Commons:Village pump

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from Commons:Village Pump)
Jump to: navigation, search


  Welcome to Commons   Community Portal   Help Desk
Upload help
  Village Pump
copyright • proposals
  Administrators' Noticeboard
vandalism • user problems • blocks and protections
 
↓ Skip to table of contents ↓       ↓ Skip to discussions ↓       ↓ Skip to the last discussion ↓
This project page in other languages:

বাংলা | Alemannisch | العربية | asturianu | авар | Boarisch | bosanski | български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | فارسی | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 |  | 한국어 | Lëtzebuergesch | македонски | मराठी | Nederlands | norsk bokmål | occitan | polski | português | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | српски / srpski | suomi | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | Zazaki | українська | +/−

Welcome to the Village pump

This Wikimedia Commons page is used for discussions of the operations, technical issues, and policies of Wikimedia Commons. For old discussions, see the Archive. Recent sections with no replies for 3 days may be archived.

Please note


  1. If you want to ask why unfree/non-commercial material is not allowed at Wikimedia Commons or if you want to suggest that allowing it would be a good thing please do not comment here. It is a waste of your time. One of Wikimedia Commons' basic principles is: "Only free content is allowed." This is just a basic rule of the place, as inherent as the NPOV requirement on all Wikipedias.
  2. Have you read the FAQ?
  3. For changing the name of a file see Commons:File renaming.
  4. Any answers you receive here are not legal advice and the responder cannot be held liable for them. If you have legal questions, we can try to help but our answers cannot replace those of a qualified professional (i.e. a lawyer).
  5. Your question will be answered here; please check back regularly. Please do not leave your email address or other contact information, as this page is widely visible across the internet and you are liable to receive spam.

Purposes which do not meet the scope of this page


Search archives


 


Stone village pump in Rinnen village (pop. 380), Germany [add]
Centralized discussion
See also: Village pump/Proposals • Archive

Template: View • Discuss • Edit • Watch




Oldies[edit]

W.W.11[edit]

If there is anyone who would like to know what it was like growing up during the blitz in London drop me a line I was originally a Gael then moved to London so that my Pappa could work at Bletchley Park then on from there I warn you I can chat the hind leg off a donkey! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roberta Adair-Denham (talk • contribs) 00:45, 19 September 2014‎

Chinese mainpage[edit]

These pages have been diligently licensed with sub-licences of the included works. But then newer versions of the page have been uploaded. (And one of the works deleted, albeit for a valid reason - which means that the historical versions of the Chinese main pages won't work.)

Any solutions? Rich Farmbrough, 16:17 29 October 2014 (GMT).

Choosing trancode-able videos[edit]

I have been looking at uploading videos from YouTube. They are often available with a 640px-wide webm version which works perfectly well on Commons. However when I upload higher resolution versions in webm, such as at 1280x720px these are playable at full size but the in-built transcoding so that we have transcludable versions at lower resolution falls over.

Is there a way of fixing this, or do we accept this as a limitation of the wiki-software as it exists today?

As an example, File:Gleðiganga Hinsegin daga 2014 Reykjavik Pride 2014.webm works fine, however the original fullsize version here is not suitable. -- (talk) 12:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

