Commons:Village pump

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
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 | 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 | +/−

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


 


Centralized discussion

See also Commons:Village pump/Proposals

Please help by translating these messages into other languages.

Note: inactive discussions, closed or not, should be archived.

Archive  • Discussion • Edit • Page history • Watch
Old manual pump in Fetonte Place Crespino, province of Rovigo [add]





Oldies[edit]

Charinsert[edit]

The Charinsert extension is installed but I can't find its management in the Gadgets. In Wikipedia and Wikisource, I added a row of "User" characters and strings but here it doesn't seem to work. User:Ineuw/common.js -- 01:28, 21 June 2014 User:Ineuw

image annotations broken[edit]

I noticed that adding annotations does not work correct. The Gadget-ImageAnnotator always adds |h=undefined| (h = height) so that there is no box but only a 0 or 1 px horizontal line for annotations, eg. see [1] how it happens. Can someone fix this please? Holger1959 (talk) 13:58, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Schau mal hier. -- Maxxl² - talk 14:04, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Auwei, that looks bad (lot of users know the problem for several days already). So if Krinkle is not active who else can help? Must be someone who understands this gadget. Maybe a developer?
I think we need help with finding all images with this sort of broken annotations. Holger1959 (talk) 15:33, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Only those edited recently show the fault. As it is obvious to the editor immediately after implementation I guess there is no need for such an action. -- Maxxl² - talk 15:45, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Any Commons sysop could do it. As already mentioned in the relevant talk page, they could begin by correcting the line 645 in the page MediaWiki:Gadget-ImageAnnotator.js. It is just one letter to remove to fix the typo in the line. I really don't know if that will fix the problem, but it can't hurt to fix that broken line anyway. Hopefully, it will be enough to repair the gadget. If not, they could just revert the whole thing to the state where it was before Krinkle broke it. Krinkle seems to believe that his code is cooler or whatever, but from the point of view of users it just not useful to have pretty code if the tool doesn't work. It's better to have the good old code and a tool that works. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:48, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Addendum: Jmabel just fixed it [2]. Thank you! -- Asclepias (talk) 16:53, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
thank you all for the comments and Jmabel for fixing! Holger1959 (talk) 17:13, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
@Asclepias: Just to clarify a few things. I have no interest in "cool" code. Applications require maintenance to keep up with changes in the industry. In our case there are three factors relevant that drove me to update the gadget: 1) Browsers change, 2) jQuery changes, 3) MediaWiki changes. Keeping the old code as it is will not work forever! One of these days the entire gadget is going to be broken without having changed a single thing because it is relying on obsolete functionality that will change in web browsers, in jQuery, or MediaWiki. It'll do you no good to have a gadget that once worked on MediaWiki 1.16 in Firefox 4 when all your users have upgraded to Firefox 32 on a wiki now running MediaWiki 1.24. These kind of changes are generally a good thing, as they improve things (simpler, faster, better language support, compatible with newer browsers, etc.). And they're announced months ahead of time (on wikitech-l, mediawiki-l and wikitech-ambassadors mailing lists). Usage of deprecated features is also detected in the browser developers' console. Commons is one of few wikis with the luxury of various users experienced in javascript dedicated to keeping gadgets up to date. However there are still certain "large" gadgets that developers tend to avoid because they're so large and complex. ImageAnnotator is one of those. While updating it to accommodate for changes in the environment, I updated the coding style along the way because it makes a big difference in maintainability and readability to have consistently formatted code. It's like a dialect or accent in spoken language. One could learn any dialect, but it's much more productive to convert it to a dialect known by the developers active in the community today (incl. myself). The majority of our scripts and gadgets here on Commons are already written this way. The original maintainer(s) are no longer available to maintain it, so keeping it in that "dialect" only makes it harder others to work on it. So yes, I took it upon myself to try and update it before it's too late. In doing so I kept testing it to ensure it works properly and in the end made a stupid typo and typed 'sh' instead of 's' in an identifier string. I didn't revert it when I heard it was broken, I instead installed the old version as a separate gadget and disabled the new v3 gadget so that we can continue to work further on the new version. –Krinkletalk 17:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
@Krinkle: Of course, the words from Asclepias (to this changes) were a bit amateurish, but it was also unprofessional not to correct the obvious detected fault immediately. (PS: I found another small fault in one of your scripts, which I'll tell you later over a different way) User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)23:57, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Filtering Latest files[edit]

