replace a low resolution image from Flickr with a higher resolution version from the same Flickr page, because it is understood that the given license there is for all the available resolutions. But replacing an image from one source with a higher resolution version from a different source could be a problem.

This is also an issue when a museum or similar institution releases images that are not in the public domain, with a more or less free license. They will often release the free licensed images with a relatively limited resolution, and retain the rights to exclusively sell higher resolution versions of the same images. Blue Elf (talk) 15:46, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

It is very complicated and I saw a new discussion too. But the last conclusion we had arrived still stands: "Sometimes, authors wish to release a lower quality or lower resolution version of an image or video under a free license, while applying stricter terms to higher quality versions. It is unclear whether such a distinction is legally enforceable, but Commons's policy is to respect the copyright holder's intentions by hosting only the lower quality version." Jee 05:03, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
yes the propensity to overwrite existing files is "not cool"; and edit warring with the uploader (welcome to commons). however the difference between 171 and 717 kB is not that great (you would have to have around 10 - 100 MB to have reproduction quality resolution. perhaps an explicit size mention in the license. there are also hybrid licenses available that effectively restrict file to online use. i.e. Template:GFDL_1.2_or_cc-by-nc-3.0 or Template:FAL or cc-by-nc-nd as mentioned above. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 16:53, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
We are considering the pixel count here. Here what offered by author is 400 × 575. What found from other site is 835 × 1,200. The question is whether we can bring that bigger one here. We can't per the current wording in COM:L. If there is a disagreement and want to discuss, it is better there to avoid a duplicate and fragmented discussion. Jee 17:06, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
the file size is a function of the pixel count. the functional difference is - can the higher resolution be used for commercial purposes? - no, not really. to get an art quality reproduction you need a higher resolution (except for small thumbnails) it is really part of the toxic culture to overwrite new files just because you can. why would any artist want to host a file here? can't see a reason - no adults here. not interested in tl;dr. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 23:36, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Having read the above I can only apologise for the edit warring and in future cases I shall discuss here (or the relevant boards) before reverting,
Anyway the uploader now wants all images deleted however because they're currently used in articles I can't really just CSD them all so have sent them to DR > Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Katerina Belkina, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 22:37, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-51

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Tech News

  • Because of the holidays the next issue of Tech News will be sent out on 9 January 2017.
  • The writers of the technical newsletter are asking for your opinion. Did you get the information you wanted this year? Did we miss important technical news in 2016? What kind of information was too late? Please tell us! You can write in your language. Thank you!

Recent changes

  • Administrators and translation administrators can now use Special:PageLanguage on wikis with the Translate extension. This means you can say what language a page is in. The Translate extension will use that language as the source language when you translate. Previously this was always the wiki's default language. This was usually English. [17]
  • Wikis connected to Wikidata can now use the parser function {{#statements: }} to get formatted data. You can also use {{#property: }} to get raw data. You can see the difference between the two statements. There are also similar new functions in Lua. [18]

Problems

  • Some abuse filters for uploaded files have not worked as they should. We don't know exactly which filters didn't work yet. This means some files that filters should have prevented from being uploaded were uploaded to the wikis. MediaWiki.org and Testwiki have been affected since 13 October. Commons and Meta have been affected since 17 October. Other wikis have been affected since 17 November. [19]

Changes this week

  • There is no new MediaWiki version this week. There will be no new MediaWiki version next week either.

Meetings

  • The next meeting with the VisualEditor team will be on 3 January at 20:00 (UTC). During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. See how to join.

Future changes

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

20:33, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

December 20

Template help needed on Template:Date navbox

This template isn't working right for years that have fewer than 4 digits. For an example, see Category:29-11-24 (for the 24th day of November in the year 29). The navbox is showing 2029 for the year. If I pad the year value with zeroes to give the four digits that the template expects, the navbox uses all four digits for the navigated category names, so they aren't valid. Do we just not use this for years with fewer than 4 digits, or can it be fixed? --Auntof6 (talk) 03:24, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

But should it work for 2-digit years, given that dates with 2-digit years are ambiguous? The documentation clearly states that the 1st parameter should be 4-digit. So I see no problem here. --jdx Re: 08:20, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Two-digit years in these category names are not ambiguous: the year is always first. I would think we'd want it to work for all years. Right now it doesn't work right for 2-digit years (by which I mean years in the first century), whether you specify them as two digits (e.g. "29") or pad them to four diguts (e.g. "0029"). It also doesn't work right for three-digit years. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:18, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Two-digit years are ambiguous, as much as we'd want them not to be. For example, see the parent category: Category:November 29 (this refers to the month November of the year 29 C.E., and not the 29th of November of any year, that's apparently Category:29 November) – it contains quite a number of modern photos taken on the 29th day of the 11th month. I could tweak the template to correctly parse this (it's a limitation of the {{#time:}} parser function, see the warnings at mw:Help:Extension:ParserFunctions#.23time), but I think it would be a better idea to rename the categories to use zero-padded years. Matma Rex (talk) 10:56, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
I see your point. I meant that they aren't ambiguous as far as the template is concerned: the first parameter is the year (although it seems to assume that a two-digit year is truncated and belongs in the current century). There are currently only a few pre-1000 categories using this template, I believe. I wouldn't object to everything under Category:Days by day needing to give four digits for the year --Auntof6 (talk) 18:55, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
We can write it so that the input needs the leading digits, but the display doesn't show them. - Jmabel ! talk 19:08, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
As long as the assigned categories are correct, the navigation links work, and the displayed year is correct (with or without leading zeroes), it's fine with me. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:17, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Re-licensing redundant licenses

