User talk:RP88/Archive 1

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

Asteroid symbols

Hello! Thanks for the note. It is actually a matter of copypasting rather than confusion or my choice in licensing; one I forgot to change the license on and the other I didn't. With works such as these it is hard to figure out copyright issues, as I draw an entirely new image, by hand, rather than using a program to generate a copy of them. I suppose it is like the copyright issues that come up when someone draws a picture of a copyrighted cartoon character: the character is copyrighted but the copyright of the work itself belongs to the artist.

I usually try to follow the original license when redrawing things as svg, but for pd-old works you are right; it is more difficult. I always make sure to credit the original author in my svgs, usually just appending "(redrawn as svg by Editor at Large)" after the artist's name in the description. The original idea and the creation of the work was theirs, and I believe they should be recognised for the work; another reason I'm not fond of the {{pd-author}} tag, as it places my name in undue prominence and doesn't credit the original author.

At any rate... your licensing idea is a good one. The only problem is that they take up a great deal of room and I don't know if they can be put under both (as the image itself is not PD-old, just the work it is derived from is). I think perhaps if I simply make a verbal note in the "permission" part of the infobox and publish the images under PD-user?

Thanks again for the note, and I'll be sure to fix up the Parthenope tag in the meantime so people don't think I died fifty years ago! -- Editor at Large • talk 08:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

You're right, the images created by Dr. Hilton are not PD-old, they're PD-Art (you can use Hilton's work, despite not having a license from Hilton, because Hilton's work is a mechanical reproduction of a work that is in the public domain). If you create a derivative work of someone else's work then you both hold copyright in the resulting work and anyone who wants to use your derivative work needs a license from both you and the other artist. Normally all one needs to do is to include a link to the source image on commons to show the license for the other artist's work. However, if your goal is to produce an image that might eventually supersede another, resulting in the other image possibly being deleted, I think it is a good idea to describe the license for the source work on the page for your derivative work. But perhaps that is just being overly careful. --RP88 10:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, I meant PD-art... I must've had old stuck in my head. But the PNG version will not get deleted, unless Commons policy changes in the future; currently PNG versions of SVG works are not deleted. A GIF version of an image I redrew was deleted once, because it was the incorrect file format; but other than that, the PNGs will remain in existance, as far as I know. I also go through all pages the PNG is located on and switch them to SVG when I vectorise an image, so the PNGs are not actually used, unless added after I have switched all instances over.
As to describing the license for the source work, is it not possible to just make a note with a link to the copyright tag in the permissions section, above the PD-user tag? that way it will be easier to read and take up less space as well as being laid out in a more concise manner. I'm certainly not against adding the PD-art tag in, it makes sense... but I'm not sure if the tag needs to be transcluded as the work on the page is not pd-art (rather a drawing of it). However, if you really think it would be better to include both I think that would be fine. -- Editor at Large • talk 10:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
No I don't think it needs to be included if somewhere in the description there is a link to the source and it is commons policy not to delete the source images for PNG->SVG conversions (the source images have "nominate this image for deletion" at the top). I was worried that if deletion occurred someone who wanted to use your SVG wouldn't know what the license was for the source. —RP88 11:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Makes sense! I've included a "Original license" bit in other images, but it completely depends on the image importance and the licenses and the weather outside. I'll go add that info now and make sure to add it to future SVGs I do in the series! ^_^ -- Editor at Large • talk 11:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC) P.S. Sorry about my odd edit summaries; I haven't slept in a while! ... Which can be testified to by the fact that I just tried to close the <small> tag with "</sleep>" ...

The change. Based on your suggestion, but with a link instead of the whole tag... what do you think? -- Editor at Large • talk 11:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I like it! —RP88 12:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


Image:President and Mrs. Reagan pose in the Blue Room for their official portrait 1981.jpg

Image deletion warning Image:President and Mrs. Reagan pose in the Blue Room for their official portrait 1981.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

This is an automated message from DRBot 07:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Category:CC-BY-3.0

Category discussion warning

CC-BY-3.0 has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Joachimstolz (talk) 17:57, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

That was a rather quixotic discussion nomination Joachimstolz. —RP88 23:27, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello!

RP88, if you see my user page, I have been blocked indefinitely of the English Wikipedia. Can you please go there and unblock me? Be sure to ignore my block log, okay? Fangusu (talk) 02:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not not an admin on English Wikipedia (nor, for that matter, am I one here on Commons). I have no ability to unblock you. —RP88 03:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

TIME

Very good work on Template:PD-US-not renewed-TIME. I don't know if you're still working on it but, when finished, could you please add also a line to clarify if the list of issues should be understood as complete or incomplete, i.e. if it should be understood as confirmation that the issues not listed all had their copyright actually renewed without exception, or if it means that their copyright may or may not have been renewed? Thanks. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:15, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, it's been a tremendous amount of work. I've done a complete, exhaustive, search of the pre-1978 non-electronic records for Time magazine copyright renewals. This means the list of issues is complete up to the June 26, 1950 (vol. 55, no. 26) issue. So, the current status is that any issue prior to volume 56 not in the table on that template has had their copyright renewed, without exception. Volume 56 and later are in the electronic records at copyright.gov. The electronic records are a lot easier to search for individual entries, but the lack of a targeted ability to search for ranges of renewals makes it quite awkward to do a comprehensive renewal search for all the issues in a periodical. So, my strategy for searching for renewals for the circa 1951-1963 issues is going to have to change. I'm examining the idea of writing a script to extract all of the Time renewal records from copyright.gov. Worst case, I might have to manually assemble a list of the registration numbers for the 300 or so remaining issues and then perform individual searches for renewals for those issues. —RP88 20:55, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, I've completed my search, including both the pre-1978 non-electronic records and the electronic records (see here for results). I've updated {{PD-US-not renewed-TIME}} with the complete list of TIME issues that were not renewed, and, as you requested, added a note that the copyright was renewed for any issue not listed. —RP88 03:48, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations, Dear Reviewer

If you use the helper-the scripts, you will find the links next to the search box (vector) or as single tabs (monobook). They are named license+ and license-

Hi RP88, thanks for your application to be an image reviewer. The application has been removed as successful, and you've been added to the list of reviewers. You can review all kind of image licenses on Commons. Please see Commons:License review and Commons:Flickr files if you haven't done so already. We also have a guide how to detect copyright violations. Backlogs include Flickr review, Picasa review, Panoramio review, and files from other sources. You can use one of the following scripts by adding one of the lines to your common.js:

importScript('User:ZooFari/licensereviewer.js'); // stable script for reviewing images from any kind of source OR
importScript('User:Rillke/LicenseReview.js'); // contains also user notification when review fails, auto blacklist-check and auto-thank you message for Flickr-reviews.

You can also add {{User reviewer}} or {{User trusted}} to your user page if you wish. Thank you for your contributions on Commons! User:Armbrust (Local talk - en.Wikipedia talk) 03:17, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Men montage

Replaced missing files here, bye, -- Fulvio 314 17:33, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, looks great. —RP88 17:38, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Help needed

Greetings, I came to your page after I read you were a license reviewer. A few days ago, I placed on the Village pump a question regarding the file Rodrigo Bueno as a Child.JPG that I've been having a doubt about the completeness or validity of its license. I wanted to ask you if you could take a quick look at the thing, it doesn't seem to be a complicated one to figure out, but I just need another opinion to know what to do about it. Thanks in advance.--Rod840 (talk) 16:20, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

To justify the existing license template, the image summary needs to mention enough information to show that 25 years have passed after the photograph was created and it was first published at least 20 years ago in Argentina. From Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Rodrigo_Bueno_as_a_Child.JPG it sounds like you know some details about when and where it was published, but don't have an actual copy of the article. You don't actually need a copy of the article if you know the relevant facts. As a made up example, say that the photo appeared in the July 3rd, 1981 edition of La Voz del Interior with an article called Chébere peforms en el evento de hoy. For that example, I might compose the summary as follows:
Description
English: Rodrigo Bueno at around age 6-7
Date or 1980
date QS:P,+1950-00-00T00:00:00Z/7,P1319,+1979-00-00T00:00:00Z/9,P1326,+1980-00-00T00:00:00Z/9
Source

"Chébere peforms en el evento de hoy." La Voz del Interior (Córdoba, Argentina). 1981-07-03.
Courtesy of the La Voz del Interior Archives:

Author Unknown

The information box above is, of course, only an example containing imaginary information. Replace the details with real details. —RP88 20:40, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I managed to do something similar and now the info about it is enough.--Rod840 (talk) 22:01, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Favour to ask

If files are used at English or old Wikisource, that you believe should be deleted from Commons, it would be great if you would mention in the discussion that the files should be treated with {{PD-US-1923-abroad-delete}} if the decision is to delete. Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:33, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

From a quick check, it looks like the vast majority of files deleted on Commons that are in use at English WP are not eligible for that tag. In addition, as mentioned in the tag, only administrators are permitted to use {{PD-US-1923-abroad-delete}} (and the bot only honors the tag if it was added by an administrator). I am not an administrator. If you have complaints with the actions of an administrator, it's best to take it up with them or post to the notice board. There is little I can do. If you'd like me to comment on an open deletion request, it would help if you'd provide a pointer. —RP88 18:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Oh wait, I just noticed that you are an administrator. I think I misunderstood your request. I take it you are asking me to remind some other administrator about the existence of {{PD-US-1923-abroad-delete}}? I suppose I can mention it in the future if I comment on a DR to which I think that tag applies. However, if this issue is important to you, wouldn't it be better to educate the Admins who close DRs (or add that tag to whatever procedure documention you admins refer to when processing DRs)? —RP88 19:07, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Golden Hollywood

Hi, if it happens again on either of them can you let me know at User talk:Dr. Blofeld on wikipedia? I've updated the hollywood one. Blofeld Dr. (talk) 13:14, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Welcome, Dear Filemover!

العربيَّة ∙ Deutsch ∙ español ∙ English ∙ français ∙ português ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（中国大陆）‎ ∙ 中文（台灣）‎ ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ +/−

Hi RP88, you're now a filemover. When moving files please respect the following advice:

  • Use the CommonsDelinker link in the {{Rename}} template to order a bot to replace all ocurrences of the old title with the new one. Or, if there was no rename-request, please use the Move & Replace-tab.
  • Please leave a redirect behind unless you have a valid reason not to do so. Other projects, including those using InstantCommons, might be using the file even though they don't show up in the global usage. Deleting the redirects would break their file references. Please see this section of the file rename guideline for more information.
  • Please know and follow the file rename guidelines.


