Commons:Village pump

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
  Community Portal   Village Pump
(copyright & proposals)		   Help Desk
(Upload help)		   Administrators' Noticeboard
(vandalism, user problems, blocks and protections)		   Graphics Lab  
↓ Skip to table of contents ↓       ↓ Skip to discussions ↓       ↓ Skip to the last discussion ↓
This project page in other languages:

Alemannisch | العربية | asturianu | Boarisch | български | català | česky | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | فارسی | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | kа | 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. 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).
  4. 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
Proposals Discussions Recurring 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
Village pump in Rzeszów, Poland [add]

Contents





March 21[edit]

Illegal bytes in lots of pages due to file history comments being trimmed mid-byte[edit]

Has anyone noticed that a lot of pages on commons have illegal utf8 byte sequences in the file histories? I'm pretty sure this is down to the algorithm used to trim long comments in the file history using byte semantics rather than character: some 2+ byte characters have been trimmed in the middle.

There's lots of examples but here's three:

On all three the first comment has been trimmed and lots pretty ugly but the main issue is that the page is no longer valid utf-8. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthonygerrard (talk • contribs) 19:51, 20 May 2013‎ (UTC)

I think there is somewhere to report bugs in mediawiki, but I can't recall where that is. Penyulap ☏ 19:58, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

It should be fixed for "new" files (files uploaded after roughly November 2011). The relavent bug is bugzilla:332. Bawolff (talk) 20:12, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Trademark discussion[edit]

Hi, apologies for posting this in English, but I wanted to alert your community to a discussion on Meta about potential changes to the Wikimedia Trademark Policy. Please translate this statement if you can. We hope that you will all participate in the discussion; we also welcome translations of the legal team’s statement into as many languages as possible and encourage you to voice your thoughts there. Please see the Trademark practices discussion (on Meta-Wiki) for more information. Thank you! --Mdennis (WMF) (talk)

About the text in File:Licensing tutorial en.svg[edit]

In File:Licensing tutorial en.svg the statement that a work should usually be over 150 years old to be PD is a bit exaggerated. 150 year old works from EU and US are always PD. The text in parentheses could perhaps be replaced with "usually: author died over 70 years ago". There could be also one green box more that would explain shortly that EU-works are always PD 70 years pma (well, almost always (URAA)) and pre-1923 US-works are too always PD. /á(!) 08:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Not almost always; works by authors who died after 1926 from long term life+70 countries are not PD in the US unless they were published before 1923, which is important for Commons. I object to "usually: author died over 70 years ago"; by population, the largest counties in the world are China, India, the US and Indonesia which are life+50, life+60, its own mess, and life+50 respectively. Perhaps just "varies depending on the source nation, life of author and date of publication; see COM:L."--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:41, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Would "Author died over 70 years ago, and published before 1923 (not France, Russia, Mexico, Colombia, Guatemala and Samoa). For other cases see COM:L." be a good text? In this case the work is always PD, as far as I have understood. The text have to be short but still contain as much information as possible. In most cases the user would see already from this text that the work is PD, and at least the text is way more informing than the 150 years -text. /á(!) 14:06, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Changed the text. Feel free to make it better. /á(!) 16:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Add Spain and remove Mexico, please. Spain is 80 years p.m.a. for authors who died before 7 December 1987. Mexico is 100 years p.m.a., but because of old laws, works are in the public domain in Mexico if the author died more than 30 years before 1982, so {{PD-old-70}} currently holds in Mexico, and this will remain the case for more than half a decade. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:49, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Dating old postcards[edit]

Often there is no clue as to the date of the picture, not even a posting date. I notice that some old postcards have the warning:

Not all countries accept messages on the back side of a postcard. Or in French: Tous les Pays étrangers n'acceptent pas de la Correspondance au recto (Se renseigner a la Poste)

This message I only notice on pre World War I postcards. Is there some cut off date when such messages are no longer necessary? This would be usefull in dating.Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Sounds strange to me. If, for instance, a US postcard is from 1922 according to the message, I don't understand why the message would not be accepted as a "proof" of date. Is there a court decision in some country where the message was not accepted as "proof"? /á(!) 14:17, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
  • á, I believe you've misunderstood the question. ST is saying that there was a period where this was routinely printed on postcards, and if we can know when this was commonly done, that might be a help in dating those postcards. - Jmabel ! talk 15:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
One thing is the date when the postcard was printed/manufactored, another is the date when the photo(s) used to illustrate the postcard was taken (obviously earlier, but could be much earlier), and finally something else is the date the postcard was written and mailed — the latter is obviously the latest date, and often easy to pinpoint via the sender’s own dating and/or the postal date stamp. That notice about «correspondance au recto» to make a postcard UPU compliant allows to date the manufactoring date of a postcard, but it is still possible that printers would keep adding it to their postcards a coupole years past the time it was not mandatory/accurate any longr, as well as, maybe, some postcards may have been manufactored without that notice, maybe those not intended for foreign correspondance, or by simple oversight. -- Tuválkin ✉ 01:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Dating postcards is not exact - unless you have both sides when there is almost always a postmark - or if the message has a date. But there are some pretty good rules of thumb, e.g. if you have an "undivided back" card, it is almost certainly before 1907. Note that postcards are always "published" - none were produced as a one-off to sit in somebody's personal album. They were also generally not copyrighted (need both sides) See en:Wikipedia and Tips for determining when a U.S. postcard was published. Smallbones (talk) 02:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
For date of creation (needed for {{PD-Australia}}, {{PD-Sweden-photo}} and similar templates), check what buildings you see, if there are buildings on the photo. Are there recent buildings missing from the postcard? Are there demolished buildings which are present on it?
Date of publication is more tricky. If you have access to the back of the postcard, and if there's a dated letter there, then it must obviously have been published before the letter was written. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:54, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

IRS Star Trek Parody[edit]

Would this be public domain licensed as a product of the United States federal government? -- Cirt (talk) 04:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this work is public domain. However, it also incorporates copyrighted and trademarked material. A public domain work can still infringe on the rights of others depending on how it is used. It may be the case that the government itself is infringing on someone's rights by distributing this, but in any case, because it incorporates copyrighted music and trademarked logos it does not meet Wikimedia Commons guidelines for sharing here. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:24, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Couldn't those be seen as de minimis compared to the scope of the entire work itself? -- Cirt (talk) 03:14, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

NASA images from Voyager National Air and Space Laserdisc 5 and 6[edit]

Hello everybody.

I'd like to bulk upload a large number of NASA images (i.e. public domain) that are archived on a couple of Laserdiscs (see here) (approx 120k images). Doing this manually will probably take the rest of my natural life. The images will be limited to TV resolution (720 x 480), and I will probably upload as PNGs.

Some of content of the discs is likely replicated elsewhere online, but I believe that there are a lot of images here that aren't available on the web. For example, the early Ranger program, I think we have about 10-30 images currently uploaded. I found approx 600 here: http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/ranger/ but the disc has approx 1,400. I believe other programs covered, Surveyor, Lunar Orbitor, Apollo, X-15, Space Shuttle, will also include images not otherwise available online.

I have several questions:

  • Any objections ?
  • Does anyone have a utility or perl/python script to pull out video frames from a uncompressed AVI as PNGs ?
  • Does anyone have a script for bulk uploading, adding categorization, etc ?
  • Do I need bot permissions to execute such an upload ?, if so is it easier to get someone to do it (volunteers ?)