I noticed plenty of licensing such as {{Self|Cc-by-sa-3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0|GFDL|migration=relicense}} which resplendently displays the creative commons licensing twice. The second CC-by-SA 3.0 (from the great migration) is not needed since file had been dual licensed with the exact same creative commons license from the start. I noticed this for a while and last example I saw was File:Censorshiplolcat.jpg. I intend to scan for such files and fix the issue in bulk unless there are objections.

Just to clarify the actual licensing will not be changed, just that the redundant creative commons license will be removed. Intention behind this is to clear licensing clutter.

-- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 18:05, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

How are you planning on fixing it? (I'd have no objection to just regex replacing "migration=relicense" with "migration=redundant" on all files that are either {{Self|Cc-by-sa-3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0|GFDL}} or {{Self|Cc-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} as part of a bot run.) Storkk (talk) 18:10, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

December 21

Do not pre-select "own work" in Upload Wizard.

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T154149

For reference, I just opened a task in Phabricator, asking for "own work" not to be pre-selected in the Upload Wizard. If you have any comments on this issue, please voice them in the ticket over there. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 17:14, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

It seems it did that because of my preferences. Ignore me. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 11:00, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 11:01, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Transcode status

Can someone explain/look into why File:The President Welcomes the Chicago Blackhawks, 2015 Stanley Cup Champions.webm's transcode is "Added to Job queue [INVALID] ago"? When I hit reset transcode, nothing changes. Elisfkc (talk) 19:15, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

There was a hug backlog (see [20]), which is getting better today. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:19, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Cool, thanks for the info. --Elisfkc (talk) 20:33, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
@Yann: Is this still the issue, or is something else wrong with that file? Elisfkc (talk) 15:09, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
No, this is affecting all of transcodings on Commons right now. See phab:T153488 regarding the backlog and phab:T153747 regarding "[INVALID]" --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 15:12, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
@Yann: Ok I just wanted to check and make sure. Thanks again. Elisfkc (talk) 15:58, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

capitals of file formats in names of categories

Why are categories in Category:Books in PDF by year having in their name "PDF" in capitals but djvu in Category:Books DJVU files have "djvu" and not "DJVU"? --Wesalius (talk) 09:07, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

... and Category:Books DJVU files (which should probably be renamed to something like "DjVu files of books" or "Books in DjVu format", in some capitalization) is a member of Category:DjVu files... may I suggest COM:CFD? Storkk (talk) 10:25, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Maybe because PDF is an initialism, and initialisms (like acronyms) are commonly written in all capitals. DjVu is more of an abbreviation, and abbreviations are not usually in all caps. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:54, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
I already filled the COM:CFD. At least it needs to get standardized in the "djvu hierarchy" preventing djvu vs DJVU vs DjVu... --Wesalius (talk) 10:56, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump status

Hello, all. For those unfamiliar with the US process of choosing a new President, I would like to point out that Donald Trump is not yet President. The election and electoral college vote have taken place, but Mr. Trump will not be President until he is sworn in on January 20. Until then, please do not categorize him as President. Thank you. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:34, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

'Archives' category

Should Category:Archives contain media about "archival buildings and storage" or scans etc. of the actual "contents of archives"? Or is it okay to be both? — Sam Wilson ( Talk • Contribs ) … 02:40, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Watchlist issue

