Commons:Village pump/Archive/2017/06

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

Fact disputed, please take part in discussion

What is depicted here?

There has been some dispute about the image seen here. Please take part in the discussion on File talk:Frozen Hunza River at Khunjrab Pass.tif. — Speravir – 23:24, 1 June 2017 (UTC) Because I am now convinced, too, and noone wanted to take part I now followed the rename request. — Speravir – 01:11, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Speravir 01:11, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect color on screen test file

Hi,

there's a problem with the file Gray contrast test image.svg: the second circle from the left is supposed to have an RGB value of 12, but it's 6 (the same as the first one). It's important, because it's used to calibration.

I've uploaded a corrected version, but I'm very new to wiki, and just couldn't understand the procedure to carry on. I could also correct the png versions, which must be corrected - just need some guidelines.

Thanks Theo.d.a (talk) 17:01, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I’ve requested a merger of both files. — Speravir – 01:02, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
I’ve decided to fix the original file. So, unfortunately @Theo.d.a, we have a duplicate (though not in the technical sense, because the sVG code is different). Should I tag Theo’s edit as such? — Speravir – 22:21, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
@Speravir, I'm sorry, I'm a complete newbie here, so I'm not sure I got what you mean. I just wanted the file to be corrected - if it's edited, my file can be deleted and I need no credit at all. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.0.81.127 (talk) 02:42, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
@Theo.d.a: You should start a deletion request yourself. On the left side of the file description page you should find some string like “Request file deletion”. In the request you can elaborately write about the reasons, why it was created by you and is in your opinion not needed anymore. The other solution is, what I suggested: to mark it as duplicate with template {{Duplicate}}, but there it is not possible to write something about the reason for nomination. — Speravir – 18:46, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
I just requested the deletion, thanks. Theo.d.a (talk) 20:17, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Speravir 17:47, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Set up templates for a GLAM collaboration

Hi! I would like to create two templates equivalent to Template:Nationalmuseum Stockholm cooperation project and Template:PD-Nationalmuseum Stockholm for an upcoming GLAM collaboration (Wiki Loves Music). Can someone help me out here? Thanks a lot, --Gnom (talk) 20:01, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

i see you have template:Wiki Loves Music. do you want to modify it to include a category, or do you want a specific event template, which could be derived from it? Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 21:55, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi Slowking4, the template you mentioned is a rather generic template for all files uploaded as part of the Wikiproject. Now, we are collaborating with a museum in Hamburg, Germany and would like to have two templates like the ones about the Swedish museum. Does this answer your question? --Gnom (talk) 23:06, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
ok, then i would create a new template, i.e. template:Wiki Loves Music - wunderbare GLAM institution, using the template:Wiki Loves Music, and add the language code from your Swedish example, changing to the category you want

<includeonly>{{iffile|{{{category|[[Category:Content made available through Wikimedia Sverige partnerships|Natmus-{{PAGENAME}}]]}}}}}</includeonly><noinclude>{{documentation}} </noinclude>

play around with templates, it is an intermediate task, you should be able to do by trial and error. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 23:15, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi Slowking4, I tried, and failed miserably. Can you please take a look at what I have done so far (Template:Museum für Kunst und Gewerbe and Template:Museum für Kunst und Gewerbe/i18n)? Thank you, --Gnom (talk) 17:40, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

 Info I asked Gnom on his talk page, discussion continues there (in German). If there are new questions I cannot solve I will ask here or in admins’ noticeboard. — Speravir – 17:01, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Speravir 17:01, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

About some pics you ask to delete

Hi, dude. I am Pablo Gallego, I am the owner of the pics you asking for delete in this article: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Pernett_by_Pablo_Gallego_2010.jpg


Well, just let me know what do you need. But, first of all, I have bought an OLD Canon 1Ds LONG TIME AGO (2009) to another friend photographer, Carlos Duque, that why the EXIT says his name. You can see all the pics in may page: www.pablogallego.com.ar

And, BTW, I have used Adoble PS to edit my pics a, it depens of the procedure, EXIT may change and even be deleted.

Just let me know what do you need, and I'll send it to you. Cheers

PG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pablogallego (talk • contribs) 20:03, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

May 31

The "Language select" gadget is broken

The "Language Select" gadget listed on https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets is is broken. mw.util.$content in MediaWiki:Gadget-LanguageSelect.js is undefined. The line $OuterContainer: mw.util.$content needs wrapping. See phab:T164242 for how to fix. (I don't have permissions to edit myself. Hence help is welcome.) --Malyacko (talk) 10:54, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this. I had noticed some pages not working as expected, but did not catch on to this being a system problem. --Fæ (talk) 10:58, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
@Malyacko: The gadget currently has an explicit dependency on "mediawiki.util" so theoretically this should be a non-issue. If you are experiencing this problem the full steps to reproduce is welcome. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 16:41, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
@Zhuyifei1999: Good point; I cannot reproduce on Commons itself either, only on meta which (somehow) loads it from Commons. So: Use Firefox 53. Enable all gadgets on https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets . Open Firefox' developer tools via Ctrl+Shift+K. Make sure the "Console" tab is shown. Go to https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=WMF_Resolutions/Terms_of_use&action=edit&debug=true . See TypeError: mw.util is undefined. Click "index.php:43:2" on the right. See that the problematic code is loaded from https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Gadget-LanguageSelect.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript . --Malyacko (talk) 17:09, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Uhm, https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Common.js loads it via mw.loader.load. So the fix might have to happen on meta? I am sorry for the wrong alarm! --Malyacko (talk) 17:12, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Template for indicating that a file was used on a web site

I know there's a template for this, but I cannot for the life of me remember what it is, and I can't seem to find it via Search. For anyone who does know what this is, please note that File:Desmo-boden.jpg was used on http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/what-vampire-bat-teach-economics-friendship-180963492/. Thanks. —howcheng {chat} 00:12, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Photo challenge April Results

Tractors: Entries • Votes • Scores
Rank 1 2 3
image
Title John Deere tractors - One for all ages.jpg "Lanz Bulldog" seen at Kröv tractor show Tractor plowing to the land for cultivation
Author Nheyob Palauenc05 Ivan2010
Score 21 13 13
Nets: Entries • Votes • Scores
Rank 1 2 3
image
Title Pêcheurs de la plage de Trinquemalay, (Sri Lanka) Dried Physalis alkekengi Fishing nets in Port-Vendres, France
Author PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ Gozitano Palauenc05
Score 21 10 8

Congratulations to Nheyob, Palauenc05, Ivan2010, PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ, Gozitano and Palauenc05. Also please vote for May challenges or propose new or vote for existing themes at Commons talk:Photo challenge/themes. -- Jarekt (talk) 02:37, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

June 03

Deleting medical images

Wondering if it would be possible to list medical images up for deletion by Commons here. Basically these include all images used on medical articles. Maybe we could get a bot to do this?

For example this image was recently deleted. It is unclear if anyone contacted the Indiana University School of Medicine, Department of Ophthalmology before deleting. I have now contacted them and also reach out to our partners at the University of Iowa to get these images released as a replacement if the first option falls through.

Once this is figured out we will than need to run backwards the imagine deleting bot. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Daphne Lantier and User:Polarlys Iowa has agreed to release the images. They will update the license on the page in question tomorrow. If we upload one of those images in place of the deleted one, can a bot then reverse all the deletions? Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:51, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
agree w/ Doc James on all issues mentioned above--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:00, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
User:Doc James if any of the images that have been deleted got their legal status clarified, through change of license at the source website or by message to OTRS, you can ping me and I will be happy to work with you to undelete it. --Jarekt (talk) 01:42, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks User:Jarekt :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:43, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I just find it wreckless that widely used images like this one (in use in at least one Featured article, no less) are deleted on what are rather flimsy grounds. It would be expedient in the future to inform someone who may have interest in the image (if by bot), so that we can at least try to dig in the internet archive or similar (no indication this was done). There are a great number of NIH images that used to be on their site that were uploaded to Wikipedia. If we went around deleting them all because they might be violations we'd lose thousands of legitimately public domain images to copyright zealotry.

This should in fact extend to any widely image, and a single comment shouldn't be enough to initiate deletion of a longstanding file that is used and live on multiple pages. Undeletion isn't enough when we have to readd the image to potentially 250+ languages (and make sure the captions still fit). CFCF (talk) 05:14, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

A report can be made using Petscan, see https://petscan.wmflabs.org/?psid=1069717. This generic report shows images currently up for deletion and their usage on other wikis. It's pretty easy to quickly scan down the list looking for enwiki usage, and it's obvious that files like File:SRH009-p58.jpg which are in use on a lot of other projects should be subject to as much close scrutiny as possible, before making a final delete decision.
If a more specific, just enwiki, report is needed, then I suggest creating a report in http://quarry.wmflabs.org and if of high value this could be turned into a live table on the English Wikipedia. However try using the Petscan report first, as it costs nothing in terms of volunteer time to maintain. --Fæ (talk) 05:42, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
User:Fæ anyway we could get a list of images used on EN WP that are up for deletion on commons added to a section here? And if useful expanded to other projects and languages could also be helpful. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:48, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Got this image release to replace the other[1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:29, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I am happy with the way the Commons community curates medical images. The community of editors who manage medical content have lots of confused and complicated demands. The burden of curating a specialized set of files cannot fall solely on the Wikimedia Commons community. To the extent that medical editors want special processes in Commons, the medical community should invest in developing special processes and infrastructure. I feel like if the medical community convened its own discussions about needs and made a request then the Commons community would be accommodating. It is too much to ask that the Commons community research a problem, propose a response, and execute a solution. There was some similar criticism expressed from the Wikipedia medical editors to the Commons community over Commons:Deletion requests/File:Diagrama de los pulmones.svg. Instead, I think the starting position should be gratitude from Wikipedia to Commons, then on the Wikipedia side some practical organized discussion first before assigning blame. Thanks to everyone at Commons for support for Wikipedia. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:51, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
      • Agree this should not be about "blame" but about working together to improve both the number of images we have plus the reliability of the fact that they are under an open license. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:52, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
          • User:Bluerasberry - i'm not. medical is not the only community that gets their images deleted summarily. yes, people should improve license metadata, but there should be a collaborative effort, based on risk. instead we have "i doubt it, prove it to me." it is not the way to curate an image repository. we should not have to alarm, "what are the deletionists up to" and react, rather there should be a proactive image license quality effort. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 22:11, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
"Propagate deletion-tagging on commons to other WMF sites that use those files" is a quite general and important (IMO) feature we're currently lacking. I wonder if a bot could monitor the daily deletion-requests page and put a tag at the place where the image is used? I know en.wp has a template for this situation, can't remember what it is. DMacks (talk) 20:15, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
en:Template:FFDC, which would be trivial to create on other sites. Bulk noms, or noms whose discussions wind up adding files other than the original nom, would be harder, but a simple "file-nom -> look up file's uses -> tag them" seems easy enough, and would alert anyone with those articles on their watchlists. DMacks (talk) 20:27, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Having this sort of feature would surely help improve transparency for what happens here on commons, which might help resolve a major concern that leads to en:Template:Keep local (equally present on many other sites). DMacks (talk) 20:28, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Have posted here to try to get something build. Not sure if there are better places to post. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:54, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  • This is just thinking aloud and not just for meds: Would it also help the Wikimedia Foundation if it had a list of organizations that:
(1) freely licence all their images.
(2) freely licence some of their images.
(3) sometimes release images upon request.
The page could also provide guidance on how to find out the copyright terms...For instance some images have their copyright status on the image's EXIF file. Instructions could be given on how to view this extra information. Also, websites always seem to include a boilerplate statement that 'All' Contents are copyrighted. Some newbies can't fathom out how they stand. Some guidance maybe be helpful to them. In doing this triage, examples of the correct licence to be used for each organization can be given as well. Plus, how to ask for an image release. For instance: Reproduction of the Bank of England note on Wikipedia is permitted by virtue of the Banks' permission ref. FCA/9292B. Most of this advice is already available on WP but a newbie has to search for it all over the place. Think it would help to have a single point for reference when it comes to images. Any thoughts on this proposal? P.g.champion (talk) 23:35, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Excellent idea. We started such a list a few years back for medical content here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:52, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Well, from time to time I often find I'm sitting here twiddling my thumbs for having nothing better to do – so I can devote some time to this. What is the best venue to take this discussion to – as to continue here, is going off topic. Don't think it should be WP Policy but stand as useful WP guideline. Q: Do we expand Wikipedia:Pictures for medical articles or do we take advantage that other editors that read PloS etc., come from many other different disciplines and can aid cross-pollination to produce a 'definitive' (Oh gosh that sound a bit too posh) WP Guideline. A Geologist once showed me some photos he took in Africa which would be very useful on WP. They were of parasitic worms that eat muscle. Should they surface, a local clinc can very painfully pulled them out. They are very long and gross but I can't find any free images of them today. We need to get this debated somewhere where "given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow". P.g.champion (talk) 13:43, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

June 02

WhatIsThat? Not working

Hi all,

I've been trying to use the WhatIsThat? tool (based on MultiDesc) and it seems to have some issue with its database:


Warning: parse_ini_file(/data/project//replica.my.cnf): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /data/project/magnustools/public_html/php/common.php on line 57

Warning: mysqli::mysqli(): (HY000/1045): Access denied for user @'10.68.18.25' (using password: NO) in /data/project/magnustools/public_html/php/common.php on line 126
Fatal error: Call to a member function query() on boolean in /data/project/multidesc/public_html/index.php on line 171

Who owns this at the moment?

Its quite a useful tool, available through the Commons interface, at it is a pity to have it down.

--Codrin.B (talk) 11:41, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

June 04

June 05

Preparing for a GLAM batch upload

Sample image, licenced under CC-0, 99 more to follow!

Hi, we are just getting ready to upload a first batch of 100 files from a German museum under CC-0. A test file has been created and I would like to ask for some help from an experienced user whether the file description and templates are in order this way. For example: Should the file description use Template:Artwork? Thank you! --Gnom (talk) 11:36, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Could you please please persuade them to upload original-sized files rather than downsized "for the web" editions. This file would be around 16 megapixels originally and over three times more linear resolution. Such tiny images only have limited usages and none will be Featured. For this photo, I'm not sure it is solely an "artwork" rather than a harpsichord that happens to have a painting in it. Also, is the painting by Zell or someone else (later?) -- Colin (talk) 16:14, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure what "own work" means for the author. Usually, "own work" is a source and the author is separate. Is the photographer the uploader, or somebody at the museum, possibly anonymous? --ghouston (talk) 00:33, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi Colin, I think we'll in fact be uploading the original-sized files. I think that the painter is unknown, but I will check. Also, Oursana has just inserted Template:Art Photo. What do you think? Also pinging Ghouston. Thanks, --Gnom (talk) 07:40, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Glad to hear about the photo size. I'm really no expert on these templates but I think "own work" is for when you upload your own creations. So I don't think that applies here. -- Colin (talk) 07:46, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
for 200, i would recommend commons:pattypan, with copied metadata schema from the example. might want to submit an OTRS email confirming photographer permission. also might want to create a wikidata item for each. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 02:04, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, will do! :This section was archived on a request by: --Gnom (talk) 15:03, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-23

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 see new files on Special:NewFiles. You can now pick which dates you want to see files from. [2]
  • When you read Wikipedia on a mobile device the first paragraph now comes before the infobox. [3]
  • You can now remove navigation elements from your results when you search. This could for example be part of an infobox that is only there to help you find the previous or next article. [4]
  • New users on Wikivoyages and Wikipedias (except French, English and German) now get a notification when a page they created is connected to Wikidata. Other wikis will get it 13 June. [5]

Problems

  • The MediaWiki version from two weeks ago was rolled back. It was fixed late last week. Changes that were planned to go out last week did not happen. [6]

Changes this week

  • Wikimedia wikis can show fewer links to articles in other languages. This is to make it easier to find the languages likely to be useful to the reader or editor. Everyone can still click to see the full list. Logged-in users who use the compact language links will see languages they have in their Babel box on their user page in the first, shorter list. You can turn the compact language list off or on in your preferences. [7]
  • You can choose what dates to look at when you look at a user's contributions. [8]
  • When you click on your watchlist in the mobile view you get a list of all pages in the watchlist instead of the latest changes to them. Logged-in users with at least ten edits will now get the latest changes instead. [9]
  • The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 6 June. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 7 June. It will be on all wikis from 8 June (calendar).
  • String comparisons in Scribunto modules are now always done case-insensitively by byte order. Before they were sometimes in a case-sensitive US-English collation order. This could break some modules. [10]

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 June at 19:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

  • The 2006 wikitext editor will be removed the week of 27 June. This is the old toolbar with small square blue buttons. You can see a picture of it. 0.03% of active Wikimedia editors use this old tool. They will not see a toolbar at all. [11][12]
  • Wikimedia wikis use OCG to create PDFs. The OCG code has a lot of problems and will stop working. It has to be replaced. An alternative is Electron. You can tell the developers what you need the PDF service to be able to do. Electron already works on German Wikipedia. It will be on English Wikipedia later this week so you can test it there too. [13]
  • The Architecture Committee will change and get a new name. You can read and comment on the draft that describes the new committee.

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

19:04, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

June 06

"Roman Catholic" vs. "Catholic"

This is an effort to get more consensus on a matter where Grabado (talk · contribs) and I are disagreeing. He started unilaterally moving various categories from "Roman Catholic" to "Catholic"; right now he's suspended that activity at my request pending broader consensus. I'm bringing this here rather than CFD, because things can languish on CFD for a long time, and because so many categories are ultimately involved (probably hundreds).

If I understand correctly, his case for the change is that "Roman Catholic" is too narrow, in that it excludes Eastern Catholic Churches, such as Greek Catholics and some Uniates. (Conversely, Old Roman Catholics are self-defined Roman Catholics, but are not in full communion with Rome.) My case against just "Catholic" is that it also can include the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox Church, the Church of the East,re Anglicans, Uniates that are not in full communion with Rome, and certain independent Catholic churches. (At least that's my understanding. I'm not a scholar of this area, and I'm ready to stand corrected by someone with citable sources.)

Overwhelmingly, possibly even completely, the images in these categories have indeed been of Roman Catholic churches, clergy, etc. I think that distinction should continue to be in category names. We already have (for example) a Category:Greek Catholicism under Category:Catholicism.

I'm not totally wedded to a particular solution to the, so to speak, hierarchy, but if hundreds of categories in this area should be renamed against the consensus we reached when this matter was last discussed several years ago, it shouldn't be because one user unilaterally started moving categories, it should be because we develop a new consensus. - Jmabel ! talk 18:55, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I prefer "Roman Catholic" as it is more descriptive and less ambiguous Oxyman (talk) 20:40, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Sorry if I haven't explained my view very well (English is not my mother language), but I'm afraid that is not exactly the problem I tried to point it out. This message in Category:Catholic Church was the problem:
This category is for both Eastern Catholic Churches and the Roman Catholic Church.
The problem is that the Catholic Church and the Roman Catholic Church are exactly the same thing (as you can read in en:Catholic Church). Instead, Category:Roman Catholic Church was used as if it were the Western part of the Church, in opposition of Category:Eastern Catholic Churches. Even despite the Eastern Catholic Churches are 23 churches part of the (Roman) Catholic Church! I'll try to explain it better tomorrow if necessary. --Grabado (talk) 20:44, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
@Jmabel and Grabado: I would think from the above you could have a cat for Catholic Churches (with no files permitted), and under that Roman Catholic Churches, Old Roman Catholic Churches, Independent Catholic Churches, and Eastern Catholic Churches. Then under Eastern Catholic Churches, you could have Greek Orthodox Churches, Oriental Orthodox Churches, Russian Orthodox Churches, Church of the East, Uniates, other region & language specific churches, etc. Then under Roman Catholic Churches, you could have Roman Catholic Churches by country, then down to (in the US for example) state, city, diocese, parish, however that particular denomination subdivides. And then, there are the Cathedrals.   — Jeff G. ツ 21:44, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
What Grabado is saying is consistent with en:Wikipedia. Category:Catholic Church is another name for Category:Roman Catholic Church, so the latter should be redirected to the former, and it can have Category:Eastern Catholic Churches as a subcategory. --ghouston (talk) 23:57, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Ghouston. That's exactly what I was trying to say. As I promised, I'll try to explain it better:

Facts

1. The church leaded by the pope is called "Catholic Church", but also "Roman Catholic Church".

2. The Catholic Church is composed by 24 autonomous particular churches.

3. One of them is the Latin Church (Western Church). The other 23 churches are the Eastern churches.

The problem

4. In Commons, Category:Catholic Church has been used as the root category while Category:Roman Catholic Church and Category:Eastern Catholic Churches have been used as subcategories at the same level. This pattern has been reproduced all over the category tree.

Examples:

5. Category:Roman Catholic Church has been used as if it were the Latin Church (Western Church) and opposed to the Category:Eastern Catholic Churches.

6. Nevertheless, the Roman Catholic Church is not the Western part but the whole Catholic Church.

Why

7. Because "Roman Catholic Church" is not an unambiguous way to call the Catholic Church.

Why is ambiguous

8. "Roman" was added in a Protestant context to emphasize the link between the Roman pontiff and his Church.

9. But "Roman" has another meaning in a Catholic context. The Roman Rite is the main liturgical rite used in the Latin Church (do you remember? The Western part of the Church) but not in the Eastern Catholic Churches. In that sense, the Eastern Churches wouldn't be part of this "Roman Church". In fact, this is the main difference between West and East.

10. Because the Latin Church is by far the largest (Roman) Catholic Church, people tend to think both churches are the same.

11. Anyway, for these or any other reason, "Roman Catholic Church" is erroneously used to name the Latin Church instead of the whole Catholic Church. You can see this edit. You can see wikidata:Talk:Q9592 (the section titles are very descriptive). This is a common erroneous belief that gives headaches not only in Commons, but also in enwiki (they have finally decided to rename the category to "Catholic Church" after years of discussions).

To sum up (two things to do)

12. We could talk about if we should use "Catholic Church" or "Roman Catholic Church". That would be another discussion derived from this one.