Megapixie (talk) 07:46, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

  • It's 720x480, but those aren't square pixels. PNG supports non-square pixels in theory, but the standard explicitly states that viewers don't have to support them correctly. They're 4:3, so you can store them as 640x480 or 720x540.
Extracting them isn't too hard; if nothing else, mplayer can dump to PNG as video out. It's going to you the video feed, which I'm guessing offers each picture for some length of screen time (and number of frames), and someone is going to have to figure out which of several very similar but with different analog noise to upload. I don't know how bad the noise on the original Laserdisc was.
I'd recommend you upload the AVIs to the Internet Archive. That's the easiest way of making it available to everyone here to poke at, and they've got a much easier way to deal with large video files then we do.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:27, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
  • You can also use en:FFmpeg to easily extract single images from a video. E.g. the command ffmpeg -i inputfile.avi -r 1 -f image2 image-%4d.png will extract one image per second (-r 1) to numbered filenames starting from image-0000.png. You can omit the -r parameter to extract every image from the video. There are a multitude of other options (start/end point of extraction, output resolution, etc.) to tune it to your needs.
Regarding noise: If the images are shown for some time, one could do some temporal noise filtering across those frames to greatly improve quality without loosing resolution.--Patrick87 (talk) 09:34, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I believe choosing the images to upload rather than breaking videos and uploading them is a lot better. Commons accepts videos, maybe you can upload both the archive and your own selections from it. The NASA repositories of images are next-to-impossible to navigate and find what you want, A similar collection on commons wouldn't be as useful as a properly chosen and categorised collection. Penyulap ☏ 19:51, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Photos on order[edit]

I want to upload a photograph of my own. But as it is mine, i have asked a cousin of mine to click the snap. In this case, the photograph is taken on my order. Won't i be able to release the photo under any license that i want? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

In such cases where someone else press the button to take a picture I envisioned and set up, I provided two authors and used license of my choosing after informing my coauthor. --Jarekt (talk) 12:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
I also have heard of this response and this works, but there is no clear answer to the ownership question in this case. It is best to mention all creators. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:23, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Usually, the person who presses the button on the camera is the photographer and holds the copyright. However, you can create a contract with your cousin that says he is assigning the copyright to you. This is very usual for businesses whose employees are hired to take pictures.
(About the "usually": if you do everything about creating the image except physically pressing the button—choosing the place, arranging the items in it, setting up the lighting, choosing the camera angles, etc.—so that the contribution of the person pressing the button is no more than you would get from a machine that pressed the button when you couldn't reach it, then you are the author and you own the copyright already.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
The second paragraph might be true in some jurisdictions for an inanimate subject with artificial -- constant -- lighting -- but for any situation where the subject could move, smile, frown, tilt his head, or whatever, then the person who pushes the button is clearly the copyright holder. The creativity lies in pushing the button at the right moment, not in the setup.
With that understood, we are generally willing to accept an image taken by a friend or relative as "own work" if it is going to be used on a User Page and not likely anywhere else..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
So are you saying that if Cindy Sherman had someone else physically click the shutter, that shutter-clicker would be entitled to the copyright on the work? Because I doubt any court would agree with that. - Jmabel ! talk 23:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
The point is moot, because you know as well as I that anyone who pushes the button for Cindy Sherman has a work for hire agreement in place. But yes, that's exactly what I am saying. In portrait photography, pushing the button at exactly the right moment is certainly more than half of the creative effort in the photograph. At the very least, in the absence of a work for hire agreement, it would be a joint work between the person who set up the shot and the person who pushed the button. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:14, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
My point wasn't about Sherman as an individual. If I've set up a photo of myself -- costuming, positioning, etc. -- and I use someone as basically a human tripod and autotimer because I don't have a tripod with me, I absolutely will claim copyright. - Jmabel ! talk 15:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
And I mention two people as authors. --Jarekt (talk) 03:25, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Newbie[edit]

What easy software can i use to alter a map? I'm a complete newbie so give me somthing simple. I'm specifically talking about this one. For instance Senegal and Chad are majority Sufi. Indonesia and Kazakhstan are majority non-denominational. I don't mind if someone else fixes it. Pass a Method (talk) 16:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

  • It's a PNG, so you could edit a copy in almost any graphics program. For something like this, even a minimal program like Microsoft Paint would do the job. The "king" of free graphics programs is GIMP, but I can't really call that simple.
  • Whichever program you would use, you would download the full-res image to your computer, edit it there, and upload the altered version. - Jmabel ! talk 00:02, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
    • I'd suggest that you just use whatever you used when you assembled File:16 religionist symbols.png. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:53, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
      • I would suggest that he not use that program, or learn a lot more about how it works, because as previously used by him it seems to give semi-strange results... AnonMoos (talk) 07:42, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Pass a Method -- Sufi and "non-denominational" are not generally-recognized maðahib. Traditionally among Sunnis, the term maðhab as shown on the map refers more to the norms used by local legal scholars or judges, than to people's sect or denomination affiliation as such... AnonMoos (talk) 07:20, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

June 13[edit]

cutoff date (old) per country for anonymous pictures[edit]

I normaly use the EU-anonymous tag for European postcards, but perhaps there are exceptions. Is there a list? There is documentation for FoP cases. I am looking for Portugal. Smiley.toerist (talk) 08:46, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

If the photographer is anonymous and it was published more than 70 years ago, then it should be in the public domain in the entire European Union with possibly two exceptions:
  • French law extends copyright if the photographer died for France in certain wars. No idea if this also applies to anonymous photos. I hope not since it would otherwise be impossible to know whether any photo is OK or not as you can't easily tell how an anonymous photographer died.
  • German law might require that the anonymous photographer died more than 70 years ago if the photo is an artistic photo according to the old German copyright law, assuming that the photo was taken before 1 July 1995.
  • Spanish law might require that the anonymous photographer died more than 80 years ago if the anonymous photographer died before 7 December 1987. If the anonymous photographer died on 7 December 1987 or later, then 70 years from publication is enough.
For URAA matters, the cutoff date is different in different EU countries. In Italy, Poland, Slovenia and the Nordic countries, you will find that lots of more recent postcards already are in the public domain. There must of course also not be any FOP issues with the photos. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:12, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

June 14[edit]

Americanocentric category names?[edit]

Are there any strong views for keeping Category:Hispanic? I believe the word "Hispanic" is being used in a way that is only really meaningful for Americans, living in Europe this makes far less sense to me. If we wanted a category for Spanish speaking people, or the Spanish (or those who culturally identify as Spanish, Mexican, Bolivian etc.), this would be a different and better defined grouping. If you examine the current contents of this category it appears a somewhat incoherent mish-mash and might even be construed as offensive by some of the living people arbitrarily categorized this way.

I believe this example category is part of a general bias in language use on Commons to American naming styles.

I welcome alternative views, not being American, Spanish or a Spanish speaking person myself. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:09, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it could be changed to "Hispanic Americans" or "Latino Americans". Kaldari (talk) 21:18, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Agree, inappropriate category name. Propose a new name or ask for suggestions on a less inappropriate name ("Hispanic Americans", "Hispanic people in the United States", whatever)on the talk page. See Commons:Rename a category. -- Infrogmation (talk) 01:58, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
✓ Done --Fæ (talk) 02:20, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
I wounder what would be "Hispanic people not in the United States"… An empty category? Or maybe this guy? (Who’d be promptly classified as WASP should he settle in the USofA…) -- Tuválkin ✉ 20:07, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Commons is broken…[edit]

… volume 123456789, delivered to you by your friendly Wikipedia Signpost. (Consider this a heads–up note.) odder (talk) 11:52, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Today's lead essay by Gigs, "The Tragedy of Wikipedia's commons" is an interesting but highly critical article about Commons written very much from an English Wikipedia perspective. Comments and responses can be posted in the comments section below the article, but I'd recommend that anyone who feels annoyed should first take a deep breath, count to 10, and re-read the essay Staying Mellow before responding. Remember that it's not in the interests of the Wikimedia movement as a whole to get into public arguments, nor would it be good for Commons' reputation as a thoughtful place that tries hard to avoid drama. Ultimately, we all have the same free content aims (don't we?). Let's export mellowness to the English Wikipedia! --MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:16, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Michael, considering your long background in developing policy underpinning Commons, perhaps you could consider a mellow Op-ed piece of your own for the en.wp Signpost? We could feature it here too. It seems a sad fact of life that some Wikipedians are unlikely to express their critical views about Commons in a cooperative way on Commons any-time soon, preferring the grandstanding opportunity that Signpost and Jimmy's en.wp talk page offer. Smile fasdfdsfoiueire.svg --Fæ (talk) 13:23, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi Fae, Beat you to it! I've already suggested that to the editor. Anyone is free to comment on the suggestion at en:Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Opinion desk#Submissions. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:39, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm not, they still don't like people who can count past eight. Penyulap ☏ 19:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Well, I read the article and I'd like that three minutes of my life back please ;) Penyulap ☏ 20:10, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
  • If people do have a perception that Commons is broken then maybe there is a problem that needs to be addressed. While the article raise a number of factors taking an adversarial stand in response isnt going to improve the perception rather its just reinforces the comments being made. Commons has shifted from been a storage/service area which enabled cross Wiki usage of media to a stand alone project as a "free media repository" we developed policies that suited our needs at the time. Given this criticism maybe its time we revisited our policies and discussed them with the projects that are still our primary purpose, to ensure that we are meeting their needs as much as we are meeting our own. Gnangarra 03:29, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Bug report - category modification[edit]

(technical discussion ahead - sorry...)

I've modified the Template:ACClicense so that the "Ancient Chinese Characters" pictures with no decomposition be indexed under the Category:ACC needing decomposition. It works, kind of, insofar as the pictures with no decomposition are indeed categorized under the correct category - BUT - that category remains empty, though there should be ~ a thousand pictures concerned.