it has nothing to do with dimensions. The larger file is in a different format than the smaller. A webm file can contain two different types of video data (vp8 or vp9) and two different types of audio (vorbis or opus). Wikimedia uses really old software (libav 0.8.12. Ideally we would use 10) that only supports vp8 and vorbis (supposedly things are in the process of updating, but people have been saying that for a while now, but unfortunately the version people want to update to is still too old to play vp9 [but will play opus audio, which is also becoming more common, even if not used in your file]. However once its updated we may have more options with other programs like gstreamer. Maybe. Not 100% clear). The large version of the file uses vp9 and vorbis so the video content cannot be recognized by wikimedia servers (i say wikimedia not mediawiki because the mediawiki part can handle things just fine).Bawolff (talk) 17:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation, knowing the limitations of the wiki should make this possible to work around, even if the right format is not available from Youtube. Now I just have to puzzle over whether my cruddy old kit is up to re-coding video on the fly without leaving it glitchy or taking all day to handle it. Smile fasdfdsfoiueire.svg -- (talk) 18:14, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Practical example of a government supplied Magna Carta video.
For those unaware of what this means, the Magna Carta video (left) is available in VP9 encoding from Youtube. Having to recode it to VP8 and reupload took my old machine about 2 hours. In the same time I could have uploaded six or seven times as much content if the wiki could take the newer formats. Basically uploading freely available video in a way that works usefully, is made just a bit too time-consuming and complex for most volunteers; including me Smile fasdfdsfoiueire.svg -- (talk) 00:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Not to mention that VP9 is a technically supperior format. Ideally we would want the content in VP9. Bawolff (talk) 00:11, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
CreativeCommons in numbers, infografik D64 2014 VIDEOS
Hi Bawolff, very good information! Would be great if you could add it to Commons:YouTube files :-) There is also the new videoconvert-tool by user:Prolineserver: Convert video to Webm on Wikimedia Labs, login using Wikimedia Commons Oauth, limitation to 1000MB (but there seem to be some problems, see User_talk:Prolineserver). --Atlasowa (talk) 19:32, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Note that the version of libav on tool labs is 0.8.16, so unless Prolineserver manually installed/compiled his own (Which he very well might have, I have no idea if he did), that video conversion tool won't be able to recognize VP9 files. Bawolff (talk) 23:44, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
@Atlasowa: One interesting thing I'd note, that roughly in the 9 months since that graphic was made (I'm using numbers from Feb 23 [1] instead of from graphic as its unclear from what time period the graphic is getting numbers from, but its metadata says feb 28 even though its using numbers lower than what commons had on that date), the number of videos on commons has grown by 27% (currently 52,653). For comparison, in the same time period, the number of images has only increased 17%. Bawolff (talk) 01:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
+27% is impressive, @Bawolff: :-) Comparing Commons:MIME type statistics of 2014-02-23 and 2014-10-31:
.ogg video has grown from 36,227 to 42,441 and
.webm video has grown from 5,371 to 9,747 files.
A lot of the ogg-videos come from User:Open Access Media Importer Bot (17,843 files since July 2012). That makes the growth of webm-videos even more impressive (WebM video format only was accepted since November 2012 on commons). Thanks for the bugzilla link! --Atlasowa (talk) 15:56, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
BTW, here is a RSS-feed of new webm-videos: Obama weekly, russian GetAClass-project, railway, politics, WMF meetings, animal video donated by user:Beeld en Geluid Collecties etc.
And rotting tomatoes - so i am not the onlyone uploading rotting vegetables to Commons, yay!  :-)) --Atlasowa (talk) 16:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
For the Open Access Media Importer, we are actually considering to switch to WebM eventually. It depends in part on technical development on our ends, but progress towards full support for WebM on the Wikimedia end would help move this forward. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 22:38, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
See also:

Again about grey or gray categories[edit]

This was archived, but the matter is unsolved. As I explained / apologized yesterday to a fellow user envolved in random a/e swapping, «changing »« "gray" »to or from« "grey" is trivial, but we’d be going fruitlessly back and forth if a stable terminological agreement »« is not reached first.» So, please, lets do it.

This is not foremost a matter of US/UK bickering, not here in Commons (as opposed to in the English Wikipedia, I guess). English in Commons is a conventional commodity not an identitary trait. While arguing that UK-ers would be giving away something precious if "gray" is accepted and that US-ers would be giving away something precious if "grey" is accepted, please understand that everybody else is constantly going an extra mile than both of you while using either flavor of English.

I frankly don’t care which it is, as I suspect most non-native English speakers here do, but we need only one word for this one notion. (And no, it doesn’t need to be the same side that gets chosen in every cases for these UK/US variants in category names — I’d be perfectly happy with something like "[[Category:Mushrooms by co̲lor|Gre̲y]]", provided it is stable and unvariant.)