Hello, is there any way to filter Special:NewFiles? Every once in a while, we have experienced users uploading huge amounts of images that don't really require checking. Hiding them would make patrolling new uploads much more convenient. I vaguely remember that there was something like "recent uploads by new users" but all I can find is Special:Contributions/newbies, which doesn't have thumbnails. --El Grafo (talk) 09:28, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

It isn't updated in real time, but I think you're looking for User:OgreBot/Uploads by new users. darkweasel94 10:01, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
I always use https://tools.wmflabs.org/steinsplitter/rc-uploads.php -- Rillke(q?) 10:02, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
added a bit for now :) --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:39, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
right now on special:listfiles, we have filter out bots button. Maybe we should also have filter out autopatrol (as a rough marker of who is "new"). Bawolff (talk) 19:38, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
That would be truly helpful for Commons. Though, on Special:ListFiles, I can't discover a bot-filter; only on Special:NewFiles. -- Rillke(q?) 08:03, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Category:Featured pictures on Wikipedia, Malaysian[edit]

Does this belong at Category:Featured pictures on Wikipedia, Malay? --Auntof6 (talk) 21:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd say so, since the Malay Wikipedia is Malaysian (the Indonesian Wikipedia is also a variant of Malay). --ghouston (talk) 23:18, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Fixed, it was a template issue. --ghouston (talk) 03:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

More admins[edit]

Hello,

Admins are constantly overbooked on Commons. The only long term solution is to have more active admins, both for a better service to other contributors, and a better review and speedy deletion of copyvios. Therefore I would like to start a discussion how to recruit more admins, and how to engage existing, but dormant admins, to be more active. All ideas and suggestions welcome!

To show the extent of the problem, look at Category:Media uploaded without a license as of 2014-07. Currently contains 652 images, on which probably 90% are copyvios. Help wanted! Regards, Yann (talk) 12:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