When I force the edit of a picture without decomposition falling in that new category (blank edit with no modification), the file itself remains as is, but the category is correctly updated and takes it into account. Honestly, I'm in no mood to make a blank edit on ~ a thousand files since that should be automated...

Apparently, there is somewhere a "modified" flag that indicates that something must be updated following an edition, that works for the files, including when files categories are modified by a template change (that may changes the categorization). But this modification flag does not reach the files categories, when file categories are modified by a template change that simply changes the categorization. The files hit by the template are obviously set by a "modified" flag, but when that modification alters the categorization, it is not taken into account : the modified file should be recategorized (modification propagation when the modified file is a template), which is obviously not the case.

  1. Is this a known bug, have I missed something obvious I should have known for the change to work correctly ?
  2. If this is indeed a new bug to be reported, can somebody link me to the place it should be posted (I'm lost) or (or course, preferentially) transfer this message to the relevant authority ?

Thanks in advance, Michelet-密是力 (talk) 17:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

When you add a category to a template that is used in a lot of pages, instead of fixing the categories for all the pages right away (which would take a long time), the template gets added to a list of things that need to have their [category] links refreshed. A different server is constantly going through the things on this list. Sometimes this list gets a little long (currently for commons there is roughly 13858 things on the list). Note that refreshlinks jobs are handled separately from HTMLCacheUpdate jobs, so adding things to a category is done separately from making the page look updated. So it may be the servers just haven't gotten to it yet. (Although you made the edit on the 11th, which is quite a while, so maybe their really is a bug). Bawolff (talk) 20:59, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Still nothing on June the 17th... Michelet-密是力 (talk) 18:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Commons:We miss you[edit]

Thanks to User:Túrelio Commons has now an equivalent to en:Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians. Feel free to add appropriate usernames to the list and link to this site from the right places within the commons and help namespace. --Isderion (talk) 22:22, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Global Replace Tool[edit]

File:GlobalReplace 0.1a.png
User:Fastily/GlobalReplace

Hi everyone, I have created a new tool to assist filemovers in the field of cross-wiki renames. Please help me test it!  :) -FASTILY 23:48, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Can you make a java webstart version (like Commons:Commonist#Easiest_way)? --Isderion (talk) 00:03, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Ugh I hate playing with XML. I'll try later. -FASTILY 00:23, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


June 15[edit]

Juicy drama![edit]

Bait and switch: could I get some advice on uploading a large number of images?

Agricola Stamp ore crusher.png

I have a CD of about 300 high quality scans of the De re metallica woodcuts. They are intrinsically artistic as well as being pretty important in the history of science (we end up using them on many mining/metallurgy articles at Wiki).

Right now, Commons has about 60 of the illustrations, so we are missing the bulk of them. Also, they are pretty disorganized (can't tell from what part of book, etc. and vary in source, quality etc. [But don't worry, I will leave them be...some have reasons for being duplicates (e.g. original editions) or cropped or the like. (possibly a few are even superior scans.)

Help needed:

1. What I want to do is set up a category for this whole set of scans, with subcategories by "book" (i.e. chapter). I have them in numerical order from the manuscript. Am I allowed to make categories and the like (e.g. one of those little article-lite pages) or do I need some admin powerz?

P.s. We can worry about merging the other images into the subcategories later (I'm indifferent).

2. I want to do the bulk uploads of the images and some boilerplate for sourcing and the like. 300 separate operations of the upload wizard would be insane. Which tool should I use (I am computer stupid!)? Or should someone help me? Also, is JPEG or Gif preferred (I have separate CDs of each, the GIF has more detail I think...)

Afterwards: I plan to go through and annotate all the images with a little extra information (e.g. page number of the book, description of the engineering aspect). It will be a really sweet project when the whole set is up.

TCO (talk) 00:16, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Set up the categories however you like. If it makes it easier for you to organize the files, then do it. Simple batch uploads? Try my tool: Commons:Up!. It supports chunked uploading and was designed with batch uploads in mind. JPG > GIF, because JPG supports some million plus colors while GIF supports only 256. Of course, it'd be nice to have both versions :] Good luck, FASTILY 00:26, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
My suggestions:
  1. Add generic stuff at the moment of the upload, to save work — namely a bagging category "De re metallica illustrations from So-&-so"; others can be added later, especially those that break up the "De re metallica" material by chapter/theme.
  2. Number of colors is irrelevant, as greyscale, even in JPG, goes from 0 to 255; these are monochrome illustrations (xylogravures, yes?), any color in them is an artifact (of course some artifacts can be interesting). The drawback of the JPG is that it is lossy, so I’d go for GIF — ideally converted to TIFF or PNG before uploading, as Commons wants GIFs restricted to animated ones. (Your CD’s GIFs may be however derived from the JPGs, a common mistake; pls look out for any compression artifacts, even in the GIFs.)
This seems to be an interesting project indeed! -- Tuválkin ✉ 00:57, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Not many people know about high quality GIF's, which don't have limitations to the number of colours the way most gif's we come across seem to. They have lots of colours. Penyulap ☏ 01:12, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

After reading en:GIF, I learned that I already knew most of what’s to be known about this file format. Your «high quality GIF's» seem to be, although not exactly non-existent, too unusual to be considered here. Either way, monochrome originals can (and should) be scanned and stored as monochrome images, which in turn are perfectly suited to be saved as «most gif's we come across». -- Tuválkin ✉ 17:53, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I want to try uploading the stuff, but it seems like the instructions for categories say you have to already have an image up to create a category? Is that right or can I make them before?

I think I figured it out. Did a sort of workaround with another image temporarily.TCO (talk) 04:36, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Maybe you could upload a sample: One of the GIFs and the corresponding JPEG so the graphics experts can have a look. --McZusatz (talk) 08:08, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
If you want to create a category, the simplest way is to add it (rather its name) to a file or another category (which will be a subcat of the new cat), let it show up in red, and then click the red link and fill it out with the new cat’s content (which should be at least one parent category). -- Tuválkin ✉ 17:53, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

UploadWizard should work better in Opera and Chrome since today[edit]

Bugs 48091 and 49550 have been fixed and the fixes are deployed to Commons. This means Opera and Chrome users should be seeing the same interface as the rest of us. Please continue to diligently report bugs here and at Bugzilla, and thanks for flying Wikimedia Air. --MarkTraceur (talk) 01:58, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

The project can't be a tool for tools, or can it?[edit]

If an image which perfectly meets the requirements of scope is uploaded, but the subject of the image turns out to feel bullied by that image, shouldn't one policy over-ride the other, so that as a precaution we remove the image while respecting it would otherwise be acceptable, or at least do that in cases where there is a clear consensus that the image can fall into both categories, that it is notable, but there is also a consensus that it is unacceptable because it could be considered an attack ? Penyulap ☏ 11:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like a very theoretical issue. Let’s wait for an actual case to come up, shall we? Jean-Fred (talk) 14:03, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Well, it's a simple current case. The only person that commons won't 'attack' is Jimmy, why the f*** can't we make it scope that we don't attack _anyone_ or at the very least, not attack a few more people, groups, how about a few minorities ? can we manage one minority out of this ? Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jimmy Wales by Pricasso.jpg why does Jimmy get the special treatment that everyone should get ? Penyulap ☏ 17:41, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
I agree. If something applies to Jimbo, it should apply to everyone. As I said in the discussion there, I don't see any sign of that as yet. These e.g. are clearly more gratuitous attack images than Pricasso's penis-painted portrait of Jimbo, with considerably less artistic and educational merit. Deleting Pricasso's work of Jimbo while being happy to host those files strikes me as the height of hypocrisy. I suspect the general public might share that impression. Andreas JN466 20:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Awesome, then let's delete the gratuitous attack images that aren't artistic or educational. Problem solved! :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:30, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
well, if you're serious, then help us draft a policy rather than say it in a manner that may imply it's a joke. Penyulap ☏ 21:41, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
You're right, I clearly shouldn't have tried to lighten the mood with humor. Commons is serious business and must never be approached with any sense of levity. EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:45, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your offer of help. You could start with this one: File:Santorum_spelled_with_santorum.jpg and most other images in that category. Unlike Pricasso, the "artist" in this case is not notable in any way, and the artistic merit is zero. Let's see if there is the will to apply this idea to other people than Jimbo. Andreas JN466 22:00, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
That is absolutely disgusting and I wish I hadn't looked. There are things you can't un-see.
Policy should start with a suggestion, like, for example, if 25% of people believe an image is an attack image, then it should be deleted. Add a three person minimum, point out the discussion should be the file talkpage or a DR, and that's the basis for a policy.
25% may be a little low, but if the grounds upon which they object are clearly articulated, and an appropriate minimum number of objections is defined, that should be an acceptable policy for the community. Penyulap ☏ 22:13, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

<-- The thing is, it's is a bit of a "tipping point" case. Yes, the same protection should be given to Jimbo Wales as well as to all the non-Jimbo Waleses (or Walesi ). But the relevant question here is what is the practical outcome of this vote and the real "on the ground" implications of it?