13. Independently of the above, Category:Roman Catholic Church shouldn't be used as if it were the Latin Church. --Grabado (talk) 10:44, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

+1. The main category should be Category:Catholic Church (syn. Category:Roman Catholic Church). Subcategories Category:Eastern Catholic Churches and Category:Latin Catholic Church (syn. Category:Western Catholic Church) should be under it. Jee 13:58, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
@Grabado: I dispute your theory of "Latin Church" as reflecting the most common naming practice in English. Every church building under the Pope in Rome that I've ever seen has had either "Roman Catholic" or it's abbreviation "R. C." in its title or subtitle, whereas I'd never seen "Latin Church" before this discussion.   — Jeff G. ツ 14:20, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
I'd agree with this and would  Oppose if we end up having categories like "Latin Catholic churches in X" or "Latin Rite churches in X", especially when the individual institutions (ie schools and churches) describe themselves as "Roman Catholic".
To add, how else are we to distinguish the Greek Catholic Category:Church of the Pokrov in Bielanka‎ from Category:Holy Trinity church in Gdynia‎ (which uses the Roman rite) if we DON'T use "Roman Catholic"? Both are Catholic churches, so Category:Catholic churches in Poland would contain both.--Nilfanion (talk) 14:59, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
@Nilfanion: Right, and we could have Category:Roman Catholic churches which practice the Latin Rite as a subcat of Category:Roman Catholic churches. I  Support reverting Grabado. On a point of syntax, you do too, right?   — Jeff G. ツ 15:20, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Sorry, but I haven't said that the "Latin Church" is the most common naming practice in English. Actually, what I've said (in number 10) is that many people confuse it with the Roman Catholic Church (it's what's happening in Commons).
You haven't seen "Latin Church" before because you probably don't live in Middle East. So for you every church of latin rite is simply a "Roman Catholic church". You don't need to distinguish it from an Eastern Catholic church if there isn't any in your area (because you live in the Western world). Not the case of the en:Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem, the en:Latin Patriarchate of Constantinople, the en:Latin Catholic Archdiocese of Baghdad, the en:Latin Catholic Diocese of Acre or the en:Latin Catholic Archdiocese of Nicosia.
But you may know the Code of Canon Law of the Catholic Church. This is the first cannon: "Can. 1 The canons of this Code regard only the Latin Church."
@Nilfanion: I haven't proposed a solution... yet (number 12). In first place I just want you to understand the problem. What I'm saying is that using "Roman Catholic" in opposition to the Eastern Catholic Churches is absolutely wrong and against the facts (number 13). Every Eastern Catholic Church is a (Roman) Catholic Church. --Grabado (talk) 15:45, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
@Grabado: I was replying to you at 14:20, 7 May 2017 (UTC), not to Jkadavoor, and I don't appreciate your adding of a colon to indicate otherwise. However, I appreciate your point regarding "Latin" naming in the Middle East and possibly other areas. As a compromise, we could have parallel Roman Catholic, Latin Catholic, Eastern Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox intersection subtrees based on the names or translations actually in use (perhaps combining the two Eastern ones if nothing on the Eastern side of the schism is actually named Eastern Catholic).   — Jeff G. ツ 16:30, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
See our's. It is also a Roman Catholic Church under Pope though an Eastern Church. So I don't think considering Eastern Churches outside R. C. is good. Jee 16:36, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
@Jkadavoor: I'm sorry, perhaps I was misinformed in school. What I learned was that there was a schism in which the Eastern Catholics broke away from the Roman Catholics, did not recognize the Pope at the Holy See in Rome as their leader, and most organized into _______ Orthodox. How was that wrong?   — Jeff G. ツ 17:07, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
There are some eastern churches not under Pope. That may made you confused. Jee 17:15, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: It's not that you were misinformed in school, it's just that you misunderstand what exactly is being discussed. Here's the 10-cent version. In the early days of Christianity a large number of churches were founded in various cities (Rome, Antioch, Constantinople, Alexandria, Jerusalem, etc). Over time, differences in belief arose between these churches, which were all independent... this resulted in a whole series of ecumenical councils (like the one in Nicea that resulted in the Nicene Creed). Some of these particular churches, at various points in time, disagreed with the results of these councils (and with the increasing dominance of the Pope) and split off to form their own new communions... the Oriental Orthodox about 451, and the Eastern Orthodox in about 1050 being the notable ones. Those communions are, however, still composed of 'particular churches' (though they use the term 'autocephalous') that are generally about the same age as the Latin Church.
The "Eastern Catholic" churches are not the result of a split with the Latin Church, it's in fact the opposite.... they are the 'particular churches' that never did split off and so are still in communion with the Latin Church under the ultimate leadership of the Pope.
As a general rule, for what it is worth, most Protestant churches (and most history classes, even at the undergraduate level, in the west) do a very poor job of explaining all this, if they even try. - Reventtalk 08:05, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Sorry, that's the way I'm used to in eswiki. I've tried to fix it. --Grabado (talk) 16:45, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
@Grabado: Thanks.   — Jeff G. ツ 16:58, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
As Jkadavoor has just said, the Eastern Catholic Churches are Roman Catholic Churches just the same as the Latin Church. But at this moment Commons says that the Category:Catholic Church is divided into the Category:Roman Catholic Church and the Category:Eastern Catholic Churches. And that is simply not true. --Grabado (talk) 16:45, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
There are Eastern Catholic churches in the West (mostly Greek), but they are clearly much less abundant than those of the Western church. Could you demonstrate how the Eastern churches are "Roman Catholic"? The Latin church uses the Roman rite and is governed by the pope, is it those things that make it Roman, and are those true for the Eastern churches?
There are a few things I see here:
  1. Should "Catholic Church" and "Roman Catholic Church" be treated as distinct concepts?
  2. Should the Latin Church be treated as distinct from the Catholic Church?
  3. If not, how do we distinguish the Eastern Catholics from the rest?
IMO all these questions need an answer before any change is made. If there's a problem with the current set-up, a partial fix will make matters worse, we need a complete fix. If we try a partial fix and merge the (current) Roman Catholic with the main Catholic tree, then it will be a major nuisance to split the Eastern churches back out again - the distinction will be lost and they will be buried among the majority of Latin churches. We should look for a "correct" way of marking the Latin church, which both preserves the distinction and is actually natural. Category:Latin Catholic Church or Category:Western Catholic Church aren't acceptable (no-one calls it that, so they aren't recognisable). Category:Roman Catholic churches which practice the Latin Rite would work for church buildings, but is clunky and doesn't work for other Catholic concepts (like schools, bishops or dioceses)--Nilfanion (talk) 17:27, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Church and Rite are different as mentioned in English Wikipedia. According to en:Latin liturgical rites, the Latin Church uses different rites though Roman Rite is prominent. The problem here is Roman Catholic Latin Church is commonly called as Roman Catholic Church where no other R. C. churches exist. Jee 17:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
The Eastern Catholic churches exist in Western countries, especially in the large cities, but they are much less common. For example w:Ukrainian Catholic Cathedral of the Holy Family in Exile is in London, and is not a Latin church. An additional complication some churches support both Latin and Eastern Catholic services (for instance).--Nilfanion (talk) 18:19, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@Nilfanion: The Eastern Catholic Churches are part of the Catholic Church. If you want to call "Roman Catholic Church" to the Catholic Church, then it seems obvious that the Eastern Catholic Churches are part of the Roman Catholic Church. The point is that, as stated in en:Catholic Church, the Catholic Church and the Roman Catholic Church are the same thing. So, "Catholic Church" and "Roman Catholic Church" should not be treated as distinct concepts. --Grabado (talk) 18:22, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Sure, that might be true. But we want to be able to treat the individual Eastern Catholic Churches as distinct entities (in sub-cats). If we merge our current "Roman Catholic Church" category with the overarching "Catholic Church", we will be unable to distinguish between the Eastern Churches and the Latin Church. That's not acceptable, and we need to be able to keep that distinction. That means we need a GOOD name for what is currently in Category:Roman Catholic Church. The problem here is a rename is needed, of the non-Eastern Catholic Church, not a merger of "Roman Catholic" and "Catholic".--Nilfanion (talk) 18:30, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
I understand. All the files now under Category:Roman Catholic Church need to moved to a new category (Latin, Western, or any other preferred name). After that Category:Roman Catholic Church can be redirected to Category:Catholic Church. A simple rename is not good as it will confuse people later. Jee 03:22, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree this is all quite confusing. I tend to think it generally best to follow "professional best practice" rather than come up with our own rules. Failing that, if Wikipedia have debated this for years and come to some consensus, then it may be reasonable to follow their practice rather than debate it again. However there are some important differences between us and Wikipedia. They can rename an article and that is pretty fixed, and they have relatively few articles to worry about vs images. If there is doubt about what the article scope is, that can be highlighted on a banner at the top, or on the talk page. Our categories do not have that luxury. For people uploading content, the upload wizard helps them pick existing categories but will not offer advice on which one to choose. So if "most people are confused about this" then most people will continue to put content in the wrong categories. Similarly, for users searching for content and expecting the categories to help them, they will continue to look in the "wrong place". If they have no idea what the "Latin church" is but (think they) know what a "Roman Catholic church" is then the category system might not help them. Particularly if, as some point out, the institutions themselves use the "Roman Catholic" part in their names. So perhaps, rather than getting the categories perfect it might be best to accept uploaders and users will continue to come here with incorrect assumptions, and we should ensure they mostly pick the category that is helpful to both. The point of the category system is to help people find content, not to be an authority on the naming of divisions in the church. -- Colin (talk) 08:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposal 1: Forgetting about the Latin Church

@Colin: I agree with you. I don't think something like Category:Latin Catholic churches in France is a good idea (even more when in places where Eastern Catholic churches are uncommon). My proposal would be:
Where should we put Latin Catholic churches? All churches that are not Eastern Catholic would be in Category:Catholic churches in France. With my proposal, both Latin and Eastern Catholic churches are under a common category (Category:Catholic churches in France) but we can also distinguish the Eastern Catholics from the rest, as Nilfanion asked.
With my proposal it's not an issue whether people confuse the Latin Church with the whole Catholic Church or not, because there's not an special category for Latin churches. All latin churches would be directly under "Catholic Church".
Moreover, it works fine no matter if we finally choose the term "Roman Catholic Church" or "Catholic Church". --Grabado (talk) 10:16, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Your current proposal moves the Latin church from the same level as the Eastern churches to the higher level above them. While the names may be wrong, by correcting the names you are introducing another problem, which is entirely removing the distinction between the Latin church and the Catholic church as a whole. Therefore I oppose it.
Ultimately you need the Latin church to be at the same level as the Eastern churches, as a sub-cat of the overarching church. To be explicit having All Catholic above Latin and Greek is better than having All Catholic (including Latin) above Greek. Find a solution that makes "All Catholic" = "Latin" + "Eastern", with useful names for "All Catholic" and "Latin". Your proposed change just compounds "All Catholic" with "Latin", making it even harder to draw the distinction between the two.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:04, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't see it that way. Maybe I haven't explained it well. Remember that the Roman Catholic Church is not the Latin Church, but the whole Catholic Church. Having All Catholic above Greek means that all of them are Roman Catholic but only a part of them are Greek Catholic, which is absolutely true. We are not saying that all Catholics are Latin. We are just saying that all are Catholic. All the churches that are under Roman Catholic but not under Greek Catholic are Latin churches. We solve the problem and we are close to the fact that the largest church is the Latin Church (and therefore that in most places all the catholic churches are Latin churches). --Grabado (talk) 11:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
I know the names are wrong, but your proposal introduces a whole lot of NEW problems by throwing away the distinction between the Latin church, and the Catholic church as a whole. To give a couple explicit examples of the problems your proposal will introduce:
  1. Category:Church of Saint Anthony, Korets‎. With the current set-up, its obvious that it is part of the Latin church. With your proposal, that information is lost; and it will no longer be clear if its fully categorised or not.
  2. Category:Holy Trinity Church, Zhovkva. Its currently not marked as a Catholic (judging from the WP article its Ukrainian not Latin). With the current situation, if I put it in Category:Catholic churches in Ukraine, that is correct but incomplete. It will stick out as misplaced, allowing someone who knows better to properly place it as a Ukrainian church. With your proposal, it will just be buried in among the Latin churches, and it might not get correctly placed as a Ukrainian church at all.
In both cases, there needs to be a category for the Latin church at the same level as the Eastern churches.
Instead of trying to merge the category for the Latin church with the category for the entire Catholic church, give a good new name for the Latin church.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:04, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
@Nilfanion: . At this moment there's no distinction between the Latin church, and the Catholic church as a whole. Four days ago Wikipedia thought that our main category for this topic was Roman Catholic Church instead of Catholic Church. What we have in Commons are two categories for the same thing. People just use one category or the other depending on what name they are used to, not if the church is Latin or not. --Grabado (talk) 11:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
OK, if that's the case categories like Category:Roman Catholic churches in Ukraine will have a high error rate. Tell me, how many are Latin church? (I don't know). And seriously, please give a GOOD name for the Latin church instead of just repeating over and over that Roman Catholic = Catholic. My current thinking is that "Roman Catholic" will end up being a dab, between "Catholic Church" and wherever we put the Latin.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:43, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Category:Roman Catholic churches in Ukraine doesn't have any error rate because all of the churches there are Roman Catholic Churches. The error appears just if we say that Roman Catholic churches are Latin Churches (as we are actually doing now). --Grabado (talk) 11:47, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
You've completely missed my point there. The current category set-up for Ukraine treats Roman Catholic as different to Eastern Catholic - and treats "Roman Catholic" as a synoynym for Latin. My question is, how many churches in Category:Roman Catholic churches in Ukraine are not Latin churches? If they are ALL Latin, we want to preserve that grouping, and move them to a good new name.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:54, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Ok, I've got it. Of course we cannot know how many churches are not Latin churches because we can't know if users knew that only in Commons Roman Catholic Church doesn't mean Catholic Church. --Grabado (talk) 12:01, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Its easy enough to answer my question - it just takes some time. Just look at each church that is actually listed there: Is Annunciation Church a Latin church? How about Church of St. Barbara? And so on. If all the churches listed in that category are Latin churches, then that category is a badly named category for the Latin church, not a badly named category for the entire Catholic church. And if so, merging it to the entire Catholic church is a bad thing.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:09, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
And are we going to check all the churches from all the countries? --Grabado (talk) 12:11, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposal 2: Renaming and redirecting

@Nilfanion: What about Category:Catholic churches of the Latin Church in France? It starts with a common name: "Catholic churches" so that it's easy for users to find the category. There's no need to use "Roman Catholic" to differentiate it from others churches that call themselves "catholic" because it's also an unambiguous name (since "Latin Church" is added). It's versatile: if we wanted (i'm not proposing it, just as an example) we could also extend the pattern to Eastern Catholic Churches like Category:Catholic churches of the Syro-Malabar Church in India --Grabado (talk) 08:51, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Anyone? --Grabado (talk) 08:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I continue to prefer the term Roman Catholic, but I'm not going to fight over it. - Jmabel ! talk 15:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
What are the steps to solve the problem using this proposal? See Category:Roman Catholic Church:
Category:Roman Catholic Church by country
1. Categories and files under Category:Roman Catholic Church by country should be moved to Category:Latin Church by country.
2. Category:Roman Catholic Church by country should redirect to Category:Catholic Church by country.
3. Category:Catholic Church by country should be placed under Category:Catholic Church and it should include both Category:Latin Church by country and Category:Eastern Catholic Churches by country (current Category:Eastern Catholicism by country)
The same pattern should be applied to subcategories:
4. Categories and files under Category:Roman Catholic Church in France should be moved to Category:Latin Church in France.
5. Category:Roman Catholic Church in France should redirect to Category:Catholic Church in France.
6. Category:Catholic Church in France should be placed under Category:Catholic Church by country and it should include both Category:Latin Church in France and the Eastern Catholic Church in France (if exists).
Category:Roman Catholics
7. Categories and files under Category:Roman Catholics should be moved to Category:Catholics of the Latin Church.
8. Category:Roman Catholics should redirect to Category:Catholics
9. Category:Catholics should be placed under Category:Catholic Church and it should include both Category:Catholics of the Latin Church and Category:Eastern Catholics.
The same pattern should be applied to subcategories.
Category:Roman Catholic buildings
10. Categories and files under Category:Roman Catholic buildings should be moved to Category:Catholics buildings of the Latin Church.
11. Category:Roman Catholic buildings should redirect to Category:Catholic buildings
12. Category:Catholics buildings should be placed under Category:Catholic Church and it should include both Category:Catholics buildings of the Latin Church and Category:Eastern Catholic buildings (Category:Eastern Catholic churches, etc.)
The same pattern should be applied to subcategories.
Category: Roman Catholic liturgy‎
13. Categories and files under Category:Roman Catholic liturgy should be moved to Category:Catholic liturgy of the Latin Church.
14. Category:Roman Catholic liturgy should redirect to Category:Catholic liturgy.
15. Category:Catholic liturgy should be placed under Category:Catholic Church and it should include both Category:Catholic liturgy of the Latin Church and Eastern Catholic liturgy.
The same pattern should be applied to subcategories.
So, how the category tree will look like?

|—Catholic Church
|—|—Latin Church
|—|—Eastern Catholic Churches
|—|—Catholic buildings
|———|———Catholic churches
|———–––|———Catholic churches of the Latin Church
|——–––—|———Eastern Catholic churches
|———|———Catholic buildings of the Latin Church
|———|———Eastern Catholic buildings

---Grabado (talk) 09:32, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
After a week, nobody is opposed to my last proposal. As far as I know, I've fulfilled the requirements made by some users. Therefore, can I proceed with it? --Grabado (talk) 09:57, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
@Jmabel: It is possible to use the term "Roman Catholic" with my second proposal: Category:Roman Catholic churches of the Latin Church, but it is longer and unnecessary since "Latin Church" is added and there's no ambiguity. As some users have said, if enwiki has decided to use "Catholic Church", we could do it too. Anyway, I'm opened to use "Roman Catholic" if it were necessary. --Grabado (talk) 09:57, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

References

I tried to find references. I didn't find much; but it seems Britanica is matching with English Wikipedia that all churches under Pope are Roman Catholic. But I got a clue on how the confusion arise. Here and here we can see Eastern Orthodox Church is officially call itself "Catholic" due to some theological reasons. I don't know how to handle this. Jee 02:44, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

en.Wikipedia and Wikidata have a concept of "Catholic Church" [14] which is "Christian Church led by the Pope and consisting of a Latin Church and 23 Eastern Catholic Churches". It doesn't seem out of place for Commons to have a matching category. Eastern Orthodox Church wouldn't fit there regardless of what names it uses. --ghouston (talk) 05:08, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
I think that is the truth (Catholic Church = Roman Catholic Church = Latin Church + Eastern Catholic Churches). If we can agree on this (I think we need to accept it), now the issue is whether people agree on the name Latin Church ([15]) for the Western Church. Jee 06:38, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

May 07

Replag on labs

Hi, the commonswiki has currently about 36 hours of replcation lag on the labs - see here. Is that already known? If not: Where to report it, that it get fixed? --JuTa 18:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Grandfathering GFDL-1.2

Commons only accepts free files. In the past this was {{GFDL}} and later on CC licenses like {{Cc-by-3.0}}, {{Cc-by-4.0}} and {{Cc-zero}}. We currently still accept {{GFDL-1.2}}. This license seems to be used by some users as a loophole to make re-use of files very difficult if not impossible. Legally it might be "free", but it definitely goes against the spirit of freely usable we have on this project. Wouldn't it be better to grandfather this license? In other words: No longer accept this license for new uploads. Multichill (talk) 17:55, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose While it is not desirable that people free images while attempting to obstruct its reuse, I don't think we should place additional licensing restrictions by rejecting some free licenses. Moreover, that would be problematic when importing from other projects using GFDL images (eg. some localpedias) if we have to reject them. Platonides (talk) 18:34, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Multichill i agree, but this mess is the consensus. they would rather be free to obfuscate rather than simplify re-use. see also Commons:Requests_for_comment/AppropriatelyLicensed the facts here are stark evidence of how morally broken commons is. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 23:29, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, this RFC from 2013 is important reading. This proposal today asks for a similar outcome as proposed in that RFC and I think we would need to have another RFC in order to make sure sufficient opinions are captured when we interpret what the consensus is. I.e. need to go wider than the village pump. As well as taking stock of what has changed since then. There were comments there from the Free Software Foundation on the use of the GPL which would be worth consdiering. seb26 (talk) 17:36, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Most GFDL images that were on Commons on November 1, 2008 had CC-BY-SA added as an additional license in June 2009. It's presumably images with only a GFDL license which are the problem (having GFDL as one of several licenses is harmless)... AnonMoos (talk) 07:42, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
no - it is hybrid GFDL-1.2 + CC-BY-NC as well. it is not harmless that commons has files that are "free on commons only", i.e. terms make it practically impossible to reuse. (not that anyone abides by the terms, they just stay away) Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 13:51, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
I meant "one of several free licenses". If GFDL is supplemental to an image that is already appropriately licensed for Commons without GFDL, then GFDL is harmless... AnonMoos (talk) 22:48, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment GFDL-1.2 for images is bad. But it still would be acceptable for books, and for extracts of GFDL works. So we can't refuse GFDL files entirely. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:07, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose You can't just ban a license by name. COM:Licensing would need to be changed so that licenses containing the undesirable features of GFDL were no longer accepted (it was also discussed last year). Commons doesn't have a fixed set of licenses. GFDL files are presumably still useful for some purposes, e.g., in Wikipedia and other online uses, so I don't see the benefit of banning them from Commons. I'm not sure how Jarekt's proposal would work, since somebody would still have the option of hosting their GFDL files somewhere else and suggesting they be copied to Commons. --ghouston (talk) 03:55, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
flickr does not take it - did you have another obscure file share place that does? you could always treat it like PD Mark from flickr. "free, but too much trouble". Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 12:33, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
It's not hard to host files on the Internet, there are a lot of options, including running your own website or blog. You could even do it with Flickr: set them to all-rights-reserved and release them under GFDL in the description, or send permission to Commons using OTRS. It would be silly to place restrictions on Commons users that don't apply to files obtained from elsewhere. --ghouston (talk) 22:43, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
but it is hard to host files under a license that even the FSF has moved on from. only an ideologue would do it, or a photographer who wants to collect a fee. and it is silly to delete files with a PD - see also [16] maybe you could have a word. it is also perverse to allow a PD that no one can reuse, but disallow a PD that everyone uses, but commons deletes, because it does not want to do the cleanup. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 02:36, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Another thing occurs to me, that if the files are banned from Commons, they will probably become another class of files that will be hosted on Wikipedias instead. --ghouston (talk) 05:40, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 Support as GFDL-1.2 is a horrible license (1.3 at least allows double-licensing under a CC license under certain circumstances). --Malyacko (talk) 08:50, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
GFDL-1.3 by itself is also bad. Per relicensing criteria, it allows double-licensing under a CC license only for files "uploaded to Commons or to some other Wikimedia project before August 1, 2009". So for new uploads it is as bad as GFDL-1.2. --Jarekt (talk) 11:52, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
User:Koavf We could do it but I doubt anybody will notice. Nothing will change. Also we can work on mechanism to detect new uploads with deprecated licenses. --Jarekt (talk) 11:48, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose. I'd support in principle, if there was a plausible way to address Yann's concern specifically about extracts from GFDL works. Say, for example, a GFDL-1.2 work is scanned with the ultimate goal of ending up at wikisource. That work includes images... what happens to them? Storkk (talk) 12:03, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Storkk, I was proposing to restrict the upload to {{Own}} works uploaded by the copyright holders, so there would be not restrictions to your example file. --Jarekt (talk) 12:10, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
@Jarekt: If it were restricted to {{Own}}, I'd probably support (though there would seem to be some rather large loopholes there)... but Multichill's proposal does not mention this, unless I am misreading it. Your support does, but seems to be materially different to the proposal under consideration. I'd lean towards supporting your suggestion (with reservations because of the loopholes). Storkk (talk) 12:18, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
But I'm also not sure we should accept new GFDL-1.2 files from outside repositories either: if the license isn't "free enough" for stand-alone images, then we shouldn't consider it free enough for stand-alone images just because they come from an external repository... my main stumbling block is really that GFDL-1.2 can be free enough for mostly-text media. Sorry if I sound a touch confused, I'm currently fighting a cold, and so may be a bit muddled. Storkk (talk) 12:25, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
you could allow the GDFL for texts and not allow for images, as the "appropriate licenses RfC suggested, (not that anyone is using GDFL in texts anymore). Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 01:20, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support, the GFDL 1.2 isn't a free license for media files as it is not practically possible to follow the term of the license in regard to them. The GFDL 1.2 is ancient at this point and there is no reason why we need to continue allowing new uploads with this license. If that limits some derivative works, so be it. Commons is supposed to be a repository for reusable files, not files that are encumbered by copyright law. Kaldari (talk) 21:09, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure how important this issue is, but I think we can make a list of forbidden/discouraged licenses (for single-licensing of original photos): for instance we wouldn't like OFL to be used for anything other than fonts (it doesn't work very well) and Creative Commons discourages the usage of CC-BY-SA for code. There doesn't need to be a general policy on how to make such a list: there are many ways a free license can be unsuitable for works other than those it was thought for.
    To make such a decision more effective, we could also write in the template, Commons:Copyright tags, relevant pieces of Commons:Upload etc. that any photo first published on Wikimedia Commons under GFDL is also dual-licensed under CC-BY-SA (3 or 4?). This is consistent with the practice we use for text (CC-BY-SA first, then GFDL; except for imports) and is generically allowed by m:Terms_of_use#7d. Nemo 21:38, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support as per Jarekt. Braveheart (talk) 08:29, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose GFDL is still used for many older files. Multilicensing is allowed. So it would be impractical to disallow this behaviour/possibility, both for older and current uploads. Loophole or not, it could even be practical in instances with potentially sensitive but (for the WMF projects) important files.--Paracel63 (talk) 21:44, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support per Jarekt and Nemo. This practice is just not in the spirit of what we are trying to do here (my humble opinion). I can't see why we continue to condone it. I'm sure it will create a bit of a problem for some people, and i'm sure someone will try to find another loophole. But for all the idealism around complying with copyright law across multiple regions, FoP, sweat of the brow, personality and trademark rights... we are being awfully lax about this in my view much more crucial part of our ideals. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:19, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose GFDL is a free license. The enforced license change by the Foundation without the consent of the authors is the reason for the use of 1.2 only. Will next CC4 automatically become CC0 or GFDL 1.3 will PD? Without me! --Ralf Roleček 07:59, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
The WMF notified all of its users before implementing the license migration (not change). Since all Wikimedia sites were licensed (only) under the GFDL, unversioned, and that GFDL 1.3 allowed the dual licensing with CC BY-SA-3.0 for MMC sites (like wikis), and that there is a majority supporting dual licensing Wikimedia content with CC BY-SA-3.0, your argument is nonsense. ★Poyekhali 05:18, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support I'm sure something carefully worded can be incorporated into policy that supports existing media and any exceptions required. But the previous RFC and some of the above comments will tell you that Commons is incapable of making a rational decision on this because everyone votes without either understanding what is being asked or because of some political mantra about "GFDL is a free licence" that means as much as "Brexit is Brexit". It is interesting to note that Ralf, who votes above me, uses CC BY-SA. So I have to wonder just who is using "GFDL 1.2 only" and do we care to permit them? -- Colin (talk) 16:04, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I will strongly support this proposal only if dual licensing with a free CC license or FAL license is still allowed and that this will only apply for new own works. I made a similar proposal to this before, where I proposed to ban new own works licensed under GFDL-only or GFDL and nonfree license. I withdrew the proposal since somebody said that it should apply too to licenses like the GPL. However, doing some research, GFDL may be similar to the GPL, but the GFDL is actually problematic to comply with than the GPL. Even the FSF don't know how to comply with it (according to RationalWiki). So, I would say that GFDL is very unacceptable to use not only in Commons but for every other work, even the software manuals which is really the purpose of the GFDL. ★Poyekhali 04:37, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