As well as a recruitment campaign for admins, the normal process of approaching someone who looks suitable works well. More current administrators should consider taking the initiative this way.
The issue of a backlog of copyvios is actually separate from granting sysop rights. If backlogs of this type are becoming unmanagable for the small community of administrators, we could look at unbundling the rights a little more. There is no particular reason why file deletion needs to be tied in with the right to block accounts, in the same way that significant rights such as filemover or license reviewer do not require going through a RFA. -- (talk) 12:19, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
But only admins can see a deleted file. Little chances that such a right (seeing deleted contents) will ever given to non admins. Jee 12:29, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't see why. Non-admins do a lot of trusted stuff than can be argued to be rather more tricky than looking at deleted files, anyway to be an OTRS volunteer, one frequently has to examine and make decisions about deleted material, and yet this does not require being a sysop. The most difficult sysop right, in my view, is making decisions about account blocks.
Saying this, the same discussion about unbundling has been had several times over the years, it has yet to result in significant changes to what is expected of administrators, even though a few additional rights have been conceived; so I'm not really expecting anything to change, just putting a stake in the ground so the option is not overlooked. -- (talk) 12:51, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
If seeing deleted files is an issue, wouldn't it be possible to create a new user group of Janitors (for the lack of a better naming idea) who only get the right to delete files but nothing else? Concerning recruitment: I agree that simply asking people might be a good approach. The admins currently working in the file deletion area probably know best who would be suitable candidates. --El Grafo (talk) 13:57, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Such a proposal has been rejected in the past, though it doesn't necessarily mean it would be today, now that admin tasks become more and more complex. -- Rillke(q?) 16:52, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Conversely, what you are proposing means that the rights to block accounts and pages remains concentrated into the hands of a small group with a low turnover, making the whole community look like a darwininan food chain with a small group of selfish predators at the top. Teofilo (talk) 20:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
What is time consuming is not deleting files per se, but reviewing them, and evaluating all arguments in complex deletion requests. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:10, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
@Yann: concerning reviewing, I've been wondering for some time: Do Symbol delete vote.svg Delete-votes plus a short comment at the simpler DR's which require no or only little research (quick example, another one) actually help the admins? Or is it just a waste of time that could be invested better into patrolling new uploads because you re-check them yourselves anyway? --El Grafo (talk) 15:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
The first case is an obvious copyvio (now deleted). No need for input here. FoP are usually more complicated. Laws vary quite a lot between countries, and there are plenty of issues: age of the art work, 2D vs. 3D work, public or not public places, permanent or not permanent, etc. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:52, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Alright, then I won't start adding delete-votes to the obvious ones – that's all I wanted to know, thanks. --El Grafo (talk) 08:32, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Imho we have too much inactive admins. We need a better inactivity policy and not moor admins. And maby a new user group "deleter" --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:45, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Hmmm; when I checked the list, the most inactive admin is a very valuable user here. So we can't simply measure them based on the activity. I've no objection to the new usergroup, if practical. Jee 15:29, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
In terms of recruiting new admins, I wonder if you could make a list of non-admins who have a moderate number of contributions here, and are also admins or filemovers or other relevant rights at any other project? That might increase the number of non-English admin candidates in particular, which can only be helpful for a multilingual place like Commons. Also, for people with an en.wp focus, advertising the fact that Commons does not have an en-wp-style "hazing ritual", and/or directing them to training materials for the copyright questions that they can expect, might be helpful in convincing people to agree. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:09, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Have a guess what broken record I'm going to play... In all seriousness, I'd like to see former administrators who became inactive BUT are now active (x number of edits, number to be agreed upon) be eligible for re-sysopping (and I'd like the inactivity window extended to 1 year, even if it means nudging up the number of logged actions marginally). I'd like re-sysopping to be simple and uncomplicated - ask and get, subject to some checks that you didn't leave to avoid censure, but if necessary, we could grant returning inactive administrators temporary adminship, say three months or so (very much in the spirit of the temporary permissions given to users on smaller projects) and if they stay active, their adminship becomes permanent, if they're not active enough, their permission is removed. That can either be repeated once, then you force a new RfA, or it could be repeated ad-nauseam (like my thoughts on this whole subject) as it's only a log entry. The reason I bang on about this is I think (from personal experience) people dip in and out of Commons, and it's easier to find you've gone six months without an edit or logged action here than you might think. That, in turn, I think makes people hesitant to commit to adminship here, because they feel they have to be doing administrative action more regularly than they might be able to commit to for work/college/other personal reasons. Nick (talk) 16:13, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I second Nick's viewpoint. --Dschwen (talk) 16:42, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment See Commons:Village_pump/Proposals#New_group:_Deleter --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I support with both Nick's proposal and Fae's suggestion. My own opinion is that Commons has a woefully small number of active admins e.g. I can count on two hands the number of admins that I see regularly in deletion requests. At times the response time in speedy deletions is lightning fast but sometimes there is a backlog of up to a day. However I'm a big fan of evidence-based decision making. There are over 250 human admins, but I think it would be useful to have more numbers about them so we can gauge where the shortages are. For example how many languages do our admins understand between them and how many admins speak/read/eat/drink each language. Is it possible to have information about what times of the day/night admins are most active or most busy. Are there times of the day/night when we don't have any or few admins online? Nick mentioned former admins, so is there a list of such people? Barring admins who perhaps left under clouds, I would support a much simpler system of resysopping former admins e.g. a request at the birocrats noticeboard followed by an announcement at village pump. If there are serious objections, then they would need a fresh RfA but otherwise let's reduce the red tape. The other thing that is really needed is for currently active admins to think of potential candidates and prod them along a bit. I've only recently become active at Commons but so far I can think of several long-term-active non-admins who have consistently displayed the maturity, knowledge and patience needed for good admins. Green Giant (talk) 22:54, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Here is some of the data you are requesting: Commons:List of administrators by language, Commons:List of former administrators. --99of9 (talk) 02:11, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

July 24[edit]

RfC on the scope of file renaming criterion 2[edit]

Pursuant to the closing of the RFC "Proposed overhaul of the "Which files should be renamed?" section", a second RfC has been opened at Commons:Requests for comment/File renaming criterion 2 specifically to address the scope of criterion 2, which currently reads "To change from a completely meaningless name to a name that describes what the image displays."

Please note that I fully anticipate that the first few days will see a number of additional options proposed, so it may be a good idea to check back periodically on the RfC.