Hi, Recently the MediaWiki software was changed so that clicking on "Mark all pages visited" for my watchlist required confirmation. I am quite surprised that 1. this change was introduced without community approval; 2. it requires a confirmation (I don't see the need for that); 3. there is no way to deactivate confirmation. Opinions? Yann (talk) 10:11, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Such changes have no need for community approval. I don't see a need for deactivating. The page does not get reloaded anymore so all in all things are way faster now than before. --Malyacko (talk) 10:46, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
@Malyacko: could you clarify which changes do and don't need community approval? I'm mildly surprised that an interface change like this wouldn't need community approval, but more surprised at the categorical statement that they simply don't. I also do not think it is "way faster". The javascript/css/whatever animation and "opaquing" of the screen while the message box comes up and especially the hang while it goes away after clicking cancel seem to take a significant amount of time. Storkk (talk) 11:12, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
@Storkk: Currently I am only aware of meta:Requesting wiki configuration changes requiring community consensus when it comes to site configuration options to change, and mw:Technical Collaboration Guideline being drafted about development of new and larger software functionality. If you are aware of any other "community approval" guidelines / recommendations / rules, could you point me to them please so I could understand what such expectations are based on? Thanks! --Malyacko (talk) 21:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
@Malyacko: the expectations are not based on any specifically enacted rules that I am aware of, but rather the belief that significantly changing a highly used part of the interface is something that interface's users might wish to be made aware of (and perhaps comment on) beforehand. Storkk (talk) 11:23, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Okay, "might be made aware of" sounds very different from the term "community approval". --Malyacko (talk) 09:26, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
That was rhetorical; I have seen no indication that the community (indeed, judging by the phabricator tickets, any community) was consulted, or that it even crossed anyone's mind. Storkk (talk) 12:03, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I find it annoying too. Moreover, when you have only one "unvisited" page on your watchlist and it has been edited by a bot, you cannot mark it as visited, i.e. the button is inactive. Seems like a bug. --jdx Re: 10:54, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
The most annoying thing since visual editor. If there is a way to deactivate this bullshit, please go ahead. --Krd 11:33, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
I opened a bug report. See phab:T153438. Yann (talk) 11:44, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
I agree with all four above: Both its design and its interface workflow were badly planned and implemented. Not surprising, but annoying. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:30, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
+1 --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:41, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I can't do it without getting error messages now: 1:"A database query error has occurred. This may indicate a bug in the software.[WFUceApAIDcAADym@ZkAAAAH] 2016-12-17 11:07:54: Fatal exception of type "DBQueryError" and 2:To avoid creating high replication lag, this transaction was aborted because the write duration (6.2261910438538) exceeded the 3 second limit. If you are changing many items at once, try doing multiple smaller operations instead.[WFUclgpAAEAAAaSuuy0AAAAC] 2016-12-17 11:08:14: Fatal exception of type "DBTransactionSizeError". It worked OK before. There was nothing that needed "fixing". Please don't do this sort of thing again. Rodhullandemu (talk) 11:15, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

This change was reverted, and confirmation is not required now. Yann (talk) 12:26, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
I agree confirmation is not required, but I'm still getting the above error messages, which is a total pain in the butt. I used to be a software developer myself, but I still hate those who fix problems that don't need fixing and introduce new problems in the process. Is anyone out there caring about our users? Rodhullandemu (talk) 02:16, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

searching for copyrite permission to use map.

Dear Editing Commons, I am intently attempting to complete a book related to German immigration to Wisconsin beginning in then late 1830's. The map which I am referring to illustrate the German states before unification. It has a yellow tone & is identified as: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:States_of_Germany.svghttps://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas Rasmatck (talk • contribs) 06:14, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

@Thomas Rasmatck: Hi, you are free to use the file you stated, as long as you follow the terms of the license the file is released under to. In this case, the license is Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Germany License. According to the license, you are free to use the work for any purpose including commercial use and derivative works, as long as you attribute the author and if you alter, transform, or build upon this work, distribute the resulting derivative work under the same license. Thanks, ★ Poké95 10:53, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
First, Thomas, you messed up the file link. Using wiki syntax you quite probably wanted to link to File:States of Germany.svg, but this shows the German states after (re-)unification (external link is https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:States_of_Germany.svg). The only map I found showing the two stated before 1990 is File:Karte Innerdeutsche Grenze.svg with German labels (external https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Karte_Innerdeutsche_Grenze.svg) and a Polish version of this. Then, whatever you may use, what Pokefan wrote is valid for them: Attribute both the author and the license tag for every image. If the book is really a book, that will be printed, than add the full license texts somewhere at the end of the book and point to it in content overview. See Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia (with a useful link to the Attribution Generator). Perhaps this helps you, as well: Coincedently, the image of the day has been created by a user, who is a (German) lawyer. Look on the attribution requirements, he has given. — Speravir – 02:01, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Which vs. that

Could a native speaker look at this edit? --jdx Re: 09:08, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Looks like an improvement - see, for example, this explanation. — soupvector (talk) 13:00, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Harmless but pointless. (cf. [21] and [22]). Storkk (talk) 13:15, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Adding the ability to mark others' edits as patrolled to license reviewers

Hi, please give out your opinions whether we should give our license reviewers the patrol right or not. The discussion is here. Thanks, ★ Poké95 00:57, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

images with blatant display of trademarks

I've been checking files on trwiki marked as ready to be moved to Commons. There is this file tr:File:180px-P54-75.jpg which is a copy of en:File:P54-75.jpg and both of them are marked for a move to Commons. In my opinion, even if the trademark symbols and brand names could not be seen, we should have been wary of moving them to Commons, and one of the worst actions would be to update the files so that the brand names and/or trademark symbols are obscured. What should be done, just delete the files, re-upload the files under fair use license (keeping the original uploader info intact), keep the files but change the license to fair use, ... or move to Commons? Thanks. --Bulgu (talk) 09:22, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

@Bulgu: Commons doesn't deal with Trade Marks. Simply move them here with the current free licence they have at their home Wikipédia, and place {{Tm}} on the file. That's all.-- Darwin Ahoy! 12:28, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

uploading a wikipedia work - graph

moved from Commons:History merging and splitting/Requests --XXN, 16:28, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I need to upload a graph - "blackbody spectrum" found in a wikipedia article as support material for my contribution to the talk page of the wikipedia article "green stars".

Could you tell me how this may be done, within the capabilities of "wikipedia" ?