TL;DR for cycle 2 of the strategy discussions

Hey Commons people, there are only a few days left to participate on the strategy discussions. A few editors in IRC mentioned an TL;DR might help, and User:SGrabarczuk (WMF) was kind enough to build this. I'm leaving this here to also help the Commons community participate in a more familiar setting. I'll move all discussions to the strategy page once cycle 2 ends for archival purposes, please feel free to participate in either setting. Chico Venancio (WMF) (talk) 00:10, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Cycle 2 TL;DR: Please read the themes and questions below, and answer as many questions as you like. At the beginning of your comment, mark which theme and question you're referring to (e.g. A4, or C2). -- You can also answer anonymously by an off-wiki survey.

Cycle 1 (generate) Sensemaking Cycle 2 (debate) Sensemaking Cycle 3 (prioritize) Finalize draft Phase 2
March 14–April 18 April 18–May 5 May 11–June 12 June 12–June 21 June 28–July 28 July 29–Aug 8 Aug 2017–2018

Proposed drafts of priorities ('Themes') (A-E)

A: Healthy, inclusive communities

The Wikimedia volunteer culture should be fun, rewarding, and inclusive for both existing contributors and newcomers. We should welcome new volunteers and mentor them to ensure that they have positive experience and continue to participate in the projects. People from every background should feel part of a network of groups and organizations with deep relationships. As a result, our movement will grow.

#Community health#Community engagement & support#Diversity & inclusion#Gender diversity#Internal communication#User engagement#New users#Experienced users#Readers

B: The augmented age (Advancing with technology)

The Wikimedia movement should use technological innovations to help volunteers be more creative and productive. We should use machine learning and design to make knowledge easy to access and easy to use. To greatly increase the quality and quantity of content in more languages, volunteers should, for example, have access to better machine translations. We should present and organize knowledge in ways that improve the way people learn and contribute — beyond the browser, the app, and the encyclopedia.

#Innovation#Automation#Adapting to technological context#Expanding to other medias#Quality content#Accessibility of content

C: A truly global movement

We should be a truly global movement. In particular, we should turn our attention toward regions we have not yet served well enough: Asia, the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America. We should work with communities of readers, contributors, and partners in these parts of the world. We should make space for new forms of contributions that reflect these regions (references, citations, and more). We should build awareness of the power of free knowledge and overcome barriers to access. We should build products adapted to the needs of these new members of our movement.

#Emerging communities#Accessibility in emerging communities#Availability across languages#Outreach & awareness#Sustainability & growth

D: The most respected source of knowledge

We will work toward ever more accurate and verifiable content. By 2030, Wikimedia projects will be seen as the most high-quality, neutral, and relevant source of knowledge. We will increase the depth of knowledge available and maintain our standards for verifiable and neutral content. We will invite experts to join us. We will help people understand how our processes make us reliable. We will show the most relevant information to people when and where they need it.

#Quality content#Neutrality#Reliability & credibility#Knowledge#Free#Open source

E: Engaging the knowledge ecosystem (Participating in the knowledge network)

We should build relationships with a wide variety of organizations dedicated to the ideals of free knowledge. Wikimedia communities should work with allies that they didn’t know they had. Our content and technology should become a central part of formal and informal education around the world. We should partner with leading institutions in education, arts, entertainment, civil society, government, science, and technology. Together, we should invite a new generation of people who learn, create, and care for a growing library of free knowledge for all.

#Education#Institutions#Educators#Existing programs

Questions (1-5)

  1. What impact would we have on the world if we follow this theme?
  2. How important is this theme relative to the other 4 themes? Why?
  3. Focus requires tradeoffs. If we increase our effort in this area in the next 15 years, is there anything we’re doing today that we would need to stop doing?
  4. What else is important to add to this theme to make it stronger?
  5. Who else will be working in this area and how might we partner with them?

Images with wrong geo coordinates

How to deal with images having obviously wrong geo coordinates? Simply fixing them? What, if the coordinates are in the Exif data? Though I think some general answer would be useful, I actually think of some images originating from Panoramio, and I do not see, where the Upload bot got the coordinates from, at least I do not find them in Exif. — Speravir – 23:36, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

  • I usually correct them when I happen to notice them. If they are wrong in the EXIF data, I usually add a remark to that effect. - Jmabel ! talk 00:22, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I think Panoramio has the location stored in their equivalent of our file decription page. Afair, users could manually geocode images there just like they can here, so coordinates in EXIF would have been optional. BTW: Depending on how accurate your corrected coordinates are, you might want to consider adding {{Location estimated}}. — Preceding unsigned comment added by El Grafo (talk • contribs) 10:57, 13 June 2017 (UTC) (UTC)
Thank you both, @Jmabel and El Grafo: . For the template in my eyes it would have been better to provide the opportunity for adding the last part (“Verifying and refining these coordinates is strongly encouraged.”) optionally. There’s another issue with the line height. I will look at it. Update: Meanwhile fixed. 18:51, 13 June 2017 (UTC) — Speravir – 17:12, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Speravir 02:00, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Splitting surnames

I noticed there is a great job in organizing people in Category:Surnames (and for "great" I mean both "massive" and "very good"). There is only one problem: double surnames. Spanish compound surnames are actually two different surnames (a paternal one and a maternal one), but this cannot be applied to every surname consisting of more than two words. When I saw this moving, I realized that all the people like "Vito De Filippo", "Peppino De Filippo" etc. where in category "Filippo (surname)" instead of "De Filippo (surname)", and JuTa explained that "[it's] like every other double or tripple sur- or given name. If it contains multiple parts, it will be a sub-cat of each single name.". Well, this is very arguable, at least in Italian: now "De Filippo (surname)" is a subcategory of "De (surname)" and "Filippo (surname)", which is completely nonsense, because it is not a combination of two different surnames, but it is one single surname called "De Filippo". Would you really split "Alessandro Del Piero" in "Del (surname)" and "Piero (surname)" or "Robert De Niro" in "De (surname)" and "Niro (surname)"? (or "Giulio D'Anna" in "D' (surname)"??) It is essentially wrong. In the case of given names it makes sense ("Maria Chiara" is actually a combination of two stand-alone names, "Maria" and "Chiara"), but this cannot be applied to surnames. I would like to know the opinion of the community about this. --Superchilum(talk to me!) 07:53, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

  • I would certainly consider names that happen to be written in two parts ("De Filippo", "von Trotha", etc.) as single names, distinct from the double surnames in the Iberian languages or hyphenated surnames sometimes found in English. - Jmabel ! talk 14:50, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Apart from very specific cases (which are such only in apparence) there’s no such thing as «double surnames in the Iberian languages». Most Catalan- and Spanish-speaking people have two surnames (the former always connected with "i", the latter seldom connected with "y", to make a long story short) and most Portuguese-speaking people have two or three surnames (seldom more, seldom one), but there’s nothing to be gained in presenting these as compound surnames (as in Rimski-Korsakov or Mountbatten-Windsor): Just accept that Human names may include any of several parts (given name, surname, patronymic, etc) and that any of those parts can be made of any number of words. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 22:55, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
    • In contemporary Spanish usage "y" between the apellido and the segundo apellido is very uncommon. In any case, clearly those are double surnames, unlike De Filippo or von Trotha. - Jmabel ! talk 23:06, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
  • And, yes, notwithstanding rare exceptions like Federico Garcia Lorca choosing to be known as Lorca, the primero apellido is clearly the main surname, but it still makes sense if we are categorizing by surnames to use both, because people looking someone up may have no idea of the structure of these names. If we are going to put a "Smithers-Jones" under both "Smithers" and "Jones", we should certainly put a "Ramos Gonzales" under both "Ramos" and "Gonzales". - Jmabel ! talk 23:10, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
  • On a side note, Portuguese-language names (incl. Brazil) have typically the main surname at the end, as the last surname, not as the first one as in Spanish and Catalan-language names. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 10:27, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Hi. Spanish people (Catalan ones included, for now) with two surnames have not "double surnames" (in general terms, of course one of these two could be a double one) but "two" different surnames. The first one and the second one. Of course, that surname part could be splitted into different units.
  • That means it would not make sense classifying "Pérez González"-people under a hypothetic Category:Pérez González (surname), because Pérez González is not a surname. Classifying them under Category:Pérez (surname) and Category:González (surname) simultaneously is ok enough, though. Strakhov (talk) 23:28, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Then, yes, we agree. :) Strakhov (talk) 16:30, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Seems that we all agree: Categories should aggregate individual surnames, including those made from more than one word (e.g.: van der Waals, de la Hoz, Castelo Branco, or even Parker-Bowles), and regardless of how they are used in anyone’s particular full name — either standalone or with other surnames, at the beggining or at the end of the full name, etc. The only problem seems to be those other editors who are not discussing this here and are creating and using categories that either split the components of multi-word surnames and given names, and/or lump together as one several surnames as stringed in someone’s (or some lineage’s) full name. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 09:55, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
  • @Tuvalkin: perfect resume, IMHO. --Superchilum(talk to me!) 10:36, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree with the previous comments (Tuválkin's, especially, is enlightening); as for the italian surnames, Superchilum has already said all, considering "De" and "Filippo" as two separate surnames is absurd (I will only add the "De Filippo" is essentially a variant of "Filippi": the "De" in "De Filippo" and the final "i" in "Filippi" are two different ways to express a common patronymic origin - that is, "related to Filippo"; I suppose the same is true for typical german or dutch surnames, like von Ribbentrop, van der Pol or den Adel). I've read the discussion in JuTa's talk and it's quite appalling. This is not something you can agree or disagree upon (you can't disagree with facts), and you can't make a valid de facto standard with based on a wrong assumption. -- Syrio posso aiutare? 10:55, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Well, if the vast majority thinks that Category:De Filippo (surname) should not be splitted and belong directly to Category:surnames, I have to admin that I am wrong and "they" are correct. So I will move it back to its origin state. --JuTa 18:05, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
@JuTa: Thank you. Of course it is not just a problem of "De Filippo", it applies also to double surnames (i.e. two surnames) in Spanish, to be treated as different surnames and not like a unique surname, and in general to all the surnames of the languages with rules we don't know. For example, I don't really know Vietnamese to say that Category:Trinh Van-Can (surname) is a combination of really different surnames (Trinh, Van and Can). As I can see from en:Vietnamese name, "Van" can be a middle name or a family name, and in this case there is a "-" in the middle. --Superchilum(talk to me!) 06:51, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Well, correct me where I was wrong. A comprehensibly edit-summary would be nice. With time I will learn to indicate those people myself and do them correctly. --JuTa 07:22, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Spanish surnames should be put in the categories of the two single surnames. E.g. Category:José María Rivera Corral should be put in "Rivera" and in "Corral", but not in "Rivera Corral", which doesn't exist. Italian surnames... well, that is more difficult... but generally speaking, every time there is a capitalized "Del/Di/De/D'/Da", that is a unique surname with what comes next (e.g. "Del Piero", "Di Chiara", "D'Anna", "De Niro"). The same applies for "Lo/La" (e.g. Category:Davide La Rosa or Category:Luigi Lo Cascio). There are not other common types of double surnames in Italian, and the remaining should be considered one by one. I think that, when we are in doubt, better don't do it :-D and ask the village pump. Particularly when dealing with Asian people, where it is not so easy to distinguish among given name, middle name, surname, double surnames etc. --Superchilum(talk to me!) 13:11, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Acceptable to remove a category from an archived deletion request?

Commons:Deletion requests/File:مهرزاد خواجه‌امیری.jpg is categorized into Category:People. I'm sure this is a mistake, but there's some bold red text insisting that the page shouldn't be edited. Would it be okay for me to uncategorize the page? Thanks, GKFXtalk 12:36, 8 June 2017 (UTC).

Sure. I would say that this is not a mistake, it is at least a test edit, possibly vandalism. Anyway, I have removed the category. --jdx Re: 12:47, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

June 09

Uploading up to 500 images at a time with Special:UploadWizard

For a while I was using a little hack for uploading up to 500 images at a time with Special:UploadWizard. If someone have a need to use that feature I would like to learn if it works for others. What you do is:

  1. go to this stage using Chrome brouwser
  2. open java script console with Ctrl + Shift + J
  3. paste "mw.UploadWizard.config.maxUploads = 500;"
  4. now if you open an album or a photostream with up to 500 images you can upload them all at once

This greatly simplify upload from flickr from albums with 100s of good images, but you still need to add descriptions and categories to them all and possibly clean up default names. What I am interested in is it works for other (maybe it works only for some subgroups of users) and does it work in other browsers. There is a talk at phabricator:T135085 to increase number of allowed uploads. --Jarekt (talk) 16:27, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! That certainly is worth a try or two! yesyesyesyes --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 02:06, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Jarekt! Just to let you know as a courtesy, I have made copies of both your comments to my user-page so that I can quickly look them up in the near future when I have a chance and the time to sit down at a computer and try working out what I need to do. I no-wikid your sigs so that you wouldn't get notices and it wouldn't look like you had posted them there, but so that I had a record of who said them and when. Thanks! Mabalu (talk) 09:21, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Mabalu, I am not sure if the above hack will work for you, as I think someone though it will work for admins only. I also do not think you need it. Special:UploadWizard will display 500 images but with the current settings will only allow you to choose 50 images. Which sounds like what you need with the collection you are working with. --Jarekt (talk) 12:09, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi Jarekt! I don't see the option to upload from Flickr on Special:UploadWizard so I need to try and get that to show up for me. Not being very technologically inclined, it's a bit confusing but I'm sure I'll work it out.... Again, thanks for your help. Mabalu (talk) 13:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
What do you see at this stage? Also make sure you are logged in. --Jarekt (talk) 13:19, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
According to Commons:Flickr files#Tools, only admins and image reviewers can import from Flickr via Upload Wizard. --Magnus (talk) 13:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
What about http://tools.wmflabs.org/flickr2commons/ ? - Jmabel ! talk 15:20, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Magnus thanks for hint, I did not realized that there was still such restriction. I wonder why do we need it, while anybody can use other tools like http://tools.wmflabs.org/flickr2commons/, mentioned by Jmabel. --Jarekt (talk) 11:57, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
We can ask the permission to be broadened, if there is consensus. Nemo 21:39, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
I think that would be great. --Jarekt (talk) 13:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@Jarekt and Jmabel: The only reason this feature is restricted to admins and image reviewers is that the community asked for such restrictions when the feature was first developed. If there is community consensus to broaden access to the feature, I would be happy to broaden it. Kaldari (talk) 03:13, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Yep, can be abused, especially if one is uploading images directly from Flickr, it will be auto licence reviewed which means if someone is flickrwashing and mass uploaded images from flickr which are not free, we (licence reviewers/sysops) won't know about it as it would skip the review stage thus why it should be at this stage limited to 2 groups. In the future when safety procedures are put in place which can stop mass uploads by new users or users with a record for uploading unfree images then maybe it can be released to all wikimedians.--Stemoc 03:37, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Anything upload tool can be abused, there is no way around it. Regular users using Flickr2Commons, Flinfo, F2ComButton or mass download to computer and mass upload without flickr option can do regular and mass uploads of flickrwashed files for years. It is easily done but I do not hear much about it, So it is not a major issue. I doubt that will change if we activate another way to do it. --Jarekt (talk) 04:26, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

OK, I proposed to expand the right to use UW to all users. See Commons:Village_pump/Proposals#Allow_all_users_to_use_Upload_Wizard.27s_flickr_option. Let's continue discussion there. --Jarekt (talk) 04:26, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

May 27

Coats of arms images

I am posting here for guidance in good faith. I am not forum shopping. I am not complaining. This is not a user problem. I say those things because I am in a bit of a dispute with the image creator about one of his images.

This post is about other images he created. I need some views about whether or not they are similar enough (in terms of colour, shape, etc.) to the sources to be used. I also wonder about the sources.

I really do not know where else to post about this. Point me in another direction if you know. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

  • You don't indicate where or what the dispute is, so none of us know what is in dispute or where to comment, but if the user is creating his/her own graphics and correctly following a blazon, that should usually be unproblematic. - Jmabel ! talk 21:58, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi Jmabel. I did not want to link any dispute because this is not about that. If you want to dig into contribs or talk pages about that, that's fine with me.
This post is only about these coats of arms his/her created: The coats of arms
Again, please compare the uploaded ones to the sources, and please consider the quality of the sources.
Many thanks,
Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:09, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
By the way, these are being used in many articles. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:18, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
  • The link you give leads to everything this user ever uploaded. Looking at the two most recent, the source is "own work", which I see no reason to doubt. References are given, but I don't read Chinese (do you? Your user page only indicates English), so if those references include a blazon, I can't read it. If the relevant part of the references are just the images, it's hard to determine whether these uploaded images faithfully follow the blazon, because just from one artist's representation of a coat of arms there is no way to know how specific the blazon may be (e.g. if it just says "bishop's mitre, goules" that leaves the artist a lot of latitude). - Jmabel ! talk 00:32, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Anna_Frodesiak -- Coat of arms images which follow the traditional rules of European heraldry are a little different from some other things, since the ultimate authority is the textual description in the "Blazon". Any person is free to go back to the original textual blazon and produce a new artistic rendering of the coat of arms based on the blazon, and then he or she own the copyright to his or her own particular rendering, and can upload it to Commons, releasing it under a suitable license. Of course, other people also own the copyrights to their own particular artistic renderings. Please see the wording on template {{Coa blazon}}... AnonMoos (talk) 01:03, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, AnonMoos. Actually, the copyright status isn't really a concern to me. If others thing it is a problem. they can act. I am concerned about articles containing emblems that may be fiction because the source is a blog. Sixty-two such images have now been tagged accordingly. However, the emblems remain in articles. I just hope the tagging stops the spread. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:10, 10 June 2017 (UTC)


An example

Let me give you an example of what I mean:

This is a blog with the source. Is a blog a good source? Not really. The emblem could be made up for all we know. This is the emblem made from that source image. Notice the differences? The bishops hat becomes different. The "L" thing to its right becomes a swirly thing. Then, that creation gets added to four articles: de:Liu Xinhongen:Joseph Liu Xinhongno:Joseph Liu Xinhongzh:刘新红

Now, imagine that content added to articles was text. The source would be rejected as an unreliable blog. The rewriting of the text would be considered completely misleading. The text would be removed.

Well, here we have a dozen or more emblems, from blogs etc., interpreted inaccurately (in some cases the source is black and white, and the interpretation is full colour....no idea how those colours were selected), and then those emblems are added to articles.

Doesn't this strike you as a problem?