Thank you. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:18, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

July 25[edit]

Funding for expenses needed, estimated $30 for 100,000 high quality files to be released on Commons[edit]

Could someone like to suggest the best way to get a quick funding commitment to pay postage expenses of an estimated £20 or £30? It looks like to get 100,000 high resolution images uploaded I will need to post 2 small USB hard disks from the UK to WMF operations in the US. To get a grant from the WMF would probably mean using meta:Grants:IEG, which appears takes months. For reasons out of my control I am not a member of Wikimedia UK, my local chapter, and the chapter will only give grants to members. I have asked the GLAM supplying the images but this seems a bit lost in their systems for small expenses like this.

I'm planning to post off the first disk on Monday (28th), and can keep the receipt to claim it back later, so at this stage I just would like some authoritative commitment that the expenses will be covered and I'm not rich enough to just write these sorts of cost off. The deadline I'm aiming for to get the project under way on Commons is around 4th August, so we can 'officially' launch this at Wikimania. As you might expect from an experienced batch uploader, in the background categorization and other issues are being sorted out.

By the way, I have no doubt that the WMF would like to cover these sorts of teeny initiatives that create bags of high quality project content in return, but I'm not aware of any existing process that makes this easy to sort out that would not demand more of my time on bureaucracy than I will spend sorting out the disk and posting it off (copying the data, packaging, going to the post office, might take 2 hours of my time).

PS I'm going to be at Wikimania, so a really cheap way of paying me expenses would be to do so in cash, in person. For an organization like the WMF, transferring money around might cost as much as the amount in expenses I would like to claim. -- (talk) 16:43, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

, what's the subject? Every now and again, I run across someone who is willing to pay for things out of their own pockets, if it's in their favorite subject areas. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:25, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
The history of medicine. Smile fasdfdsfoiueire.svg I don't really want to officially announce it yet, but anyone interested in the nitty-gritty can look at the bugzilla ticket or have a look at the early test uploads.
It would be nice if this were to set an example of how those of us active on global Commons projects could get small expenses paid for, so my preference would be if a Wikimedia group could work out how to cover this. Failing that, yes a kind individual sending me some money through Paypal might be the way to get stuff done. -- (talk) 17:48, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree that figuring out a standard way for small projects like this would be good. For this particular task, you already mention transferring the reimbursement funding at Wikimania, why not instead just bring the device itself and hand it off? DMacks (talk) 19:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I suggest you bring the volumes to Wikimania and throw them on a sysadmin of your trust perhaps even someone from OPS will be there. I also agree that there should be a venue to get reimbursement for such small expenses with less hassle and bureaucracy. Did you already ask Janice Tud? If someone knows how to, she will! -- Rillke(q?) 21:12, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Actually, we have arranged for me to get the first disk back at Wikimania, so postage is only for UK→US with it coming back informally by hand. The idea is to get the uploads underway (or done, though probably with categorization improvements needed) before Wikimania, so that it can both be "announced" plus be used as a significant batch upload case study to discuss. -- (talk) 21:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Perfect, . Give me a day or two, but plan to be mailing that ASAP. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:15, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Sure will fund. Will hand you cash at Wikimania. James Heilman, MD (talk) 21:35, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Kushti, thanks James. This is the second offer to cover costs Smile fasdfdsfoiueire.svg, so there's plenty of happy interest in my little volunteer project. It may be that the WMF or the GLAM in question will want to cover expenses by the time we reach Wikimania (which is a more repeatable process for other Commons projects), but I'll keep receipts and shamelessly tap you for a score or a bertie at Wikimania if the bigger boys do not pull through by then. -- (talk) 21:55, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Update Disk posted off today, see bugzilla:67477. Royal Mail charged me £9.75. I'm discussing the potential next disk. -- (talk) 16:45, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

July 26[edit]

self-flickr[edit]

If I have pictures I've taken myself that I want to upload to both Commons and Flickr, is there a "best practice" for how to do this? Should I upload to Flickr first, and then use Flickr2Commons to transfer my files to Commons, just as if I was transferring someone else's images from Flickr? Or should I just upload my images directly to both Flickr and Commons, without using the tool? What if I have images I've already uploaded to Commons, and then later I want to upload them to Flickr, too? Is there a template for "this image is also on Flickr" that I should use? (Which would be similar to, but different than, the "transferred from Flickr" templates.) Thanks! --Ppelleti (talk) 21:40, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