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vijay Chary (talk • contribs) 14:42, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

  1. Are we talking about File:Black body.svg or something else?
  2. In general, the answer is to download to your own computer, edit there, and upload. - Jmabel ! talk 18:04, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

December 25

Promotional watermarks

A number of images, e.g File:Mr-yoga-eagle-handstand-pose.jpg have been uploaded. Over 100 are used in: w:en:List_of_asanas. While we don't have an accepted policy (See Watermarks) I believe these watermarks are fully intended to be promotional. One option is for someone with the requisite graphics editing skills to remove them, but I don't qualify. If no one steps up to make that offer to me justify deleting them or is the normal course to request (but not require) that the copyright holder do the editing?--Sphilbrick (talk) 21:22, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

  • While we prefer images that aren't watermarked, there is no hard and fast rule against them. It is certainly not a reason to delete. Tag them with {{Watermark}} (as I'll do for the one you linked) and anyone should feel free to remove the watermarks (as I'll probably do for the one you linked). - Jmabel ! talk 22:52, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I can't see a big problem here. IMO this is not a blatant spam – it would be if there were an URL instead of the logo. --jdx Re: 22:56, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I would also add that there is no reason to think that someone who uploaded appropriately licensed high-quality images from elsewhere on the web, where those images happened to be watermarked, had any promotional purpose of their own. - Jmabel ! talk 23:38, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
@Jmabel: I tagged them, thanks in advance for anything you might do.--Sphilbrick (talk) 21:32, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

December 24

How to upload Logos in Commons, or in Wikipedia ?

Logos are required for many articles as integral part; and deletion of uploaded logos does not a clear cut to decide, rather it is subjected to *opinions* (for example see: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Uludag University.jpg) where I see this logo as very simple geometry! What is the accepted way to upload a logo for an article, especially if it is for educational institue? --Yahia.Mokhtar (talk) 06:00, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

  • There are two separate issues here: what is allowed on Commons and what might be permissible to be uploaded directly to a particular language Wikipedia.
  • Commons allows only images that are free-licensed (almost never the case for a logo) or public domain (which is the case for a sufficiently old logo, e.g. File:Firmenemblem 1900.jpg or one that is so simple as to be ineligible for copyright, e.g. File:P&G logo.png); trademark is not an issue, except to add the {{Tm}} template. The level of complexity required to be eligible for copyright varies from country to country, and it must meet the laws both of the country of origin and of the U.S. The U.S. has a rhelatively liberal standard here, so usually if it is simple enough to be ineligible for copyright in its home country, that's enough. When in doubt, bring the question to Commons:Village pump/Copyright.
  • For images that are not eligible under Commons' rules, many (but not all) Wikipedias allow images on a "fair use" or "non-free" use basis, uploaded directly to the particular Wikipedia. Some (e.g. the German-language Wikipedia) do not allow this at all. Others each have standards of their own. The English-language Wikipedia is quite liberal in this respect; see en:Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, en:Template:Non-free use rationale, en:Template:Logo rationale. - Jmabel ! talk 18:17, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Question about self-taken image

hello! i am trying to upload a self taken image to my wikipedia page which is MY ownership (as i took it of myself) but it keeps getting deleted... how do i prove that i am the owner of this image?

thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Highpriestess369 (talk • contribs) 15:09, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

I assume that the image in question is File:Self Portrait of Teale Coco.jpg. The issue is that you've given no evidence that User:Highpriestess369 and Teale Coco are the same person. When this was discussed at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Self Portrait of Teale Coco.jpg, you were notified, and you did not respond to the evidence someone put forward that you are not Teale Coco. I don't have any idea whether they were right or wrong, but if you are silent, you pretty reliably don't win the argument.
Assuming you are Teale Coco, there are several easy ways to resolve this. Any of the following will do.
  1. Using the same Twitter account, send a tweet indicating that Highpriestess369 is your account on Wikimedia Commons. Then link that tweet from User:Highpriestess369, and bring the matter to Commons:Undeletion requests.
  2. Using the same Twitter account, send a tweet indicating that the image in question is available under the CC-BY-SA-4.0 International license. Then link that tweet from User:Highpriestess369, and bring the matter to Commons:Undeletion requests.
  3. This one may be less easy, in this case, but I'll mention it: Send email from some address that can clearly be linked back to you as Teale Coco, following the instructions given in COM:OTRS. Be sure to indicate the account and photo in question. Once that is processed (typically over a month, there is quite a backlog) the image will be undeleted.
Jmabel ! talk 18:41, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Think there are several problems here: (1) a single purpose account on WP is promoting Teale Coco without any references to notability other than Advertorials. (2) Might have been better if Coco had kept quite because this article may come up for deletion again (been up for deletion once already) as it is promotional without any encyclopedic notability. (3) Am prepared to accept that File:Teale Coco self portrait.jpg is probably a self portrait due the the position of arms that looks like she is holding the camera – but 'on a camera shoot? Suggests, she had to take it herself because of copyright reasons she could not use any of the actual shots from the assignment so lends more weight to her not being notable enough to call her own shots. But as for uploading images of herself that she herself has taken – there really should be no problem at all. However, she really should some else to take photos because, if she is all image savvy, she should know that a shot from a camera that close makes her nose look big. Needs something like a 90 millimeter lens and someone that knows how to light her properly so the images don't look so flat. So the whole thing comes over looking very amateurish on not worthy as a WP article. P.S. It is very difficult to prove you are the copyright owner but if you use WP as a promotional vehicle, you lead all of your contribution to be very questionable.--P.g.champion (talk) 20:16, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