Removes File

Excusme for deselet File :( Sorry--82.90.33.15 12:57, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand your comment, as far as I can determine I haven't interacted with any of your contributions. —RP88 13:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

I got your message, thank you for the 'help that you give me, and I tell you that I gladly accept your help :)   thanks--Manto28-08 (talk) 14:40, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Thanks a bunch finding that 1987 Minnesota PDF here! You've really went above and beyond there, my friend. Best regards, Illegitimate Barrister 18:22, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate the attaboy. I dug up that document while I was researching its copyright status for Commons:Deletion requests/File:Seal of Minnesota.svg. I'll keep an eye on the DR and respond there if anyone continues to question its copyright status. —RP88 18:30, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Much appreciated, thanks! Regards, Illegitimate Barrister 18:46, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
On a minor note, I removed {{PD-GovEdict}} from File:Seal_of_Minnesota.svg, as it is not an edict of government. The legislative text mandating the features of the new design would not be eligible for copyright as an edict of government, but in general, most works of governments are not edicts. —RP88 18:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Alright, sorry about that. Thanks for the info! Illegitimate Barrister 19:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Black-headed Shrike-babbler Biodiversity Heritage Library.jpg

File:Black-headed Shrike-babbler Biodiversity Heritage Library.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:03, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

UN Copyright

I was just going to !vote keep over at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of the United Nations.svg when I had a read of 17 U.S.C. § 104 and part 5b. What is your take on that section of US copyright law ? LGA talkedits 09:44, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

The U.S. added 17 USC § 104(b)(5) to U.S. copyright law in order to comply with its UCC Paris treaty obligation. Prior to this change the U.S. offered no copyright protection to works of the U.N.; after this change the U.S. offered copyright protection to works of the U.N. Note that all of the works offered protection under 104(b) are offered identical protection under U.S. copyright law, whether the author is a U.S. national (via 104(b)(1)), the work was published in the U.S. (via 104(b)(2)), the work was first published by the United Nations (via 104(b)(5)) or via Presidential proclamation (via 104(b)(6)). Works of the U.N. published in the U.S. receive no more, and no less, copyright protection in the U.S. than a work by a U.S. national. So, if the U.S. had never signed UCC Paris and thus never enacted 17 USC § 104(b)(5) all works of the U.N. would be PD in the U.S., but because the U.S. did add the U.N. to the list of those eligible for U.S. copyright protection, we have to apply all the standard U.S. copyright rules when trying to figure out whether a work of the U.N. is PD in the US.—RP88 10:00, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Question is, when did this change happen and what stops this section from being retroactive and affording the past work of the UN current protection ? LGA talkedits 10:32, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
The U.S. signed UCC Paris on 10 July 1974 and enacted the change via s:Copyright Law Revision (House Report No. 94-1476) in 1976, which went into effect on 1 January 1978. I am not certain whether or not the change was retroactive, so in our discussions to date I've taken the more conservative choice and assumed it was retroactive (and that's why we can't just claim all U.N. works published before 1978 are PD in the U.S.). However, since so few U.N. works have a copyright notice, it doesn't make much practical difference. If you're interested I'll see if I can find out if was retroactive. —RP88 11:13, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for that, if it is retroactive, and that is by no means a given, that leaves the question does it cover the logo and/or flag ? There is also an lot of United Nations copyright renewals listed on the register for works dating from before 1974 but there is also VAu000044358 which might be relevant. LGA talkedits 12:21, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
If it was retroactive, then they are PD for lack of notice (17 U.S. Code § 405), if it wasn't retroactive they are PD as ineligible works. I don't see a lot of renewals for works of the United Nations in the electronic database, what search are you doing that shows a lot? Whatever VAu000044358 is, it isn't the UN logo as the copyright claimant is "Edward Prim" and it is from 1982 (several decades after the U.N. adopted its logo). It's probably the Edward Prim associated with "Citizens for a Strong United Nations", a peace activist in San Francisco. —RP88 19:24, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Incomplete DR closure

Whoops, sorry, I lost my internet connection just after closing the DR but before editing the file page. Also, I warned the user to don't open another DR unless he has solid reasonf for them. Thanks. --Amitie 10g (talk) 02:23, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

OTRS permissions queues

Hello RP88. You are receiving this message as a license reviewer. As you know, OTRS processes a large amount of tickets relating to image releases (called "permissions"). As a license reviewer, you may have the skills necessary to contribute to this team. If you are interested in learning more about OTRS or to volunteer please visit Meta-Wiki. Tell your friends! Thank you. Rjd0060 18:50, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Jaws cover

I'm not sure it's actually rare at all; I don't have that many pre-1977 paperbacks at hand, but glancing at the few I do, and the late-1970s/early-1980s paperbacks, I don't see any separate copyrights for the covers, and a number of them copyright in the name of the author of the text. In most cases, there's enough doubt that I wouldn't upload them, but I'd imagine that a huge number of books, even with renewed contents, have covers that were dropped into the public domain because of this.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:30, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Regarding my comment at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jaws-paperback.jpg , I'm sorry, if I wasn't as clear as I thought. I meant that the decision in the copyright case was rare, i.e. it is rare for the U.S. Copyright Office to refuse the registration of an artwork by a prominent artist. I don't actually know if the underlying facts in this case are common or rare. That being said, relying on this decision in order to upload pre-1978 U.S. book cover illustrations to Commons will be tricky since I think you'd have to show three things: (a) that the copyright notice is in the name of the author of the text (this would be easy), (b) you'd have to somehow determine that the cover's copyright was neither owned by the author nor licensed by the author (kind of tricky, probably need to to find a relevant statement from the artist or author), and (c) the author has to be well known enough that a reasonable person might conclude that the author did not create the cover illustration (also kind of tricky, since we only have one example from which to reason). —RP88 (talk) 10:51, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, this is mainly theory. I don't think (c) is relevant--whether or not the author is well-known, he's not the correct name--but (d) the cover image was first published in the US and is not subject to URAA restoration would often be hard.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:58, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Deletion

Thanks for information. And in a future, same as before, I will continue to give my contribution to free knowledge. Cheers----László (talk) 11:41, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Barnstar for you!

The Basement Kitty Barnstar
Thank you for finding the source of some very old images! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the note of encouragement. —RP88 (talk) 17:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Auguste Lumière

Hi,

I sent the declaration to OTRS. Could you please close the discussion on the deletion of the file, please ? I sent a link to this article to many people and I would be happy to see the pix in it, you see.

Thanks and Regards,

Didier --Casablanca1950 (talk) 06:05, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

@Casablanca1950: Thanks for sending the notice to OTRS. I am not admin and I do not have access to OTRS, so I can't close the discussion for you. It looks like the backlog is significant, so it may be a few weeks more before the discussion is closed by an admin. —RP88 (talk) 17:36, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Category:Primary license tags (flat list)

RP88, As you might have noticed lately I was working on assembling a flat category holding a definitive list of all primary license templates. By primary, I mean license templates that by themselves qualify as sufficient license for a file to stay and do not transclude other primary licenses. I was thinking about occasionally listing the content of the category so we can track it over time. In the old days COM:CT was such a list, but we have many more licenses now. If you are interested, we could work together on that. --Jarekt (talk) 12:20, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Jarekt, yes, I've seen you adding the category to templates on my watchlist. I'd be happy to lend a hand. Is it the tedious work of adding the Category:Primary license tags (flat list) category to licenses that you'd like help with, or have you already finished that task, and would like help with something related to the category? Is it your intention that combining a list of Category:Primary license tags (flat list) with a recursive list of Category:Custom license tags should equal a list of templates that transclude {{License template tag}}? If so, that would be an easy way to construct a work list. —RP88 (talk) 12:32, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
No I am not done with adding Category:Primary license tags (flat list) to the templates yet. I have several challenges:
1. Finding the templates
For finding I was working with database queries: for example quarry:5045 is meant to find templates transcluding {{License template tag}} which do not transclude other templates in Category:Primary license tags (flat list), but at the moment only lists templates transcluding other templates in Category:Primary license tags (flat list).
2. Examining the templates to ensure they do not call other primarily templates
3. categorizing the templates, with some categories being added to /doc subpages and some to the templates themselves.
We have so many oddball templates and broken templates I seem to spend a lot of time fixing them as I go. You ale welcome to help with any of the tasks. Also
--Jarekt (talk) 13:08, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
OK, I'll take a look. —RP88 (talk) 13:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
For what it is worth Jarekt, I am using quarry:query/5234 as my working list of license templates that need categorization. —RP88 (talk) 16:32, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
That is great. May be we need to also create Category:Secondary license tags (flat list) for files that are not primary licenses nor are in Category:Custom license tags. Also there are many templates that are in both Category:Custom license tags and Category:Primary license tags (flat list). templates like Template:PD-Curtis which is a custom narrow-scope license which does not depend on any primary licenses. Ideally we could add to it some mainstream license explaining why it is PD. --Jarekt (talk) 18:29, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
I finally figured out the best way to query. Pleas see quarry:query/5045. --Jarekt (talk) 13:30, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Oh, very nice Jarekt, I like that query a lot. —RP88 (talk) 18:15, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
With regards to {{PD-Curtis}}, that is one of the Library of Congress tags (like {{PD-VAR}} that you don't want to keep), you can see the full set at Commons:Library_of_Congress#Collections. These tags differ from other custom PD "the source institution says these are PD but not why" for one primary reason, namely that the Library of Congress is actually the parent agency for the U.S. Copyright Office. The U.S. Copyright Office is actually staffed and administered by the Library of Congress. So when the Library of Congress posts an image collection along with a rights pages that says "we've reviewed these images and we think they are PD" it's pretty definitive. Maybe we should create a single PD-Library_of_Congress_collection "primary tag" and change all of these to be "custom tags" that just invoke the primary tag with an appropriate collection name and rights URL as parameters? —RP88 (talk) 18:55, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
I was actually thinking the same last time I look at those. I would call the primary license {{Library of Congress-no known copyright restrictions}} or {{Library of Congress collections-no known copyright restrictions}}. That way we can also provide centralized internationalization. --Jarekt (talk) 19:24, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
OK, I'll do that right now (I'll use {{Library of Congress-no known copyright restrictions}} as the primary template). —RP88 (talk) 19:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Jarekt, I've noticed an issue with three templates, but I can't fix them because they are protected:
—RP88 (talk) 20:32, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Partially fixed. I will continue latter. --Jarekt (talk) 20:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
@Jarekt: Thanks. I've also made a protected edit request at Template talk:PD-Bain. —RP88 (talk) 00:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
{{PD-Abdul Hamid}} now uses {{Library of Congress-no known copyright restrictions}} but it had some some subpages, which now need deleting:
Also, in the process of fixing the LoC templatesI ended up using {{PD-VAR}} on a small handful of files (so it is no longer unused). Finally, {{PD-Van Vechten}} is really wacky in that the real license template lives at {{PD-Van Vechten/2}} while {{PD-Van Vechten}} add an {{Information}} if you supply parameters. Once that is cleaned up the LoC templates will be done. —RP88 (talk) 02:56, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Jarekt, I noticed you removed {{PD-Van Vechten/2}} after doing a replace to the ~300 remaining files that were still using the parameterized version (I was manually working through these files, but it looks like you did an auto-replacment earlier today). However, your replacement left a bunch of duplicate information (e.g. File:Ramon Novarro.jpg) or removed information about the transfer to Commons (e.g. File:Charlesweidman.jpg). Would it be too much trouble for you to put up a list somewhere of the files on which you did the auto-replacment? If you do, I'll go through the list and fix up any inconsistencies. Either way, thanks for helping out. —RP88 (talk) 16:55, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Actually I used substitution of Template:PD-Van Vechten/subst template, implemented as replacing "{{PD-Van Vechten" with "{{subst:PD-Van Vechten/subst". And I have done it semi-automatically with AWB, where I manually approved and often tweaked every edit (even the edits under my bot account). For example, removal of transfer to Commons metadata was done manually. I know that about 130 files have now both {{Information}} and {{Photograph}} and those will have to be combined manually, or just left as is. You can find files with both infoboxes using this catscan2 query. I will be traveling this weekend and next week with no internet (or cell) coverage, so I will not be able to finish with those files. --Jarekt (talk) 17:31, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll clean them up this weekend. Could you apply the protected edit request to add {{Documentation}} at {{PD-Bain}}? —RP88 (talk) 17:33, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
hi, i note you changed Highsmith to "no known copyright" when it is "public domain". [1] isn't that a problem? Slowking4♡Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 21:01, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Slowking4, I assume you are talking about {{PD-Highsmith}} which relies upon the {{Library of Congress-no known copyright restrictions}} license tag. if you look at the photos in the Carol M. Highsmith Archive at the LoC (for example, Idaho farm and field, Wall clock, etc.) you'll see that in the "Rights Advisory" field for these photos that the LoC identifies them as "No known restrictions". This is standard practice for the LoC, The library of congress does this because they want to indicate the results of their research into the copyright restrictions that may prevent the use of a photo, but not open themselves up to the legal liability incurred by a more blanket statement. In the case of the Highsmith collection I infer from the detailed rights statement that they identify the photos as "No known restrictions" instead of "public domain" because (even though the LoC knows for a fact that the photos themselves are public domain due to the instrument of gift) they want to indicate, to the best of their knowledge, that they believe the objects depicted in the photos are not protected by copyright but they are unwilling to state that as an absolute certainty. —RP88 (talk) 09:46, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
except that the collection rights page says "public domain" you are in effect rounding down in an abundance of caution. you are inferring, when it could be just confusion, or inertia. keep in mind that we have the periodic ideological discussion about how "no known copyright" is not a license. public domain is. Slowking4♡Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 14:49, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree that the copyright to the photos themselves are public domain but the template already acknowledges this explicitly in the second paragraph, so your complaint about "rounding down" does not appear valid. However, the Library of Congress has actually gone further and determined for most photos in this collection that in their opinion their are no known restrictions (such as would be the case if the photos were derivative works of a work still protected by copyright). As an example, if you actually read the "Rights Advisory" field for Idaho farm and field and Wall clock you will see that the assessment for these items is "No known restrictions". For some items in the collection the LoC does not place "no known restrictions" in the rights advisory field. For example, Angel memorial is a member of the Highsmith collection, but they're not willing to call it "no known restrictions" (presumably because they were not able to establish whether or not the photographed items were protected by copyright). —RP88 (talk) 15:41, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Welcome, Dear Patroller!