If it gets "kept" that sets a precedent that it's okay to use Commons as just another "revenge" website of which there are already too many out there. It makes a mockery of the idea that Commons is suppose to serve a practical, educational purpose. If you can harass Jimbo like that, you can do it to many "little people" who don't have the advantage of marshaling support via their much watched talk page (and I expect most of this harassment wouldn't even be noticed except by the people affected or by so called "troll" websites like Wikipediocracy).. My crystal eight ball says that if you go through this "path A", where the image kept, you're gonna get a bunch of idiots/schmucks voting "per outcome of Jimbo Wales by Pricasso DR" to keep revenge/harassment images.

If it gets "deleted" the worse that can be said is that Jimbo got special treatment. Ok. But for the right reason. We can then work on extending that "special" (which should be standard, not special) treatment to others, which is the right thing to do. The people voting "keep" on there just for the yuks and the lulz (and the yaks!) and because "it's funny" and because "I don't like Jimmy", are just myopic dimwits.

So yes. Jimbo shouldn't get special treatment. But ironically enough, if he doesn't get special treatment here, that will enable future abuse of people who never get special treatment or who don't even have a chance of getting special treatment. And if you're interested in making Commons a responsible non-idiotic, non-troll-admin infested place, those battles are going to be that much tougher to fight then.

This is actually the completely wrong conversation. It's not the one we should be having. The conversation we should be having is:

"Why do we have to even discuss this in the first place?"

"Why is a Commons admin using Commons for revenge editing?"

"Why is a Commons admin who uses Commons for pursuit of personal grudges still an admin?"

"Why is a Commons admin who uses Commons as a venue for harassing people even allowed to fucking edit here"?

Go back here where it all went wrong and remember those names that voted "support".Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:31, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

that's not fixing any problem, that's just picking sides. There are two sides at the least in every argument and you have to understand those sides to find the common ground and encourage, guide, or shove the parties towards it. I can't see how pissing off 1/2 of the people involved is a good outcome.
Someone was saying it was one of the best trolls they'd ever seen, well, I'd say the response was rather poor, a 'walked right into it' kind of thing. Let me summarise a bit:
  • up until halfway through the DR when Jimmy did the very unusual act of stating his opinion on the image, the image was perfectly in scope, wanted and needed on commons. Not my opinion here, just quoting the charter of the project. This crap is what commons collects.
  • Russavia is, at worst, extremely clever at gaming. Considering the thought, effort, and preparation that went into it, how can people not stop and know their 'opponent' first ? The entire effort was exploiting the written by-the-letter rules regulations and guidelines as they stand, keeping well within the lines that exist at the time.
  • The sole possible way you can accuse Russavia is by assuming bad faith, which is not something everyone is willing to do. Every editor goes through rough or wry patches and it effects the subjects they'll edit, happens everyday. Like my friend Tomas and the fly picture, it's just blowing off steam.
  • The counter effort, omg. Rather than send a wave of outside editors to commons to help draft a universal policy for everyone, no no, let's just do it for one person, me, because that's what the public will like most about this debarkle. Let me quote, "strikes me as the height of hypocrisy." this is magnified because not everyone lives in a country with such a class divide, some cultures expect at least lip-service to equality.
  • what was the response supposed to do ? get everyone to come to commons and martyr an admin, (and what other things he is) who, it can fairly and plainly be argued has done nothing wrong. (until Jimmy finally made his thoughts clear). I can't see how throwing half the people's favourite prince from the tower right in front of them is going to impress the little people, but you know, maybe there are the en.wiki bloodsport sector of onlookers who will cheer that. Who knows, maybe some of those will replace the people who leave. I don't know.

Why not turn the rage and anger into something constructive rather than 'walking straight into it' if Russavia gets the impression from hounding on en.wiki that his days were numbered, then martyrdom is rather attractive as a form or revenge on your harassers, from whom there seems no respite. Seriously, THAT is the freaking question, where the fuck is any anti-harassment policy that applies to everyone ? If he wanted to make a lasting point, like I said, the only way it could have been any cheekier or better would be to get the WMF to pay for the camera, hotel and airfares like they do at the drop of a hat for trivial reasons.

So the outcome is 'Commons users along with everyone else are free to stalk, harass, cyber-bully and eliminate anyone they desire, so long as it's not, you know, Jimbo Wales of course.' Where is the minutest lip-service to a better environment for 'everyone' oh sure, there were lots of big words about a better working environment just for Jimbo, but where is the lip service ? where is the lip service I ask. That's all I want, the empty lies of a politician, and we don't even get that much. Jipped. But seriously, how does Russavia not come out of this looking like the good guy who did nothing wrong according to the letter of the law, and Jimmy not come out of this as using canvassing for his own ends alone ? How does it not look like someone 'pressed Jimmy buttons' ? In a perfect world, or even a less-crappy project we could just draft a policy that says, hey one dozen editors say an image is an attack image, then, if they are not outnumbered 2 to 1, the image gets the chop. It's done. Problem solved for EVERYONE. Why is it so necessary to preserve the ability to use commons for trolling and harassment of some people, but not others ? That question is the elephant in the room. Is commons a tool for tools ? Penyulap ☏ 06:44, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. People will just scream "harassment" to have content that they disapprove of deleted. This is the gateway for censorship. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:46, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
MDS, not being directed towards you, but that's what Volunteer Marek above did last year; except he also blatantly and wilfully lied about sources. Didn't you Marek? Please be honest about your past history with me Marek; especially your continued participation in EEML/Wikipediametric (a nationalist mailing list) which engaged in systematic and fully documented harassment on myself; and also your frank admission to me on email that you have been trying to get me banned, because in your words, I "fucked with" you on an article in which you were POV-pushing. And let's not forget your public libellous statements of me being a racist. Volunteer Marek, I suggest that you stop now with your continued harassment, or I will take further action. russavia (talk) 14:03, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Russavia, I would appreciate it if you stopped lying about me, trying to threaten me, and stopped your bullying behavior. Yes, you are lying. I did not "lie with sources". You are simply full of shit here. There's no "continued participation in EEML". You are full of shit here as well. There was no "frank admission that I would try to get you banned". You are lying again Russavia. You seem to be just incapable of writing two sentences together without lying, attacking and smearing someone.
The only part of the above statement which is true is that you DO in fact "fuck with" people who point out your odious behavior or who are critical of you. That's what you've done to me, and that's why you were long term banned from en-wiki. That's also what you're doing to Jimmy here; because he dared to criticize you. And that's why it's simply insane that a person like you has admin powers on a Wikimedia Foundation project.
Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:11, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
I am responding to this outrageous rubbish to Marek directly on his user talk page. russavia (talk) 22:20, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I'd appreciate it if you stayed off my user talk page.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:43, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
@Michael, at least there would be a process where people could yell 'harassment' and 'freedom' at each other across a talkpage and that could be tallied up in a meaningful manner rather than the chaos there is now. What IS policy when there IS no policy. I think that people from lynching countries with high crime rates may have some kind of instinct to ignore the problem as a weird individual self-defence mechanism, but not everyone has that. There are many parts of the world, surely we can agree on something that works better than what we (don't) have now. Penyulap ☏ 14:16, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Returning to the question that started this discussion, I've just noticed that no fewer than six images of a notable person/public figure were recently deleted out of process on far flimsier grounds, that they "were unflattering" and might interfere with the subject performer's self-marketing. [4][5][6][7][8] If we're going to set the removal bar that low, there's no question that the JWales-related Pricasso files need to go immediately. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (talk) 22:40, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like a job for... the Commons[edit]

"Giving away an archive of modern art" (International Herald Tribune, 6 June 2013, p. 10): "Help yourself to D. James Dee's luscious, sprawling photographic archive of the modern New York art scene. He has about 250,000 color transparencies and slides, ranging in size from 35 milimeter to 8 by 10 inches, documenting the work of almost every important artist of the past 40 years and installations at some of the most influential galleries. And, yes, he's giving them away. All you'll need is a truck large enough to hold 65 cardboard file boxes. It would help if you represent a nonprofit organization, because Mr. Dee hopes to receive a tax deduction for donating his life's work. But that's not a deal breaker. You should, however, be conversant with modern American art history. Really conversant. Almost none of the transparencies and slides are labeled. ... The National Gallery of Art, Getty Images, and the Fales Library and Special Collections of New York University have declined his offer, Mr. Dee said. ... 'At some point,' Mr. Dee said, 'I've got to get a Dumpster to put them in.' He sounded very sad. And quite serious."