December 26

Retouch request

I have a retouch request. Can someone retouch this wrinkled photo of the famous architect/ designer en:Gerrit Rietveld with his muse? Thanks in advance. Sonty (talk) 02:22, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Dark images

Most of the images in Category:Bahnhof Nürnberg Nordost are fairly dark/grey. When I look at the pictures photoschop it looks like there has already been some work on the levels. Can someone look at them?Smiley.toerist (talk) 21:54, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

December 27

Personal data in file history/description

What do you think about this edit? The guy woke up after almost 9 years and wants his name and email to be removed. And I think that file history is a "holy thing" and nobody should touch it. On the other hand, the request is somewhat childish because without an oversighter's intervention the data is still there. --jdx Re: 06:38, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

My opinion is that removing a contributor's real name on their own request won't hurt; maybe the copied history should say "redacted" or something in it. (Note that we're only editing text in the information, based on old history from de.wp; the user has not yet requested that we redact the actual Commons history.) On English Wikipedia there is Wikipedia:Courtesy vanishing also known as "right to vanish"; the Meta-Wiki also has the article meta:Right to vanish; those are a bit more broad than simply removing an attribution from a single image. In addition, I believe we're usually cooperative with people who early on upload with their real names and then decide to become pseudonymous for privacy reasons. I assume the uploader is the author, and therefore has the right to determine what attribution is used for CC-BY-2.0-DE. Also, if this person is requesting this 9 years later, there must be a reason: Do we inquire about reasons, or do we assume that it must be important enough already that they feel they need to take action twice in a row? I do wonder why the original uploader is still active on de.wp, yet the redaction is by an anonymous IP/new account. But maybe that's on purpose to prevent a connection between the two off-wiki, so I'd be discreet about asking the accounts involved. Maybe e-mail them instead? --Closeapple (talk) 08:51, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
en:Streisand effect in action... I really don't think bringing this to VP is the right choice here. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 09:23, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
+1. Please remove this entire section ASAP. Jee 09:40, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
How do we know it's the original uploader? It's a new account with only one edit. Otherwise, I'd say we should honor that request. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 10:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
I sent e-mail to de:User:Liberaler Humanist asking them to send mail to our oversighters if it's really that user. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 16:55, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
I blocked the Namensentfernung, he/she tried something similar in 2012 on dewiki to no effect. There's no reason to believe that the accounts are related. AFAIK the original uploader there was some controversy / hounding going on. I have to dig in the archives, but frankly, I am too lazy to do so. IF the accounts are related, we need proof via WMF or OTRS. IMHO this is not a related account but vandalism. Removing this section can be done IF there's a valid reason established. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 07:04, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

SMU Central University Libraries

Shouldn't Category:Photographs from SMU Central University Libraries and Category:Photographs by SMU Central University Libraries get merged? I can't see a difference.--Naschpaul (talk) 09:50, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

You should probably ask User:Fæ why he created the second category. Ruslik (talk) 19:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Can I upload a picture I took of a bottle containing a type of medication?

I recently took a picture of the bottle of a medication for the sake of adding it to a Wikipedia article concerning medicine. Is it considered breach of copyright? Whereas I found a bunch of such pics already on Google Search results. =) Thank you for the time you spent on this question. I wish you a good year ahead! ^_^ --It's gonna be awesome!#Talk♬ 16:38, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

The answer is a very clear "maybe". Please have a look at COM:PACKAGING, which outlines a few cases. In general: If the label is very simple or generic (just text), it probably is okay, if it contains "design", it probably isn't. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 16:47, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
@Srittau: Thanks for that. :D I gonna read it! Wish you all the best of luck in the future endeavours! ^_^ --It's gonna be awesome!#Talk♬ 16:50, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

European Space Agency using open licence

2007 image, with possible transmission glitches or another alien conspiracy cover up.

The European Space Agency have started to open licence images. There are over 21K images in this Flickr set. They promise more in early 2017. @Fæ: fyi. Andy Mabbett (talk) 21:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

This is a relatively straight forward one, though the filenames are not very engaging. Started at Category:Visual_Monitoring_Camera. I'm up in the night with bronchitis, so I could easily be missing something. For these reasons I'll defer letting my script do a full run for a few hours, giving volunteers a chance to flag problems on my user talk page. BTW I can see some are black images, whether these should be weeded out or not is something for a DR, probably. --Fæ (talk) 05:29, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

December 28

A tool to check images

Hello.Like Google Images, I suggest a tool to check Self-published work images, the idea of the tool is to search in the Internet before upload date and If the image is present, we add {{Copyvio|source=}}.Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 14:15, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

  • That is absolutely not a sufficient condition to consider an image a copyright violation. An enormous number of images that people upload are already elsewhere online but are either public domain or free-licensed, and in general there is no automated way to determine whether they are available on that basis. - Jmabel ! talk 18:26, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Even for "self-published" that by no means goes away. For example, for about 1/3 of what I upload of my own photography, I put on my Flickr account before I put it here on Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 18:29, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