English ∙ español ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ∙ Türkçe  ∙ +/−

Counter Vandalism Unit

Hi RP88,

You now have the Patroller right and may call yourself a patroller! Please take a moment to read the updated Commons:Patrol to learn how Patrolling works and how we use it to fight vandalism.

As you know already, the patrolling functionality is enabled for all edits, not just for new-page creations. This enables us to keep track of, for example, edits made by anonymous users here on Commons.

We could use your help at the Counter Vandalism Unit. For example by patrolling an Anonymous-edits checklist and checking a day-part.

If you have any questions please leave a message on the CVU talkpage or ask for help on IRC in #wikimedia-commons.

I have 1 granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe I can trust you to use rollback correctly by using it for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Commons:Rollback. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. Thibaut120094 (talk) 16:28, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Thibaut120094. I have rollback rights on en.wp, so I know how to use it. I've never bothered to apply here on Commons, but I won't abuse it now that you've granted the right. —RP88 (talk) 16:35, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Template:FOLP

RP88, I am back and I was just looking at Template:FOLP. I was thinking about replacing it with a source infobox and {{Copyrighted free use}}, but I noticed that you changed it a year ago from just that to the current state. I think I would prefer to keep it as a secondary license template. What is your take on this? regards --Jarekt (talk) 16:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Jarekt, at the time my thought was that {{Copyrighted free use}} wasn't a great fit since it had a prominent warning suggesting the use of Attribution or Cc-zero instead, neither of which is appropriate or correct for FOLP. However, I don't have a strong objection if you want to switch back to a secondary template using "Copyrighted free use". I actually originally considered just adding a parameter to "Copyrighted free use" that suppressed the warning instead of changing the entire FOLP template, but couldn't do that because the page was protected. —RP88 (talk) 17:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
You are right, I also sometimes wished I could suppress warnings in {{Copyrighted free use}}. I will try to see of I can fix that. --Jarekt (talk) 17:29, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Fixed Please check is you agree. --Jarekt (talk) 17:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting me. You may be interested in commenting on this: phab:T105629#1700269. Josve05a (talk) 00:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

No problem. It looks like the ticket has the issue well covered. —RP88 (talk) 19:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

How about becoming an administrator?

RP88, With all your work with the licenses, I think you would benefit from being able to use administrator tools, and Commons would benefit from more experienced license maintainers. If you decide to do it, I can write you a short introduction, although I do not know much about other areas you might be involved in. --Jarekt (talk) 12:51, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for considering me Jarekt. I've definitely had the thought cross my mind before, particularly since I frequently run up against protected templates and modules while doing various maintenance tasks. When this happens I often just move on to some other area rather than filing a protected edit request since the backlog of protected edit requests is usually measured in months. However, I've never before investigated the details involved in becoming an admin. While I've been around for many years on Commons and I am confident in my familiarity with its policies, are you sure I am an active enough contributor? I just checked, and I've only got ~10,000 edits. Reviewing some recent nominations that have failed, I see that some contributors who are much more active than I have been unsuccessful (e.g. Mjrmtg, 1989, etc.).
You're right about my interest in license maintenance, I've been working with licenses since I joined Commons. In fact, the day after I joined Commons back in 2007 I proposed that Commons add support for the CC 3.0 licenses, which turned out to be more controversial than I expected ;-). I'm also interested in copyright (I perform copyright clearance/due-diligence for a non-profit as a volunteer and on Commons I'm a frequent contributor to Commons:Village pump/Copyright and deletion discussions). In the past I've been involved with structured data/machine-readable data. I'd like to be more involved in Commons:Structured data, particularly since the support of arbitrary access to wikidata is coming soon to Commons (phabricator:T89594), but appropriate implementation is going to include a lot of work with high-traffic protected templates. I'd probably ask to join OTRS if I became a Commons admin (I've always thought the OTRS permissions-commons queue was best handled by those with access to admin tools on Commons). —RP88 (talk) 20:32, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
I did notice relatively low number of edits, but those days that just means you do not use Cat-a-lot and VisualFileChange tools much. With those I did ~300 edits today and my bot often edits 10k files per days, but a single template edit might take much more of my time and effort. The edit numbers can be easily manipulated, but it can be brought up against you. I will go ahead with nomination and alert you when done. --Jarekt (talk) 13:41, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
✓ Done Please see Commons:Administrators/Requests and accept the nomination. Good luck. --Jarekt (talk) 14:31, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the nomination Jarekt. However it turns out, I appreciate your confidence in me. —RP88 (talk) 14:43, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations, Dear Administrator!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ English ∙ español ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ +/−

An offering for our new administrator from your comrades...

RP88, congratulations! You now have administrator rights on Commons. Please take a moment to read the Commons:Administrators page and watchlist related pages (in particular Commons:Administrators' noticeboard and its subpages), before launching yourself into page deletions, page protections, account blockings or modifications of protected pages. The majority of the actions of administrators can be reversed by the other admins, except for history merges which must thus be treated with particular care. Have a look at the list of Gadgets (on the bottom there are the ones specifically for admins – however, for example the UserMessages are very helpful too).

Please feel free to join us on IRC: #wikimedia-commons webchat on irc.libera.chat. There is also a channel for Commons admins, which may be useful for more sensitive topics, or coordination among administrators: #wikimedia-commons-admin webchat.

You may find Commons:Guide to adminship to be useful reading. You can find the admin backlog overview at COM:AB.

Please also check or add your entry to the List of administrators and the related lists by language and date it references.

odder (talk) 20:42, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Congrats! Thibaut120094 (talk) 20:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, both of you. —RP88 (talk) 20:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Congratulations. If you need any help with the tools let me know and I will try to help if I can. I think you were interested in Category:Commons protected edit requests. I was working on those last 2 weeks and many "easy" ones are done. Sorry ... --Jarekt (talk) 21:21, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Jarekt, thanks, I'll ask if I have any questions. I did indeed notice you making significant headway on the protected edit requests. For a while it looked like you might complete them before the adminship process ran its course ;-) —RP88 (talk) 21:36, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Congrats! Welcome to the world of hurt! Here's your safety equipment: . BEst of luck! --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:41, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

D. Scott Phoenix: File:Phoenix Singularity Summit 2011.jpg

This photo has the same license as https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dileep_George_at_the_2011_Singularity_Summit.jpg, which is in use on the other Vicarious founder’s wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dileep_George). Should that photo be removed as well? Or is the license OK? They are both CC BY-NC-SA 2.0. Thanks for your help, I am new to wikipedia. Patriot02 (talk) 14:07, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

@Patriot02: The file File:Phoenix Singularity Summit 2011.jpg came from here on Flickr where it is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic (i.e. cc-by-nc-sa-2.0) license. That license prohibits use for commercial purposes. Unfortunately Commons only accepts files that permit commercial use. See Commons:Licensing for details. You are right, the file you mention, File:Dileep George at the 2011 Singularity Summit.jpg, is also currently licensed under that license on Flickr. I think the uploader of that file made a mistake and no one noticed. I've nominated it for deletion. —RP88 (talk) 14:30, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Valerie Cruz.jpg

Thank you for your help. Best regards, BrightRaven (talk) 08:25, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

My pleasure. —RP88 (talk) 10:51, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

History split

Hi, Just noticed this. Just some suggestions: You can use Special:Move for history split (or using the button in the middle of your pc mouse). Then you have moore options. For example automatically deleting of page, overwriting redirect, creating no redirect even if file is used, no command will be sent to delinker/no replacements. Thanks for helping with the backlog! :-) --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:56, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