Best,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:48, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Anna Frodesiak,
Wikimedia Commons doesn't interfere with the content in such cases, except eventually to help improving the rendering in our labs. If a file is not used, it may be deleted as out of scope, but it is the decision of each local Wikipedia to use the file or not. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:59, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Yann, thank you for that very informative but worrisome bit of info. A bit of a hole in the system, I think. Okay, thanks all. I will figure out how to handle this from here on in. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:02, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello Anna Frodesiak, you can tag such CoAs with a dispute tag, see here: COM:COA #How to tag images of emblems. -- User: Perhelion 14:23, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, Perhelion. That is actually really good to know, and a really essential group of templates. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:10, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I did what I could do by adding the Template:Lacking insignia source to 62 of the 100 images. Those were sourced with blogs, forums, etc. Thank you all for your patience. It has been a learning experience. I am very sorry to the uploader, who was acting in very good faith. I just tried to do what I thought was necessary and right. For me, this case is now closed. Best wishes to all. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:50, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

lar rendering, and can upload

June 07

Commons Android app update - v2.4.2

Hi all,

We're excited to announce that we've rolled out several new features and bug fixes for the Commons Android app over the past few months. Some of the major ones include:

  • A map of nearby places that need pictures (in addition to the existing list). Selecting a nearby place allows users to see the associated Wikidata item, get directions to the place, or view the associated Wikipedia article
  • A new and improved UI, including a light and dark theme, a navigation drawer, and a logout option
  • Fixed memory issues that were preventing users with older phones from accessing the app
  • Licenses now include CC-BY 4.0 and CC-BY-SA 4.0, and licenses can be selected individually when uploading a picture
  • The total number of pictures that have been uploaded from an account are now shown, and the image details pane now displays the upload date and image coordinates

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

Misaochan (talk) 15:27, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

June 10

Category:User categories

@Auntof6 and Themightyquill:

The category is a real mess, most categories are completely useless. I'd like to ask my fellow Commoners if we really need roughly 7k useless categories Uploads by user XYZ, Files by User XYZ from ABC.wikipedia and nonsense like it? The categories collecting quality/featured/valued media are not affected by this. Shall we tag and decide one by one or is there consensus to keep/delete those categories? Thoughts? --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 07:52, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Not sure. I guess that many of the subcategories are listed there because of Template:User category. If we removed that, wouldn´t the respective subcatories then be listed "uncategorized categories"? And if we deleted those categories, wouldn´t many of the files be listed as "uncategorized media"? It may not make a big difference as there are lots of uncategorized files anyway, but I always found it comfortable to use "user category" as a way to hide absolutely useless categories that can´t be deleted because nobody cares to decide CfDs. It takes the files and categories out of the overcrowded maintenance lists... --Rudolph Buch (talk) 14:57, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Users are allowed to create user categories, as long as they are marked as such. I personally don't have any, but I can see how they could be useful in conjunction with various tools. - Jmabel ! talk 14:59, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
As a major uploader I have user upload cats and find them a very easy way to track and report on nearly 3m files. Generically they may look a mess, but they are a net benefit. --Fæ (talk) 16:55, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
I think also most others who created their user categories find them useful, be it because they prefer them to the suggested tools, that the tools are objectively worse for some uses, or some other reason. The categories cannot be deleted just because some of us think they are useless. Are there any drawbacks in having them? If so, we should first discourage creating them. If not, why is the issue raised? --LPfi (talk) 17:14, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
I wouldn’t call them totally useless, but it should be ensured, that they are hidden/technical categories. FWIW just recently a user asked on Help Desk, how he could download all his over 900 photos copied from Panoramio to Commons. I created a user category for him.
BTW: See also Commons:Requests for comment/User categories. — Speravir – 22:25, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the fast replies folks! I didn't think we would get that much traffic here within a few hours. We can probably lay this thread to rest.
This section was archived on a request by: --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 02:36, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Category:Tagged self

I placed {{Editprotected}} and a request on Template talk:Self#Category:Tagged_self three days ago. A small discussion ensued, in which Hedwig in Washington suggested posting here as a larger venue.

Category:Self-published work "contains 18,216,991 files which is 46.19% of all 39,440,424 files in Wikimedia Commons." That is a huge number of files. https://tools.wmflabs.org/templatecount/?lang=commons&name=Self&namespace=10 shows that {{Self}} is transcluded by 16,958,669 files. I want to change the category used by {{Self}} from Category:Self-published work to Category:Tagged self to further diffuse Category:Self-published work. After the job queue finishes processing the change to those 16,958,669 files, that would leave ~1,258,322 files which are either direct members of Category:Self-published work or are members by some other method(s). I would then want to find that/those other method(s) and diffuse it/them too, so that we would have a much more limited set of direct members to analyze (and possibly replace the direct membership with a tag and cat for each type), because Category:Self-published work should not have files as direct members for internationalization reasons (as they appear on file description pages, the templates are internationalized, but the category names are not). 1,234,257 files tagged {{PD-self}} and 272,369 files tagged {{PD-user}} or {{PD-user-w}} have already been diffused into Category:PD-self and Category:PD-user respectively, but we already have a Category:Self with a different purpose (self as subject, as opposed to self as author, with some overlap for selfies). Note, these numbers are constantly changing with every upload and deletion, generally trending upwards (except the percentage).   — Jeff G. ツ 01:34, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

This is a good idea, in my opinion. Ruslik (talk) 03:41, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
I think a better approach would be to use CatScan2, PetScan, or Quarry tools to find some examples of files in the category which do not use {{Self}}. For example you can fork quarry:query/19341 to find such files. Than you can play with the files without creating new categories like Category:Tagged_self. --Jarekt (talk) 20:07, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
i agree, wikidata tools are better than categories + bots. you could create a work list (or maintenance category) from wikidata with a sparql. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 02:22, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

{{OTRS backlog}}

Current backlog (oldest unanswered mail or ticket) in permissions-commons queue is 7 days.

I created {{OTRS backlog}} showing current backlog in permissions-commons queue and hope to update it weekly. In my view OTRS queue related to Commons is falling more and more behind despite heroic efforts by a few OTRS agents trying to stay afloat ( not me lately as I was preoccupied with other issues). We do have 190 Commons OTRS volunteers, which sounds like enough to handle the load, but somehow the system is collapsing. The tickets we handle take extra long time as it usually requires admin rights to undelete already deleted pages and figure out where were the images used, before delinker removed them. --Jarekt (talk) 14:48, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Wow, >70 days now. That's very, very bad. I mean, that's not just one of those Commons-internal backlogs nobody really cares about. This is about external contributors getting rightfully pissed because their stuff gets deleted due to formalities and they have to wait months for it to be sorted out. That's highly unprofessional. Is there anything we can do, apart from recruiting more OTRS members? --El Grafo (talk) 11:30, 6 June 2017 (UTC) To avoid confusion: With "highly unprofessional" I of course mean Commons as a whole as seen from an external contributor – not the individual members of the OTRS team. --El Grafo (talk) 11:34, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
The volume of the emails stays the same, so we "just" need more people processing them. Either new OTRS members or existing OTRS members. Once we caught up than processing new tickets should get easier as we do not have to undelete them. We might also have the "out of site, out of mind" issue so I hope my new {{OTRS backlog}} might keep more people aware of the issue. --Jarekt (talk) 13:44, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Any thoughts about bring this up on Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost and to the whole whole community (which also includes Wikibooks, Wikiversity , Wikidata) ? They may have admins that are conversant with our image policy but are not currently active on WC and thus don't know about this backlog. From what I can gather, 73 days is not a long time when one considers how few people work on OTRS. It may only require a few more admins who are experienced (and volunteering on a temporary basis) to whittle this back down quickly. In business, I found the 90% of the issues were quick to solve but it was the remaining 10% that were taking up 90% of my time. Just a few more eyes (from our sister projects) and their input may melt away this current overload. P.g.champion (talk) 18:00, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
P.g.champion, I think that is a great idea. See here. --Jarekt (talk) 19:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
you need to create an OTRS team to work the backlog. but that would require collaboration. not interested. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 02:00, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Leaked files from US government become public domain ?

See above article reporting on the document.

I see we have prior examples at File:Xkeyscore-worldmap.jpg, Category:XKeyscore.

Would the leaked document in question in this case be public domain as made by US government ?

Sagecandor (talk) 13:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Leaked files from US government are public domain, they also might be still classified. That causes a problem because a US government employees or contractors after visiting a Wikipedia page showing classified document would get "classified" materials on their "unclassified" computers. In such a case they are legally obligated to report that to their security which is obligated to reformat their computers. The rules related to a spill of classified information do not always make sense and do not make distinction between new and old spills. --Jarekt (talk) 13:54, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
@Jarekt: Okay that's helpful, thank you. We can see File:Xkeyscore-worldmap.jpg, is in use on multiple different language Wikipedias. So how does this all apply here? Can we upload the document mentioned above? Sagecandor (talk) 14:32, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
There is no reason not to upload. My concern is mostly for a new class of files that some might not want to open at work, which might be harder to avoid than porn. --Jarekt (talk) 14:47, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the helpful advice ! Sagecandor (talk) 15:35, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
see also Category:Pentagon papers which remained classified for decades. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 02:09, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Uploads of Boing-boing

All uploads of Boing-boing is under File renaming criterion #2. I have'nt time for requesting all of him files to rename. Is it another way for resolving this? ← Alex Great talkrus? 03:59, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

@Alex Great: User:Boing-boing also appears to be a bot without a bot flag and without containing "bot" in its name, in violation of bot policy.   — Jeff G. ツ 05:06, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

This user was edited last time in 2011. I think this is not a reason for blocking. But I don't care how he uploads many files with incorrect name. I'm interested in correct naming of this files. What we can do? ← Alex Great talkrus? 06:26, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

If the filenames are inappropriate, use {{Rename}} to suggest a better name & someone with the relevant privileges will follow up. - Jmabel ! talk 15:20, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't wanna do it for all of this files. ← Alex Great talkrus? 06:31, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
@Alex Great: Then just add {{Rename}} to as many as you care to or create a bot request. Kaldari (talk) 20:48, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
there is also the move button. to rename files. Commons:File renaming if you have file mover permission. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 01:58, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Animated PNG

I just wanted to give you guys/gals a heads up that Chrome (as of version 59) now supports animated PNG files. Not sure if this information is useful to you all, but thought I'd send this information your way. Offnfopt(talk) 06:38, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I assume you mean APNG... -- AnonMoos (talk) 01:15, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
That's great news, since you don't need to use an extension which will add APNG support. I hope all major browsers support APNG now, so that we could start converting all animated GIFs to APNGs... ★Poyekhali 02:31, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Converting from other formats would be several steps down the road, and there's no real need to rush into it. Adding file support so that animated images have animated thumbnails would be the first step, I assume... AnonMoos (talk) 03:39, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Transfer images from Google Photos

(Title fixed. — Speravir – 16:19, 12 June 2017 (UTC))

Hello.Why can not we transfer images from Google Phptos in full size using "url2commons"?Thank you ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 08:04, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

As always it depends on the licenses. If, and only if a photo is licensed under a license considered free it can be uploaded to Commons. More on Commons:Licensing and Commons:Copyright tags. — Speravir – 23:10, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
@Jmabel and Speravir: The problem is that the tool does not work with this website ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 07:35, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Aah, that’s your intention. Then sorry. — Speravir – 16:19, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
I guess, the problem is, the tool can't login to your Google account. You will have to download the photos to your device and upload them using the regular uploading methods. --MB-one (talk) 16:16, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Panoramio exit

We have many source links to Panoramio, but after 1 november 2017 we no longer have acces to it. Is there a way to verify the source after this date? I suppose WMF can have a backup of the files or are there other arrangements posible.Smiley.toerist (talk) 08:59, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Like for every other vanishing site there’s no way unless it was mirrored to an archive. — Speravir – 16:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
… and according to Panoramio - Help - Copy Photos to Google Maps all photos from Panoramio accounts linked with a Google account will be copied to Google Album Archive, but the linking has to be done actively by a Panoramio user, and the archive site seems to be open only for users with Google accounts, perhaps photos even will only be reachable for the owner. — Speravir – 23:19, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
For the photographs themselves, User:Panoramio upload bot has been working to upload all content on Panoramio that has been released by contributors under a CC license. With each upload, it adds a license review tag confirming the license, as well as all description, tags and location data. This seems to be the extent of the useful information in that source link. So yes the links will break eventually but it doesn't look like there would be any inportant information lost that wasn't already collected on the file page. The only other metadata I can think of would be Panoramio user ratings or comments, but I'm not familiar with how the site works. seb26 (talk) 01:01, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

CropTool Disabled

Hello.CropTool becomes so slow that it does not open.Please fix it quickly.Thank you ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 09:46, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Seems faster now, right? CropTool in itself is quite fast, but the shared Tool Labs environment can sometimes be sluggish, especially it seems like filesystem operations can be really slow sometimes. – Danmichaelo (δ) 12:31, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
@Danmichaelo: What to do when need to crop hundreds of files?Thank you ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 12:54, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
If they are not yet uploaded to Commons, I would use imagemagick or jpegtran from the commandline. If they are, I'm not sure what's the best strategy. I'm not planning to add batch functionality to CropTool. – Danmichaelo (δ) 17:24, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
@Danmichaelo: I mean, I want to work on photos from Category:Photographs by Jose A. but the tool does not work almost.what should I do?Thank you ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 18:15, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
It is working for me. It has been a bit slow recently, but today it is working well - and very fast, too! Best regards, -- Ajpvalente (talk) 08:33, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Tools on sidebar missing

Resolved

Hi, On the left handside I have a tools section (Perform batch task, Report copyvio, No source, No perm, No license),
For some reason over the last few weeks these never show - Sometimes when I refresh they show however most times they don't, They seem to show when I click Edit on an image but thanks it,
I've included a picture so you get what I mean,
Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 21:54, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Just follow the instructions on your talk page. --Didym (talk) 22:00, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Didym - I hadn't even realised I received that message!, Suppose that's why it's a bad idea having everything archived after 1 day!, Anyway thanks for that much appreciated. –Davey2010Talk 13:47, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Going commando and upskirt photos are back again

Can we remove (again) all examples of Category:Upskirt photography and other Category:Exhibitionism or voyeurism from Category:Going commando? These images are examples of pornography, and of clearly prurient intent. The topic of not wearing underwear is not inherently erotic and is generally not intended to be erotic. Foregoing underwear is not strongly associated with people who wish to be nude in public, or who intend to flash their genitals. Some people choose to eroticize going commando (see Rule 34), but we don't stuff porn into a non-porn category because of that.

It's true that non-exhibitionist or non-voyeuristic examples of going commando are difficult to illustrate, since underwear is not normally visible and nobody knows if someone is wearing underwear or not. The fact that this is unknown to the public is the point. Non-exhibitionists with no erotic intent are comfortable "going commando" precisely because their expectation is that nobody will see or be able to tell if they have underwear. Exceptions exist, but we don't fill categories with exceptional or deviant examples; we want categories to primarily contain typical examples.

The argument that we have to use porn to illustrate going commando because there's no other easy way is like saying we have to categorize pictures of Earth's moon as moons of Pluto because pictures of Pluto's moons are hard to come by. Not everything has to have a picture of it: some concepts don't have a graphical representation. If I was to use pictures for this, I'd be more inclined to graph survey data on the prevalence of going without underwear over time rather than an upskirt photo. Category:Going commando should probably remain empty, and be deleted. There's nothing wrong with not having pictures of this, while presenting nothing but misleading, atypical pictures is spreading a false understanding of the topic. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:47, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

We don't usually delete photos just because of "prurient intent" and no other reason. We do delete photos that are illegal, which violate ordinary expectations of privacy, or in some cases when there's a large accumulation of redundant low-quality images (such as dudes uploading drunken cell-phone snaps of their own penises)... AnonMoos (talk) 00:38, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
I didn't say delete. I said remove Category:Going commando from the upskirt/exhibitionist/erotic images. They rightfully belong in Category:Upskirt and other porn/erotica categories, but Category:Going commando should be removed. This was discussed at the village pump some time ago, and they were correctly categorized then. Now they are back again, mis-categorized, and TwoWings (talk · contribs) and Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs) are telling me the category must remain. It's obvious what the intent is, that seven erotic photos only were chosen, out of many options on Commons, and that the photos of men in Category:Upskirt were left out. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:33, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
There is no "intent" that "erotic photos only are chosen" : it's just that we only HAVE upskirt pictures available to illustrate that topic (at least right now) ! I personally haven't reverted everything, considering that some of them were clearly not linked to the "going commando" topic. For instance, that file, previously categorized as "going commando", is not pertinent, since this woman is also topless, so it is another situation. Also, I haven't taken it back for that one since it's in a private place, so there's no reason to think it is linked to "going commando". Whereas this one and this one seem to be clearly linked to a "going commando" behaviour. The other ones are less clear, but since these persons are in public places (and not any clear erotic event) and only features bottomlessness, it may be a "going commando" behaviour. At least it can illustrate that behaviour. "Going commando" is about not wearing underwear in "normal" situations and public places. That's what is shown in the files that are categorized in that topic. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 05:51, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
I read "There's nothing wrong with not having pictures of this" above. Yes, but that's not logical not to make them obtainable (through categorization) when we have some ! If one thinks that the content may lead to a misunderstanding about what "going commando" is, we can just add a comment at the top, saying that the exhibitionnist aspect of "going commando" is not a compulsory aspect but that Commons can only provide such illustrations. When there's a problem, we find solutions, we don't remove or delete ! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 06:09, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Nobody suggested deleting any images. If I wanted to delete an image, I'd have nominated it for deletion, not removed one category. Saying "we don't remove or delete" makes no sense at all. If a category is incorrect, we remove the incorrect category, and keep the correct ones.

I don't know what you imagine 'going commando behavior' to be. The term only means not wearing underwear. It is not an invitation for voyeurism, and it's not exhibitionism. We have categories for that kind of thing, but that's not what this is. I don't see why it's a problem for upskirt erotica to be categorized as upskirt erotica. It appears you think voyeuristic photos that appear to be non-consensual (File:Goin Commando.jpg) are how you define 'going commando'? We're back to the idea that this exists as erotica for someone else. Nearly every source we have says that people forgo underwear because they say it's more comfortable for themselves, not as entertainment for others.

The repeated "this is all we have" argument is nonsense. Like if we have no pictures of goats, we should create a category called goats anyway, and put in pictures of sheep? Why? What is the urgent need?

It's not a solution to put sheep in a category called goats with a note at the top explaining that we've decided to call sheep goats as an illustration of what goats would look like if they were sheep. Why? You're not helping people find pictures of going commando by offering them upskirt photos instead. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:19, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

YOUR arguments are nonsense. You say : "going commando" should not be seen/illustrated, so we should not accept pictures where "going commando" is visible ! Going commando is about not wearing underwear in normal situations (ie "with no obvious erotic purpose"). When I see this file, this one and that one, it is about going commando. And we don't care if it's voyeurism of exhibitionism in those cases. Those three women are not wearing underwear in a normal situation and in a public place, and there's no obvious erotic intent from them. If I follow you, we should not categorize things in a category because it doesn't represent the diversity of a topic but just a particularity of it (a voyeurist/exhibitionist version of a behaviour). This doesn't make any sense ! If we HAVE pictures about a topic, we should make them obtainable, even if it doesn't represent the variety of the topic. What you want is contrary to the project : you don't want the users to have an easy access to what concerns a topic - just because what we have concerns a limited aspect of a topic ! This is not what the project is about ! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 06:56, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Please read Commons:Categories, notably where it says plainly: "Selectivity principle We should not classify items which are related to different subjects in the same category." Sticking images in the wrong category does not give anyone "easy access". Want to make it easy? Put the images in the correct category. You have right in front of you an official policy that says do "not classify items which are related to different subjects in the same category". Lame excuses about "the available files about that topic on Commons" don't cut it. We don't mis-categorize images because we lack the correct images. Read: Commons:Categories. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:42, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
I know Commons:Categories quite well (categorizing is my main activity on Commons and I'm far more experience than you are on Commons) and you misunderstand the extract you quote. What you don't accept or understand is that we can have a category about a subject even if it gives a choice that doesn't cover the diversity of that topic. For instance, you could have a category of a building with only interior views, and it would not be acceptable to say "let's remove all the files because we see only the interior so it gives a wrong understanding about the topic". What you don't accept is that at least 3 of the pictures in this category are clearly about "going commando" even if it may give the feeling that "going commando" is only about women in skirts/dresses who are somehow exhibitionist. I added an introduction to the category so that everyone can't be confused. Those 3 files ARE in the right categories (I could understand that we could question the other ones since there's obvious exhibitionism, but I do think it is also showing women who are going commando). There's something you don't understand : there can be several topics (therefore several categories) for the same file. For instance, this one concerns both "going commando" AND "upskirt" categories. As you said it yourself, "going commando" is not only about not wearing underwear under a skirt, therefore "going commando" is not a subcat of "upskirt", which means there are separate topics. Thus, when we see a picture of a woman who doesn't have underwear under a skirt, in a public place and with no obvious erotic purpose, there are logical reasons to say those women are going commando. So in that kind of case, the file goes in the two categories. QED. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 05:59, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Dennis_Bratland -- I find it difficult to understand some of the details of your remarks, but the overall trend of your rhetoric would seem to be more relevant to a proposal for image deletion, or for selecting images to be placed on a gallery page, than to image categorization. AnonMoos (talk) 07:06, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Even though I have specifically gone out of my way to say the opposite more than three times? It's forgivable to misunderstand once, but when I have said, repeatedly, "no, I am not saying that", and then you come back again only to contradict me, it's simply rude. For that last time, I'm not proposing deleting any files. Now will you drop it? All I want is to remove one category from these images. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:42, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

June 12

Phonetic translation from Persian?

As per this CFD, I found that the single photo in Category:Lord village was possibly taken in روستای موالی سفلی so I'm wondering if "Lord Village" is a literal translation. I was wondering if we might use a phonetic translation instead. Can anyone help? Thanks. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:08, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

موالی is a form of the word of Arabic origin discussed in Wikipedia articles en:Mawla and (in suffixed form) en:Mawlana. Not sure what the Persian pronunciation is... AnonMoos (talk) 07:16, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
File:((( روستای موالی مراغه ))) - panoramio.jpg also includes the tag "Maragheh" so I assume it's a village in en:Maragheh County. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:04, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Doubt

es:Wikipedia:Autorizaciones/El carbón en la vida cotidiana is cited by File:Carbonificacion.jpg and File:Eras formacion carbon.jpg as its authorization and this page includes a OTRS authorization. Should the OTRS authorization be linked directly in the file page? --Metrónomo's truth of the day: "That was also done by the president" not an excuse. 08:51, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-24

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

  • Some wikis have the larger and brighter OOjs UI edit page buttons. When you write an edit summary there you can now see how many bytes you have left before the summary is too long. [18]
  • When you search on Wikipedia you can now find pages on other Wikimedia projects that could be relevant. You see them next to the search results. [19]

Changes this week

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

Meetings

  • You can join the next meeting with the Editing team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on 13 June at 19:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

  • You will soon be able to get a notification when someone tries to log in to your account. You can test this on the test wiki. This will only work if they fail to log in to your account. [20]
  • Wikimedia wikis use OCG to create PDFs. The OCG code has a lot of problems and will stop working. It has to be replaced. An alternative is Electron. You can tell the developers what you need the PDF service to be able to do. Electron now works on all Wikimedia projects. [21]
  • Administrators can soon search for deleted page titles and find results that are similar to what they searched for. Today the search only finds pages that are exactly the same as what you search for. This is to make it easier to find pages when you don't know the exact title. Administrators on Arabic, Catalan, English, Persian, German, Italian, Polish, and Russian Wikipedia and on mediawiki.org can test this by adding &fuzzy=1 to the end of the web address when looking at Special:Undelete. [22][23]

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

15:29, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

June 13

Interactive wikimedians map

Hi!