-- Tuválkin 13:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

An old en:w: rule was, that editors are supposed to follow any already used valid style. A humorous IETF rule for RFCs was, that the shorter spelling wins, but I don't recall how they'd handle a tie. Toss a coin and redirect the loser. –Be..anyone (talk) 15:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Wasn't there a (small) consensus in favour of grey in that archived thread? Hereby "adding" myself to it per reasons given.    FDMS  4    16:54, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
"I frankly don’t care which it is, as I suspect most non-native English speakers here do" – not all, some have a strong preference for classical (i. e. British) English. But possibly some have the opposite, I dunno... YLSS (talk) 17:38, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
In the absence of other good reasons to choose one over the other I suggest going with the current majority, which seems to be grey (with approximately a 2:1 majority). --Dschwen (talk) 20:21, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I'd go with grey for two reasons, one is that the English Wikipedia page is en:Grey, and two is that in the lead it says: "Grey is the dominant spelling in European and Commonwealth English... Gray has been the preferred American spelling... although grey is an accepted variant." We can cite precedence by conforming to ENWP's naming convention on the matter. However, how is this going to be enforced? Will Category:Gray be moved??? ColonialGrid (talk) 03:19, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I'd support either as well. Although the "use any valid style" usually works, there are issues here if we aren't consistent. After Tuválkin reverted some edits of mine (I'd been working on non-empty category redirects), I found at least one place where one template used "gray" and another used "grey" for the same kinds of things, so a template change would have been needed whichever spelling was used. As a temporary measure, I manually added some categories that normally would be added by a template, just to get the media into the non-redirect category. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:56, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
My two penn'orth - if you look at Web_colors#X11_color_names (spelt like that), you will see all the grey/gray colo(u)rs except one are spelt 'gray'. Notice too that DarkGray is lighter than Gray and DimGray is darker than both of them! --Unbuttered Parsnip (talk) 06:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
The X11 rgb.txt isn't a dictionary, they made it up as they went, because everybody armed with a text editor could modify it. At some point in time Netscape 3 insisted on a for some greys, and e for other grays. It was hilarious; not a good example. ;-) –Be..anyone (talk) 07:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I support grey, because gray just looks wrong to me. Kiltpin (talk) 19:46, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Conflicting license on Flickr[edit]

Hi, on this photo (File:Secretary Bids Farewell to Indonesian President During Inaugural Ceremonies (15395677629).jpg), I found two sources on Flickr with two different license, the other isn't compatible with Commons:

How do we deal with this?

Also, I just found out that you can't find public domain images on Flickr, even though they exist (as demonstrated by the example above). Bennylin (yes?) 15:41, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Bennylin the US State Department has instructed their embassies to licence their works on Flickr under CC-BY-ND. But as the work of the US Government they are indeed {{PD-USGov-DOS}}. The whole Jakarta embassy stream can be uploaded to Commons, but it would need to be done with a bot. russavia (talk) 16:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Could we then make a derivative of that picture or not? Bennylin (yes?) 16:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
I've just sent an email to the @usembassyjakarta account requesting these three images to be uploaded under Commons copyright. So, can I upload these three images with {{PD-USGov}} then?
Bennylin (yes?) 16:26, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Bennylin yes you can do so. russavia (talk) 23:01, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Global AbuseFilter[edit]

Hello, I have noticed this RFC on meta about a Global AbuseFilter. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:04, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. Is that something like what "you" (the BOFH crowd) have on COM:AN? Some uninvited accusations of edit warring by an apparently undocumented filter without bug report address for a perfectly harmless comment had me to edit my raw watchlist for the first time ever, removing everything remotely related to COM:AN. –Be..anyone (talk) 16:15, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Like accusations of fascism, accusations of BOFH are self-disproving, because if they were BOFH, your ass would be gone in an instant for making the claim. But, good job finding a way to attack members of the Commons community in response to something going on Meta.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:13, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
The operator in this case would know, that an unrelated "thanks" on his page followed by a BOFH here shouldn't be a convoluted personal attack, but any operator might have something to say about the weird abuse filter here. BOFH is BTW no attack, it's a joke. –Be..anyone (talk) 14:07, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Is there a Category or Template for missing/incorrect original creation date?[edit]