Sounds like a job for the Commons! (Though I realize that photographs of the artworks themselves would not be suitable for the Commons until their copyright has expired.) — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 11:38, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Could be a nice project for someone/an organization with a bit of handy cool storage space and a few volunteers to categorize and scan the material with the highest public benefit. Maybe a couple of local enthusiasts could work with Mr. Dee to put in a bid for a small grant from m:Grants:Start to ensure these are stored, and at least the risk of having them dumped is removed? A few hundred dollars might make a big difference here to cover a bit of travel and the cost of a reasonable scanner. --Fæ (talk) 12:40, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Doesn't sound like a job for Wikimedia Commons to me, for the reason you put in parentheses: it is a "photographic archive of the modern New York art scene". So, Commons has not a lot to gain from this, as probably most of these photos can't be used here due to still being protected by copyright. And why should we laboriously identify the artists and works of unlabeled pictures if they can't be published? I'm not surprised that Getty et al. have declined Mr. Dee's offer, as they of course are very aware of rights isssues. Gestumblindi (talk) 14:24, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
  • It does seem an ugly shame just for the sake of storage. Hopefully someone in NYC will fund transport and storage for them in the next couple of weeks. WMF grants would probably be too slow and the copyrights won't do here for decades. Ebay, photography schools, and art museums may be a good solution if they have temporary storage. Cataloguing will be a mess. He will be in FLA but most of those that can ID the shots may be in NYC area.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:15, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
I guess that since this is primarily an online project with little physical space, it is hard to take a long term view and hold the items in storage. The photographs of artworks now copyrighted will eventually become free to use when the copyrights expire. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 03:20, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
This sounds like a job for the New York City Wikimedia chapter? They should grab the boxes and tape him talking about it while doing so. Next, since the boxes are formed in chronological order, an art history intern should be set to work to document his published photo shoots through the 70s and 80s and these should be picked out to work on. Uploads to Commons are definitely in the pipeline if we or a NYC team can get permission from the artists, as permission from the photographer is already granted. Usually it's the permission from the photographer that's difficult, as this is usually unknown. Jane023 (talk) 06:00, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Good idea. I left a message at "meta:Talk:Wikimedia New York City#Sounds like a job for... the Commons" directing editors to the discussion here. If it would help, I am prepared to make a modest donation towards costs. However, I think the main issue will be finding a space to temporarily house the boxes. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 14:29, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Are you sure that many artists (or their heirs) will agree to a license (as required by Commons) that allows unlimited use, including commercial use, of their work? - Regarding copyright expiration: many of the artists are still alive, I suppose. Copyright will expire 70 years after their death in most cases (that's now the term in the U.S. too for most works published from 1978, see Commons:Hirtle chart), so well... it would be a purely archival project (no publication under a free license allowed) for most works for a very, very long time and probably none of us would live to see publication on Commons ;-) Gestumblindi (talk) 15:59, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
I mentioned the copyright issue in my original posting. I doubt we will be able to obtain permission for free licensing of the photographs of artworks themselves so, yes, this would be largely a long-term archival project. Of course there may also be photographs of artists that can be uploaded to the Commons immediately, but we won't know whether such photographs exist until someone has had a chance to go through the material. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 21:05, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but this is a no-brainer. You should watch the Banksy movie Exit Through the Gift Shop to understand why. Like Banksy's work, most of the works photgraphed were installments that no longer exist. If you read the linked article (which also shows the boxes - 65 shoeboxes should not be a problem to stash somewhere) you will see that he was often hired to document works, and these are the extra shots that artists are probably unaware of. Most modern artists I know are always delighted to receive more info about their work, and we are not asking them to release rights on their work, but on these specific photographs of their work. I can't imagine modern artists or their heirs objecting. Jane023 (talk) 08:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm not so sure that this is a no-brainer. You say we are not asking them to release rights on their work, but on these specific photographs of their work - well... but in fact the free licenses mandatory on Commons are quite broad. Commercial use and derivative works must be allowed. So the artists should be aware that, if they agree to release rights on "these specific photographs", this means in fact: Anyone, if adhering to the license (e.g. CC-BY-SA), is allowed to e.g. print postcards, t-shirts or posters of these photographs and to sell them (it's not hard to adhere to CC-BY-SA, mentioning the artist and the license with the URL e.g. on the flip side of a poster or on the bottom of a mug is sufficient). Or to make a book "The art of <insert artist's name here>" containing these photographs, selling it for a good price. The artist would see nothing of the money and couldn't forbid publication of the book, as the photographs would be freely licensed, allowing re-use of this kind. Also, other artists might use the photographs as a base to create artwork, alter them, remix them, that's what a free license means. So, some broad-minded artists might still agree to this, but I wouldn't really say "I can't imagine modern artists or their heirs objecting". Gestumblindi (talk) 19:08, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I know some artists who would be thrilled to see their work on a postcard, mug or T-shirt! Your answer implies that if they release rights to these photos they would be missing out on "lots of money", which is just silly in this case, since even they themselves could not earn money with these photos, since they have never even seen them. The point is in any case, that the bigger half of the problem is already solved, which is the consent of the photographer. Most of the artists I have been in contact with look confused when I tell them that photos of their work are only eligible for Wikimedia Commons if they have consent from the photographer as well. Jane023 (talk) 07:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Recalling I had read another article in the International Herald Tribune about the Internet Archive's efforts to warehouse every book ever printed, I decided to e-mail them to see if they are interested in taking Dee's photographic collection. I thought it was worth a try, since the worst that can happen is that they'll say no. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 09:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Writing as part of Wikimedia NYC, I think that it would be possible for us to temporarily store the collection in one or two members' homes, if no other option is available (of course, this would not be a professional archival facility). For actually using the images, I guess the hitch would be contacting and convincing all the artists or their estates. Probably we would also want to look into a non-proprietary online archive with more liberal rules than Commons (Internet Archive is the obvious one) in cases where that permission cannot be easily gotten.--Pharos (talk) 17:55, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Pharos. Would you and other members of your project like to reach out to Dee and see if you can work something out? Another editor has helpfully informed me that his e-mail address is dee-at-thesohophotographer.com. It might be a good idea to find a temporary storage place for the items to save them from being dumped, and then find a more permanent home for them such as the Wikimedia Foundation or the Internet Archive. (If a non-profit were to accept ownership, that would enable Dee to obtain his tax deduction.) I'll let you know if I hear anything from the Internet Archive. (No response so far.) — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 05:28, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Great Pharos! You may be interested in a tip from the Public Catalog Foundation: They put all works online, including the ones under copyright, after they first took out an insurance policy against copyright violations. You could do this too for this specific group of photos, and then put them up on your website or on facebook with the question "Do you know this artist?". I would only bother with the photos that seem notable, but then you can always add the other ones in later as the yes/no answers come rolling in... I have no idea what the cost of insurance against copyright violations could be, but this way you increase your chances of getting responses, especially for those works where Mr. Dee doesn't remember the artist. Once you have five or so "yes" answers from prominent NYC artists, you can create a Wikipedia page for Mr. Dee based on his work for them, and then refer to this in your advertised question. Most people are willing to help if they see the benefit for them in publicity. Of course, maybe none of the artists are prominent, in which case it will be a waste of time - good luck! Jane023 (talk) 07:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Accessibility Project Ideas - Looking for Contributors[edit]

Hi Commons Community,

The nonprofit organization I work with, Benetech has been developing software for over 20 years to make books accessible to all with particular focus on students with print disabilities. Today our most prominent projects are [[9]Bookshare], the world's largest library of accessible eBooks, and the DIAGRAM Center, which is developing open source tools, best practices and standards to solve the accessibility challenges presented by images, diagrams and mathematics across all digital media. Our vision is that when content is born digital, it is born accessible. We are very interested in engaging the Commons community to help us with the following projects:

Accessibility Metadata: We[1] have proposed[2] an extension to Schema.org that will enable users to search for accessible content and quickly assess the accessibility of a web resource[3]. Adoption via MediaWiki and by Commons will encourage formal Schema.org adoption. An example use case is a student or a content creator, such as a teacher creating accessible supplementary materials, may want to find images that have alternative descriptions or videos that are closed-captioned or subtitled. A good way to demonstrate the downside of the lack of this type of accessibility metadata is to compare the below two Google searches for closed-captioned videos about the moon landing filtered by site:

Example video search filtered by whether it's closed-captioned


Open Source Tools for Cross-Platform, Accessible and Performant MathML: At a recent Accessible OER Sprint[4][5] we identified that the accessibility of math in web pages is a significant issue. MathML is the recommended accessible format for math and Wikipedia is supporting MathML through the use of MathJax, which can be enabled in MediaWiki[6]. Unfortunately, for blind and dyslexic students to listen to MathML they need to use either the proprietary and platform limited MathPlayer plugin[7] or Google Chrome's ChromeVox screenreader[8], which has limited adoption by blind users[9]. MathJax itself has presented issues due to poor rendering performance, particularly in IE[10]. We would to continue work on the productization of a prototype we built at the recent sprint, which pre-generated accessible SVG images of MathML via server-side application that enabled the server-side execution of MathJax for SVG rendering and ChromeVox for aural rendering[11]. In addition to having images that could be described via a screen reader for blind and dyslexic users, all users of Wikipedia would greatly benefit from higher quality SVG graphics versus the current PNG images.