The Wikimedians map page now offers an interactive map of contributors to Commons . This is an extension of the one launched a few months ago on the French-speaking Wikipedia.

If you wish, you can easily add your own geographical location. Here's how (this is also shown on the page):

  1. Copy & paste the code below into your common.js and reload the page Wikimedians map (F5 key)
    mw.loader.load( 'https://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Gadget-WhereWikimediansLive.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css', 'text/css' );
    mw.loader.load( 'https://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Gadget-WhereWikimediansLive.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript' );
  2. A blue button now allows you to add your location (by clicking on the desired location on the map)

Note: This map can be shared between wikis, for example if you add yourself here and indicate to be French-speaking, you will also appear on frwiki's one
Note 2: Any improvement on the page that surrounds the map is welcome!

If you have any comments / questions / suggestions for improvement, don't hesitate! — 0x010C ~talk~ 09:25, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Commons also has {{User location}}, which could be used for same purpose. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:56, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
I believe the page needs a health warning and some advice on how to select coordinates. In practice users so far seem to be adding obviously anonymized coordinates, which is sensible. I would not care much about people knowing which country I'm in, it sometimes comes up when discussing copyright law, however I would not want to publish exactly where my house or place of work is. Some newbies, especially children, might think this is a natural thing to do, without thinking through why they might want it removed in in the future. --Fæ (talk) 17:51, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
@Fæ: I don't know if you've seen it, when the script is loaded there is already a message ("Warning, to protect your privacy, do not point your address too precisely.") that appear with some help. If you think it's not enough, don't hesitate to let me know or to edit the page directly .
In fact, we have seen many people on frwiki setting their coordinates in the middle of a lake, in a museum, at a bus station,... near their real location, but to prevent any problem.
— 0x010C ~talk~ 19:02, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

June 14

video2commons doesn't work

I am going to upload two videos from YouTube which is the Soviet anthem played in 1981 and 1990, but while I am uploading one using video2commons, I encountered an exception, which is:

An exception occurred: DownloadError: ERROR: Signature extraction failed: Traceback (most recent call last): File "/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/youtube_dl/extractor/youtube.py", line 1064, in _decrypt_signature video_id, player_url, s File "/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/youtube_dl/extractor/youtube.py", line 952, in _extract_signature_function raise ExtractorError('Cannot identify player %r' % player_url) ExtractorError: Cannot identify player u'https://www.youtube.com/yts/jsbin/player-vfl2DpwLG/en_US/base.js'; please report this issue on https://yt-dl.org/bug . Make sure you are using the latest version; see https://yt-dl.org/update on how to update. Be sure to call youtube-dl with the --verbose flag and include its complete output. (caused by ExtractorError(u"Cannot identify player u'https://www.youtube.com/yts/jsbin/player-vfl2DpwLG/en_US/base.js'; please report this issue on https://yt-dl.org/bug . Make sure you are using the latest version; see https://yt-dl.org/update on how to update. Be sure to call youtube-dl with the --verbose flag and include its complete output.",)); please report this issue on https://yt-dl.org/bug . Make sure you are using the latest version; see https://yt-dl.org/update on how to update. Be sure to call youtube-dl with the --verbose flag and include its complete output.

I successfully uploaded one using video2commons though, which is different to the two videos of the anthem. Can this tool be fixed? Thanks, ★Poyekhali 05:02, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

@Poyekhali: The issue is that YouTube does not officially support downloading, and the library v2c is dependent on, youtube-dl, has to make use of web scraping to download the video (you can't make use of YouTube API, if any). As a result, it is not 100% reliable. Usually a few retries shall workaround it, but just in case there is some related bug fixes upstream, I have just updated youtube-dl on all encoding hosts. So please retry and see if it works now. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 00:07, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Also, next time if you encounter such errors, mind reporting it to somewhere specific to video2commons so devs can be notified of the issue in a timely fashion? Eg. Commons talk:video2commons, phab project video2commons, or video2commons github issues (the last is preferred) --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 00:13, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Great, it is working again! :) Also, converting YouTube videos to VP9/Opus didn't work before, and when I tried it again after your fix, it is now able to convert to VP9. Thank you for fixing the tool! ★Poyekhali 01:09, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Converting to VP9/Opus works?! I'm actually surprised. Last time I tested it didn't (mostly due to some Opus weirdness) --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 01:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Oh, it still fails converting to VP9/Opus. Sometimes. But when it succeeded though, the conversion process is slow. ★Poyekhali 01:14, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Just use VP8/Theora if VP9/Opus doesn't work, as the latter is still experimental. The relevant ticket is issue #15. And regarding speed: encoding videos is usually slow enough, but VP9 is even slower (google "vp9 encode slow"). --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 01:25, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Oh no, after successfully converting the 1981 video to VP9/Opus, when it was uploading the resulting video, I encountered an exception:
An exception occurred: TaskError: pywikibot.Error: UploadWarning: was-deleted: The file USSR_Anthem,_Revolution_Day_1981_Гимн_СССР.webm was previously deleted.
It seems v2c doesn't handle warnings (like when a file with the same name was previously deleted) well. Is this a known issue? Now I have to start over the conversion... :| ★Poyekhali 01:48, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, the thing is, it's not always good to reupload over something (therefore upload warning), and by current configuration it simply just halts. Implementing a feedback system would be very complex and I still have no idea how to do it (help is welcome). :/ --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 02:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Successfully uploaded the 1981 Soviet anthem as VP9/Opus: File:USSR Anthem, Revolution Day 1981 Гимн СССР.webm I am marking this thread as resolved since the main issue is fixed. ★Poyekhali 02:47, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ★Poyekhali 02:47, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

This user is from the United States

Template:User United States got broken at some point, apparently after some internal machinery started spitting out "United States of America" instead of just "United States". I partially fixed it by creating the redirect Template:User is from/layout/United States of America, but there is still a redlink to Category:Users in the United States of America (which, AFAIK, cannot be simply redirected to Category:Users in the United States). I'm done trying to fix this. Someone else can take a crack at it. - dcljr (talk) 07:15, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Why wouldn't a redirect work? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 07:37, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Oh, yeah… I've known for so long that "category redirects don't work", that I forgot that the redirecting part of it works fine, it just doesn't result in pages being (re)categorized in the target category. Since that's not much of an issue in this case, I guess that's OK. (I've already created the redirect.) However, any users who call {{User is from|US}} directly will end up in the redirected category, which no one will see anymore (unless they work to suppress the redirecting). These users will have to be prompted to change it to {{User United States}} to get them into the target category (or it will have to be done for them). There is one user for which this is the case, as I type this. I have already notified them, but they may not see the message since they haven't edited here (or any WM project) in over two years. - dcljr (talk) 18:35, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Or someone can just make the change… - dcljr (talk) 01:27, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

June 08

SHA1 hashes of media files

Is it possible to find out SHA1 checksum of a file without downloading it to my PC? It is not a big deal in case of photos, but it is in case of videos. --jdx Re: 06:40, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

@Jdx: you can use this function of the API to get the checksum of a file Clin — 0x010C ~talk~ 07:32, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
@0x010C: Thanks! --jdx Re: 18:13, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Uploadnologintext/lang

Hi there,

When a non-logged user try to use Special:UploadWizard, they get MediaWiki:Uploadnologintext, no problem here, but if the user is trying to change the language using MediaWiki:Uploadnologintext/lang at the top, instead of changing the language, the user is redirected to the MediaWiki:Uploadnologintext/xx page.

Could someone please fix this? Some users thought they had to pay $1 to import files.

Thanks. --Thibaut120094 (talk) 11:02, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

This is because of an error in MediaWiki:Uploadnologintext/lang: it links to a language version of MediaWiki:Uploadnologintext instead of Special:UploadWizard. Ruslik (talk) 14:57, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Are those language links still needed? Logged-in users as well as anons get versions of the Universal Language Selector allowing them to change the language of (almost) the entire interface, so having those seems redundant …    FDMS  4    19:58, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
@FDMS4: That's what I thought too, maybe we should just get rid of MediaWiki:Uploadnologintext/lang. --Thibaut120094 (talk) 21:07, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
So, should the issue be fixed first prior to deciding if the template language selector needs to be deleted or not ? Esby (talk) 09:04, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

HotCat not working properly

In the last week or two, HotCat has been failing to operate properly. In the pest, it would auto-suggest existing categories based on the first few letters, e.g. typing Pinus sy would result in Pinus sylvestris appearing automatically. This has only been working intermittently recently, resulting in edits like this which then need a follow-up edit to complete the category by typing out in full - tedious and time-wasting. Anyone know what's gone amiss, please? - MPF (talk) 23:34, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

This can be linked to javascript and connectivity issue, including bad ping and broken packets. Also, If you type too fast and don't wait for the completion to query the servers and answers you, this can happend. So either, the issue is on your side, either it is on the network side, the fact it works fine for now suggests it being either limited or not happening all the time. Esby (talk) 09:02, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

June 15

Image hashes for all images on Commons

I have opened a ticket on Phabricator to start the discussion and, hopefully, a WMF supported investigation into image hashes. The text is below.

Phab:T167947: Create an ImageHash for all Commons images
After some initial rewarding experiments using standard difference hashes and perception hashes, I'm creating this task to start a wider discussion on whether and how image hashes could be implemented globally on Commons.

The benefit of an image hash is that very near duplicates can be found, for example where the EXIF has changed or whether images have been altered through saturation changes or other minor visual enhancement, or where the same image exists on Commons in different resolutions. A globally available and searchable imagehash would help battle copyright violations, and a system for finding close imagehashes would provide benefits of intelligently clustering related images. For experiments finding duplicates and close matches refer to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae/Imagehash.

Using my local machine, it takes around 2 seconds to both download a 320px thumbnail and create the 64bit hash. When run on the servers it should be a magnitude faster, making it realistic to generate hashes in realtime, at the same time the SHA1 values for images are created for Commons files.

There are implementation questions, such as which hash(es) to implement based on their benefits, and whether the standard 64bit hash would be sufficient. These would need more experiments and testing to make the best choices. This wider project should be a WMF supported venture, though unpaid volunteers can do some interesting things, a comprehensive project needs coordination and a modest amount of investment to get right.

Based on my initial experiments and looking at never-seen-before outcomes like the automated identification of thousands of non-identical duplicates at Category:Faebot identified duplicates, I hope the benefits are obvious. The practical implementation is not that hard, but the choices of which hashes are best and how to make them available for contributors will need testing and discussion.

If you would like to see this implemented and supported by the WMF, then vote for Phab:T167947 and add your comments to it. :-)

Example discovery using image hashing. This photograph of a king mackerel with variations from automatic enhancements, uploaded by different people from different sources, would normally be impossible to discover apart by accidental viewing by seeing them in the same manually added category.

For more experiments and details, see User:Fae/Imagehash. Example source code is planned to be put on github next week. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:31, 15 June 2017 (UTC)


HI Fæ, great work that I wholly support. You might want to have a look that I (Maarten Zeinstra) and Jonas Oberg have been trying to push over the last several years. Jonas is the creator of blockhash.io, a perceptual hashing library that we applied to all images on commons back in 2014 (see this newsitem). We tried to give the created hashes back to the commons, but the commons community was not ready for this back then.
We've also build videorooter.eu that worked on creating a perceptual hash for video and hashed over 75,000 videos from Commons, Internet Archive and Europeana. See videorooter.eu. We've tried to create a WikiData block hash but we did not pass the sandbox stage. See Wikidata sandbox here.
We would still want to see our open source library to be further utilised of course. We could also see if we can further develop and strengthen that work.
Contact me if you want to have a chat about this. --Martsniez (talk) 11:41, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Maarten. I suggest you add yourself to the Phabricator ticket to keep an eye on how this develops. If there are later experiments on which hashes to apply, your work on perceptual hashes should be reviewed again. I'll follow up on your project links for my education! :-) It's a tricky area, I'm hoping that the WMF and Commons is ready now, but these systemic changes are always hard to push forward. --Fæ (talk) 11:46, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Hopefully this can be integrated into the Structured Data on Commons project. Kaldari (talk) 04:30, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

MOTD

The template {{Media of the day}} shows many languages in discription. But inspite of it having Marathi(Mr) discription it doesn't shows up? An example can be seen in the file here. It shows few language in it's assessment tag but no marathi language inspit it having Mr motd discription present. Can anyone help me with the same?. --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 06:37, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

360-degree video for virtual reality headsets

I am talking with an organization which wishes to share some videos on Commons for playing on virtual reality headsets. I expect that in the future questions about this will become more common for Facebook's Oculus Rift, the Microsoft HoloLens, the Google Daydream, the HTC Vive, and whatever else plays these. The videos for these device seem to be called "immersive video" or "360-degree video" and Wikidata has an entry. Maybe they are also called "3D video". I do not know much about this.

  1. Can someone confirm the name for this concept? Is it "360 video"?
  2. To what extent is it correct that immersive files can be webm, ogv, or other Commons-compatible format?
  3. How much should the Commons community worry about any kind of non-free, anti-wiki elements in the file package of a webm containing an immersive video? I do not understand much about video files, but if the file is webm, and the content has correct copyright licensing, then can anything else be non-free about one of these videos?
  4. What conversations about immersive video files have already begun on Commons?

I looked around a bit. I found this -

  • Category:3D videos
  • Category:360 panoramics videos
  • "360 Video", November 2016 Village Pump archive
  • Phabricator T150624
    Tracked in Phabricator
    Task T150624

It seems like there has not been conversation on Commons about this yet, correct?

Thanks for any guidance. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:33, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: This is an excellent question. For what it's worth, files like File:Antigenic-Properties-of-the-Human-Immunodeficiency-Virus-Envelope-Glycoprotein-Gp120-on-Virions-ppat.1004772.s010.ogv are really just rotating videos of an otherwise stationary object rather than some kind of immersive video or 3-D construct. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:44, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
sample video - maybe this is one?
Yes, that simple rotating video is not the concept which I want. This video of a festival might be a 360 video but I am not sure what these videos are. These can never play properly as square video because the point of these is to record in 360 degrees and to be viewed in a headset which allows the viewer to see a different view by turning in any direction. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:33, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
@Bluerasberry: It appears those are inward-facing, whereas you want outward-facing, like (in my experience) panning around from one spot in Google StreetView.   — Jeff G. ツ 04:00, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

All 360 videos are (often) high resolution warped 'normal' videos, which are then marked for a certain 'spatial perspective' and a video player will then render a 'unwarped' cropping of this video either on your 3D headset or your screen. The sample video is a nice demonstration of this kind of video. While we technically can upload such 360 files without problem, there are several problems here if you want to actually enjoy them in 3D. These issues are all linked in the earlier mentioned ticket. (webm has no standard to mark the perspective, MediaWiki cannot extract the perspective for reuse, our web player doesn't support it yet etc). It's easy to do, but we don't have people who are working on providing the software support. Engineers wanted. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:49, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

VLC has a beta build out that supports this. It's easy to playback the video in the current player and this beta and to see the difference. This won't work for our ogg and webm videos i suspect (because no support for perspective metadata). —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:23, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
@TheDJ: Thanks. Can you tell me if I am understanding this correctly? If Commons were to be able to host this content, then I think the following would need to happen first -
  1. Some industry players like Facebook, Microsoft and others would need to present a free standard structure for the metadata
  2. The WebM Project team would have to consult with other open source communities (like that VLC project) and choose to adopt the proposed standard from industry players
  3. Someone at the WMF would have to implement the WebM standard
  4. Now users can upload 360 videos to Commons which are usable perhaps in Commons and definitely in standard players
I am seeking to have broader conversation about what would need to happen next. How accurate does what I described sound? Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:01, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  1. This stuff is usually pretty free form, not much to organize there
  2. Google already created a spec for WebM as they needed it for youtube (i guess). While not completely official, I suspect that this will just turn out to become the de facto spec. Not sure how many players other than Youtube support it however. Ogg will likely never see support for this, as webM is overtaking it rapidly as a format.
  3. There is a ticket for it. Although you don't need someone at WMF for that. Anyone can submit patches.
  4. You still need to adapt the player to then process that information and change the projection. Browsers/Operating systems don't have default support for this yet. Not hard. if you have enough time. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:48, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

June 16

Category:PD-Gov license tags

This category contains over 1000 files despite it should only contain categorizing templates. May a more experienced user please purge it?--Chienenkatze (talk) 17:11, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I have another question: How can I undo this change (added [[Category:[[Category:Foobar]]]]; removed {{uncategorized}}) ? Do to later changes I can't undo it. Thanks in advance!--Chienenkatze (talk) 17:17, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done Yann (talk) 18:04, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
The wrong categorisation was because of a bunch of changes by User:CFCF like this. I fixed it now by moving the category-lines into the noinclude part. I protected the templates as well to prevent such things in future. regards. --JuTa 21:00, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
PS:It will take some days until the jobqueue will handle all the images and then they will disappear from the cat. --JuTa 21:02, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Hot-cat interferes with Notes

When a note is added into the picture and saved, and then a category is added using Hot-cat, the note is deleted for some reason. It can be fixed before saving (the user is always asked it the edit is OK and so can put the notes back before saving the edit), but it is annoying and the main advantage of Hot-cat (it should be fast) is gone. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:54, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

June 17

Marginalizing women

I believe issues parallel to this one have occurred before. Women photographers are steadily being moved into Category:Female photographers from the United States‎. There is no analogous male category, so the effect is that men are simply "photographers" but women are "female photographers."

I personally can't see any reason to divide photographers by gender. Unlike, say, singers or actors, they do not do significantly different things based on their gender. Also, if we break down by gender, what happens to any photographer who happens not to accept the gender binary? Again, I see no reason to highlight that.

I'm bringing this here rather than just COM:CFD because I'd really like to see us adopt a broad principle here, not alter one category. At the very least we should not create a "female" subcategory & remove all women from a main category that thereby becomes entirely male. - Jmabel ! talk 15:29, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

There was "women-novelistgate" in 2013, which received quite a bit of media coverage ([24], [25] etc.) and which led on to the "Qworty" scandal, but I'm not sure that it affected Commons very directly... AnonMoos (talk) 17:20, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
this is a replay of the women authors controversy. it will be a constant conflict as people tinker / "fix" categories. there might be some utility to the ontology arguing, except that the answer is wikidata. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 17:25, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
It's discussed at Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/01/Category:Female writers from the United States. There's still no conclusion four years later. --ghouston (talk) 00:07, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Ah. And I see I'm the one who raised essentially the same issue four years ago. - Jmabel ! talk 00:17, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
well, duh!? and you were amply supported by the academics. i kinda agree, but have moved on. with all the wikidata functionality, why waste time on the dead end here. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 02:05, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Ghouston -- The whole "CfD" process on Commons is fairly fundamentally broken (as has been discussed here before), so it's not too surprising that a discussion has lasted over 4 years... AnonMoos (talk) 03:30, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Jennifer Beals, probably female
From User:Blackcat´s talk page, who is currently creating these categories, I understand that he will create the corresponding male categories after he has separated the female entries. I´d appreciate if he explained the general concept behind the male/female categorization - especially at which levels the split(s) should occur (Will there be Category:Female photographers from California as well?), how the loss of overview will be dealt with (Will there be a parallel Category:Photographers from the United States by name?) and why he didn´t move Category:Jennifer Beals to the female photographers but left her in the general photographers category (I can see some hints that she might be a woman). Generally, I´d prefer to mark gender in just one high level category such as Category:Women by name and to dissolve all gender separation in the deeper levels. --Rudolph Buch (talk) 13:56, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
I created "Female photographers by country" just because there was a pre-existing "Female photographers" category filled with anything (to asnwer to your question, Rudolph: no, but just because I have only moved to "Female photographers from the United States" all the names that were into "Female photographers". Sooner or later I would have placed Jennifer Beals in that new category, too. But, I guess, the point is not that). If we decide that there are professional categories that do not need to be split between "male" and "female" I am fine. But is a work that must be done and on which we must discuss. Otherwise we cannot complain if someone creates a "female" category that must somewhat be expanded and subcategorized.Thus any discussion that states what can be split between "male" and "female" and what doesn't have to is welcome. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 14:13, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply - you are right that this is not about Jennifer Beals, but I thought her picture would add something nice to the discussion :-) I fully understand your point about adding to a category for orders sake even if the existence of the category is hardly justifiable (I filled Category:LGBT politicians from Germany yesterday even though I had suggested it´s deletion by CfD). But if a part of the category system lacks support, is inconsistent and could be deleted without a true loss of information, we should probably delete it. --Rudolph Buch (talk) 15:55, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
i hope everyone is open to being interviewed by the guardian, since they may be coming around with a "women's novelist" reprise. have your wiki'splaining ready. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 22:19, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

There are all sort of issues with intersection categories, but I don't think the marginalization argument is valid. You can google "women writers" and "female writers" and find any number of references to the topic which suggest that women somehow may write differently to men, and there are even university courses on the subject. Making the category could be about singling them out for special treatment, rather than marginalization. In any case, once there's a category for male writers too it's resolved (of course there will still be people you can't categorise as only male or female, either because there's no information or because they identify as neither or both, but that's usually the case in categorisation.) Whether the intersection is meaningful for other occupations, like photographers, is kind of irrelevant, since it's just an intersection category and it's just one way that Category:Women can be subdivided. I think occupation actually tends to be more meaningful than nationality / place of birth / place of residence at least, since it's usually the thing that gives people their notability, and there are no complaints about Category:Women by country. However, most of the contents of Category:Women by occupation should be moved to Category:Females by occupation, judging by the names of the categories, and Category:Nurses shouldn't be in there, it's not the 1950s anymore. I do think that intersection categories are just a kludge in the absence of better software and shouldn't be taken to excess, e.g., three-way intersections like "Female writers from the United States" may be going too far, but there's no policy that can prevent people creating such categories. --ghouston (talk) 00:01, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking too. For example, too often I see "beauty pageant contestants" or "winners" subcategorized to "women of...". Since there are male (either gay or heterosexual) beauty pageant and since nurse is no longer an only female profession, is unappropriate to confine those categories as females. My sixth sense would suggest that - unless a subcategorization by gender or sex might be useful for those occupations based on physical strenght (typical example: sports, subdivided into men's and women's competitions) - we don't need to subcategorize people's categories by gender with few exception (i.e. feminists; writers; television presenters; models; actors/actresses). Of course we must open a discussion and state exactly what occupations can allow a "female" subdivision and what don't have to. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 08:05, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
I created Category:Female nurses, which seems fair given that Category:Male nurses already existed. I'm not sure why we need both Category:Females by occupation and Category:Women by occupation (and likewise for males/men). Given that "women" only covers the ages of 18–40's, according to the Category:Women header, and "men" only the ages of 20–59 years (this is already strange stuff), and people can have occupations outside this age range, the females/males categories seem to be the ones worth keeping. --ghouston (talk) 05:25, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
So according to Commons categories I am no longer a "man" because I am too old? Now I feel personally insulted. But not as appalled as I am by the distinction that women 40-59 are distinguished from younger women by being described officially here as "mature women" without any analogous distinction being made for males. Did all of the sexists and ageists on Commons get in a room together and come up with these insulting distinctions, or did the evolve from a bad but "natural" process? - Jmabel ! talk 16:21, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
I changed the descriptions on Category:Women and Category:Men to be less offensive and better match Wikipedia (since we are linking through Wikidata) and started Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/06/Category:Mature women. --ghouston (talk) 05:39, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

List of my uploads ordered by usage?