@Steinsplitter: Special:Move does not appear to exist. Do you mean Special:MovePage? I don't see an option for automatically deleting a page. The pulldown does have the option to not leave a redirect, but won't let you uncheck it if the file is in use, so thanks for the pointer to Special:MovePage. —RP88 (talk) 17:12, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, exactly. The delete stuff you will see if the target page exists after you kicked move. Thanks again for helping with the backlogs! --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:14, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Karjalan Lennoston lippu.svg

Could you, please, unfreeze the file for the half an hour so I will be able to upload a corrected version? You can freeze it back as soon as I will be done. Won't be long, promise. Sincerely, --Kwasura (talk) 22:34, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I did't protect that file, it looks like Steinsplitter did. Why does that file need to be overwritten? Why can't you upload your new file under a new file name and then link to your new file in the "other_versions" field of the {{Information}} field of File:Karjalan Lennoston lippu.svg? In most cases it is preferable to upload new files under new names rather than overwriting existing files. You can always add notes about errors to the file description or talk page of the old file, if necessary. —RP88 (talk) 22:53, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
No, no, no... This is not how the things work with flags. We are not simply drawing a "flower for mommy", we creating an .svg copy of something what is in all it's details being approved by the government and can be modified only one way - the correct one. Everything about the size, proportions, thickness, colors, etc. is not just random, but authorized. Flag of Finland, for example, is not just "white with blue cross", it is 11 (4:3:4 vertical) and 18 (5:3:10 horizontal), blue Pantone 294 C. So it can be only one correct file. Another one will be duplicate or incorrect. It's even more serious with the military units and formations flags. They exist only as a single example, there is no the "spare one" or "extra". You lost it - you done as a military unit. And this is it. This is why it is so important to create them exactly as they are. Military flag is a military relic, not just piece of cloth. Now, I'm convincing, I am not the Michelangelo. I work long and I work carefully. But I can reference everything that I'm doing. This is not just my imagination. I am not yet done with the "hands" (need more information and pictures) but the flag itself looks fine. --Kwasura (talk) 23:46, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
I can sympathize with your feeling of annoyance if you see a file that you know is incorrect in some manner, but sometimes even if all the editors are all acting in good faith they can still have disagreements about a file. Particularly on Commons, where our project scope officially says we do not exist to editorialise on the other WMF projects, we often have to host files that someone thinks contain errors because some other project disagrees. Nonetheless, that is probably not the case with File:Karjalan Lennoston lippu.svg so I see no reason to object to you uploading a new version if you think it needs to be fixed. However, as I said, I didn't protect that file, Steinsplitter did. I don't know why he did, but I assume he had a good reason for doing so. I'd encourage you to first ask him unprotect the file. If he does not respond to your request in a timely manner, you can ask for the file to be unprotected at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections. —RP88 (talk) 00:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your understanding. As an administrator you will soon see that the national symbolic and emblematic is something way more important as the one would think. take flag of the World for example. There is constant search for the right shade and proportion currently going on in Commons. This process never stops, we have our own flag elves and flag trolls. And I know - elves will win. --Kwasura (talk) 01:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your understanding as well, as I'm a brand new administrator on Commons, so I imagine I will make mistakes. I am doing my best to employ the moderation strategies I've found to work elsewhere. We'll see how that goes... —RP88 (talk) 01:30, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I protected the file because i was vandalized by sockpuppets. Unprotected now. Best :-) --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:23, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Problem with license template

Hi there. Maybe you could help: I created my own FAL license template User:A.Savin/License-FAL, but I have now the problem that files using this template are sorted into Category:Files with no machine-readable license. I would like to modify this template (without changing anything on the overall design, if possible) the way this category disappear, but don't know how. Do you have any idea? Thanks in advance. --A.Savin 19:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

@A.Savin: I am happy to help out. However, there was lengthy discussion as well as a DR a couple of months back regarding custom user licenses. The rough result of the discussion appears to have been that custom user licenses are still permissible, however, license templates should not reside in user space. I just now took a look at all of the former custom user licenses. As a result of the discussion they were all updated and it looks like the approach taken with the vast majority of all of the other custom licenses was to split them into a "user" portion that remained under control of the user followed by a license template from main template space. For example, you would use {{User:A.Savin/License-FAL}}{{FAL}} in the permission section of your files (your custom portion would be formatted using a non-license layout). The remaining custom user licenses were "promoted" into main Template space. So, you could instead move your template up into main Template space and format it as a license, but if you do so you'd have to accept the fact that it would no longer be "yours" but instead be the responsibility of the main project and can't be protected as a user page (although it would be protectable if is was used on many pages). Which approach do you prefer? If you let me know which approach you'd like to take, I can definitely fix up your template. Also, if there is something about the current {{FAL}} template that you don't like, I'd be happy to update it as well. —RP88 (talk) 20:38, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
I tried now to use {{FAL}}{{User:A.Savin/License}}, but category "no-machine readable" still appears. Could you help to modify User:A.Savin/License so that files become machine-readable. Thanks --A.Savin 13:21, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Sure, give me a moment to take a look... —RP88 (talk) 13:30, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
@A.Savin: OK. All fixed. The problem was you were using a license layout in a non-license template. I switched the layout to {{Source-Layout}}. There are several other "non-license" style formatting templates to choose from if you don't like that one. See the examples at the bottom of the documentation for {{Source-Layout}}. However, Source-Layout is the layout typically used elsewhere in templates similar to yours (i.e. additional notes about permissions from the source of the photo). By the way, I like the look of yours. —RP88 (talk) 13:36, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. :) --A.Savin 15:44, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

File:Flag of Finland Air force squadrons without squadron emblem.svg

Greetings! I can see you protected the file from the future editing. I could thank you if you would try to establish the truth, not to concrete the nonsense. Don't know whether you read the references or not. Perhaps not. Or you don't understand the subject well. It doesn't matter. I simply would like to nominate again this file for deletion. I am dead serious about fighting stubborn nonsense and fantasy vandalism here in Commons. I have all references provided ages ago. File was deleted already, but later restored by mistake or something. I hope you understand. Sincerely, --Kwasura (talk) 17:51, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Before I protected the file, I left a comment on the file's talk page at File talk:Flag of Finland Air force squadrons without squadron emblem.svg. Please take a look and discuss proposed changes to the file's description there. You are, of course, free to nominate it for deletion again if you have a new argument or believe the previous closing admin made an error. However, I'd encourage you to first discuss it on the file talk page with the other interested parties. —RP88 (talk) 17:59, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
There is not the other party, just one man. And we hear no arguments from him do we? Just "rv nonsense" and "I like it this way". Provided that I already gave all possible references and explanations on numerous talk pages and notice boards, I honestly think that it's about a time for us to hear some arguments from opponent. I really looking forward to hear something serious. But he doesn't need to say anything anymore since you resolved the case in his favor. And I simply sick and tired from all this nonsense. I never had no intention to bang the file from category to category. Resolution is simple: to correct and rename the file or get it deleted. Sincerely, --Kwasura (talk) 19:36, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
When I came across the slow-motion edit war I froze the file, as edit warring is not acceptable. I made no attempt to pick a side, as I made very clear in my note on the file's talk page. it's inevitable that someone would be unhappy since the file may now be frozen in a state that they disagree with, and I am sorry that this turned out to be you. By my count at least four editors have performed a revert in the last month and at least three of which (plus several others) participated in the discussion at COM:AN/U. In my comment on the talk page I asked all interested editors who wished the file to be changed to present reasoned arguments there, on the file talk page and for the other participants to respond with their objections. Furthermore, in my note I made it clear that since one or more parties may feel I took sides by freezing the file in a state they disagree with, that I would defer to another admin for any evaluation of a protected edit request. It's clear you feel strongly about this, and I'm happy to answer your questions, but ultimately Commons is a collaborative project and that sometimes involves discussion, compromise, and even a bit of bureaucracy. I'll attempt to act as a moderator for any discussion that takes place on the file talk page. —RP88 (talk) 20:15, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
As I said before, no one will say nothing about it no more, because no one care about it, but me. So I will have to listen to silence. I am not sure what king of discussion you are talking about. There is only me who is trying to reason here. You are free to read my talk page and the notice boards to see it for yourself. Since I am forced to the situation of "forces stalemate" I have no other way as to proceed with the deletion request. For that I will have to ask you to unfreese the file. Sincerely, --Kwasura (talk) 20:42, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
If no one cares about this but you and no one but you will comment on the file talk page, then you are sure to get your way! If you propose a change on the file talk page, wait a week or so and no one objects, you are free to then make a protected edit request. An admin (other than me) will then evaluate the request and if they approve they will make the edit to the file. And thus you'll get your way and because the file is protected your request will stick because it won't be possible to revert your change. If however, you instead decide to make a deletion request go ahead with all of the steps except for the addition of the {{Delete}} template to the file and then either leave a note on the file talk page or drop me a note on my talk page, and I'll add it for you. —RP88 (talk) 20:49, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
OK, I will be a nice person one more time. I will take your advice. Sincerely, --Kwasura (talk) 22:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, I appreciate your patience. Go ahead and add to the file talk page a statement detailing the changes you'd like to make along with a concise statement about why you feel those particular changes are necessary. —RP88 (talk) 22:23, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Greetings! The week is over. What next? --Kwasura (talk) 04:33, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can tell you never actually proposed a change to the file's name, summary, or both (or started a deletion request). Do that, then wait and see what the other editors have to say.(if anything). I'm watching the talk page of the file. —RP88 (talk) 04:36, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
I proposed what I could. but I can not start deletion request of protected file. --Kwasura (talk) 05:31, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
If you are happy with the description of file as it is, then nothing needs to be done. At one point you wanted the file to look like revision 180514384. If that is still the case, you could propose restoring the file to that edit. Alternatively, if you've changed your mind and you now want to delete the file, go ahead and do all four of the steps listed at Commons:Deletion requests/Listing a request manually except for the first step (the addition of the {{Delete}} template to the file) and then either leave a note on the file talk page or drop me a note on my talk page, and I'll add the {{Delete}} to the protected file for you. —RP88 (talk) 05:50, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
I am long want this file to be deleted. revision 180514384 was just a temporarily measure to keep the category clean. I will take your advice and start the deletion request. --Kwasura (talk) 06:47, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
@Kwasura: OK, since the file was previously nominated, just add a new section to the older Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of Finland Air force squadrons without squadron emblem.svg, re-link that page into today's DR list, and notify each uploader. —RP88 (talk) 06:51, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Special:Diff/181119240

Shouldn't we also have a {{PD-old-99}} per COM:CRT#Côte d'Ivoire? --Stefan2 (talk) 23:41, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