SVG upload

Is it appeared to be broken? I tried to save a copy of the SVG file from this website with CC-BY-SA 3.0 license but it turned into this mumble jumble after uploading. OhanaUnitedTalk page 06:09, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

It looks normal now. Ruslik (talk) 20:02, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
It is showing ans "invalid SVG" message and icon when I view it. Original looks ok. Dankarl (talk) 19:00, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
@OhanaUnited: I added missing declarations and it is almost all right now. "Almost" because the file still needs some tweaking – it uses PT Sans Narrow font that isn't supported by MediaWiki and MW substitutes it by an other sans serif font (Liberation Sans?), which is too wide. --jdx Re: 20:44, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks guys. OhanaUnitedTalk page 21:31, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Dusty CFDs

Is there a way to run a database report, or would it be reasonable to set up a COM:BOTR, for the open CFDs at which the longest time has passed since they were last edited? Nyttend (talk) 18:31, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Football kit

Hello. Many Wikipedias use image for commons to form the football kit to the team template. They are using w:Template:Football kit with files of the Category:Football kit templates. The kits are difficult to form but some Wikipedias are doing real good job and the others copied their jobs. Recently, I though that it could be really useful if every Wikipedia could fetch the kits from Wikidata. Thus, every kit could be update for all wikis the same time. It could be easier. I have make a proposal for properties in Wikiadata (d:Wikidata:Property proposal/Home kit (football)). Maybe is really difficult to be accepted. I would like to ask if you have any ideas how commons could help that. For example, I thought than maybe we could form all the kit in an image and use that image in Wikidata with a single property and that could be use for Wikipedia. Any others ideas? Xaris333 (talk) 20:26, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

December 29

copyright clearance

Dear Adrian I plan to use your photos: Vampire ll wz507 g-vtii cotswoldairshow 2010 arp and Spitfire mk2a7350 arp in my upcoming book Airplanr Stories & Histories (publisje Xlibris).Despite Wikimedia's assertion that it is in the Public Domain, Xlibris requires me to obtain your permission to publish it on the basis that it is indeed free and may be used by anyone for any purpose. I note that you are now in your late 70s -- so that means that when you were born I was working at De Havilland on the Comet design -- and I'm still going string! I look forward to getting your OK. Very many thanks ...... Norman S. Currey — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.247.51.170 (talk) 00:49, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Arpingstone was last active on 12 November in English Wikipedia. But, Norman, when there will be no reaction by him, you should point the Xlibris people in charge to these facts: Arpingstone himself added the according license tag {{PD-user|Arpingstone}} to the file description pages, cf. Special:Diff/41284051/41284112 and Special:Diff/13270885/13270907. — Speravir – 19:55, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Crop for Wikidata

I stumbled upon the category called Category:Crop for Wikidata which is nice, but should not images be cleaned out once the crop request has been performed, i.e. remove the template from the images? //Mippzon (talk) 10:10, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes. It might also have a better name, like "Crop for specificity". While Wikidata benefits from these crops, so can others! Andy Mabbett (talk) 11:28, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Does it make sense to remove the request template from the images once the crop is performed? To clean up the category a bit? //Mippzon (talk) 11:31, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
If CropTool finds the {{Crop}} template, it allows the user to remove the template during save by checking a checkbox (which is also checked by default). I could add similar support for the {{Crop for Wikidata}} template, that includes adding the cropped image to Wikidata and removing the template. – Danmichaelo (δ) 10:55, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
That would be really useful I think! As it is now people add {{Crop for Wikidata}} to the original file, then that is duplicated to the cropped versions as well, and suddenly we have multiple images with the need of crop, but the need is actually gone. //Mippzon (talk) 18:28, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Asking a favour. A new caregory for Nasty, Hertfordshire

1. The English wikipedia article about Nasty, Hertfordshire shows a link to the matching commons category, Nasty.

Actually it happens to link to a music group, so I modified the it to be linked to the place name by myself.

2. Unfortunately, I found that one should be a registered user to creat a commons link, which I'm not planning to be at this moment. So someone could kindly do a favour ?

3. What to do : (1) to creat a caregory for Nasty, Hertfordshire

(2) to get some files tagged with the category (checked and 3 files found)

(3) to get the category, "Nasy, Hertfordshire" placed in some appropriate upper categories

Thanks. 119.192.236.30 07:47, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done, except I did not place Category:Nasty, Hertfordshire in Category:Hamlets in Hertfordshire, since it is conceivable to have files that are related to Nasty, but does not prominently show hamlets. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 08:13, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
I also moved all files from Category:Nasty to Category:Nasty (band) and created a disambiguation page at the former. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 08:17, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
I updated the Commons link in the English Wikipedia article. I also categorized the Commons category into the hamlets category instead of towns and villages. According to the Wikipedia article, Nasty is a hamlet, so anything that shows it is showing a hamlet. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:23, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Good catch, thank you. For some reason I was thinking of hamlets as individual buildings ("houses in H."), not of as a type of settlement. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 08:40, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Many thanks, guys. It couldn't be any better than this :D By the way, I picked up randomly a curiously sounding entry name, Puckeridge, in the category 'Towns and villages in Hertfordshire' while I was examining which upper categories it might fit well into. In description of commons page it says it is a village, but in wikipedia page it is a hamlet. Confused and uncertain which one is correct, so I concluded that we had a loose categorisation rule here. Now I see it's not. But also, I'm slightly concerned, because we just doesn't know how many entries like this case would exist in the categories about settlement type. Maybe we'll need a couple or more of English local study enthusiasts in the future to look into these things. But that is another story. Anyway, happy winter season to all ! 119.192.236.30 10:30, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
I doubt that there's any reliable way to distinguish towns, villages and hamlets. In some locations we just have "populated places" categories, which isn't a bad idea. --ghouston (talk) 11:52, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Oh, I found your opinion is inpirational. With "populated places (or settlements)" concept we would be able to eliminate current and potential management worries in some geography-related categories, by making things straight and simple. 119.192.236.30 15:35, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