Is there a way to list my uploads ordered by global usage (i.e. the number of pages of wikimedia projects in which my upload is used)?--Forna (talk) 08:27, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

@Fornaeffe: Yes, there is: GLAMorous - just enter you user name (without the User:). Check the "show details" box for a full report with links to the articles for your top 1000 images. --El Grafo (talk) 09:58, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
@El Grafo: Thank you very much! I was unable to find it anywhere... --Forna (talk) 12:48, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

mass revert?

The Category:Kansas and Category:Texas A&M University were recently deleted from all files by User: Balancing Act using Cat-a-lot. For most files this was not the right move. They should have been sorted in sub-cats. Is there a way to do a mass-revert? Or must this be done one by one? --Jahobr (talk) 17:42, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

You can try to use Cat-a-lot. Ruslik (talk) 16:39, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
For someone with the rollback right it is possible for all files, where this cat removing is the latest step in version history. For the others it is not, but you can use Cat-a-Lot in special page for contributions of user Balancing Act, like already Ruslik has written. But when you have to use Cat-a-Lot anyway you can do it for all files, so: Go to Special:Contributions/Balancing Act and move all the files to where you think, you could directly move the files into suiting sub categories instead of reverting the changes. — Speravir – 22:51, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

File.ogg audio file information bugs

I uploaded a series of LibriVox recordings (listed below). They all seem to have uploaded just fine, and they seem to play just fine. However, the top of each file page says: "Invalid Ogg file: Cannot decode Ogg file: Invalid page at offset 319" (with varying page numbers), whereas it should says something like: "Ogg Vorbis sound file, length 27 min 47 s, 67 kbps". The size of each file displays in the category listing at Category:LibriVox - House of Atreus, but the file size and other information isn't appearing on the individual pages for each file. What is happening here? --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:24, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Checked File:Oresteia Prefaces.ogg, the file does not have 'OggS' capture pattern in position 320 as expected according to ogg container format documentation. I have no idea how some media players are able to play this file. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 23:29, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
This is the file as it comes from IA. The file plays both through their site and via the player installed here. If there is a problem, what can be done about it? --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:30, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Method 1: Find out how media players can play these apparently corrupted-per-specification files, and file a bug report to MediaWiki extension TimedMediaHandler so that it works properly.
Method 2: Sanitize / remux each file like I've done to File:Oresteia Prefaces.ogg.
Method 1 would help to make things work for any similar files that may get uploaded in the future, but method 2 is much much easier. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 23:41, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
I would need instructions to know how to do Method 2. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:43, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: There may be other softwares, but I used FFmpeg. The command is ffmpeg -i <input_filename> -c copy <output_filename> --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 21:56, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

June 18

How to download all files within a category ?

Hello All, I'am looking to list ways to download all files in a given category. Given a commons category's name as input...

  • Is there a 'LINK' to do so ?
  • Shell/terminal scripts to do so ?
  • Software ?

I would like to know about these field. --Yug 09:05, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

JS library would be plus. --Yug 15:49, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Imker (batch download) --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:18, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

How to easily add photos taken and donated by others to Commons?

Hi! I am updating Wikipedia for my customers. Sometimes I am also adding pictures for them. Normally it is not easy for them to add the correct CC license on their web page (don't know why but that is the case) so I have asked them to add the photo they are donating to Google Photos and tell the license there. Now one of the photos I've added was removed "because anyone can create a Google account". Anyone can create also a Flickr or Twitter/Instagram account too so now I am left clueless - how to easily add photos taken by others to Commons and prove that they have a free licence on them? I was told to ask the customer to send [26] an OTRS request and read that the queue is 53 days (!) long. Phew! A long time to wait. So my solution in this case is to add the same photo to Finnish Wikipedia instead but I would like to know the answer for the future. Donating photos via OTRS does not sound like a solution either due to the long wait. I don't think my customers are willing to create an account here just for donating a photo and if they would do so, I assume you would still want a prove about the release rights of a press photo. So should I just forget about adding photos here taken by other people? Kind regards, --Jjanhone (talk) 03:00, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Jjanhone: If you are sure that the customer is actually the copyright holder (be aware that the great majority of the time, the copyright holder is the photographer and not the subject), then have the customer send the email to OTRS following the instructions on this page. You don't need to then await a response before uploading, just make sure to include {{subst:OP}} in the "permission" field while uploading. This helps ensure that the file won't be deleted while the email lies unread in the queue. The OTRS agent may require some kind of evidence that the person emailing is the copyright holder, but once they receive the ticket, they will mark the file with {{OTRS received}}. Then, depending on the outcome of their interaction with the customer, they will either have the file deleted if they are unsatisfied, or mark the file with {{OTRS permission}} indicating they believe the ticket to be good. If on the other hand, you are not sure that the customer is the copyright holder, then we are not going to accept the license, and you should not attempt uploading the file either here or on local Wikipedias. Never claim {{Own work}} on images you have not created yourself, and only use a license tag that corresponds to the actual legal license. I hope this clears it up. Storkk (talk) 08:03, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
or use flickr which for historical reasons, is "trusted" more than google photo. sending a backup email is good, but currently broken. as noted they may still get doubted that they have photographer permission, make sure it is a "work for hire, including transfer of rights", or take your own photo and upload to your flickr stream. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 17:15, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your answers! --Jjanhone (talk) 05:50, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-25

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

Problems

  • ORES had some problems on 13 June between 16:00 and 19:40 UTC. It has now been fixed. [27]

Changes this week

  • irc.wikimedia.org has to be rebooted. This will probably happen on 21 June. It may be postponed. Some tools use this to get the recent changes feed. They will not work when it is down. [28]
  • Special:PageData will be an entry point for machine-readable page data. [29]
  • The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 20 June. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 21 June. It will be on all wikis from 22 June (calendar).

Meetings

  • You can join the next meeting with the Editing team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on 20 June at 19:00 (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.

15:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

BIG Blue Button will probably break scripts in July

I left a note about this project at Commons:Village pump/Archive/2017/05#BIG blue button will break some scripts, and I wanted to give you a quick update: It'll probably break things at Commons sometime in the last half of July.

I've recommended that Commons be the very last wiki to get this change, because this community has some of the most important old editing scripts. But you don't have to wait: the required fixes work now. So, please, if you maintain a script or gadget, please check now to see whether it's going to work later, and fix it now. And if you depend upon a script, then please find the people who are supposed to be maintaining it, and make sure that they know about this. Anyone can test scripts they use.

Testing most scripts does not require significant technical skills. Just take your regular URL for editing (such as https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Random/File?action=edit ) and add &ooui=1 to the end (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Random/File?action=edit&ooui=1 ). See if it works like you expect. If it does, then you're okay. If it doesn't, then there is more information and examples of how other scripts have been fixed at mw:Contributors/Projects/Accessible editing buttons.

I don't think that this affects scripts that use the API for editing. I also don't think that this will affect scripts that aren't used for editing (e.g., to add links to pages when you're viewing pages).

If you have questions or need help, then please leave a message at mw:Talk:Contributors/Projects/Accessible editing buttons (or {{Ping}} me here). Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:47, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

June 20

Content pages

What the heck is going on with the count of "content pages" (which I thought were only "gallery" pages in the main namespace)? It has increased by over 75,000 (a whopping 58% increase) in the last 3 days with nowhere near that level of new main-namespace pages shown on Special:NewPages over the same period. Did someone recently change which namespaces count as "content" on this wiki? - dcljr (talk) 04:52, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

BTW: can't be new links added to existing pages in the main namespace, either, since there haven't even been that many total RecentChanges in NS0. (To clarify: the last 500 such edits as I post this extend back to midday on June 8th [UTC], but there was definitely an increase of more than 33,000 additional "content pages" in that time period.) I suppose a new link could have been added to a widely-used template that previously didn't have any (internal) links on it… Would that cause this kind of steady increase in "article count"? Hmm… I notice that (again, as I type this) there are 136190 items in the "jobs" queue. Could that be circumstantial evidence that this has indeed happened? - dcljr (talk) 05:46, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
It's now up to 318,417 (as I post this), meaning it's more than doubled in the last week. - dcljr (talk) 01:30, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
OK, I figured it out: this settings change, which was done as part of Phabricator task 167077, added the "File:" namespace to the list of Commons' "content namespaces", meaning the content-page count will now continue to rise nearly as fast as files are uploaded (AFAIK… since almost every upload now results in a File: page containing at least one wikilink). It also means the "true count" of content pages (under the new definition) is nowhere near the count currently observed; the wiki would have to be recounted from scratch to fix this. Was this change ever discussed anywhere on this wiki before it was made? - dcljr (talk) 02:35, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
I'll take that as a "no". OK, please see #Should content pages consist of galleries only or also include File pages?. We need to decide how to respond to this change. - dcljr (talk) 04:32, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Bug says everything’s a "Fave"

This has been happening to me today: All hyperlinks in a filepage replaced with "Fave". Any ideas? -- Tuválkin Tuvalkin ✇ 01:16, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

OMG are you sure your computer is fine? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 01:35, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
I had since three days, especially when the Internet is slow. Everything fine when refreshed several times. Jee 02:09, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Same here, though my connection is far from slow. Probably somehow related to the Favourites Gadget. --El Grafo (talk) 09:50, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
I installed the Favourites Gadget but this doesn't happen to me. What browsers were you using? (I am using Firefox for iOS version 7.5) ★Poyekhali 09:56, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
It keeps happening, maybe once every 10 filepages I open; I report the same situation as El Grafo (fast connection; good after refresh). Using Firefox 52.1.2 on WinXP here. -- Tuválkin Tuvalkin ✇ 13:15, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
I was using a Linux Mint with Firefox when it happened – sorry, don't know the software versions. Right now I am on a different machine with Linux Mint 17 and Firefox 50.1.0 and it does not seem to happen. --El Grafo (talk) 15:18, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Me tonight I got "Unfave" when opened a file, lol :). For info it also happened with my authorized tools in the "View and restore deleted pages" page. Another observation is that the links work even if they are replaced by "Fave" or "Unfave". Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:10, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
But I understand why I got "Unfave" instead of "Fave", it was because the file I tried to open was already in my favorites...Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:28, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
@Christian Ferrer: Is "fave" the new "watch"? In what dialect?   — Jeff G. ツ 21:48, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: fave and watch are two different things a user can do to filepages. -- Tuválkin Tuvalkin ✇ 01:10, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

@Perhelion: My understanding: In MediaWiki:Gadget-Favorites.js: mw.util.addPortletLink($('#p-views').length ? 'p-views' : 'p-cactions', '#', '-', 'ca-fave', '-') can execute before DOM is ready, returning a false / null / undefined value. $('a', link) then selects all links on the entire document, instead of just on the link added by fave gadget. How would you fix this? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 21:51, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

@Jeff G., Christian Ferrer, Tuvalkin, El Grafo, Poyekhali, and Jkadavoor: I've made a small change to the gadget. @Zhuyifei1999: The problem comes pretty sure from function "toggleLink", it used a very common variable name "link" as global (I changed also the window.focus.event). If the problem still exist, the variable should be made local (in this function). The author of the gadget is User:Dschwen. (PS: Maybe it is a bug of jQuery) -- User: Perhelion 13:10, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
@Perhelion: The variable is scoped with a IIFE... unless being unstrict make it the window scope?! Unless the scope of variables is determined by the environment of the caller, not the environment of the function definition (I thought the latter)?! Anyways, I feel the behavior of jQuery is actually expected --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 16:06, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Is the bug still appearing? @Zhuyifei1999: Yes, theoretically the variable is only in the scope of IIFE, but as we can see something as changed this var external, very strange. Maybe it is a Firefox bug. -- User: Perhelion 20:48, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Help with revert

Hello. Apologies if this is a FAQ. I am trying to remove the black border around an old photo, File:Gateway_District-Minneapolis-a.jpg. Revert doesn't like me. Thanks if you can help. I've tried purge and tried replacing the image. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:25, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, Tuvalkin. When I look at them, only the middle one is missing a border. I tried to revert again today, no luck. Your system believes both my new uploads are the same. Stubborn is right! Why do I see them differently, still? -SusanLesch (talk) 15:37, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Susan, the second and third, active version are byte identical, I just checked. Reload the file description page without cache following theapproach following my signature (this is transcluded content available in several languages). — Speravir – 20:54, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Please purge your browser’s cache. (You only need to do it once.)

Operating
system

Browser
 Microsoft Windows or Linux macOS
Internet Explorer Press Ctrl+F5
Mozilla Firefox Hold down ⇧ Shift while clicking Reload
(or press Ctrl+F5 or Ctrl+⇧ Shift+R) 		Press ⌘ Cmd+R (reload page) or
⌘ Cmd+⇧ Shift+R (reload page and rewrite cache)
Opera Press Ctrl+F5 or ⇧ Shift+F5
Konqueror
Apple Safari Hold down ⇧ Shift+Alt while clicking Reload
Press Ctrl+R Press ⌘ Cmd+⌥ Option+E (clear browser cache)
or ⌘ Cmd+R (update)
Chrome Press Ctrl+F5 or ⇧ Shift+F5
or hold down ⇧ Shift while clicking Reload 		Press ⌘ Cmd+F5 or ⇧ Shift+F5
or hold down ⇧ Shift while clicking Reload
By gum, you are right! I switched to Chrome and everything looks fine. Thank you much, Speravir and Tuválkin. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:37, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Parsing myriads of diffs required

Hello. This request or question is intended for people having access to WMF Labs (that I haven’t) or skilled with MediaWiki API (where I am not). There is a large run of edits by one well-known Commons user, namely: [30], [31], and yet many thousands older. Of these, most are such Commons media maintenance-related job as changing dates in {{Uncategorized}}, {{Check categories}}, or in [[Category:]] tags directly. But there are several, such as [32] and [33], that tamper with the upload date. As conjectured at MediaWiki talk: VisualFileChange.js #Possibly wrong replacement in the upload date, these were random user errors most probably. How to detect all illegitimate changes and hunt those edits down?

As a side note, VisualFileChange is poorly designed since permits for tampering with important metadata as easily as doing routine maintenance. Especially poorly considered are edit summaries—contrast VFC to HotCat in this aspect—that’s why a complex search&destroy operation is required now. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:42, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

This is not "tampering with important metadata". The file upload date is given in the "File history" section, and you cannot change that with VFC or anything else. These changes just affect maintenance categorization. I really don't think this is worth getting worked up over. Storkk (talk) 12:54, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Which maintenance category does {{Uploaded with en.wp UW marker}} set? Doesn’t this marker certify that a particular version was uploaded originating from en.WP, not from anywhere else? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:16, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Also, we don’t know which else data might be changed, observing thousands identical cryptic “consolidate” labels in the summaries. I found two spoiled {{Uploaded with en.wp UW marker}}s, but who can ensure now that {{Information}} or {{Artwork}} weren’t damaged anywhere? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:27, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
If this template has been applied incorrectly, you can fix it, or if this is a large number of images you could ask at Commons:Bots/Work requests for a mass correction. No, the use of this template does not "certify" anything, it appears to be used to make information easier to see and is not used consistently. Were an API or bot savvy user intending to do some analysis or make some mass changes based on upload date, they would not start with looking at the second-hand numbers entered into this template, they would run some SQL against the commonswiki or enwiki databases to use original records. --Fæ (talk) 13:27, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
I shouldn’t make a work request before understanding what namely have we to look for. Users with SQL access could do some preliminary analysis, if only to check whether other erroneous patterns are present in the contribs in question. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:44, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Sure, however any errors related to this template are unlikely to be a hazard for other contributors, so looking into this any more deeply is not a priority for me. If you can highlight an example that makes it seem more urgent, I still suggest asking for mass corrections at bots/work. --Fæ (talk) 13:49, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
It sets Category:Uploaded with en.wp upload wizard, and the date would appear to only affect the sort order of the files displayed in that category. Storkk (talk) 13:32, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Category:Uploaded_with_en.wp_upload_wizard is hidden, but isn’t a maintenance category. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:44, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
It is a category that exists purely to aid in maintenance, which is what I meant by "maintenance categorization". This is such an utterly trivial error that I personally don't think it's worth investing a tenth of the time we've already spent discussing it. Feel free to continue if you still feel it worthwhile, though. Storkk (talk) 13:52, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
There is an easy explanation for this: Sometimes maintenance categories get consolidated in order to make it easier to fix things. It doesn't much matter if we have temporary categories shitABChappend 2014 + shitABChappend 2015 + shitABChappend 2016 or dump it all together into shitABChappend or shitABChappend 2017. Same process has been done last year(??) All media needing categories as of 20XY. It's just a maintenance tag without any further use. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 06:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

June 21

Localities around Arad

I took some pictures along the tramline to Ghioroc. There is also a village Mândruloc. I suppose these are in Category:Villages in Arad County but I am not certain. Could someone classify these places? More pictures wil be uploaded.Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:57, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

They are both in Arad County as you suspected. Ghioroc is a commune and Category:Ghioroc, Arad is classified as such. ro:Mândruloc, Arad is a village in Vladimirescu commune. I've created a category for the latter. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:01, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
I created a new category: Category:The Green Arrow.Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:17, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Fine by me, though you might find the category full of copyrighted images of the comic book superhero before long. =) - Themightyquill (talk) 08:01, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
See history. Maybe use the Romanian name Sageata Verde?Smiley.toerist (talk) 08:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Question about San Fermin posters' license

Hello! The city hall of Pamplona has uploaded all the posters of San Fermin fiestas since 1846 here. I wonder which of them are on public domain and which of them evidently not, as they were public posters published each year. -Theklan (talk) 21:38, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

  • If we don't know about the specific artists, I guess it's a question of what date is considered safe in a "life + 70" situation. I'd think 150 years is safe (so up to 1867, at present; this would allow or a 20-year-old artist who lived to be 100). After that it gets shadier. Not sure we have a clear policy on this, but if we don't know anything about the specific artist, I don't think anything newer than 125 years could even be argued for: someone could easily have lived 55 years after creating the poster. It looks like the linked site gives the artists' names, so there is a good chance death dates can be worked out, which might allow some as late as the first third of the 20th Century to be used. On the other hand: these are pretty low-res, so not of all that much interest. - Jmabel ! talk 00:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Japanese text and painting

Can someone identify the painter? On the backside there is Japanese text.Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:09, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't think the text on the back is helpful. It appears to read きかは便郵. (I'm roughly ja-1, though, so YMMV) Storkk (talk) 13:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
the text is not きかは便郵 but 郵便はがき (Yûbin Hagaki, mean Carte Postale). --eien20 (talk) 12:56, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
@Eien20: That would make much more sense, but could you clarify? This is the back, possibly a printing error? or was it written RTL? Sorry if I'm flaunting my ignorance here. Storkk (talk) 13:35, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
so, It written RTL. see w:Horizontal and vertical writing in East Asian scripts#Right-to-left horizontal writing for details.--Yizumin (talk) 16:15, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
@Yizumin: fascinating. Thank you! Storkk (talk) 16:23, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
I didn't research a painter. --eien20 (talk) 12:56, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

And is this one from Kobe as most of my postcards from Japan are?Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

This is almost certainly the Nihonbashi Mitsukoshi flagship store in Tokyo, probably in the 1920s. cf [34], [35] A more precise date could likely be found by looking at when the neighboring building (Mitsui bank?) was constructed, and what was there before that. Storkk (talk) 13:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Following this reasoning it must be before 1929: File:Mitsui Bank and Mitsukoshi Department Store by Koizumi Kishio.jpgSmiley.toerist (talk) 19:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
refers to Edo-Tokyo Museum, and according to the website, the Mitsukoshi postcard was made in 1914. also refer to NIHOMBASHI MITSUKOSHI NEWS its footnote says "Photos from top:Post card...1914"--Yizumin (talk) 16:15, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Earth Biosphere Reserves

Dear all

There is less than one week left to enter the Wiki Loves Earth Biosphere Reserves competition. There are sites in 120 countries allowing people to enter a Wiki Loves Earth competition even when no national competition exists.

If you could retweet, share etc UNESCO's messages that would be really helpful in encouraging people to take part.