We should think about adding it, yes. However the existing PD-old system currently works on multiples of 5 years (Côte d'Ivoire is unique in the world for having a copyright term that is not a multiple of 5 years). As it currently stands, users in Côte d'Ivoire who look at a file on Commons using one of the PD-old-auto templates will receive a warning that the work may not be PD in their country for a year longer than they should. It's probably more trouble that it is worth to add PD-old-99 and the associated logic to the PD-old-auto templates. However, I'll look into what it would take to do so after I finish processing Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-old-90 and adding {{PD-old-95}} (for Jamaica's new life + 95 term). —RP88 (talk) 23:54, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
French, Japanese and Russian war extensions create some extra oddities, sometimes with copyright expiration in the middle of a year. The Ivory Coast situation is not unique. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:09, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Actually, now that I think about it, since Côte d'Ivoire (as well as France, Japan and Russia) implement the rule of the shorter term, that isn't an issue. It's only users in countries that don't implement the rule of the shorter term that might potentially be mislead by the absence of appropriate {{PD-old-warning-text}} for their country's copyright term (which is just Jamaica right now until I finish with PD-old-95). Works whose country of origin's copyright terms require more details can use the appropriate PD-country template. That is {{PD-France}}, {{PD-Japan}} and {{PD-Russia}} for the three you mention. Côte d'Ivoire can use {{PD-Cote d'Ivoire}} instead of the missing {{PD-old-99}}. —RP88 (talk) 00:16, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

File:US Navy 151207-N-ZZ999-435 USS Zumwalt underway.jpg

I am concerned about the licensing of this image. It is courtesy of General Dynamics, and it was not created by a sailor or employee of the USN. In fact, the metadata shows the image is copyrighted, but does not indicate it is available under a free license. I think the image needs to be deleted. Thoughts? --Hammersoft (talk) 17:50, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

You're probably right. I'll delete it now. —RP88 (talk) 17:52, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that image is also somewhat questionable, particularly given that the VIRIN is 131028-O-ZZ999-103. Per Commons:VIRIN, the "O" indicates an "other" source for the photo. The file first discussed has a VIRIN of 151207-N-ZZ999-435, with the "N" supposedly indicating that the photographer was a uniformed member or civilian employee of the Navy. So, the Navy might be a little sloppy with assigning the VIRIN IDs. —RP88 (talk) 19:32, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

PD-EU

Dear RP88, I noticed that you are adding a new license template "PD-Art|PD-anon-70-EU" to several files. Thanks for that. The corresponding Category PD-Art (PD-anon-70-EU) is however still a red link. Will you make this category too and so upgrade them to blue links, or shall I do the job? Or is it supposed to be changed to Category:PD-Art (Anonymous-EU)? Vysotsky (talk) 10:57, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out this issue Vysotsky. It looks like {{Anonymous-EU}} was renamed to {{PD-anon-70-EU}} about two months back. I agree, I think the corresponding category Category:PD-Art (PD-anon-70-EU) (to match Category:PD-Art (Anonymous-EU)) should have been created at the same time, so I've just that now. —RP88 (talk) 16:01, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanx! Vysotsky (talk) 21:39, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Template:PD-old-90

@Stefan2 and Jarekt: Per Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-old-90, I'm going to attempt to delete {{PD-old-90}} via staged deprecation with a tracking category. The tracking category is Category:Uses PD-old-90 (compare to Category:Author died more than 90 years ago public domain images). I've updated {{PD-old-auto}}, {{PD-old-auto-1923}}, {{PD-old-auto-1996}}, and {{PD-old-auto-unpublished}} to no longer use this template. That should leave the tracking category filled with just the files that directly use PD-old-90, although it may take awhile to populate. While I was making these changes I've also added {{PD-old-95}} and updated {{PD-old-warning-text}} now that Jamaica has extended its copyright term to life+95.

My next step will be to remove PD-old-90 from Commons namespace documentaiton and process the files in the category Category:Uses PD-old-90 to use an appropriate PD-old-auto template instead of PD-old-90. Once the category is empty and this template is no longer transcluded by files, I'll delete PD-old-90.

Not previously discussed is what to do with {{PD-old-90-1923}} and {{PD-old-90-1996}}. Now that the PD-old-auto templates no longer use PD-old-90, the transclusion count for PD-old-90 has dropped from ~15000 to 1687. PD-old-90-1923 is 662 and PD-old-90-1996 is 2. —RP88 (talk) 03:09, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Ideally all {{PD-old-90}} will be converted to {{PD-old-auto}}. I should check if User:JarektBot/Replace PD-old.py still works. If it does it could do the job for some of the files. We can also just replace {{PD-old-90}} templates with {{PD-old-80}}. Strangely Template:PD-Portugal-URAA was categorizing some files to Category:PD-old-90-1996, but I fixed it (it might need more fixing). So I think we can delete {{PD-old-90-1996}}. --Jarekt (talk) 05:34, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm currently working on converting uses of {{PD-old-90}} to {{PD-old-auto}}. I'd like to avoid replacing with PD-old-80, where possible. I'd certainly welcome your help, if you're interested, —RP88 (talk) 05:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't think that it is a good idea to simply delete the {{PD-old-90}} as it is a well-known template which is likely to be used again by uploaders. Once you're done with re-tagging files, I'd suggest redirecting it to {{PD-old-80}} in order to avoid unnecessary confusion where recently uploaded files lack a copyright tag. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:15, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Making some progress... transclusion count for {{PD-old-90}} has dropped from 1687 to 741, {{PD-old-90-1923}} has dropped from 662 to 182. —RP88 (talk) 23:16, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I think that it would be a good idea to create categories for the other PD-old-N templates and convert as much as possible into PD-old-auto. However, I assume that PD-old-100 often is used for very old works by unknown authors, so it might not always be possible to convert the templates into PD-old-auto. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
That sounds like a good idea to me. The major obstacle to doing so is that currently {{PD-old-auto}} directly invokes the PD-old-N templates based on the deathyear parameter. I think the first step would be to rewrite it to use a design like {{PD-old-auto-1923}} which shares a common {{PD-old-X-1923}} with {{PD-old-70-1923}} and the other PD-old-N-1923 templates. That way {{PD-old-80}} could set a category that would not be set by {{PD-old-auto|1930}}. —RP88 (talk) 19:43, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I can try to rewrite {{PD-old-auto}} to look more like {{PD-old-auto-1923}}. I also think that as many files as possible which use PD-old or PD-old-XX should be converted to PD-old-auto. Except for PD-old-100 since PD-old-100 is much simpler than PD-old-auto and it always displays the same license. --Jarekt (talk) 19:50, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Add a hidden parameter to PD-old-80 and the others:
Finally make PD-old-auto use the hidden parameter. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:51, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that would work as well. —RP88 (talk) 19:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Some other PD-old related oddities are:
—RP88 (talk) 21:22, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
The PD-old-50 template says that the file is in the public domain in the United States for an unspecified reason. I guess that we should delete that statement and request a separate United States copyright tag. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:38, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
@Stefan2: i've been thinking about this for a while. I think the reason behind {{PD-old-60}} not existing and {{PD-old-50}} being sort of like {{PD-old-50-1923}} (actually more lile {{PD-old-50}}{tl|PD-US}}) is that evidence of life+70 or longer supports (but is not sufficient to establish) that a work is PD in the US, but anything short of life+70 is always going to need evidence of publication. So I think this was the original thinking behind leaving out a PD-old-60 and having PD-old-50 contain strong words about the necessity of including publication and authorship details. It might still be a good idea to conform PD-old-50 to the structure and style of the the other PD-old templates, but I'm not as confident that this is necessarily the right thing to do anymore. —RP88 (talk) 03:46, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Neither PD-old-70 nor PD-old-60 shows that something is in the public domain in the United States. Sure, it is a little bit more likely that a PD-old-70 file was published before 1923, but it is still very possible that it was not. PD-old-70 files also need evidence of publication. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
I think we should replace PD-old-50 with country specific PD tags and delete {{PD-old-50}}. --Jarekt (talk) 17:44, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
I think that we should deprecate country-specific PD tags for PD-old-N situations, as PD-old-N is more globally applicable. Also, many of the country-specific copyright tags are inappropriate as there is only a single copyright tag which lists all PD reasons for that country, forcing users to guess which reason out of many the uploader thinks applies. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:51, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Stefan, I prefer to use a PD-old-auto-1923/1996 tag over a country-specific tag whenever possible, even for countries with terms shorter than life+70. —RP88 (talk) 17:58, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
I also do not like Country specific tags "which lists all PD reasons for that country". US started that way with {{PD-US}} but now we have dozen US tags, same should happen with other countries. My problem with {{PD-old-50}} is that I do not know for which countries it is applicable (other than Belarus used in the example) and the way I see it used is that people apply it to any from countries where it does not apply. --Jarekt (talk) 18:28, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
The advantage of using PD-old-50 is that it adds information about other countries. Consider, for example, a United States work which is PD-US-not renewed. The work is in the public domain in the United States and thus acceptable on Commons. However, the French supreme court has decided that PD-US-not renewed is not compatible with the rule of the shorter term provisions in the Berne Convention. It seems that France only applies the rule of the shorter term to PD-1923. It is possible that other countries may agree with the French interpretation of the Berne Convention, so the free status of such material is questionable in quite a lot of countries. However, if the file gets an additional PD-old-50 tag, then it is clear that the file at least is in the public domain in a few countries such as Belarus, even if the rule of the shorter term isn't applicable. If you think that it is difficult to keep track of the PD-old-50 countries, then the template could maybe be modified to mention some common countries, or the template could link to a list of those countries. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Currently {{PD-old-70}}, {{PD-old-80}}, etc. list the countries with longer terms on which they cannot be used. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me for {{PD-old-50}} and {{PD-old-60}} to instead list the countries with equal or shorter terms on which they can be used. Maybe the text from {{PD-old-warning-text}} can be split into two templates: {{PD-old-warning-US-tag-required}} (for the the warning about requiring a US tag on PD-old tags without -1923/1996) and {{PD-old-usage-note}} which could be used on all PD-old tags (including the -1923/1996 tags) that either lists the countries the tag can't be used for (or lists the countries for which it can) an well as the current re-use notes. —RP88 (talk) 19:26, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Stefan, it is not true that life+70 files need evidence of publication to be PD in the US, since unpublished life+70 works are also PD in the US. However as I originally said, I readily admit life+70 only supports (but is not sufficient to establish) that a work is PD in the US. —RP88 (talk) 17:58, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
If a file is unpublished, then we need evidence that it is unpublished. Also, many European countries create a new 25-year copyright term when such works become published, so PD-old-70 may create issues in the source country in this situation. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
I think we're kind of talking past each other. I think we both agree on the necessity of evidence of publication (or lack thereof) and that Commons policy requires sufficient information be provided to establish a work is PD in the source country as well as the US. However, the point I was trying to get across was that I found it interesting (perhaps even a hint at Commons community thinking) that the Commons PD-old template system has, over time, developed an interesting "bright line", at life+70 or longer the system permits (but presumably does not condone) a little sloppiness with regard to U.S. copyright status, but at less than life+70 the system forces the uploader to claim the work is PD in the U.S. (i.e. they can't use {{PD-old-60}} they instead have to instead use {{PD-old-60-1923}} or {{PD-old-60-1996}} and while {{PD-old-50}} does exist it is more akin to {{PD-old-50-1923}}). —RP88 (talk) 19:26, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Still working on this... transclusion count for {{PD-old-90}} is now 400. All other variants as well as uses via PD-scan and PD-Art have been completed.—RP88 (talk) 03:12, 12 December 2015‎