{{Languages}}

This template doesn't work as expected. On the page Commons:Swiss GLAMmies/2014-03-20 Ein Solothurner Genrebild this template has only one link to the parent page Commons:Swiss GLAMmies, while the translated pages link to it as expected (e.g. the French translation). If you try to add the name of the page as the first parameter, as the documentation suggests, you get a complete list of languages without any links (see the permalink to a page I tested once). If you add a translated page name like with /en in the end, you'll get the same list of languages that link to that single /en subpage. Can this be fixed somehow?

By the way, can anyone tell me what to do with the pages like Commons:Swiss GLAMmies/2014-03-20 Ein Solothurner Genrebild which have /de or /fr duplicates, but don't have an English version (which is why I removed them from the translation system)? Move them onto the place of the relevant language subpages? --Piramidion (talk) 23:44, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

December 31

Finding images where the source is https://www.spacetelescope.org/ but are not in a subcategory of Category:Content created by the European Space Agency

Hi all

I'm doing a little bit of work with the ESA to measure how much their content is used on Wikimedia projects using BaGLAMa 2. However because they run a lot of joint projects with NASA their content is often:

  1. Often only credited NASA, not ESA/NASA
  2. Is not in a subcategory of Category:Content created by the European Space Agency

This is exacerbated by ESA/NASA images being available on multiple websites.

I have asked ESA if I can get a list of missions, equipment etc where the credit should include ESA but an easy first step is that all images from https://www.spacetelescope.org/ should have an ESA credit and be in a subcategory of Category:Content created by the European Space Agency. Can someone tell me if there is an easy way to search for this?

Thanks

--John Cummings (talk) 13:37, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey @John Cummings: you can start with this Special:LinkSearch query which will give you a rough first estimate. From there, I would recommend using WP:AWB to go through the images from that query, and update them with the appropriate categories.Sadads (talk) 14:46, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Sadads, the problem I have is there are 1000s of images with this URL but I can't work out how to remove from this list all the images that are already correctly categorised and credited..... Is there any way to do this automagically? To ask the tool to find all the images with this URL but isn't in a subcategory of Category:Content created by the European Space Agency or mentions ESA in credit line? --John Cummings (talk) 15:28, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
@John Cummings: AWB would be more precise, but this search (-"Content created by the European Space Agency" "www.spacetelescope.org" -"Hubble images") should work alright as well too. I removed images in "Hubble images" categories since they are sub-cats of the ESA content category. - Themightyquill (talk) 16:37, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) John Cummings, oh boy, this is such a messy issue. It's made even more difficult because Spacetelescope.org also hosts images that are credited as "NASA/ESA" and would use the license tag {{PD-Hubble}}, rather than ESA's {{ESA-Hubble}} (and NASA's Hubblesite.org has the reverse problem). There's also the issue that just because ESA is mentioned somewhere in the credit line, it doesn't mean they are correctly credited. However, the upshot of all this is potentially getting that list of CC licensed mission material, and hopefully proving to ESA that it's beneficial to their outreach to license more (and eventually all) of their material under a free license. Let me know how I might eventually help. — Huntster (t @ c) 16:41, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
"oh boy, this is such a messy issue" Which of course is exactly what we have been saying to these collaborative projects for years (I remember even more nefarious trouble with images by SOHO). This is not a problem of Wikimedia, it is a problem where unclear licensing agreements and unclear usage reflecting those agreements have been made for years. If NASA says something is PD, and ESA says it's CC-By, then THAT is the problem, and that creates a messy situation for us, and makes things hard to analyze. We usually reflect attribution as on the SOURCE site. That means that if the source site reflects something incorrectly, we basically don't care until the source is updated. But when multiple sources of the same image have been using different standards and different claims, then we have no good way to deal with that (basically, it's up to the courts in such cases). If they could just agree on "CC-0 and please say made by ESA/NASA whenever possible" then none of this would be problematic. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:46, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
By "messy issue", I was of course speaking of ESA's image licensing as a whole. Thankfully the Hubble situation is somewhat easier to handle...if the credit line starts with NASA, it's PD-Hubble; if it starts with ESA, it's ESA-Hubble. — Huntster (t @ c) 14:36, 22 December 2016 (UTC)


Thanks very much for your answers Themightyquill Huntster and TheDJ, the main issue for me are getting all the ESA images into the category Category:Content created by the European Space Agency. Can any of you suggest a list of things that could be done to try and find as many of the images as we can?