If they are your images and within scope, then you can upload them in any manner you wish as long as you sort out the licensing. If you upload your own images to Flickr first, make sure you use a free license like CC-BY-2.0, so they can then be transferred to Commons without problems. If you upload to Commons first, it won't matter where you upload it afterwards but preferably you should use the same license. One very effective way to ensure minimal problems is to put links at both your Flickr and Commons accounts to confirm they are operated by the same person. That avoids a lot of uncertainty. Green Giant (talk) 23:24, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Right, I'm using the Flickr userbox on my user page. --Ppelleti (talk) 20:14, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I basically upload to Flickr first, use Flickr2Commons to transfer my files to Commons, then make some small, systematic edits to broaden the licensing and make it clear that I'm the same person as on Commons. See history of File:Bon Odori Seattle 2014 - 118A (14742957753).jpg for an example of what I do by way of edits on Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 01:38, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I assume you use the regex replace feature of VisualFileChange? Would you be willing to share your regex, so that I can avoid reinventing the wheel? --Ppelleti (talk) 20:14, 27 July 2014 (UTC) Perhaps even add it to Help:VisualFileChange.js/samples? --Ppelleti (talk) 20:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC) Also, is there a reason you change the https to http in the Flickr URL? --Ppelleti (talk) 07:10, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

July 27[edit]

Photos not PD in the US[edit]

About the images with URAA problems and the discussion generated about this issue, my question is: was there a decission about the latest files uploaded not in the PD in the US? For example, this photo (1975) and recently uploaded is in the PD in Argentina but not in the US.

Would be the correct procedure to nominate this image for deletion? I suppose so, but I have to be sure first. Thanks, Fma12 (talk) 02:56, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I think that the file has some issues that warrant a full DR, firstly it lacks full details of when it was published in Argentina so it can't be shown to actually be PD in the source (it is only PD if both 25 years old and published over 20 years ago). If it was first published after 1989 it will be in copyright in the US, likewise if it was published between 1975 and 1989 and it has a copyright notice on the rear of the postcard, even if the publication did not have a notice the URAA would have restored the copyright if the image was not published in the US within 30 days of publication in Argentina which seems unlikely for a postcard image. As for URAA, as per this the URAA can be a reason for deletion, if after the status of the file has been carefully evaluated there remain significant doubt about the freedom of the image under US law it must be deleted. LGA talkedits 04:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Using precision parameter in location template[edit]

For the 200,000+ images in my Historic American Buildings Survey uploads, most have geolocation available and I am putting those in {{location dec}}. It appears that accuracy of those location points is a little naff, though still of use, perhaps at around 200 meters accuracy. I can add the precision parameter "prec = 200m" to the location dec template, but playing around with it, it appears to do nothing, it does not even change the zoom level in the link to Google maps that it generates. So, for the moment, this looks unused.