Hi folks, I'm somewhat new to the mechanics of wikicommons, so forgive me: I've come across some photographs that appear to be have been taken in the 1960s or 70s, but the date listed is the date of uploading (e.g. 2013). I've notified the uploader to request they add the original date of creation (even if approximate, i.e. to decade or "circa 19xx"), but got to wondering if there is a template one could place that states "the original creation date is missing or likely incorrect: please add the original date", and adds the file to an "incorrect creation date" category. Or is there some other way to indicate the original date is lacking? Thanks. Animalparty (talk) 22:15, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Very often, even an approximate original creation date is just unknown, therefore I don't think there should be a maintenance template or category for such files. Instead, in my opinion, the date parameter should be optional in {{information}}.    FDMS  4    22:27, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure about optional, since date is often critical in establishing PD status (even if the date listed is incorrect). Date is a required field during the Upload Wizard, with the note "Date work was created or first published", but perhaps this is often ignored (note: I currently have no evidence, not even anecdotally, that incorrect file dates are a significant problem). Animalparty (talk) 23:52, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
I think a template would be useful. The information template can categorise as date missing, we want one for date disputed. For instance I know a lot of photos of UK railways which are uploaded from a flickr account with criminally incorrect metadata. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:10, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
An approximate creation date is always known. There's no license tag you can add without an approximate creation date, and most photographs can be dated with internal evidence to at least within about 30 years.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
An approximate creation date can usually be deduced to withing 30 years for many works, but for large number of files nobody bothered. Also dates for some old artworks of anonymous artists might not be known. --Jarekt (talk) 19:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

November 16[edit]

copyright problem[edit]

This picture: File:StalloneGreaser.jpg is a screenshot from a 1974 movie. I don't see how it could possibly be CC-licensed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.124.215 (talk • contribs)

@69.255.124.215: It was tagged as copyvio, so it shall be removed in any moment. Allan J. Aguilar (Ralgis) 18:52, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata property for Institution templates[edit]

There is now a Wikidata property, P1612, for institution templates.

For example, Q12403 has property P1612, with the value of "Royal Birmingham Society of Artists", referring to Institution:Royal Birmingham Society of Artists. Andy Mabbett (talk) 21:44, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

November 18[edit]

File:Jennifer S Fonstad.jpg[edit]

File was uploaded as own work by Kathrynshourds, but it appears to be a cropped version of this,this and this credited to a Talia Hermann. It's possible Kathyrnshourds and Talia Hearman are the same, but not sure and there's no OTRS permission posted saying they are or that permission to use the image has be granted if they are not. - Marchjuly (talk) 06:58, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

  • I nominated it for speedy deletion. --Juggler2005 (talk) 07:22, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

November 19[edit]

Software recognition of image content[edit]

Deep Visual-Semantic Alignments for Generating Image Descriptions ( an unfortunately vague title) describes software which an recognise and describe the content of images. If reliable, this would be a great boon for Wikimedia Commons, especially when we have a large donations of undocumented images. Andy Mabbett (talk) 21:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

@DrTrigon: DrTrigonBot attempted something similar. But at least I guess they will be very interested in this topic. -- Rillke(q?) 22:31, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, he continued where I left off at User:Multichill/Using OpenCV to categorize files. If better open software is available to assist us here, it might be fun to see if we can do a test with that. Multichill (talk) 10:49, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
I've never seen DrTrigonBot do anything other than dump a butt-load of ugly and useless numbers onto image description pages, and add Category:Graphics, so probably a program wouldn't have to be too powerful to do better than that... AnonMoos (talk) 13:29, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

November 20[edit]

Community Liaison job openings at WMF[edit]

Hello, everyone, There are currently two job openings on my team, and I thought someone from Commons might be interested.

  • Community Liaison: This person will initially focus on working with the mw:Flow team and on mw:VisualEditor with the Editing team, mostly at non-English wikis. However, a lot of smaller or short-term tasks come up, too, so someone who is adaptable and interested in all aspects of WMF products and features would be a good candidate. (Bonus points if you have edited a lot on a non-English project and put your username in your application.)
  • Community Liaison (Part time contract): This part-time person will primarily work with the Mobile teams. (Bonus points if you have used the Mobile app or edited from a mobile device.)