File:Louis Majorelle-Bureau de dame nénuphar.jpg

Bonjour,

J'avais fait une erreur, j'ai corrigé. Merci Robert Valette (talk) 11:24, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Merci beaucoup. —RP88 (talk) 13:37, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Using the ordinal number code in external projects

Hi RP,

I found your ordinal module, which does exactly what I need to do myself! I'm working on a commercial project in Lua. Would the code fall under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License? If so, is it available in a repository which I would have access to? Thanks! —Eddie W, 82.99.54.98 16:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Bots/Work requests

Hi - may I ask for the reason that you deleted my edit? -- MaxxL - talk 13:31, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

@MaxxL: It was a mistake, I accidentally hit the rollback link. That is why I undid the rollback right away with a note explaining my mistake (see Special:Diff/181766382). I am sorry for causing you any confusion. —RP88 (talk) 13:35, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
np - shit happens once in a while - I have my “finger trouble” every day. ;) -- MaxxL - talk 13:39, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

2016

Happy new year 2016 😀😬😅😉😌2😙😗😍😝😜😛🤓😝🤓🤑🤗😎😘🙂😇😆😊😊😆😃😃😅😆☺️ {{unsignedIP|160.158.84.70|09:14, 31 December 2015}😥😥😥😥😥😥😥😥😥

Nobel medallion

Hi there. Thanks very much for updating my Female Nobel laureates chart. Can you point me to the source of the original Nobel medallion that's free to use (I thought I'd used a free image, but apologies if I was mistaken)? I would love to add it to the original Photoshop source file that I update each year. Regards, Girona7 (talk) 21:52, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

De-adminship warning

This talk page in other languages:

Dear RP88, I am writing to inform you that you are in danger of losing your adminship on Commons because of inactivity.

If you want to keep your adminship, you need both to sign at Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section/Aug-Sep 2016 within 30 days of today's date, and also to make at least five further admin actions in the following six months. Anyone who does not do so will automatically lose administrator rights.

You can read the de-admin policy at Commons:Administrators/De-adminship.

Thank you, odder (talk) 22:28, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Code issues in User:RP88/common.js

Hi RP88, I am a bored bot (this is kind of a computer program) that is watching the recent changes and tapping buttons like I did now.

Curious about the reason? Possibly not but I will tell you anyway:

  1. You edited User:RP88/common.js. Glad to see you coding in javascript! Have you ever considered becoming a MediaWiki hacker?
  2. Though, that change appears to introduce 6 new jshint issues — the page's status is now having ERRORS. Note that invalid or ambiguous code often has unwanted side effects like breaking other tools for you. If you cannot find out how to fix it, I suggest blanking the page for now.
  3. To help you understanding where the issues are, I have aggregated a report here and now. If you have questions, don't hesitate to ask users experienced in javascript writing for help. But do not ask the bot's operators (chronically overwrought) unless you suspect an error of mine. If you prefer not getting spammed by me, you can opt-out reports by adding {{ValidationOptOut|type=all}} to your user page or cmb-opt-out anywhere on your your global user page on Meta. Good luck at Wikimedia Commons and happy hacking!
  1. ISSUE: line 5 character 91: Script URL. - Evidence: mw.util.addPortletLink('p-tb', 'javascript:importScript("MediaWiki:VisualFileChange.js");', 'Perform batch task', 't-AjaxQuickDeleteOnDemand');
  2. ISSUE: line 12 character 81: Script URL. - Evidence: mw.util.addPortletLink('p-tb', 'javascript:importScript("User:RP88/gallery.js")', 'Create gallery');
  3. ISSUE: line 29 character 9: Label 'subst' on Iusc statement. - Evidence: {{subst:Iusc|User:Technical_13/Scripts/OneClickArchiver.js|User:Technical_13/Scripts/OneClickArchiver}}
  4. ISSUE: line 29 character 18: Missing semicolon. - Evidence: {{subst:Iusc|User:Technical_13/Scripts/OneClickArchiver.js|User:Technical_13/Scripts/OneClickArchiver}}
  5. ISSUE: line 29 character 18: Expected '}' to match '{' from line 29 and instead saw ':'. - Evidence: {{subst:Iusc|User:Technical_13/Scripts/OneClickArchiver.js|User:Technical_13/Scripts/OneClickArchiver}}
  6. ISSUE: line 29 character 64: Missing semicolon. - Evidence: {{subst:Iusc|User:Technical_13/Scripts/OneClickArchiver.js|User:Technical_13/Scripts/OneClickArchiver}}
  7. ISSUE: line 29 character 64: Expected '}' to match '{' from line 29 and instead saw ':'. - Evidence: {{subst:Iusc|User:Technical_13/Scripts/OneClickArchiver.js|User:Technical_13/Scripts/OneClickArchiver}}
  8. ISSUE: line 29 character 102: Expected '(end)' and instead saw '}'. - Evidence: {{subst:Iusc|User:Technical_13/Scripts/OneClickArchiver.js|User:Technical_13/Scripts/OneClickArchiver}}

Your CommonsMaintenanceBot (talk) at 09:23, 5 January 2017 (UTC).

Code issues in User:RP88/common.js

Hi RP88, I am a bored bot (this is kind of a computer program) that is watching the recent changes and tapping buttons like I did now.

Curious about the reason? Possibly not but I will tell you anyway:

  1. You edited User:RP88/common.js. Glad to see you coding in javascript! Have you ever considered becoming a MediaWiki hacker?
  2. Though, that change appears to introduce 1 new esprima issue — the page's status is now having ERRORS. Note that invalid or ambiguous code often has unwanted side effects like breaking other tools for you. If you cannot find out how to fix it, I suggest blanking the page for now.
  3. To help you understanding where the issues are, I have aggregated a report here and now. If you have questions, don't hesitate to ask users experienced in javascript writing for help. But do not ask the bot's operators (chronically overwrought) unless you suspect an error of mine. If you prefer not getting spammed by me, you can opt-out reports by adding {{ValidationOptOut|type=all}} to your user page or cmb-opt-out anywhere on your your global user page on Meta. Good luck at Wikimedia Commons and happy hacking!
  1. ERROR: Cannot parse line 29 column 18: Unexpected token :

Your CommonsMaintenanceBot (talk) at 09:23, 5 January 2017 (UTC).

Happy New Year, RP88!

Happy New Year!

RP88, a new year is like a blank book, the pen is in your hands. It is your chance to write a beautiful story for yourself! Happy New Year 2017. Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 18:28, 31 December 2016 (UTC)


Thank You

Dear RP88, 

        Wishing you a very Happy and Prosperous New Year. Hope all your dreams come true in 2017. Thanks for the right have granted to me.

—Indrajit Das (talk)--Indrajit Das 09:14, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Undelete file Southbank_2003

Please I would like this image undeleted https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Australianblackbelt#File:Southbank_2003.jpg Ticket#2016122410003739 OTRS email has been sent to wikimedia (Australianblackbelt (talk) 05:46, 17 January 2017 (UTC))

Australianblackbelt, if you have sent a message to OTRS regarding File:Southbank_2003.jpg an OTRS volunteer will review your submission and undelete your photo. OTRS has a large email backlog, so it may take a few weeks before they review your permission statement. Please be patient with them, OTRS is staffed entirely by volunteers. I am not a member of the OTRS team, so I can't process (or even review) your submission. —RP88 (talk) 06:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

A nice bit of food for your work. MechQuester (talk) 03:28, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Your VFC installation method is deprecated

Hello RP88, we are aware that using the old installation method of VFC (via common.js, which you are using) may not work reliably anymore and can break other scripts as well. A detailed explanation can be found here. Important: To prevent problems please remove the old VFC installation code from your common.js and instead enable the VFC gadget in your preferences. Thanks! --VFC devs (q) 16:24, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Marian_and_Vivian_Brown.jpg

Hi, this is Scott aka Russavia. Just wanted to drop you a thanks for doing the job that Jcb should have done -- reverting the damage done on numerous projects by his deletion of the above file.

Could I possibly ask you to do a small task related to the above? If you refer to User_talk:Amitie_10g/Archive/5#User_talk:Jcb.23Deletion_of_files_from_mil.ru there are 3 files which were in use on various projects which were deleted by Jcb in December 2016 and which he steadfast refuses to fix.

Please refer to:

If you wouldn't mind reverting the delinker on those 3 files that would be totally awesome.

Thanks again for going out of your way to fix Jcb's mess.

Pinging: Odder, Nick, Revent, Zhuyifei1999 Josve05a, Sealle, Ymblanter, A.Savin, Taivo, Rama, Putnik, Hedwig in Washington, Pokéfan95, Yann

125.16.244.86 06:19, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Regardless of 'who' asks, it's common sense to restore the usages of images that were undeleted. ✓ Done - Reventtalk 06:43, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Undeletion of File:Valmet 1100 tractor with 115 hp.jpg and associated files

Hi, we now have a permission statement for this file in the OTRS system (ticket #2015102610015282). Could you undelete it and its 20 or so friends so that I can mark them as OTRS permission received? Thanks! KDS4444 (talk) 11:58, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

@KDS4444: I've undeleted File:Valmet 1100 tractor with 115 hp.jpg. However, I am not an OTRS member so I can't see what other files are included in that ticket, so I don't know what other files you would like restored, particularly since the file in question was deleted ~1.5 years ago, as part of handling elapsed {{No permission since}} tags, so it is not immediately obvious to me which other files you want restored going just by memory. —RP88 (talk) 16:43, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, my apologies— I had hoped this would be simple. Allow me to track down the rest of the file names for you. KDS4444 (talk) 09:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
@KDS4444: You just sent me an email saying that you'd like to forward to me the PDF versions of the OTRS permission statements for the files you want undeleted. That is not necessary, and since I'm not an OTRS member I don't think you can share that kind of nonpublic Information with me. Just post a list of files names you need undeleted for ticket:2015102610015282 and I will be happy to undelete them for you. —RP88 (talk) 09:27, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

KDS4444 (talk) 13:25, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

It looks like these files remain deleted. Any chance you can handle them for me? Thanks! KDS4444 (talk) 18:31, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm. It looks like you haven't logged in for nearly two weeks now. Am going to go ahead and ping another admin I know, @Steinsplitter: , to ask me for some help with this— the undeletion should be pro-forma now that I have itemized what needs to be done, and I cannot do it without some assistance (and my attention span, as a rule, does not cover matters that go on for multiple weeks! Squirrel!) KDS4444 (talk) 05:55, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

@KDS4444: the above listed files has been undeleted. --Steinsplitter (talk) 07:25, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
@Steinsplitter: You are my favorite. Thank you! KDS4444 (talk) 22:27, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Otomi language

The word for the people and culture in the Otomi language is hñähñu AlejandroLinaresGarcia (talk) 14:10, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I added "Hñähnü" a couple of days ago (see Special:Diff/256201418 and Special:Diff/256202810), but I appreciate you taking the time to let me know that I guessed correctly. —RP88 (talk) 19:05, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Village pump

Feel free to delete my nudge & your response. I figured that editing your comment directly would have been out of order. - Jmabel ! talk 04:40, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Help with adding Photo - Thanks

Hi there,

I am Sonya Kitchell and would like to add a photo to my page that I own the rights to but I'm finding it quite difficult.