Any opinions on whether using the "prec" parameter is a worthwhile change? Though I can wrap this in pending new images (perhaps another 100,000 to come), to be consistent this might also mean making around 100,000 additional changes to already uploaded files. -- (talk) 11:56, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I think it can be useful. In fact, it can be useful even in Wikipedias to geolocate articles. Anyway the key point is how we and reusers are using it.--Pere prlpz (talk) 12:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Using the number of digits written down is a good way to indicate precision, usually. -- Rillke(q?) 13:01, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Very often it indicates false precision. I work with NRHP sources that give coords to D.xxxxxx that someone converted arithmetically from D|M|S, thus claiming highly spurious precision. Even where this isn't the cause, coords are often two or three streets off, when their indicated precision is a fraction of the street width. I have not been adding the |prec:x| parameter when correcting these; merely using the "digits written" method; perhaps that ought to change. Jim.henderson (talk) 14:58, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Based on views here, I'll add the 'prec' parameter set to '200m'. I'll also have a look at trimming the lat/lon numbers where they have "9999..." added on, it's an obvious false precision and seems a common problem. -- (talk) 16:28, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and I forgot to mention that almost all outsiders who do coords for building pictures, only try to give the building location rather than the camera. Thus, it should be Template:Object location or its dec version. Apart from pictures from GPS cameras, most camera locations are handiwork and only provided for those few pictures that attract individual attention. Jim.henderson (talk) 17:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Good point, swapping to using Object location too. -- (talk) 18:38, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I think it is a very good idea to add the prec parameter (in general). I did not even know such an option existed!
It is not mentioned in Commons:Geocoding#Parameters as far as I can see, nor mentioned in the massive en:Wikipedia:WikiProject Geographical coordinates. It is so more natural to specify a precision in meters than by truncating decimals in the most likely latitude/longitude coordinates (and you actually losse information by doing so). Moreover, it is really complex to understand how the precision leads to truncation of decimals. Especially, for the longitude as it depends on the lattitude how many decimals to truncate for a precision of x meters. There is a looong complicated formula for it on the aforementioned Wikipedia page, and by truncating decimals you only get a precision within a factor of 10. That is, you cannot state a nuance if the precision is 60 m or 100 m. A detail which may be important. : where is the prec parameter specified? It would be nice if documentation for its use could be added to the aforementioned pages, but that of course requires knowledge about how it works. For instance: are other units than m allowed? I have often missed such a parameter, for instance for plants I have photographed in Greenland, far away from known infrastructure. Here I have only known the location approximately, but I have not known of any natural way to specify that. Another important case is for threatened plant species where you deliberately want to offset the specified location from the actual location, as the exact location should be kept secret to avoid the plants are removed by plant collectors. In those cases one may want to specify a imprecise precision like 3 km.
Finally, it would be really nice if the Swizz army knife of location templates could be updated such that it would be possible to indicate a precision as well, when creating a geocoding template. I will direct the maintainer of this tool to this discussion en:User talk:Teslaton/Tools/GeoLocator. --Slaunger (talk) 19:23, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Prec is included in the parameter definition of {{Location}} and {{Object location}}. -- (talk) 19:36, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the pointer. I have asked Jarekt, who added this parameter in April to flesh out the documentation for the parameter out a bit more in these templates, as it is not very clear (for me at least) how to specify a unit and which unit(s) are allowed. --Slaunger (talk) 20:16, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I’ve been adding/keeping/correcting a lot of geolocation. I found that often both {{Object location}} and {{Location}} (or {{Location dec}}) add good information to a file page; in categories (about landmarks) only {{Object location}} makes sense, of course. It is also very common that instead of a specific exact location a generic “main square” or “townhall” lat+long is provided, which is useless for us: Most of the times we do have non-numeric categories for cities/towns, and even for individual streets, no need to convey such low grain information by means of (bogus) geolocation. -- Tuválkin 20:09, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

July 28[edit]

  • Is it possible to get a geonotice for a meeting invitation placed on Commons like on English Wikipedia? --Pine 23:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
MediaWiki:WatchlistNotice? --Steinsplitter (talk) 23:50, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

July 29[edit]

A little help - mobile version[edit]

I don't know what's going on, I tried to modification one page including "mobileshowonly", but this piece of... is not working! If do not put "display:none" the mobile thing appears in the "desktop" page, but if I put, is not appearing in the mobile version.

Could pleas help me here?

This is the page: Commons:Esplanada/cabeçalho Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 01:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia Drifting to the Right?[edit]

I have noticed what seems like a right wing bias in a number of articles lately. For example, in 'Indonesian Invasion of East Timor' it says '100–180,000 soldiers and civilians are estimated to have been killed or starved'. That's misleading, to say the least. The 2,500 page UN report estimates 183,000 civilians killed, not 'soldiers and civilians'. The article also says 'the military procured new advanced weaponry from the United States, Australia, and other countries'. Again, misleading (lying). Minimizing US role by including 'Australia and other countries'. From the National Security Archive: 'Ford Administration officials knew from the start that Indonesia launched its invasion of East Timor 'almost entirely with U.S. equipment, and that the use of this equipment was illegal'. Almost entirely U.S. equipment. What's up? Why the falsehoods and obfuscation? Any idea? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.4.106.233 (talk • contribs) 00:27, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

This is the Wikimedia Commons. You should ask this question at the English Wikipedia's Village Pump. — SMUconlaw (talk) 17:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

July 30[edit]

Is it possible to remove the watermark?[edit]

 * File:Kigali_Terminal.jpg
 * File:Qatar_Airways_Airbus_A320.jpg
 * File:RwandAir_B737s.JPG
 * File:Kenya_Airways_ERJ170.JPG

These images were watermarked by their uploader. They are apparently licensed as CC BY-SA 3.0. I'm wondering if the watermark can be unilaterally removed, as it is distracting.

66.183.41.63 01:59, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for highlighting these photos. The watermark indicates that the images are copyright protected. They appear to be from http://www.rwandan-flyer.com and together with other similar ones, they have been uploaded by two separate accounts without any evidence of Commons-compatile licenses. Green Giant (talk) 02:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)