Please pass these links along, if you know someone who might be interested or a good fit. Thanks! Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 00:13, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Nasa just published some awesome computer models of CO2 emissions[edit]

Let me know if anyone needs help converting these [2] I use Firefogg on Firefox. These are all public domain.Victorgrigas (talk) 06:18, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Bug when linking to sub-pages of categories[edit]

I may have discovered a bug, and would appreciate a sanity check, please, before I raise a ticket; as well as help with a work-around

On Category:Foo, if I create a link to a sub-page;

[[/subpage]]

MediaWiki tries to add the page to the category Category:Foo/subpage

but if I use a colon:

[[:/subpage]]

then the link goes to the page /Foo.

Is this expected?

I wanted to make a template, for use on many pages, in various namespeaces, so I guess:

[[{{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}/Foo]] is the answer - but how do I add a colon when required? Andy Mabbett (talk) 13:50, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
I guess it kind of makes sense - ':' is supposed to denote main namespace (e.g when doing {{:foo}} syntax), in addition to the make category/file links normal, albeit its rather confusing in this case. Doing [[:{{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}/Foo]] should work even in the Main namespace case I believe. Bawolff (talk) 03:47, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
That seems to work. Thank you.

November 21[edit]

Bill Cosby 77[edit]

Can this image from this source http://www.netflix.com/WiMovie/80009007

be uploaded here to Wikimedia Commons with license {{PD-ineligible}} ?

Thank you for your time,

-- Cirt (talk) 04:04, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I hestitate, but I think no. It's not simple geometry, more complex gradients. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:20, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
It's hard to compare it against the Best Western standard, or against the Myst/D'ni alphabet standard... -- AnonMoos (talk) 13:33, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
AnonMoos what do you mean by that? -- Cirt (talk) 15:48, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
File:Best Western logo.svg and File:D'ni Letters Vs Numerals.png are images of designs which are verified uncopyrightable under United States law, but they don't have the same type of visual effects as the Cosby77 image. AnonMoos (talk) 22:12, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Ah okay I see. I guess I'll stick with the fair-use image on en.wikipedia, then, and not upload it here to Commons. -- Cirt (talk) 22:43, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Global OTRS members[edit]

Looks like meta's global OTRS-member userright is assigned to all OTRS agents who has access to permissions queue. (example: Special:CentralAuth/-revi and m:Special:Log/gblrights) Should we remove local rights here and rely on meta's list? — Revi 04:48, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

No. -- (talk) 06:13, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
OTRS-membership is not linked to any specific wiki (AFAIK) so I am surprised that we keep track of it as a local right is there any reason to keep track of it locally? --Jarekt (talk) 14:06, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
That could change in the future Jarekt. russavia (talk) 21:31, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Builder of ITX-Saemaeul trains[edit]

I created the category:ITX-Saemaeul and I would like to classify this traintype to a train building compagny. However I have find it dificult to find the information on internet. Could somebody help me? Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you ask at en:WT:TRAINS. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:21, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
@Smiley.toerist: It's Hyundai Rotem, according to this page (KOREAN). — Revi 13:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
And according to Wikidata (d:Q13707875), no enwiki article for ITX-Samaeul. — Revi 13:33, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks: I am confused with the statement: average speed of 150 kilometers per hour. What is the maximum speed? If more than 200km/u the train should be reclassified as High Speed and I suppose it would use parts off the High Speed line.Smiley.toerist (talk) 17:55, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
I have to check some technical docs to check details (speed), but I am sure that ITX-Saemaeul does not use High Speed line - it is only reserved for KTX-I (french one) and/or KTX-Sancheon (aka KTX-II, Hyundai Rotem too.). Original Saemaeul used traditional line, and since ITX-Saemaeul is replacement of it, I am sure ITX-saemaeul uses non-High Speed line. — Revi 18:06, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I try to add the statement (Commons Category) in Wikidata but (ITX-Saemaeul) is refused as input? What did I do wrong?Smiley.toerist (talk) 18:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Global usage up to date for Wikidata[edit]