Wikimedia Commons as a Repository of Accessible Educational Resources: Through the DIAGRAM Center Benetech has been doing a lot of work on accessibility of images and exploring crowdsourcing methods. One of the projects we want to undertake is to create a CC licensed repository of accessible images, with a focus on STEM education, that can be remixed/reused, thus freeing up teachers and disability services specialists from having to recreate these resources themselves. Wikimedia Commons can be this repository. These images could then be tagged with Accessibility Metadata[3] and LRMI metadata[12] to make it easier for educators and publishers to discover them. We would like to apply the methodologies and technologies developed out of the DIAGRAM Center to Wikimedia Commons. For example, we could include a wizard tool to help Commons contributors more effectively describe images. We could also include tools for more easily creating and incorporating SVG graphics that can be printed on tactile[13] and 3D printers. Once media resources were enhanced with accessibility features, we could enable discovery of those media resources via the search features on Commons. We could also partner with Gooru Learning and the Learning RegistryInBloom who have been working with us on indexing Accessibility Metadata in educational resources to index these resources.

Please let us know if you're interested in working with us on this project.


Thank You,

Gerardo Capiel

VP of Engineering, Benetech

  1. ↑ Accessibility Metadata Working Group [1]
  2. ↑ Schema.org proposal: [2]
  3. ↑ a b Accessibility Metadata: [3]
  4. ↑ Accessible OER Sprint blog posts: http://kefletcher.blogspot.com/2013/06/learning-born-accessible-sprint-design.html
  5. ↑ Accessible OER Sprint planning document
  6. ↑ MediaWiki MathJax Extension used on Wikipedia: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension_talk:MathJax
  7. ↑ http://www.dessci.com/en/products/mathplayer/
  8. ↑ http://www.chromevox.com
  9. ↑ WebAIM 2012 Screen Reader User Survey: http://webaim.org/projects/screenreadersurvey4/#primary
  10. ↑ http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension_talk:MathJax#.5BADDED.5D_Using_magic_words_to_enable.2Fdisable_MathJax_functionality_per_page
  11. ↑ https://github.com/philschatz/oer.exports
  12. ↑ Learning Resources Metadata Initiative: http://lrmi.net
  13. ↑ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactile_graphic

-end of comment by (Gerardo Capiel)

  • Hi Gerardo, I can make images suitable for use in guides for sighted people to outline what they can do to help. I'm not good with svg, but I am an ok graphics artist. I'd like to help with the images you want on guideline pages. If you click on the green telephone next to my name and write any request on my talkpage I'll be happy to help. Penyulap ☏ 19:07, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
On the subject of math rendering, try sending an email to wikitech-l, you're probably get a better response on that topic there. On the subject of accessible metadata: Are there actually currently existing applications that would use this metadata (I only ask because its not uncommon for people to come out with X new metadata standard which nobody ever uses and then is forgotten about after a couple months)? Currently commons does not support microdata, but that could probably be changed if the people here wanted to use such markup Bawolff (talk) 22:01, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
With regard to math, it's a mess and it's a mess that largely has problems that need to be solved outside of MediaWiki/Wikipedia (it's the browser and operating system vendors that need to step up here). The current strategy is texvc rendering as PNG, with MathJax for those who want to bear it in terms of performance penalty. Some work is going on by Physikerwelt to replace texvc with LatexML rendering to MathML, with mathjax on top of that. He has a special focus on making Math searchable by using Content MathML, which might also be useful for accessibility purposes.
In general our community standpoint on accessibility has been rather sceptic and I presume this is a direct result of the many broken and misguided attempts at accessibility of the early web. So wizards are welcome, new versions of WCAG are welcome, but probably you shouldn't expect from the community to add a standard that nobody is using (we are not a sandbox or proofing ground for your technology). TheDJ (talk) 19:00, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
P.S. Have you considered developing something like the w:Acid3 html test, but then for mathml rendering of browser and operating system vendors ? TheDJ (talk) 19:11, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Request for Checkuser rights[edit]

This is to inform the community that there is a nomination for Checkuser rights here. It was agreed a couple of years ago that such requests and for Oversight (which are quite rare) should be publicised due to the high level of trust required in users with these rights. Trijnsteltalk 20:38, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

June 16[edit]

Help with a template, please[edit]

Hi all

For use in some forthcoming policy discussions, I'd like to have available a new header/footer template pair {{Proposal top}} {{Proposal bottom}} along the lines of {{Discussion top}} {{Discussion bottom}} to mark off policy proposal sections. The idea is that typing eg {{Proposal top|3|Proposal title}} ... {{Proposal bottom}} would generate something like this:

Proposal 3 by ~~~~

Proposal title

  • text
  • more text
  • ...

I'm not very familiar with detailed template syntax and I wondered if someone could help me out here? I'd much appreciate it. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:11, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Michael two solutions that avoid new templates:
  • Think about using {{rfc}} instead.
  • Years ago I invested some of my volunteer time in significantly improving the way divbox works on en.wp and this was later brought over to Commons. There are many choices of style in {{divbox}} such as amber, gold, orange, brown (we could always add more), an example is below. Again this avoids you having to define a whole new type of proposal process, particularly if you just use the standard discussion top/bottom template once the discussion is closed.
Code
{{divbox|amber|Proposal title|Introduction
*text
*more text}}
Results
Proposal title
Introduction
  • text
  • more text
--Fæ (talk) 12:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
OK, thanks Fae. That seems like a workable solution. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Source and permission of File:Itzhak perlman.jpg lost during transfer from zh.wikipedia[edit]

Hi there,

File:Itzhak perlman.jpg has no author information ("Original uploader was Gazagoal at zh.wikipedia" isn't an author information) and the source was also lost during the transfer from zh.wikipedia. I can't figure out how to get the original information, as [10] points to the wikimedia file (and apparently the data was removed there). How can one access the original data?

Calimo (talk) 20:21, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

An admin at zh.wikipedia could access the (deleted) original image and description. It appears to be a scan from a photograph, possibly this one. On the original uploader's talk page, there are some deletion notices for photos of musicians (or so I guess, not speaking Chinese). I think this picture is another copyright violation. --rimshottalk 21:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
I think so too. http://www.allmusic.com/artist/itzhak-perlman-mn0000922859 gives credit to Akira Kinoshita. A self-created scan, yes, but not a self-created photo. Also another remaining upload from that user File:Richter concerto.jpg isnt own work. --Martin H. (talk) 22:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Makes sense. I requested the data on zh.wiki (not speaking chinese but Google was able to translate it for me), and we'll see from there. Calimo (talk) 09:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Ok, an admin on zh.wiki (铁铁的火大了) provided some more information. Source and author were never supplied. I will tag the file accordingly Calimo (talk) 10:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC).