I appreciate your help,

Sonya — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonyakitchell (talk • contribs) 03:58, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Structured Commons focus group!

Hello! Thank you very much for signing up to the community focus group for Structured Commons :-)

How to organize ourselves?

This focus group is new and experimental, and I welcome your tips and thoughts on how we can organize this in the most convenient and productive way. For now, I have posted a few separate topics on the focus group's talk page. Please add your questions there too! If we all add that page to our watchlist, that's probably a good way to stay up to date with current discussions. Steinsplitter has also initiated a brand new IRC channel specifically for Structured Commons: wikimedia-commons-sd (webchat) which we invite you to join. Please let me know if you have other ideas on how to work together.

Current updates

Warmly, your community liaison, SandraF (WMF) (talk)

Message sent by MediaWiki message delivery - 13:34, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Regarding adding pictures on Wikipedia.

Please help me. I want to know how to add pictures on Wikipedia with correct licensing. But every time they ask for granting permission. Vikranthakur (talk) 17:26, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

@Vikranthakur: What would you like to know? I am happy to help you here on my talk page, or, if you prefer, you can ask questions at Commons:Help desk. Wikimedia Commons only accepts photos that are freely licensed. The vast majority of images found on the internet are copyright-protected and may not be uploaded (see COM:NETCOPYRIGHT for some guidelines). If you'd like to upload a photo that you did not take yourself you'll have to find one that the author has released under a free license. —RP88 (talk) 17:36, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Structured Commons focus group update, Nov 21, 2017

Hello! You are receiving this message because you signed up for the the community focus group for Structured Commons :-)

IRC office hour today, 21 November, 18.00 UTC
  • The IRC office hour about Structured Commons takes place at 18:00 UTC in wikimedia-office webchat. Amanda, Ramsey and I will give updates about the project, and you can ask us questions. The log will be published afterwards.
Tools update

Many important community tools for Commons and Wikidata will benefit from an update to structured data in the future. You can help indicate which tools will need attention:

Warmly, your community liaison SandraF (WMF) (talk) 16:27, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Erika Jayne photo

Please see edit diff at her article. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 07:01, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

It looks like Whym has deleted that photo as a copyright violation already. —RP88 (talk) 07:44, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Structured Commons focus group update, December 11, 2017

Hello! You are receiving this message because you signed up for the community focus group for Structured Commons :-)

Later this week, a full newsletter will be distributed, but you are the first to receive an update on new requests for feedback.

Three requests for feedback
  1. We received many additions to the spreadsheet that collects important Commons and Wikidata tools. Thank you! Now, you can participate in a survey that helps us understand and prioritize which tools and functionalities are most important for the Wikimedia Commons and Wikidata communities. The survey runs until December 22. Here's some background.
  2. Help the team decide on better names for 'captions' and 'descriptions'. You can provide input until January 3, 2018.
  3. Help collect interesting Commons files, to prepare for the data modelling challenges ahead! Continuous input is welcome there.

Warmly, your community liaison SandraF (WMF) (talk)

Message sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) - 16:40, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Structured Commons - Design feedback request: Multilingual Captions

Hello! You are receiving this message because you signed up for the the community focus group for Structured Data on Wikimedia Commons.

The Structured Data on Commons team has a new design feedback request up for Multilingual Captions support in the Upload Wizard. Visit the page for more information about the potential designs. Discussion and feedback is welcome there.

On a personal note, you'll see me posting many of these communications going forward for the Structured Data project, as SandraF transitions into working on the GLAM side of things for Structured Data on Commons full time. For the past six months she's been splitting time between the two roles (GLAM and Community Liaison). I'm looking forward to working with you all again. Thank you, happy editing. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 15:09, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Structured Data feedback - What gets stored where (Ontology)

Greetings,

There is a new feedback request for Structured Data on Commons (link for messages posted to Commons: , regarding what metadata from a file gets stored where. Your participation is appreciated.

Happy editing to you. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 22:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

First structured licensing conversation on Commons

Greetings,

The first conversation about structured copyright and licensing for Structured Data on Commons has been posted, please come by and participate. The discussion will be open through the end of the month (March). Thank you. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 17:26, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Unidentified people

Can you speedy close this? Artix Kreiger (talk) 02:55, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I'll do it when I finish with Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Unidentified men. —RP88 (talk) 02:56, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi RP88, you're "keeping" files that have never been nominated for deletion. Sealle (talk) 04:55, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
@Sealle: I'm keeping the ones listed at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Unidentified men per my "kept" close, but not all of the files listed at that DR had a delete template added to their file description due to the nominator being blocked somewhere in the midst of the DR nomination. —RP88 (talk) 04:59, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
There is no need to do this. Reverting is enough. Sealle (talk) 05:02, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
@Sealle: Did you sweep through and revert all of the nominations? At the time I started processing the keep no one had, but if you've done so I'll consider the job done. —RP88 (talk) 05:06, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I did. COM:VFC makes this almost instantaneous. Sealle (talk) 05:10, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Multilingual captions testing is available

Greetings,

The early prototype for multilingual caption support is available for testing. More information on how to sign up to test is on Commons. Thanks, happy editing to you. - Keegan (WMF) (talk) 17:06, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Structured Data on Commons IRC Office Hour, Tuesday 26 June

Greetings,

There will be an IRC office hour for Structured Data on Tuesday, 26 June from 18:00-19:00 UTC in #wikimedia-office. You can find more details, as well as date and time conversion, at the IRC Office Hours page on Meta.

Thanks, I look forward to seeing you there if you can make it. -- Keegan (talk) 20:54, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

What properties does Commons need?

Greetings,

Structured Commons will need properties to make statements about files. The development team is working on making the software ready to support properties; the question is, what properties does Commons need?

You can find more information and examples to help find properties in a workshop on Commons. Please participate and help fill in the list, and let me know if you have any questions. Thanks! -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 18:53, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Structured Data feedback - Depicts statements draft requirements

Greetings,

A slide presentation of the draft requirements for depicts statements on file pages is up on Commons. Please visit this page on Commons to review the slides and discuss the draft. Thank you, see you on the talk page. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 21:20, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Structured Data feedback - structured licensing and copyright

Mockups of structured licensing and copyright statements on file pages are posted. Please have a look over the examples and leave your feedback on the talk page. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 20:32, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

New discussion on Commons talk:Structured data

Hello. I've started a new, important discussion about creating properties for Commons on Wikidata. Please come join in, if the process is something that interests you or if you can help. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 16:48, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Structured Data - upcoming changes to viewing old file page revisions

How old revisions of file pages work are likely going to have to change for structured data. There is information about the change on the SDC hub talk page, please read it over and leave feedback if you have any. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 15:30, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Structured Data - IRC office hours today, 4 October

There will be an IRC office hour for Structured Data on Commons today, 4 October 2018, from 17:00-18:00 UTC in #wikimedia-office. You can find date/time conversion, as well as a link to join the chat in your browser if needed, on the IRC Office hours page on Meta. I look forward to seeing you there. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 05:49, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Structured Data - search prototype

There is a search prototype for structured data on Commons available. Please visit the search prototype page on the structured data hub for information on testing and feedback. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 19:07, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Structured Data - IRC office hour today, 1 November

There will be an IRC office hour for Structured Data on Commons today, 1 October 2018, from 17:00-18:00 UTC in #wikimedia-office. You can find date/time conversion, as well as a link to join the chat in your browser if needed, on the IRC Office hours page on Meta. I realize this may be short notice for some people; I am experimenting with advanced notice times to see what works best for the most people, I'll be giving more warning before the next office hour. I look forward to seeing you there. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 16:02, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Structured Data - IRC office hour today, 1 November

The above message says 1 October in the body when it should say 1 November, as the subject line says. Apologies for making a new section by mass message, it's the only way to get this out quickly. See you in twenty minutes! -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 16:37, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Structured Data - copyright and licensing statements

I've posted a second round of designs for modeling copyright and licensing in structured data. These redesigns are based off the feedback received in the first round of designs, and the development team is looking for more discussion. These designs are extremely important for the Commons community to review, as they deal with how copyright and licensing is translated from templates into structured form. I look forward to seeing you over there. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 16:25, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Followup on Community policy for 3D object uploads

Hello, I saw your response to the request from WMF legal about 3D objects. I appreciate the response and your proposal seems pretty straight forward. A question I have for you. How do you propose going about making those suggested changes? Do you think it's worth adding a post on the relevant talk page? As to perhaps spur more conversation that what we saw on the Village pump. Any thoughts you have would be appreciated. CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 17:04, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Multilingual captions beta testing

The Structured Data on Commons team has begun beta testing of the first feature, multilingual file captions, and all community members are invited to test it out. Captions is based on designs discussed with the community[2][3] and the team is looking forward to hearing about testing. If all goes well during testing, captions will be turned on for Commons around the second week of January, 2019.

Multilingual captions are plain text fields that provide brief, easily translatable details of a file in a way that is easy to create, edit, and curate. Captions are added during the upload process using the UploadWizard, or they can be added directly on any file page on Commons. Adding captions in multiple languages is a simple process that requires only a few steps.

The details:

  • There is a help page available on how to use multilingual file captions.
  • Testing will take place on Beta Commons. If you don’t yet have an account set up there, you’ll need one.
  • Beta Commons is a testbed, and not configured exactly like the real Commons site, so expect to see some discrepancies with user interface (UI) elements like search.
  • Structured Data introduces the potential for many important page changes to happen at once, which could flood the recent changes list. Because of this, Enhanced Recent Changes is enabled as it currently is at Commons, but with some UI changes.
  • Feedback and commentary on the file caption functionality are welcome and encouraged on the discussion page for this post.
  • Some testing has already taken place and the team are aware of some issues. A list of known issues can be seen below.
  • If you discover a bug/issue that is not covered in the known issues, please file a ticket on Phabricator and tag it with the “Multimedia” tag. Use this link to file a new task already tagged with "Multimedia."

Known issues:

Thanks!