English

French

Spanish

Arabic

Thanks very much

--John Cummings (talk) 12:07, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

GPS coordinates do not upload

I have bought a Sony HX400V with GPS function. When I upload individual files the location is not transferred to the uploaded file on Commons. When I upload multiple files the coordinates are uploaded to all files save the first one. Can I get around this issue? Thanks, Ad Meskens Ad Meskens (talk) 12:24, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

The Upload wizard picks up the coordinates from EXIF during the upload process. For other uploads DschwenBot should add coordinates to the file description page within a day. But: the last bot activity was on June 23rd. Additionally, File:Barcelona El Prat 05.jpg (an image recently uploaded by you and taken with the Sony camera) doesn't contain coordinates in EXIF data. --Magnus (talk) 13:00, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Duplicate image problem

Hello! I found that File:Download Thousands Of Free Stunning Stock Photos. (23698819004).jpg is a duplicate of File:2mooredWhiteBoats@canal(byLinhNguyen).jpg; the first has higher resolution, but the second seems to refer to the original author and also has coordinates. I don't know what is the best way to handle this. -- Syrio posso aiutare? 15:12, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Creating Creator:

I don't find the right screw to turn: If one wants to create a Creator: page (only if using German language in preferences or even swapping the language on top) on top of the page a redlink Template:MediaWiki Newarticletext NS Creator/de appears. Try it clicking Creator:Testcreator. Other languages I tested didn't show this behaviour. --Achim (talk) 19:04, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

The call to Template:MediaWiki Newarticletext NS Creator/de is made from MediaWiki:Newarticletext/de (code {{MediaWiki_Newarticletext_NS_{{NAMESPACE}}/de}}). @Raymond: , You last edited that page (11 years ago). Something must have changed. Can you figure out how to fix it? One way would be to change MediaWiki:Newarticletext/de so it is like other similar pages . --Jarekt (talk) 21:22, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
@Jarekt: Thank you for the ping. 11 years... wow :-) I am in travelling mode this week so I do not have much time to look into it. I will try but it depends from a lot of things. Raymond 16:51, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

June 26

Nehoiașu and Nehoiu

The Nehoiașu station is to the city Nehoiu but not part of it. Nehoiașu is the locality, but is this a suburb of Nehoiu?Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:59, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-26

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

  • The <inputbox> has a new searchfilter parameter. You can add values like searchfilter=insource:foo. It will add that to the user's search query. [36]

Changes this week

  • The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 27 June. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 28 June. It will be on all wikis from 29 June (calendar).
  • Users will be able to choose whether they want to see Wikidata changes in enhanced watchlist/recent changes. Previously, this was disabled for everyone. [37]

Meetings

  • You can join the next meeting with the Editing team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on 27 June at 19:00 (UTC). See how to join.
  • You can join the next WMF Language team office hour, an open session to talk about Wikimedia Language projects. The meeting will be on 27 June at 13:00 UTC. [38]

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

15:38, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

June 27

API to know whether my many images being used in articles?

I develop a tool that helps people upload pictures.

As a kind of feedback to them, I would like to show them some statistics, for instance "Your images illustrate 157 articles in 6 Wikipedias and 2 Wikivoyages, thank you!". Or maybe "Your recently uploaded picture Banksy_at_work.jpg has been added to 2 English Wikipedia articles here and here". Or something similar.

Is there an API that can provide me with this information?

Important: It is not about a single picture, it is about ALL of my pictures, or at least all of the pictures that I have uploaded recently. Querying the API for every single picture would take too long.

Thanks! Syced (talk) 03:35, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Go to https://tools.wmflabs.org/glamtools/glamorous.php and select "Show limited details"... AnonMoos (talk) 03:49, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Perfect, thanks! :-) Syced (talk) 06:10, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

"Roman Catholic" vs. "Catholic" (part 2)

Ok, here we go again.

User:Beyond My Ken has kindly asked me to stop doing what I proposed in the previous discussion. He says that "No Roman Catholic church in the United States identifies itself as anything except "Roman Catholic". You will not find "Latin Church" anywhere on them, and we should not identify them in a way that they themselves do not use, and which baffles the user."

The reason because you probably won't see "Latin Church" in the US was already explained here. Fortunately, the Catholic Church is not an American community but a worldwide one, and so in many places the distinction "Latin Church" is necessary (please read en:Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem, [39] and en:Latin Church).

Anyway, I've not replaced "Roman Catholic" with "Latin Church", as he has told me in my User talk. I've not created a category called "Latin churches in India". Instead, I've categorised churches that are part of the Latin Church into Category:Catholic churches of the Latin Church in India and churches that are not part of the Latin Church into their respective category under Category:Eastern Catholic churches in India (same with Iraq, Ukraine, etc). As I explained in the previous discussion, churches under Category:Syro-Malabar Catholic churches in India and Category:Syro-Malankara Catholic churches in India are also "Roman Catholic churches", because "Roman Catholic Church" is a synonym for "Catholic Church", as stated in en:Catholic Church. Instead, in Commons "Roman Catholic Church" has been used sometimes as if it where the Western (Latin) part of the Catholic Church, in opposition to "Eastern Catholic Church", which is absolutely wrong.

As I tried to explain in the previous discussion, many churches are wrongly categorised because of that confusion. In fact, as you can see in [40] [41] [42][43] [44] [45] [46] [47][48][49] [50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57], I'm nearly checking church by church if they are correctly categorised, not simply moving all churches from "Roman Catholic churches" to "Catholic Churches of the Latin Church".

I would like to ask something to User:Beyond My Ken: What does "Roman Catholic Church" mean for you? There are two opposite options:

  • "Roman Catholic Church" means "Latin Church" (aka "Western Church", the part of the Catholic Church that uses Latin rites)
Then all Eastern Catholic churches have been wrongly categorised for years. Examples: [58]

[59] [60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68].

  • "Roman Catholic Church" means "Catholic Church" (the whole Catholic Church, that includes the Latin Church and the Eastern Catholic Churches)
Then this message was wrong and the way we have been categorising in Commons has also been wrong for years.

Sorry, but there wasn't a previous consensus on this, not on where to put Latin churches and Eastern Catholic churches. If there was, it has been ignored for years [69]. There existed only two contradictory ways to work, and people have been using one or the other without any criteria. --Grabado (talk) 08:40, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

For whatever reason, Grabado is making what is essentially very simple into something overly complex. To wit:
  • There is a church centered in Rome, headquartered in Vatican City, headed by the Archbishop of Rome, otherwise known as the Pope. This church is unversally known as the "Roman Catholic Church" or the "Catholic Church", and parishes throughout the world identify themselves as "Roman Catholic". These churches use the "Latin Rite", but are not generally identified as "Latin Churches".
  • There are other churches which stand in communion with the Roman Catholic Church, or in personal communion with the Pope. These are not "Roman Catholic" churches, they are called whatever it is they name themselves, such as the Coptic Catholic Church, or the Maronite Church or the Melkite Catholic Church. These churches uses different rites from the Roman Catholic Church.
  • "Catholic" in the name of a church is no guarantee that it is part of the Catholic Church: the Eastern Orthodox Church is technically the "Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church". "Catholic" simply means universal, and is used by churches that are and are not related to the Catholic Church
  • The categorization of churches by the rite they use is perfectly acceptable as long as it is a parallel hierarchy and does not replace the long-standing "Roman Catholic" categorization hierarchy. It is this replacement of "Roman Catholic" by "Latin Church" performed by Grabado which is objectionable and disruptive, because:
    • (1) it was done without consensus
    • (2) it is not what our users expect to find
    • (3) it does not accord with normal usage in the real world (one will search high and low for an indication that a Roman Catholic parish identifies itself as a "Latin Church")
Given all these factors, Grabado needs to realize that they have no consensus to make the changes they desire to make, and that the changes they made were disruptive and unwise. They need to undo the changes they made as soon as possible, and perhaps even stop editing religion categories, as their judgement on this appears to me to be untrustworthy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:43, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
@Beyond My Ken: I really appreciate that you've taken your time to respond to me. Could we keep discussing it a little bit? (Please: just a little) Because I think one of your points is completely wrong:

There are other churches which stand in communion with the Roman Catholic Church, or in personal communion with the Pope. These are not "Roman Catholic" churches, they are called whatever it is they name themselves, such as the Coptic Catholic Church, or the Maronite Church or the Melkite Catholic Church. These churches uses different rites from the Roman Catholic Church.

This is not true. In fact, this is the problem: There's no something called "Roman Catholic Church" and then 23 Eastern Catholic Churches that are in communion with it. According to your idea, if the Eastern Catholic Churches tomorrow would broke the Communion with the Roman Catholic Church, the Roman Catholic Church will remain the same since the Eastern Catholic Churches are not part of the Roman Catholic Church. That is wrong, according to en:Catholic Church (many people agreed with that in the previous discussion, like User:Ghouston, User:Jkadavoor or User:Revent).
What we actually have, always according to en:Catholic Church, en:Catholic particular churches and liturgical rites and en:Global organisation of the Catholic Church , is a "Roman Catholic Church" that is made of 24 sui iuris churches, all of them in full communion with the Pope. That is, the "Roman Catholic Church" is formed by one Latin Church (en:Latin Church) and 23 Eastern Catholic Churches. If you don't understand this, I really cannot help. If we can agree at least on this, I'll be absolutely opened to work to solve the problem and even revert any change i've made, If the final consensus reached implies to use another name for the categories. But we cannot make any progress if we don't agree with something that is a fact, stated in the first line of its Wikipedia article--Grabado (talk) 20:08, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, even if you are correct (which I don't believe you are) no one except specialists are going to look in a category called "Latin Church" for something that in the real world is called a "Roman Catholic Church", and no one looking for images of the Maronite Church, for instance, is going to look under "Roman Catholic Church" or "Catholic Church". We are here to serve our users, and that means to categorize things the way they expect them to be categorized. Accepting your explanation of the structure of the Catholic Church does not mean that structure must be mirrored in our categorical hierarchy if that mirroring makes it difficult (or indeed next to impossible) for people to find what they're looking for.
Your mistake (again, accepting for the moment the validity of your explanation) is in confusing the church's structure with a category hierarchy that is useful and valid for this repository. That you keep pushing this point, in the face of no consensus, indeed little to no support from other editors, is a problem, as is your refusal to clean up the mess you made. You are preaching the wrong argument to the wrong audience, and you need to realize that and move on.
You said on your talk page that if someone had just told you back in May "No", you would not have gone ahead with the changes. Well, someone is now saying "No" to you -- several in fact, here and on your talk page, so it is now incumbent on you to stop and backtrack and undo what you did. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:34, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Looking now at the extent of what you've done, I think I'd be within my rights to call for you to be blocked for the extensive damage you've done to the the Roman Catholic category hierarchy. You've not only changed RC to "Latin Church", you've added unnecessary layers of categories, and you've done this country by country, all of which makes it much more difficult to undo. The changes you've made on your own will take a team of editors many days to undo -- and you did this all without having a consensus to act, because no one told you "No, don't do it"? You have screwed up this hierarchy good. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:52, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: "Accepting your explanation of the structure of the Catholic Church does not mean that structure must be mirrored in our categorical hierarchy". I get the constant feeling that I'm being ignored. Have you read my first message, where I asked you a question? I've NEVER said that the structure of the Catholic Church must be mirrored in our categorical hierarchy. Actually, mi first proposal was THE OPPOSSITE: forgetting all about the Latin Church (as we do in eswiki).

User:Nilfanion opposed to that proposal because "is entirely removing the distinction between the Latin church and the Catholic church as a whole". So, please. First step: do we recognise that we've been following two different criterias? Second step: What does the community want? Keep the distinction and mirror the Catholic Church structure or not? --Grabado (talk) 06:14, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

What the community wants, Grabado, is what you have consistently and aggravatingly ignored: it wants that state of these categories returned to what they were before you began meddling with them. That is the bottom line, that is the be-all and end-all of this discussion,. Your continued attempts to "win" the discussion are in the way of that, which is why they are being ignored. Your pedantic and unnecessary questions will continue to go unanswered, because you simply are not getting the point: change the categories back to what they were.. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:24, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposal

Unless User:Grabado acts immediately to undo the changes that they made to the Roman Catholic hierarchy and return it to the state it was in before they started to edit it, I propose that they be indefinitely blocked from editing The Commons, as their judgment about what edits are useful and which are disruptive appears to be extremely poor.

  •  Strong oppose. Beyond My Ken is terribly wrong on stating There is a church centered in Rome, headquartered in Vatican City, headed by the Archbishop of Rome, otherwise known as the Pope. This church is unversally known as the "Roman Catholic Church" or the "Catholic Church", and parishes throughout the world identify themselves as "Roman Catholic". These churches use the "Latin Rite", but are not generally identified as "Latin Churches". He is wrong on the next point There are other churches which stand in communion with the Roman Catholic Church, or in personal communion with the Pope. These are not "Roman Catholic" churches, they are called whatever it is they name themselves, such as the Coptic Catholic Church, or the Maronite Church or the Melkite Catholic Church. These churches uses different rites from the Roman Catholic Church. We had discussed in depth about it earlier. Feel free to find the previous discussion.
I can understand why Beyond My Ken think so. Here in India, "Roman Catholic" simply means to the public as "Syro-Malabar Catholic church" and the Latin church is called explicitly "Latin church". This is because Syro-Malabar Catholic church is more prominent here. Similarly "Roman Catholic" simply means the Latin church where that church is prominent. But this will not change the truth that Roman Catholic Church is a union of Latin and Eastern churches. Jee 02:38, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  • India is not the world. The consensus here is that what you are call a "Latin Church" should be called a "Roman Catholic Church". In countries where the Latin rite is dominant, that is what those churches are called. Why should we accept the nomenclature of a country where only 1.55% of the population is Catholic? In fact, let me quote from en:Catholic Church in India: "There are 168 dioceses in India organised into 30 provinces. Of these, 131 are Latin Catholic Church, 29 Syro-Malabar Catholic Church and 8 Syro-Malankara Catholic Church dioceses," so your statement that "the Syro-Malabar church is more prominent here" is clearly untrue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:58, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  • 1. "Why should we accept the nomenclature of a country where only 1.55% of the population is Catholic?" Who said so? In fact Grabado is following the nomenclature what English Wikipedia and Britannica following. 2. For India, it is not about the number of dioceses scattered in a large country where not much catholic population. They are concentrated into a few states. Further the latin church is very new here compared to the other two churches. Jee 03:23, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Who said so? The editors of the Commons reached a consensus that said so (and despite your claim, English Wikipedia does not follow the "Latin Church" usage), and I doubt your arguments that we must follow the practices prevalent in India is going to change that consensus. It certainly explains why Grabado did what he did, attempting to impose Indian practices on Wikipedia without a consensus to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:32, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
1. It seems you didn't see Catholic Church also known as the Roman Catholic Church and Roman Catholicism. This is not limited to English Wikipedia; has followed by 130+ wiki projects. 2. I hardly see Grabado has a connection to India. Jee 03:47, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I did see that, and that is not a reference to the use of "Latin Church" as opposed to "Roman Catholic Church", which is the change that Grabado made. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:53, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
There is indeed a confusion on whether "Latin" or "Western" is more acceptable. The only link I saw in English Wikipedia pointed to this where it used Western Catholic Church: "30. The Sacred Council feels great joy in the fruitful zealous collaboration of the Eastern and the Western Catholic Churches and at the same time declares: All these directives of law are laid down in view of the present situation until such time as the Catholic Church and the separated Eastern Churches come together into complete unity." So "Catholic Church" may meant "Western Church" prior to that decree on 1964; but not now. I asked some priests here for a better official reference. Will be back if got one.) Jee 04:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Neither "Western" or "Latin" is acceptable. This may be out of your experience, but every single Latin-rite Roman Catholic church in the Western world is called a "Roman Catholic Church", and that is what they should be called, as the standing consensus holds. You want to change it, find a consensus of editors that agrees with you. So far, looking here and at Grabado's talk page, there is not one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:52, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
I got a reply with this link. Jee 06:13, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
"The use of "Latin Church" as opposed to "Roman Catholic Church", which is the change that Grabado made". Again: No, this is not the change I've made. --Grabado (talk) 06:29, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Your statement does not accord with the reality of what you did. PLEASE RETURN THE CATEGORIES TO THE STATE OF WHAT THEY WERE BEFORE YOU ROYALLY FUCKED THEM UP. I do not want to spend the next week or so reverting your changes, but if you leave me no resort, I will have to do so, and when I have finished I will press much more forcefully for you to be blocked as a disruption to Commons. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:27, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  • It's not too hard to understand: I want Grabado to undo the changes or be indef blocked. If Grabado undoes what he has done, then I will withdraw the proposal, but if he does not, and the proposal gains sufficient support, then he can be indef blocked until he pledges to undo what he has done. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:58, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what the matter is here but please take it as a note as an Indian citizen we respect all the religions in the country. As per Christianity is concerned whether we are a few we don't distinguish between Roman Catholic and other Catholic. We all believe we believe in one God and that's what we are united irrespective of Roman Catholic or Protestant or any other Catholic.@Yann: u too from India what do u think?as I find this proposal not appropriate(The indication of India and Roman Catholic made me comment here)--✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 05:03, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Please don't clutter this discussion with irrelevancies. No one has said anything about the Indian respect for religion, because it plays no part in this discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:52, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment In the Western world (ie where either catholicism or protestantism is dominant), there is no need to change anything. In the English-speaking countries Catholic churches self-identify as "Roman Catholic", and are commonly called that, so Roman Catholic should be used not just Catholic for the West. Jkadavoor, the official guidance of the church should take second place to the actual common usage on the ground in the West for churches in the West. The existence of the Eastern Catholic churches shouldn't complicate the situation for churches in the West. It is sensible to make changes for those countries where Eastern Catholics are significant, and only those countries. There is also a case to improve the global categories for the church, as in those that are not country-specific.
I think the present situation could be seen as consensus for Grabado's changes outside the West, a consensus against within it and no consensus on the global cats.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:36, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
The complaint is that categories like Category:Catholic churches in the United States contain subcategories like Category:Roman Catholic churches in the United States, but Wikipedia says Catholic churches and Roman Catholic churches are the same thing. They've got 55 pages of archives in w:Talk:Catholic_Church by the way. But apparently there's no acceptable alternative name for the Roman Catholic subcategories. --ghouston (talk) 10:07, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
I was coming to quote ghouston's early comment at Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2017/06#References. I think English Wikipedia and probably other Wikipedias may be discussed this a lot and made the current stand. And Commons too needs to follow that path. That English Wikipedia article has so many references. I added one more. (BNK's arrogant and threatening comments make this discussion difficult to participate. I'll not comment more unless he stops it or an admin asked him to stop.) Jee 10:16, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
I'd be inclined to redirect Category:Catholic churches in the United States to Category:Roman Catholic churches in the United States, with the Eastern churches as a sub-cat. I'm really not sure what to do about the Western Church but there is no reason why we can't use Catholic and Roman Catholic for different parts of the tree (based on local preferences).--Nilfanion (talk) 10:47, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
I would agree with that proposal, Nilfanion. Actually it is what we do in eswiki and it is more or less like my first proposal. --Grabado (talk) 10:52, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Just to throw in a remark without having read the whole discussion: There are Western Catholic Churches that aren't "Roman". Im thinking particularly of the en:Old Catholic Church that separeted from the Roman Catholic Church in the 19th century. The Old Catholic Church in Switzerland (there called "Christkatholische Kirche", "Christian Catholic Church"), a church recognized by cantonal governments, has basically the same theology and rites as the Roman Catholic Church - but doesn't recognize infallible papal authority, therefore separated from Rome after the First Vatican Council. Gestumblindi (talk) 10:24, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

@Gestumblindi: Yes, you're absolutely right. There are other Christian Churches that consider themselves to be "catholic". That is why I've explicitly asked here about "the whole Church leaded by the Pope". --Grabado (talk) 10:31, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

First question

Wikipedia says that the "Catholic Church is also known as "Roman Catholic Church" [70]. Here in Commons, we've been treating both concepts as if they where different things. No matter what term we finally chose to solve it, no matter what solution we finally choose, even if we finally decide there's not consensus to choose between any solution and the best would be doing nothing, do we agree on this? Do we agree that we have a problem?

I ask you, the community:

Do you agree that Wikipedia says that the "Catholic Church" (the whole Church leaded by the Pope of Rome) is also called "Roman Catholic Church" and that we shouldn't contradict this statement here in Wikimedia Commons?

--Grabado (talk) 10:17, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

No matter the result of this, I'll revert any changes to the previous status quo once the community had reached any consensus about this question or if an admin requests me to do it previously, as I've said in the Administrators' noticeboard. Even if the community agrees there is a problem, I'll revert my changes to the previous status quo before keep discussing about any actual proposal. --Grabado (talk) 10:17, 20 June 2017 (UTC).