June 17[edit]

About the Upload Wizard[edit]

  • By default the upload wizard is asking description only in the interface language of the uploader. Most newbies, especially non-European, give the description only in their own language not understanding that a description on English should also be provided, because the upload wizard does not say anything about it. I suggest that by default description would be asked both in English and the interface language of the uploader. When looking at possible copyvios at new files it's making the check of files a lot harder when there is no description in English.
  • Most newbies also don't add any categories, because the upload wizard is not recommending it. If no categories is given, the upload wizard should be giving for example a warning in a red box or with red text that categories should be given.
  • The same should be applied if no desciption is given in English. Most uploaders would probably give then a description in English.
  • A third problem is that at least one third of the copyvios is uploaded by Spanish-speaking users. Is there anything we could do about it?
  • At least in Finnish the PD options are only "PD-Art", "published before 1923" and "PD-UsGov" (and the PD-Art has been translated wrong in Finnish). Many countries have a shorter protection period for photographs, and works by authorities are often PD. Would it be possible to make customized licenses depending on the interface language, perhaps by adding a dropdown box to the wizard? Or is it meant that the wizard should stay as simple as possible? Greetings, /á(!) 10:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
I've filed 49709 and 49710, the rest of your problems look like i18n problems which can be fixed in the MediaWiki namespace or at translatewiki.net, or problems with the culture of commons which I can't fix in software...yet. Thanks very much for the feedback :) --MarkTraceur (talk) 17:58, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
There's no obligation to upload a description in English; Commons is multilingual. An English description is certainly convenient, but not necessary.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Extension:ImportFreeImages[edit]

Any reason why Extension:ImportFreeImages was never implemented on commons wikimedia?. Its a very useful tool to upload free and well licenced images from to a wiki. I generally go on a wikia wiki which implements this extension and search for my desired image and when i find it, i upload it to commons via this toolserver tool instead which is slightly more complicated for an average user to use...--Stemoc (talk) 11:10, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The UploadWizard now provides direct upload from Flickr (restricted to sysops & image reviewers at the moment) − see Commons:Upload Wizard/Flickr. Jean-Fred (talk) 11:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Though the upload Wizard is limited to recognizing unrestricted files (in the sense that Flickr uses it) and those without "NC" or other licence components outside of CC-BY-SA, with no option to override this (even for admins or reviewers). This can be a real barrier for some streams where the contents are demonstrably PD but not tagged as such, especially if the stream owner is not responding to queries and it would be to the public benefit to preserve the contents on Commons. --Fæ (talk) 12:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Please expand Commons:Upload_Wizard/Flickr#Bugs_and_missing_features :) Jean-Fred (talk) 12:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm feeling more educated by the minute[edit]

How about Category:Fantasy Fest 2006 for educational? And check out those quality, informational file names. — Scott • talk 15:16, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

It's a bit like the U.S. magazine called 'national geographic'. People would look at the pictures and get a better idea of how civilised other cultures in far-flung corners of the world are, or just giggle at the titties. I guess using the wiki, people in far-flung corners of the world can look at the U.S. culture and get a better idea of how civilised they are, or just giggle at the titties. Penyulap ☏ 15:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Bodypainting exhibitions in France are a family affair. Isn't that fantastic? (Oh and I uploaded it!)
That's fantastic Scott Martin. I am very pleased that you are finding Commons' content educational. In case you didn't know this is what we call a woman's breast. Keep studying Commons and you will learn many things about human anatomy and sexuality that you won't learn on English Wikipedia, and one of these days you might get to touch one in real life. russavia (talk) 15:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
There you have it, folks, a Commons administrator and bureaucrat. — Scott • talk 16:34, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Russavia, there are currently 15 images included in w:Body painting. Six of those images contain exposed breasts. In w:Breast there are 11 images, all of which, not surprisingly, show breasts. Plus, just about every WP article which could arguably be expected to contain an image of a breast has at least one image. If you think WP is lacking in images of breasts, you are very wrong. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
It's funny, because I showed the French image to the right to someone on French Wikipedia earlier, after they pointed me to fr:Masturbation which puts the English Wikipedia version to shame in terms of how censored English Wikipedia is. But it's great that English Wikipedia does have photos of breasts in articles in which one would expect it -- I am ecstatic that Commons is able to fulfill those imaging requirements for English Wikipedia, and provide a diverse range of images to choose from. Whilst my previous post in response to Scott Martin was obviously in jest, Delicious carbuncle I do thank you for letting us know that Commons is more than adequately fulfilling it's mission in providing freely licenced media content not only to WMF projects, but to the world at large. russavia (talk) 16:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, Russavia, I find it difficult to know when you are being serious and when you are trying to be funny. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:38, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
That category confuses me. Aren't contestants in wet t-shirt competitions meant to... you know... wear t-shirts? -mattbuck (Talk) 16:16, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
A NSFW painting by Rubens (nudity, do not enlarge).
Scott Martin, as well as browsing Commons, I think you would find many public art galleries a great education. As you are in London, you may want to look at a family membership of a gallery like the Tate, or just pop along to the free National Portrait Gallery a few times. My membership means I get to see all the special exhibitions, so I have a reason to get exposed to all sorts of modern artwork outside of my normal tastes (which tends to be 19th century), including much that I find bizarre, provoking or upsetting. This sort of art with nudes, is neither new in concept, nor a crime in Europe. By the way, Wikipedians often find the Commons file renaming process confusing; once you reach 1,000 edits or more, do apply for the right to move files, you can then help improve them to be more meaningful. In the meantime see {{rename}} which is fairly easy to use. --Fæ (talk) 16:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
This is the sound of a point being missed. — Scott • talk 16:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
I think what Fae was trying to say to you is that if you want to look at "sexual" or "nudity" images all day every day, that you might consider broadening your horizons and going to an art gallery, and you will see more such images (or paintings) from time gone by (as in museums) or contemporary (in terms of art galleries) that might be able to better fulfill your requirements for sexy images above and beyond our somewhat limited collection. He also said that you could come to commons, build up your edit count (in file space tagging copyvios, etc is a good start) and once you hit 1,000 edits you'll likely get the file mover right. I think you can understand that now, and it's my pleasure to help you to understand the point of Fae's post. russavia (talk) 16:56, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
No, I understood that pisspoor attempt at trolling immediately. — Scott • talk 22:43, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Another anti-Commons rant. Some people seemingly cannot understand that Commons is not en.wp and the views as well as the users here (hint: quite a bit are not even from Anglo-Saxon nations) are different. This gets boring. --Rosenzweig τ 17:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Did you have a point? Yes, you don't like nudity. While there is a large body of people who agree with you, consensus on Commons is going against you. I don't see how your sarcastic statement advances the state of the discussion any.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Do enlighten me as to where I said any such thing? Oh, you can't. — Scott • talk 08:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't think someone who opens a discussion with a sarcastic statement has any right to object that he was misconstrued. I further note that you avoided the main thrust of my comment, that starting a discussion this way does nothing to improve anything anything.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Diptera husbandry.gif

well, to bring up something less boring, there is a lot of nudity in the animal world, I don't know about where you live, but around where I live, it has become rather rampant. Penyulap ☏ 17:16, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Back to the original topic: I think there would be a clear justification for documenting such an event. It is of cultural interest. In my opinion, this particular photographer (or the uploader who selected the photos) appears to have been overly distracted by the chance to see exposed female breasts to the point where he or she made or uploaded a relative poor set of photos. Given that these were already out on the Internet, I'd have never bothered bringing them over to Commons, but I don't see it as particularly harmful that someone did.

By way of a possibly more interesting example: I am among those who have photographed an annual Seattle event where a lot of people are body-painted but otherwise naked. You might want a look at Category:Solstice Cyclists (some content possibly NSFW, depending where you work). I think these are quite valuable images, are certainly of cultural interest, and will become more so the farther away they are in time.

Which is to say, I don't see any active problem with the images Scott originally pointed out, but I think they are relatively low-quality contributions. - Jmabel ! talk 01:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

unblock request community input[edit]

"wider community input" has been requested here in regards to unblocking a user. Penyulap ☏ 20:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

June 18[edit]

Reorg proposal[edit]

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Gigs has proposed rewriting his proposal to be clearer, so I am taking this as consent to mark this stage of the discussion archived. Additional pointers with this in mind might be useful to tack on the bottom of this discussion, however the solution put forward here is likely to be superseded and may not yet be worth spending a lot of volunteer time drilling into, to discover devils in the detail. Fæ (talk) 18:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

There's been criticism that no one has proposed anything here despite all the recent noise. For those who didn't read my op-ed, here's a quick summary of points:

Assertions:

  • Commons is a project caught between the original function of inter-wiki (and mostly inter-encyclopedia) sharing of media, and the desire for autonomy and goals that differ from those of the projects it serves.
  • Despite a desire for autonomy, commons lacks well-defined inclusion policies (other than free licensing), with the educational requirement being effectively meaningless, because anything can be argued to be educational, or not, depending on the whims of the editors. This boils inclusion down to a popularity contest (I like it, I don't like it).
  • Commons has faced massive administrative backlogs in the past, some of which have improved.