Thanks again

--John Cummings (talk) 12:03, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

@John Cummings: Petscan says there are 41 recursive subcategories of Content created by the European Space Agency. Here is an improvised query to find all files with links to spacetelescope.org in file page, but which are not present in any of those subcategories of Content created by the European Space Agency, including it: 287 files at the moment, but there may be some false positives, unwated results (additional exclusion criteria may be needed for query). ----XXN, 13:17, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks very much XXN, I've been through and looked at around 20 or so (made a gallery here), the main reason they are shoing up on this list is whilst they are from Hubble but not correctly categorised,, they have the PD-Hubble template they are not added to a subcategory of Category:Hubble images. Is it sensible to alter the template so that all images with this template are automatically added to Category:Hubble images? I'm trying to think about ways to save time correctly categorising these images and also a way to make it more likely that future images added to Commons are more likely to be correctly categorised. I'm not sure how to add this functionality to a template but I know it is possible, Template:UNESCO_archive does this and even organises content into subcategories based on the type of media (images, video etc). --John Cummings (talk) 14:11, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
While that is a possible solution, the problem is that not all material that comes from Spacetelescope.org or Hubblesite.org are specifically Hubble photographs. There may be artist illustrations, and potentially even images from other projects that they've decided to host. As I've mentioned above, it ultimately comes down to the credit lines on both sites as to whether its a NASA Hubble image or an ESA Hubble image. Further, I unfortunately often come across (especially older) images that don't even properly link to their sources, forcing me to research and locate the proper webpage on one of the two sites. — Huntster (t @ c) 14:40, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Huntster sorry to not explain myself properly, what I'm proposing is to change {{PD-Hubble}} and {{ESA-Hubble}} so that any file that has these templates is automatically added to Category:Content created by the European Space Agency. --John Cummings (talk) 16:17, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

John, that might work for ESA-Hubble but not for PD-Hubble. The former is for ESA-produced material, the latter for NASA-produced material. — Huntster (t @ c) 17:56, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Huntster because Hubble is a joint project between ESA and NASA all images are ESA/NASA, its just there are two websites providing the content, one from ESA and one from NASA. --John Cummings (talk) 22:28, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
John Cummings, it is a joint project, but there are differences in the pipeline that create important differences. If an image credit leads with NASA (i.e. "NASA and ESA" or "NASA, ESA/Hubble"), the image was created (by a researcher) or processed (by STScI) under a NASA grant or contract, respectively, meaning it's without copyright (public domain, {{PD-Hubble}}). If the credit leads with ESA or ESA/Hubble, it was created or processed under an ESA grant or contract, and the work must be licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International ({{ESA-Hubble}}). I don't know, perhaps I'm going off-track from what you're trying to accomplish, but to me, proper licensing and crediting is all-important. — Huntster (t @ c) 00:30, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
John Cummings welcome to metadata cleanup, where some people only care about the license. it can be a joint project, and the ESA person takes the photo and is crown copyright, and the NASA person takes the photo and is PD-hubble, with the same apparatus. or magical 2008 cutoff date (so the ideology goes)
there are 1065 PD-Hubble, and 471 ESA-Hubble. you might try listing uploads by user, and using http://tools.wmflabs.org/add-information/ or "visual file change" to mass fix the metadata, but it is a jumble pile of rotted links requiring human curation. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 13:09, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Huntster and Slowking4, really helpful, I think my main priority at the moment is to make sure any images produced by Hubble and any other projects that ESA has credit for is in Category:Content created by the European Space Agency. Thanks --John Cummings (talk) 18:18, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

here is the what links to ESA Hubble [23] to bt or manually edit, or you could edit the template to include category Template:ESA-Hubble. and more searching might find others Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge
Thanks Slowking4, how do I make Hubble related templates make all files with that template have Category:Hubble images? --John Cummings (talk) 16:51, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
you could add a field that has a home category like Template:Garage de l'Est (which adds category:Photographs from the Garage de l'Est) or Template:Creator. i would suggest having 2 subcategories: ESA hubble and NASA hubble (with different licensing). Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 17:18, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Ok, great, thanks Slowking4. Could you give me an example of another template with this kind of mechanism that I could copy? --John Cummings (talk) 18:19, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
there is more help at Commons:Categories#Templates_for_categories and m:Help:Category#Hidden_categories Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 21:21, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

December 22

Wanted: Firefiox add-on to increase file name number by one

Suppose I have a series of images, named sequentially, like:

  • File:Foorbar - 01.jpg
  • File:Foorbar - 02.jpg
  • ...
  • File:Foorbar - 99.jpg

There used to be Firefox add-on which would increment the number in the address bar by one, but I can not find it, Does anyone know if it still exists, and/ or what it is (was) called? Andy Mabbett (talk) 21:03, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I use the "Show Me More" add-on for this. Regards. Lionel Allorge (talk) 11:19, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
@Lionel Allorge: Thank you. Now that I've figured out how to add its buttons to the default toolbar (right click on toolbar - customize - drag Show Me More icons to default toolbar - save), that's perfect. Andy Mabbett (talk) 12:14, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2016/12&oldid=358741307"