 Agree, as proposer. --Grabado (talk) 10:17, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

No. This is a leading proposition (implying there's only one alternative), and also doesn't actually say what Commons should do. To clarify, this should be a relatively simple (set of) questions: What to call the global category tree? What category name to use for institutions, that call themselves Roman Catholic, in the West? How about regions where the Latin church is not the dominant local variant of Catholicism?--Nilfanion (talk) 10:42, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
@Nilfanion: Of course I don't say "what" commons should do. I just ask you: Should we do something? People like Beyong My Ken still doesn't agree with the first line of en:Catholic Church (he told me: "even if you are correct (which I don't believe you are)"). We cannot reach any consensus about how to solve something if we doesn't agree that we have something to solve. This is the first step to even start discussing any proposal. If the community doesn't event want to solve the problem, I'm not going to make more proposals (like I already did)--Grabado (talk) 10:45, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
A statement of principle is a waste of time. You don't need to hold a discussion to say "Commons should generally follow Wikipedia", we know that. You also know full well how contentious this was on WP. While it has consensus, that's not the same as unanimous agreement, so your comment does NOT accurately represent the reality of what happened on Wikipedia. What is productive is working out what Commons should do about it. Please close this section.--Nilfanion (talk)
I honestly don't know what to do when people keep saying that the Eastern Catholic Churches are not part of the Roman Catholic Church. --Grabado (talk) 10:57, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Given how complex this situation is you will always get people saying that, and the best thing to do is to explain to them the difficulty, not just tell them they are wrong without saying why. The above is an empty appeal to authority, which is likely to annoy people not persuade them. Its also badly phrased: The Pope leads the Latin Church, not the entire Catholic Church. For instance, the Syriac Catholic Church is led by its Patriarch, not the Pope. Focus on what Commons should do about it, perhaps the discussion on WP will find something constructive (but I doubt it - the problem with Latin Church is its completely unrecognisable).--Nilfanion (talk) 12:04, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
@Nilfanion: Ok, I'll take your advice. Thank you. But I believe that is more or less what I've been trying to do since the beginning. Just one small hue on the last thing you said: the Pope leads the Latin Church, but also the whole Catholic Church. Even when every sui iuris Church has its own Patriarch, the Pope has ultimate authority (As an example: the en:Eritrean Catholic Church was erected by Pope Francis as an autonomous sui iuris metropolitan church in 2015; here you have the Apostolic Constitution). --Grabado (talk) 12:16, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Well, there's something which could be done with little effort. Complain on w:Talk:Catholic Church that the enwiki category system is broken: it has exactly the same issue as on Commons, with w:Category:Roman Catholic church buildings used as a subcategory of w:Category:Catholic church buildings. See if somebody there can solve it. --ghouston (talk) 11:00, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
✓ Done [71] --Grabado (talk) 11:10, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Grabado: You continue to attempt to lead the discussion to the place you want it to end up, and you continue to assume that no one understands what you are saying. I can't speak for anyone else, but I do understand your position, I simply do not agree with it in regard to your solution to it for cetgorization. Further, I'm not interested in debating the church's hierarchy with you, because the only real issue here is that you made massive changes to Commons categorization (which, as Jmabel said on your talk page is not an epistemological exercise, but a way for people to find things) without even a scintilla of a consensus to do so, and that you steadfastly refuse to clean it up. Stopping your changes is not enough. If you want a debate on the merits, then return the categories to what they were before you messed them all up, restoring the long-standing consensus, and then you can open a community discussion to see if there's a new consensus. I refuse, however, to debate that issue as long as your edits remain in force, a Sword of Damocles over the head of the community. Fix your egregious disruption, then talk can take place, not before. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:55, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: : "you continue to assume that no one understands what you are saying. I can't speak for anyone else, but I do understand your position". If you understand my position now, I'm happy. But you cannot say that I "continue to assume that no one understands what you are saying", if in your first message you said that the Eastern Catholic Churches are not Roman Catholic Churches [72] and you've been discussing about it with another user.
I've already made clear my position in the Administrators' noticeboard regarding whether I should revert any changes or not. I'm not going to discuss the same thing in two places at the same time. You've already opened a discussion on the Administrators' noticeboard and I've said there all I had to say about that. --Grabado (talk) 20:39, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Actually, not on the Administrators' noticeboard itself (took me a while to find the comments in question) but on Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems (more precisely Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:Grabado. But over there they said to resolve it here. So, Grabado, if you want the discuss it there rather than here, we are at a bit of a standoff. - Jmabel ! talk 21:17, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
[73] --Grabado (talk) 21:50, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Grabado: You are being terribly disingenuous. I have never said that the Eastern Churches are not part of the same overarching Church as the Roman Catholic churches, and your continuing attempt to portraying me as saying so is simply a way to deflect attention from what is the only real issue here: you made a change (or, rather, a huge series of changes) that you think is right without having consensus behind you, and now you refuse to return to the status quo ante, after which discussion of your proposal can proceed -- however, no consensus discussion is going to take place while your disruptive, non-consensual changes remain in place. Restore the state of categorization to what it was before you meddled with it, and you can discuss the name of the pins the angels are dancing on to your heart's content, and if enough editors agree with you, changes can be made -- but not before you undo what you have already done, not simply stopped doing it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:46, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment OK, now as ghouston asked a talk page discussion is started at en:Talk:Catholic_Church#Our_whole_category_system_might_be_broken and two experienced users (TSP and Chicbyaccident) agreed that "Catholic Church" and "Roman Catholic Church" are, as applied to a specific church organisation refer to the entire church that is under the leadership of the Pope. It was discussed earlier too. Now BNK is asking to shut down that discussion which I didn't understand. The only merit I see in his argument is he is saying Grabado acted without the consensus. It is not true. When Jmabel questioned his edit earlier, we had discussed about it. The only point we didn't arrive on a consensus is, to find a suitable name to identify the Latin Church (Western Church). This can be discussed further. But I see no need of further discussion on the main point, that whether the "Catholic Church" and "Roman Catholic Church" are, as applied to a specific church organisation refer to the entire church that is under the leadership of the Pope or not. It is clearly set so in English Wikipedia and most other Wikipedias. Commons should provide a matching category for the Wikipedias. Jee 03:19, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but you're entirely missing the point, which has nothing to do with the stuff you're referring to, and everything to do with Grabado editing without consensus (Grabado cannot have had a consensus to make the massive number of edits to categories he did if, as you admit yourself, the discussion didn't "find a suitable name", because he made those changes with a name that he, alone decided was appropriate), disrupting a long-standing category hierarchy, and refusing to restore the state it was in before his edits. The combination of disruptive editing and what we call on en.wiki "I didn't hear that" behavior, is the one and only issue here at the moment. When this stuff is settled, and the category hierarchy is restored to the state it was in to begin with, then and only then can a consensus discussion be held to determine what the next step is. Grabado's going to en.wiki with a Commons matter is grandstanding, since the en.wiki community doesn't determine what happens on Commons (or vice versa). Grabado is, in fact, doing everything possible except the one thing he should be doing: reverting his edits so we return to our starting point and his damage is undone. To me, that's sufficient grounds for blocking, but, frankly, I'm getting pretty tired of banging my head against this particular brick wall, and having all the energy sucked out of me by an intransigent POV editor with an idee fixe that he will not let go of. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:58, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Could you clarify what was (he stopped editing for the time-being) wrong with Grabado's edits? As you didn't participate in the first discussion, I can make a small summary. Earlier the category structure was not matching with other wiki projects; Eastern Catholic Churches were out of Roman Catholic Church. Grabado placed them inside. So the parent category Roman Catholic Church now includes all Eastern Catholic Churches as subcategories and the Latin Church directly under Roman Catholic Church without a subcategory name. As far as I know this is the system Spanish Wikipedia follows. Nilfanion or somebody else opposed it as it is confusing. But we failed to arrive into a consensus to call a name for the Latin Church. While checking the official pages of vatican.va, we can understand why this confusion. They rarely address the Latin Church with a name. So we've only two options; 1. find a name for the Latin Church 2. add them directly under the main cat (Roman Catholic Church) without a name as in Spanish Wikipedia. Your demand to restore the early state (kick-out the Eastern Catholic Churches out of Roman Catholic Church) is not acceptable as it is not the truth. Let me know if I understand your demand in a wrong way. Jee 04:29, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Above all, what was wrong with his edits is that he made major changes when there was no consensus to do so, and when the status quo ante did not have any serious problems, and when quite a few people had actively objected to the direction he wanted to go with this.
  • At the risk of repeating myself: the category hierarchy is not an exercise in abstract logic, epistemology, etc. It is a means of helping users readily find files related to particular subject matter. As long as it is clear what goes in a particular category, and that category name is one that users are likely to use and to understand, things are fine. Unintuitive names are a much bigger problem than ones that are not strictly accurate. - Jmabel ! talk 04:43, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Categories like "Latin churches of the Catholic Church" seem unwieldy to me. But using "Roman Catholic churches" when it's ambiguous and doesn't match the primary meaning on Wikipedia seems confusing. If it's just a disambiguation issue, with multiple meanings for "Roman Catholic", maybe they could be disambiguated with "Roman Catholic (Latin) churches" or something. --ghouston (talk) 05:07, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • (Edit conflict) Jmabel, could you elaborate a bit more with an example? I checked his edits; but didn't find anything particular. I saw some edits he reverted on your request. That is a simple one and easy to solve. I agree with you that Wikimdia projects are intended for common people and so should be easy to understand. But that doesn't mean we need to keep a misinformation even after we find it untrue. As I commented here, George Alencherry and Baselios Cleemis are Cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church. They voted in the last Pope election. So if I need to find a church during my travelling, I'll prefer any Roman Catholic church than an Orthodox church. I don't care whether it is Latin or Syrian. Here in Kerala people go to the nearby or convenient one irrespective of their rite. I can understand in some places where only Latin Church exists, people may note be aware of other Catholic Churches. This is not a simple topic for somebody outside. (The concept of more than one Rite in one Church is more complicate to understand.) Jee 05:11, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Congratulations, BMK Could we go back and start discussing about how to solve the problem I reported? --06:04, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

When you have reverted all of your changes, discussion can begin. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:24, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I object. Improvements were postponed for a long time, despite much needed. Its precise terminology may be altered, but I consider the edits improvements. So I advocate we take it from here. Chicbyaccident (talk) 11:50, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Nope, nothing has been "postponed", because no consensus for a change has ever existed. The "precise terminology" will be decided by community consensus, and not by the opinions of random editors, especially one with 279 edits over the course of 4 years. In any case, the non-consensus edits need to be undone before any change in terminology can be discussed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:05, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Chicbyaccident. I had asked above to give example on what edit seems problematic; but nothing is given so far. If provided, we can look into it. Otherwise no need to revert something that need to be restored after the discussion. Jee 12:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't have time now to go through the edit histories and work out what edit several weeks ago started this all. I am not the one who has been seeking some sort of disciplinary action here; I'm just trying to keep the categories useful. - Jmabel ! talk 18:56, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Jmabel, your comments here and in the previous discussions are very useful. What we need is such a friendly discussion and I too ready for it. BTW, I tried to make Category:Roman Catholic Church as a disambiguation page as Ghouston suggested above. Feel free to revert if not good. Jee 02:27, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Chicbyaccident and Jkadavoor for your support. I'm going to revert my changes as BMK has asked, as a first step to continue discussing. Don't worry, I could easily do the same work again if needed. --Grabado (talk) 06:15, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Just be certain you have a clear consensus before you do. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:39, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
I of course agree that "the whole Church led (not leaded) by the Pope of Rome is also called the Roman Catholic Church". The Latin Church is a subcategory. Most (Roman) Catholics in Kerala are not Latin Catholics. All buildings of the Syro-Malabar Church, wherever situated, belong to the (Roman) Catholic Church, as do all buildings everywhere of the Latin Church (minority in Kerala). But "Latin Church buildings" is a legitimate, even if not always necessary, (sub)category. This is so obvious that I must apologize for not having had the courage to undertake the work of clarifying for myself what is behind the question. Indeed, it is very likely that I should apologize for making any comment whatever here. Theodoxa (talk) 15:54, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Buciumeni, Dâmbovița

Can someone create the category? It is confusing because there are several places called Buciumeni in Romania. I have some railroad pictures close to Fieni to upload.Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:32, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

maybe the fact that it's part of only the tree of Communes in Romania and not also of Villages in Romania? But yes, this the right category. --XXN, 17:13, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
When there six places in Romania called Buciumeni, I want to be very carefull I add the files to the rigth categories. Luckily some had a location. I still have 7 files where I am not certain of the place: (and no filled categories)

I suspect that files 2 and 3 are in Buciumeni, Galați.Smiley.toerist (talk) 22:07, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

  • "Judet" is county, so the ones that say "judetul Valcea" must be a Buciumeni in Vâlcea County. - Jmabel ! talk 04:16, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "Codru" is a region of Moldavia (in the portion of the historic principality of Moldavia that remains within Romania, as against the independent country of Moldova). Going by Buciumeni, the only Buciumeni in Moldavia is Buciumeni, Unghen; since Unghen County intersects Codru, that is presumably correct.
  • That should sort out all but the first one. The title just means "the preferred Buciumeni road" (or maybe more like alley). Nothing in the title indicates which Buciumeni, so the only chance to get it right is if it can be determined by comparison to some other image (on Commons or elsehwere), or if someone can work it out from other photos by the same photographer, or if someone knows the place from their own experience. - Jmabel ! talk 04:26, 26 June 2017 (UTC)


There is no Buciumeni Commons category in Vâlcea County. Either village or commune. There is a Romanian article wich uses the images.Smiley.toerist (talk) 07:54, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Right. But now that you know which Buciumeni it is, you can create the relevant category as easily as anyone else can. - Jmabel ! talk 15:03, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
✓ DoneSmiley.toerist (talk) 09:16, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Daguerreotype of Juana Manso (1819-1875)

File:Juana Manso.jpg (the only image in Commons about today's Google Doodle) was scanned of a book published in Argentina in 1971 (the photos that were first published in Argentina in 1971 are public domain in this country), but it is a digitally altered version of an ancient daguerreotype (cropped and with grayscale conversion). It was made possibly by the same author of the book, since I can not find any identical version before the 70's. That is an unmodified version, uploaded by the Dirección de Extensión Cultural de la Cámara de Diputados de La Rioja ("Directorate of Cultural Extension of the Chamber of Deputies of La Rioja Province", Argentina). There is much information about photography that I can not find: date of the daguerreotype, location of the original copy, etc. Can someone help me to properly complete the information template using this data? I have difficulties with this... --Metrónomo's truth of the day: "That was also done by the president" not an excuse. 11:08, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Looks a lot more like an engraving than a photograph to me. Maybe it's an engraving of a photograph... AnonMoos (talk) 04:00, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
AnonMoos: Wow! You're right! The book cited is actually a series of 5 volumes whose first edition is from 1965 (ref.). Your author is Diego Abad de Santillán (1897–1983), he was a historian but was not a engraver. Here say: "with typographic illustrations by Editora Argentina" (in Spanish, traslated by me). "Typographic illustrations" is a form of engraving. "Editora Argentina" is "Tipográfica Editora Argentina S.A.", a company that still exists. In a nutshell: it is an engraving, first published in 1965 in Argentina and whose credited author is a company. Copyright status? --Metrónomo's truth of the day: "That was also done by the president" not an excuse. 06:30, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
{{PD-AR-Anonymous}} could apply (1965 + 50 + 1 = 2016). --Metrónomo's truth of the day: "That was also done by the president" not an excuse. 09:18, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Bug with {{PeopleByName}} ? [SOLVED]

Hi everyone. I've experienced a problem twice with that template. After I used it on Category:Pacôme Rupin I created Category:Pacôme (given name). The latter eventually appeared at the bottom of Category:Pacôme Rupin, but when I go to Category:Pacôme (given name), it's not there ! The same thing happened with Category:Pierre Simenon and Category:Simenon (surname). Each time, I use the template first and then I create the cat about the surname or given name. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 14:32, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Do a null-edit to the persons cat, that will fix that. PS: {{PeopleByName}} should be substed anyhow. (See documentation of that template). --JuTa 18:12, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
@JuTa: Oh thanks ! I'd just discovered the existence of this template and I had not realized we were supposed to be substed ! I'll remember that now. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 20:05, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Turning off images

What should I do if I don't want to see some pictures? How can I hide images from my view if I don't want to see them? Sinner (talk) 01:40, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

That's more of a browser-internal thing. Examine your browser documentation... AnonMoos (talk) 03:55, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
You may wish to investigate the "Deferred display" gadget in your Special:Preferences. It is intended for exactly this sort of thing, but requires the images to be tagged with {{Nsfw}}, and I am not sure whether it is fully functional. Of course, you could also disable images in your browser or use a text-based browser such as elinks. That should be almost completely effective, the only exception I can think of being ASCII art. Storkk (talk) 11:04, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
That only works on COM:FPC —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

ایجاد صفحه درباره کتاب

باسلام. من تازه کار هستم. و هنوز نتوتستم با استفاده از راهنمایی های ویکی پدیا ویکی نویسی رو یاد بگیرم. کلا چطوری میشه یه صفحه جدید که به هیچ زبانی وجود نداره رو ایجاد کرد؟ و آیا این صفحه میتونه درباره کتاب باشد؟ ممنون میشم کمکم کنید. باسپاس — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parisa parvizi (talk • contribs) 27 June 2017‎ (UTC)

شما احتمالا باید این را در fa:ویکی‌پدیا:درخواست راهنمایی یا fa:ویکی‌پدیا:قهوه‌خانه بپرسید. / You probably should ask this at fa:ویکی‌پدیا:درخواست راهنمایی or fa:ویکی‌پدیا:قهوه‌خانه. (Sorry if I got anything wrong here — I just used Google Translate.) - dcljr (talk) 09:19, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh, or use Commons:قهوه‌خانه, I guess. - dcljr (talk) 20:44, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Singapore postcard

Can it be dated? What is the building? What are the two wires? (I dont think there where trolleybuses).Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:14, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Tram or trolly bus, depending on the year, see [74] --Magnus (talk) 09:56, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Here say that the postcard n° 1004 is "circa 1910s". In this site, there is a postcard of type n° 1043 which has a postage stamp dated in 1912. If the series began to be published in 1910 and the 1004 is before 1043, I would say between 1910 and 1912, with 1910 as a very probable date. Unfortunately, the postcard is not dated on the front or the reverse. --Metrónomo's truth of the day: "That was also done by the president" not an excuse. 10:31, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
All history of Collyer Quay road (there it says that they are the buildings). This photo is 1890s. You can see that they are the same buildings, but there are no cables. There it says that the coast moved away more and more from that place. This explains why today it looks like this :). --Metrónomo's truth of the day: "That was also done by the president" not an excuse. 11:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
I accept 1910s. The two overhead wires where close together (one for each direction) because with the trolley system they didnt have to be above the rails. Only I could see the rails so I was not certain.Smiley.toerist (talk) 13:05, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
They look like trolleybus wires, since there are no tracks on the street. However w:Trolleybuses_in_Singapore says the trolleybus system was opened in 1926. I think the building with the dome is Alkaff Arcade. --ghouston (talk) 01:12, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
The picture is not problably sharp enough to see the rails, certainly by a dusty road and at a very shallow angle.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:57, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
I think maybe it's a drawing, and maybe not completely accurate. --ghouston (talk) 12:11, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
This was after 1909 (when the Alkaff Arcade was built), this in the 1930s. Yours is somewhere between. --Magnus (talk) 12:15, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Filesize limitation for Map_Data

The overall size of the map-data-page is limited to 2 MB (see Mediawiki help). I created a GeoJSON with 45 MB with all German constituencies and I got a error message. Is there a opportunity to increase the limit up to the normal server side upload limit of 100 MB? Maximum file size limit is up to 4 GB. --Looniverse (talk) 10:59, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

The limit is there with a reason, when it is being used, the fragment will be downloaded to people's computer. Downloading such large files to unsuspecting clients is not a good idea. I suggest doing data reduction and/or slicing of the data instead. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:18, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. Yesterday I tried to save the biggest .map-file for one constituency. The file size was 1,7 MB. When I copy this into the commons editor and try the preview, its OK, but when I save it, the error message appears. The commons-editor inserts tabs and spaces and bloats the file up to 2,5 MB. I can't slice more, becauce this is one unit. --Looniverse (talk) 14:05, 28 June 2017 (UTC)


Tools for an automatic upload of Map_Data

Is there a way to upload map-data-files to Commons automatically? Most tools I found are for pictures. --Looniverse (talk) 14:17, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Enter key not working in the summary box

In Commons, when I press Enter/Return in the edit summary box, the form does not get submitted and to save the page I am forced to go to the "Publish Changes" button, which I find annoying. Which common JS code or gadget is forcing this behavior? I would like to disable it for myself, and also wonder if it was enabled with prior community agreement. Huji (talk) 23:42, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I think that it is annoying that when I press enter in the edit summary field/box, my edit gets saved. I don't know what caused pressing enter in the edit summary doesn't get the edit saved though. ★Poyekhali 09:28, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Oh, I tried pressing enter (or return, in my iPad) in the edit summary and my edit gets saved. Maybe your own common.js is causing it. ★Poyekhali 09:30, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Ah, I know why it still works for me, it is because I tested it in my iPad running iOS 9, and when I type in the edit summary box, "return" is replaced by "go". It seems to depend on which device you are using. ★Poyekhali 09:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Still works for me. I'd check your gadgets and browser extensions if I were you Huji. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:15, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

June 28

Problem with file after renaming

It seems to be impossible to access the picture of File:Trinity Episcopal Church, Branford, CT.jpg which was renamed in april. The link shows 404 not found error. Traumrune (talk) 18:18, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

For that error, the only known solution is to reupload the file. See phab:T41615 and Category:Files with 404 errors. --Metrónomo's truth of the day: "That was also done by the president" not an excuse. 20:22, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Original uploader hasn't been active in years. Is there anywhere this would be backed up? - Jmabel ! talk 23:33, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
  • This should do it
    This should do it

    • I found a backup, but I needed to use a new file. The old one does allow a reupload but does not show the image. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 02:35, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

    COH Challenge

    Hi!

    Between 1 July and 31 July, Wikimedia Sverige and UNESCO co-arranges the second writing challenge of the Connected Open Heritage project, the COH Challenge.

    As part of the Connected Open Heritage project a large number of images under a free license have been uploaded, e.g. of world heritage sites and of important archaeological and built heritage sites in Syria, Mexico, Cyprus and Sweden (the images can be found here). The purpose of this challenge is to get as many of these images as possible to be used in Wikipedia articles (however, at most five images – with caption – per article). Maybe some of you here on Commons are interested in adding images on Commons to Wikipedia articles as well? You do also get points for adding images to Wikidata Items, and Wikidata Item numbers to the file pages of the images.

    If you'd like to participate, you can find the participation page here, where you also register your points. Participate in any language you’d like! The winner receives as well the honor as great prizes.

    Best, Eric Luth (WMSE) (talk) 14:05, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

    Time to rework license templates ?

    I was looking at some of our file pages on mobile, and they look horrible. Take something like Template:Cc-by-sa-3.0.

    w:en:Creative Commons
    attribution share alike
    This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.
    You are free:
    • to share – to copy, distribute and transmit the work
    • to remix – to adapt the work
    Under the following conditions:
    • attribution – You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
    • share alike – If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same or compatible license as the original.

    Maybe it's time to bring some of that into this age ? I can identify some basic problems that really ought to be fixed:

    1. They are still tables, for presentational purposes. Should probably be converted into divs by now.
    2. They have fixed size bars at the sides which house images/badges. These are humongous and hard to manipulate in alternate views atm.
    3. We don't put classes on elements, allowing us to separate between summaries, rules an regulations and visual dressing. This makes it hard to hide non-critical information like those images on mobile platforms.
    4. We use a lot of nesting and the design for that is very much ad hoc. A more considered approach would be interesting.

    These templates have basically been unchanged since the 2009 effort to make them all translatable. We added the machine readable data tags in 2012, but that's about it. I think it's time to fix some of the presentational issues however, and I'm willing to start work on that. But it would be a big effort, requiring lots of edits to protected templates and the like, I'd love to get some help with it, and I'd also would love to see some input on what people would like to see from a newer generation of license templates. What do you think we should keep from the design, and what should we really fix/get rid of ? —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:02, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

    They were not obviously created for mobile screens. So, any updates are welcome, in my opinion. Ruslik (talk) 19:03, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
    For those willing to engage, you can find my work and thought here User:TheDJ/license-layout. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:37, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
    I use an iPhone and most pages on Commons are unreadable in "mobile" view, see for example picture of the day when displayed on my phone. However "desktop" version looks just fine. I am all for updating the templates but hopefully the changes will only affect the "mobile" view. Anybody knows how "mobile" vs. "desktop" views are implemented? Is it just a different skin one accessed through https://commons.m.wikimedia.org and the other through https://commons.wikimedia.org URL? User:TheDJ I can help with edits to protected pages if needed. --Jarekt (talk) 15:56, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

    Help to identify the author and date of creation of two paintings

    In Commons there are two files taken from alef.net, they are File:FrancisPiccolomini 2.gif and File:AlexanderGottifredi.png. I could not find in the site the data on the origin of the images except the message: "Edited and formatted by George ALEFantes". However, some of the images (not all, some do not match and others are clearly photographs of contemporary people) seem to be taken from the site jesuits.org (here, see Francesco Piccolomini.jpg and Luigi Gottifredi.jpg). I think two things: that the date put in the information template is arbitrary (it does not appear in the source cited) and that the attribution ("contemporary artist") is too vague to be valid nor is it included in the sources. Can someone help me to identify the true author and date of creation of the works? If they are public domain, we can even upload the original images, as they have better quality. --Metrónomo's truth of the day: "That was also done by the president" not an excuse. 21:00, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

    These works were created hundreds years ago and they are sure in public domain everywhere in the world. Ruslik (talk) 19:58, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
    Franciscus Piccolomini (1582-1651), en:Franciscus Piccolomini, AlexanderGottifredi (1595-1652) en:Aloysius Gottifredi. The 17th century is in the public domain ;). Traumrune (talk) 21:12, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
    Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2017/06&oldid=250637472"