-- Keegan (WMF) (talk), for the Structured Data on Commons Team 20:42, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Structured Data - file captions coming this week (January 2019)

Hi all, following up on last month's announcement...

Multilingual file captions will be released this week, on either Wednesday, 9 November or Thursday, 10 November 2019. Captions are a feature to add short, translatable descriptions to files. Here's some links you might want to look follow before the release, if you haven't already:

  1. Read over the help page for using captions - I wrote the page on mediawiki.org because captions are available for any MediaWiki user, feel free to host/modify a copy of the page here on Commons.
  2. Test out using captions on Beta Commons.
  3. Leave feedback about the test on the captions test talk page, if you have anything you'd like to say prior to release.

Additionally, there will be an IRC office hour on Thursday, 10 January with the Structured Data team to talk about file captions, as well as anything else the community may be interested in. Date/time conversion, as well as a link to join, are on Meta.

Thanks for your time, I look forward to seeing those who can make it to the IRC office hour on Thursday. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 20:22, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Structured Data - development update, March 2019

This text is also posted on the Structured Data hub talk page. You can reply there with questions, comments, or concerns.

A development update for the current work by the Structured Data on Commons team:

After the release of multilingual file captions, work began on getting depicts and other statements ready for release. These were originally scheduled for release in February and into March, however there are currently two major blockers to finishing this work (T215642, T217157). We will know more next week about when depicts and statements can likely be ready for testing and then release; until then I've tentatively updated the release schedule.

Once the depicts feature is ready for testing, it will take place in two stages on TestCommons. The first is checking the very basics; is the design comfortable, how does the simple workflow of adding/editing/removing statements work, and building up help and process pages from there. The second part is a more detailed test of depicts and other statements, checking the edge-case examples of using the features, bugs that did not come up during simple testing, etc. Additionally we'll be looking with the community for bugs in interaction with bots, gadgets, and other scripts once the features are live on Commons. Please let me know if you're interesting in helping test and fix these bugs if they show up upon release, it is really hard to find them in a test environment or, in some cases, bugs won't show up in a testing environment at all.

One new thing is definitely coming within the next few weeks, pending testing: the ability to search for captions. This is done using the inlabel keyword in search strings, and will be the first step in helping users find content that is specifically structured data. I'll post a notice when that feature is live and ready for use.

Thanks, let me know if you have questions about these plans. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 21:34, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Structured Data - early depicts testing

The Structured Data on Commons development team has the very basic version of depicts statements available for early testing on Test-Commons. You can add very basic depicts statements to the file page by going into the new “Structured Data” tab located below the "Open in Media Viewer button." You can use the Latest Files link in the left side nav bar to select existing images, or use the UploadWizard to upload new ones to test with (although those images won’t actually show up on the site). The test site is not a fully functional replica of Commons, so there may be some overall problems in using the site, but you should be able to get a general idea of what using the feature is like.

Early next week I will call for broad, community-wide testing of the feature similar to what we did for Captions, with instructions for testing, known bugs, and a dedicated space to discuss the feature as well as a simple help page for using statements. Until then, you're welcome to post on the SDC talk page with what you might find while testing depicts.

Thanks in advance for trying it out, you'll be hearing more from me next week. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 21:59, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Structured Data - testing qualifiers for depicts

As you might have seen, testing is underway for adding qualifiers to depicts statements. If you have not left feedback already, the Structured Data on Commons development team is very interested in hearing about your experience using qualifiers on the file page and in the UploadWizard. To get started you can visit Test-Commons and chose a random file to test out, or upload your own file to try out the UploadWizard. Questions, comments, and concerns can be left on the Structured data talk page and the team will address them as best as they can. Thank you for your time. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 19:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Structured Data on Commons - IRC office hours this week, 18 July

The Structured Data team is hosting an IRC office hour this week on Thursday, 18 July, from 17:00-18:00 UTC. Joining information as well as date and time conversion is available on Meta. Potential topics for discussion are the testing of "other statements", properties that may need to be created for Commons on Wikidata soon, plans for the rest of SDC development, or whatever you might want to discuss. The development team looks forward to seeing you there. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 18:51, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Structured Data - testing other statements

You can now test using other statements for structured data on the file page on Test-Commons. Some datatypes are not yet available, such a coordinates, but further support will be extended soon. You can find more information about testing on the SDC talk page. The team looks forward to your feedback. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 16:41, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

De-adminship warning (Aug 2019)

This talk page in other languages:

Dear RP88. I am writing to inform you that you are in danger of losing your adminship on Commons because of inactivity.

If you want to keep your adminship, you need both to sign at Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section/Aug-Sep 2019 within 30 days of today's date, and also to make at least five further admin actions in the following six months. Anyone who does not do so will automatically lose administrator rights.

You can read the de-admin policy at Commons:Administrators/De-adminship. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:33, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Structured Data - computer-aided tagging

The development team is starting work on one of the last planned features for SDC v1.0, a lightweight tool to suggest depicts tags for images. I've published a project page for it, please have a look. I plan to share this page with everyone on Commons much more broadly in the coming days. The tool has been carefully designed to try to not increase any workload on Commons volunteers; for starters, it will be opt-in for auto-confirmed users only and will not generate any sort of backlog here on Commons. Additionally, the tool is highly privacy-minded for the contributors and publicly-minded for the third party being used, in this case Google. The implementation and usage notes contain more information about these and other potential concerns as a starting place. It's really important that the tool is implemented properly from the start, so feedback is welcome. Questions, comments, concerns are welcome on the talk page and I will get answers as quickly as possible as things come up. On the talk page you can also sign up to make sure you're a part of the feedback for designs and prototype testing. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 17:57, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Structured Data - modeling data

As you may have seen, there are community discussions underway on how to best model structured data on Commons.

Direct links to pages created so far:

Please visit and participate in topics you might be interested in when you get some time. Thanks. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 19:39, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Structured Data - computer-aided tagging designs

I've published a design consultation for the computer-aided tagging tool. Please look over the page and participate on the talk page. If you haven't read over the project page, it might be helpful to do so first. The tool will hopefully be ready by the end of this month (October 2019), so timely feedback is important. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 18:09, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

1923 to expired

As an administrator, do you believe that replacing translations of templates using the former "1923" names with the current "US-expired" names is a worthy effort? -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 16:51, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

@Brainulator9: As an ongoing effort, the Commons community is updating references to the PD-1923 template (and related templates, categories, etc.) to reference the new names (e.g. PD-US-expired) that don't assume a publication date of 1923 is the boundary date for US copyright expiration. I think the most visible uses have already been fixed, but undoubtedly there are still lots of locations remaining that use the misleading 1923 names. If this effort interests you, please feel free to contribute. —RP88 (talk) 17:25, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
@RP88: Thanks! This applies to all namespaces that are not archived discussions, right? -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 18:33, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
That is a good rough summary, obviously you still want to use good judgement when making edits. As you say, you should avoid updating user comments on discussion pages to use the new names. Similarly, avoid editing text that is quoting someone else, such as close captioned content in the TimedText namespace that mentions an old template name (for example, a transcribed video of a WMF session on how to contribute to Commons). With regards to priority, documentation and documentation-like objects (such as visible explanatory text in templates or categories) are higher priority. Lower priority are things not directly visible, such as tracking categories or nested use of template redirects. Updating the File namespace is fine, particularly when updating a page for an additional reason or if the File is prominent for some reason (like linked from en.WP main page), but given the vast number of File pages using the old names, your time is probably best spent elsewhere (systematic updates to the File namespace is probably best done with automation). —RP88 (talk) 19:15, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
That makes sense. Thank you! I've been mostly working on templates since those affect lots of files by proxy. As an aside, may I request relevant updates to pages found under Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Use-PD-1923-warning as well as {{PD-old-100-expired}}? Thanks in advance for that, too. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 14:11, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
✓ Done —RP88 (talk) 19:12, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
One last thing: {{PD-old-100-expired}} is stilling using {{PD-old-X-1923}} for the body. Thanks. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 19:14, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Good eye, done as well. —RP88 (talk) 19:20, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for all of that! Have a nice day! -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 19:23, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

OK, another thing: I replaced {{PD-old-90-1923}} with {{PD-old-auto-expired}} on File:Mauprat (Heinemann) Plate 1.jpg and File:Mauprat (Heinemann) Plate 2.jpg but that was reverted. Discussion stalled out on my talk page; any thoughts on what I should do? -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 00:14, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@Brainulator9: It is not clear to me why that editor thinks replacing {{PD-old-90-1923}} with {{PD-old-auto-expired}} will lose information. I agree with you, assuming the death year of the author is known, PD-old-auto-expired is the better choice. There currently aren't any counties with a copyright term of life+90, so PD-old-auto-expired is correctly claiming PD in countries where the copyright term is life+80 years or fewer for an author who died in 1928. On 1 January 2024 works by this author will be PD in Jamaica (which is life+95) and while PD-old-auto-expired will automatically show this PD-old-90-1923 would at that point be less accurate. If before then one or more countries were to adopt a term of life+90, PD-old-auto-expired would be updated and all affected files using that tag would show the correct result. So either way PD-old-auto-expired is superior to PD-old-90-1923/PD-old-90-expired.
However, if you can't convince them PD-old-auto-expired is acceptable, it should be fine to replace PD-old-90-1923 with PD-old-90-expired to remove the redirect — it looks the same so they shouldn't have any objections. While I think PD-old-90-expired is inferior to PD-old-auto-expired in this case, it is not currently incorrect and probably not worth your time arguing over. Maybe also set a reminder in your calendar for 1 January 2024 to update these two files to use PD-old-auto-expired when PD-old-90-1923/PD-old-90-expired will no longer be correct :-). —RP88 (talk) 10:45, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
I just pushed through anyway, since I imagine PD-old-90-expired can be deleted very soon as less than 60 files use that tag currently. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 15:38, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Commons - Media Search

Greetings,

The Structured Data team is working on an alternative, image-focused prototype for media search on Commons. The prototype uses categories, structured data as well as wikitext from Commons, and Wikidata to find its results. The development team would like your feedback on the prototype, as they are looking to work to further enhance the search experience on Commons. If you have a moment, please look over the project page set up on Commons to find a link to the prototype and leave your feedback on the talk page. Thanks for your time, I'll be posting message similar to this one to other pages on Commons. The team is looking forward to reading what you think. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 20:47, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Commons - Media Sarch, new feedback round

Greetings,

I'm following up on a message from earlier in the year about the prototype development for Special:MediaSearch. Based on community feedback, the Structured Data team has developed some new features for Special:MediaSearch and are seeking another round of comments and discussions about the tool. Commons:Structured_data/Media_search is updated with details about the new features plus some other development information, and feedback is welcome on Commons talk:Structured_data/Media_search. Media Search works in any language, so the team would especially appreciate input around support for languages other than English. I look forward to reading about what you think. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 20:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RP88/Archive_1&oldid=578719425"