Hi everyone, some time ago image usage tracking was enabled on Wikidata. It works the same as using images on normal wiki pages. The table tracking this usage wasn't updated after enabling this feature so about 350.000 items on Wikidata were using images from Commons, but this usage didn't show up here. At the recent Amsterdam hackathon I started a bot to purge the links on these items. Bot is done and everything seems to be up to date now. See for example the usage at this image. Multichill (talk) 10:44, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Yay! Thanks Maarten :) Jean-Fred (talk) 11:52, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Great --Jarekt (talk) 13:48, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, and thanks for putting so much personal effort into the hackerthon hosted by WMNL. Though the focus was on Wikidata, there have been several excellent spin-offs that benefit those of us who mainly volunteer as Commons contributors. Smile fasdfdsfoiueire.svg -- (talk) 12:09, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Standardising template display[edit]

The three templates:

used on Category:Anglo-Belgian War Memorial (London) (and no doubt other, similar templates) all have different styles and widths. It would be good to standardise these. But how? Andy Mabbett (talk) 12:58, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that many of the templates used in the Category namespace are mostly the same templates as used in the file namespace, in different positions. For example we have:
Most category descriptions do not need many templates, others like people categories can be fully described by {{Creator}} template. One exception are categories related to places. Maybe we need a category infobox template to organize / combine various other templates that can be associated with them, like {{Object location}} and {{Authority control}} Institution template, Monument template and {{Wikidata}}. We could also create a flat maintenance category Category:Places by name analogous to Category:People by name. --Jarekt (talk) 13:45, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Fakery categories[edit]

I have added Category:Fake steam locomotives and a fake sailing ship to Category:Fakes. These objects function (go to sea, ride) but as they suposed to do. Are there any other examples?Smiley.toerist (talk) 21:20, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, there are also fake paddle steamers such as Category:Louisiana Star (ship, 1999). This is a boat with diesel engines and using propeller propulsion, the stern wheel is just for looks and doesn't serve a real purpose (see also de:Louisiana Star in the German Wikipedia). I would only classify "steamers" of this type as a fake; there are also non-steamers where the paddle wheels at least serve as the real means of propulsion, such as Category:Herrsching (ship, 2002) - in this case, two diesel engines (not a steam engine) drive the sidewheels. I wouldn't call that a "fake", though such ships/boats are often wrongly called "steamers". Gestumblindi (talk) 00:59, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

November 22[edit]

access to data on Wikidata is coming on Dec 2nd[edit]

Hey everyone :)

I've been asked to enable access to the data on Wikidata for Commons. I'm happy to make that happen. We'll enable access on December 2nd. What does this mean? You will be able to access data from an item on Wikidata like the date of birth of an artist or the name of a city in different languages. Where and how much you make use of that is up for you to decide. You will be able to access the data in two ways. The first one is the #property parser function. The second one is via Lua. There are two big caveats at this point. 1) You will only be able to access data for items that are connected via a sitelink to the page you want to show the data on. We're currently working on allowing accessing data from any item. This should be available around January/February. 2) You can not use this to store meta data (like the date a picture was taken or who took it) about individual files. This will in the future be stored on Commons itself as part of the structured data project.

Please let me know if you have any questions. I am looking forward to more integration between Commons and Wikidata and all the things this will make possible. It'd be great if you could help with updating and expanding Commons:Wikidata. The relevant page on Wikidata is d:Wikidata:Wikimedia Commons.

Cheers --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 12:32, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Great news. Thanks for all your and your team's work. --Jarekt (talk) 00:30, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Help with some pictures[edit]

Hi. Sorry about write in english. I'm not sure if this is the right place to post. I appolige if is not. I need help to add categories to the uploaded pictures of this user. If someone can recognize the places or translate descriptions (or both), I'll be very thankfull. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 12:36, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I use Google Translate to help identify places or subjects: you can just copy and paste the description and/or title. For instance, the Persian description in File:Photo0210 الودگی زرند.jpg roughly translates to "Pollution zarand", which may indicate one of several places called Zarand, Iran. I hope this helps! Animalparty (talk) 19:14, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I've tried to translate with Google, but the results were awfull. However, another user is already helping. Thanks a lot. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 21:30, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

November 23[edit]