Proposed solution, and consequences:

  • Separate the inter-wiki media sharing function from the function of a free media gallery.
    • Commons will no longer face the influx of abuse from those who are uploading images to the major encyclopedias.
    • Commons will not be subject to such a close association with the Wikipedias, which will allow for more autonomy.
    • Commons can become a true sister project, instead of a project created to serve the needs of other projects.
    • De-commons-ing inter-wiki sharing function will mean that other projects need to handle their own uploads instead of letting a large chunk of them fall into commons, reducing administrative load here.

On a technical level, the files could remain centralized. The only difference would be metadata on the files which kept track of which projects are "subscribed" to the file. When a file becomes completely orphaned (by being "deleted" on every project, which is the same as "unsubscribed"), it would be garbage collected periodically. Search functions on individual projects would not search files not "subscribed" to by the project by default. Searches could be expanded to include all available interwiki files, but this would not be the default.

In a way, this is a greater level of centralization, since there would be no need for the messy and time-consuming "move to commons" project. If commons wanted to claim a freely licensed image used at another project, they'd just subscribe to it. Then if the other project deleted it, commons would be the only subscriber.

My op-ed might have seemed negative toward commons, but I think the proposal is win-win. It's clear that autonomy is desired here, and it's clear that there are some at other projects who are unhappy that commons policy and administration, or lack thereof, impacts the other projects that commons was originally designed to serve. This is a way to establish commons as a fully independent project. It won't necessarily silence criticism of Common's inclusion criteria, but it is my hope that once full autonomy is established, Commons will develop more mature inclusions policies once freed from the requirements of the projects it currently serves. Gigs (talk) 16:11, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

  • This doesn't even make any sense. If I understand it at all you're saying that every file on any project is automatically transferred to Commons by subscription (including the Fair Use stuff, etc.?) and any file unused by a project must be automatically deleted entirely (better patrol your Wiki pages closely) and all of this will make Commons more independent. Clearly the first thing to delete is this proposal. Wnt (talk) 16:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
    • That's not the proposal at all. No file is "transferred" to commons. When a file is uploaded, it will be marked as subscribed to the project it was uploaded to. If it's a free license and within the scope of commons, commons can choose to subscribe to that file as well. Being "subscribed" to a file doesn't mean it's in use, it's just a tag indicating that the file belongs to those projects. If a file belongs to no projects, it's garbage collected. Gigs (talk) 17:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
    I agree with Wnt completely. This idea is ridiculous and unworkable. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Politically I disagree with this proposal, but ignoring that for a second and concentrating on the technical (since that's the area I'm interested in). I find the technical details of this proposal confusing. Is this what you're proposing:
    • you upload a file to some project
    • If people like the file at another project, there's a one click button to "subscribe" to the file, which transfers the file to the other project, copying over the file description page (or is the file description page centralized? Who owns it? Who can make edits to the file description page?)
    • If 0 projects have subscribed to the file, it is garbage collected. De-subscribing from the file is different from just failing to use it in any article(?)

Which raises the question - how do people discover what files they can subscribe to? What indications are there the file exists before the project has subscribed to it? How is this different from disabling commons file sharing system, and just having a slick upload by url UI that can upload from other Wikimedia projects? If this is really what people want, then I wouldn't expect them to actually use commons, but instead pretend it doesn't exist and just upload everything locally. Bawolff (talk) 17:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

      • The file description is tied to the file, not to a particular project. There is no "transfer" between projects. Need to think outside the current box to understand this proposal. If zero projects are subscribed to the file, that means that the project that the file was originally uploaded through has decided that it's outside of scope for that project (they are "auto-subscribed"), and that no other project has picked it up since it was uploaded. It has nothing to do with the in-use status of the file.
      • To your final question, there will be a search function for all inter-wiki files, regardless of subscription. There won't be a concept of "local files" anymore. It would not be hard for commons to operate much like it does now, monitoring these results for free-license candidates that are within scope for commons. Gigs (talk) 17:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
        • And what happens when enwiki and frwiki gets in an edit dispute over the file description page. Can somebody (who?) protect the file description page? Can other images be used on the file description page? What if someone want to use an image on the file description page but that image is only subscribed to some of the wikis using the file. If someone is blocked on project X can they still edit the file description page on that project, etc etc. Bawolff (talk) 18:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
          • Those are excellent questions that will have to be answered and I thank you for taking the time to understand what I'm getting at. I don't have an answer right now, other than I don't think those are insurmountable issues. I will take a stab at addressing them as I flesh out the proposal, but clearly there's going to have to be some back and forth and consensus forming to develop something that works. Gigs (talk) 18:31, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't know where to start with the issues, so a couple of random thoughts. Wikimedia is a not for profit organisation, with a limited budget, creating a free media gallery greater in scope than Commons is an invitation for people to use it rather than commercial services such as Flickr or Picassa for storage of their photos - what use is blurry CC-BY-SA photograph of a prize winning pumpkin from the local village fete ? The associated costs with that alone could cripple the WMF. MediaWiki isn't actually the best software for a pure imagery based website (c.f Flickr et al) anyway but if it's free, people will use (and abuse) it. The proposal as it stands is a legal nightmare of biblical proportions, there's already bizarre, clingy, weird and naughty behaviour regarding Fair Use imagery on my home wiki, English Wikipedia, so automatic deletion of photographs and subscribing to photos to make them available is a horror story in waiting, with people adding images to odd pages and creating lists to prevent 'their' Fair Use uploads from being deleted. Just no. Nick (talk) 17:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
    • If a blurry fair use picture of a pumpkin is uploaded to En, then commons would clearly not want it, so they wouldn't subscribe to it, and if En decided there was no use for it, they'd delete (or "unsubscribe") to it, and it'd get deleted. That situation isn't really any different from what it is today. Maybe subscription is the wrong word, but these changes in subscription are basically the same as "creating" and "deleting", and would be treated with much the same processes that occur today with creation and deletion. Gigs (talk) 17:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Could someone help Gigs out with a report of how much of the 17,000,000 media files on Commons are currently in use on other Wikimedia projects?
If we were to create a searchable "Interwiki Commons" consisting of only the stuff that is in use on sister projects (easy to write a bot to do this), I would expect that interesting collections such as the 100,000+ images from NARA, the 250,000 images from the Department of Defense, or the 1,800,000 images from Geograph would end up being 98% or 99% not visible on the inter-wiki; if my understanding of how Gigs' vision might work is what was meant.
Most Wikipedians, Wikisourcerers et al, might find this rather costly if the Interwiki Commons became the norm in terms of limiting their standard access options, as well as confusing. Compare this to having solutions for the real issue of managing sexual content. Creating options for how the public can browse Commons content does not need the permission or consensus of current Commons users to be developed, or to make available as add-ons or widgets, rather than integrated. --Fæ (talk) 17:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Who said anything about "in use"? Being "subscribed" to a file is equivalent to having a file uploaded, "unsubscribing" is the same as a local deletion. Except there's no reason to physically move any files around. It doesn't imply anything about whether it's in use or not. This has little to do with sexual content, and everything to do with solving the larger problems. Gigs (talk) 17:35, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Sorry, then I still don't understand the benefits of "subscription" or identification of "garbage" if the users do not view potential media files in that way. I genuinely thought that was a key reason for the proposal. I have re-read your summary and I'm not sure it conveys your expectations for a solution. Perhaps you could think of expressing the solution separately from the goals, in the form of a user case statement or set of testable requirements? This might avoid more accidental misunderstandings. --Fæ (talk) 17:50, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
      • After the confused response here, I am tempted to close this discussion while I draw up a more detailed technical description with use cases and scenarios. I clearly have not done a very good job of explaining what I meant, and what the benefits will be. I don't want to seem like I'm shutting down negative feedback though, so if you think it's a good idea, please close this discussion pending a better explanation from me. Gigs (talk) 18:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Regardless of the intent, the technical aspect of this is ridiculously overcomplicated. For any technical solution, the KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) principle is best. Every single additional element creates new potential bugs, flaws and failures; usually in proprotion to the number of existing elements. This is so overcomplicated it will almosrt certainly be in a constant state of crashing. The current system, simple transclusion, is basic enough to actually work. On a project level, this does not allow for images and other media to be available for new definition/guide/article/etc creation, forcing each new piece of content to hunt externally for material (if anyone can be bothered) and it does not support cooperation with GLAMs and their donations. So, more likely to fail and sacrificing a lot of functionality for no gain. I oppose this proposal. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Interwiki transclusion has greater complexity than this. How many hours do people spend transwiki-ing files back and forth? All media would be available to all projects in a much more flexible way than currently. If someone uploads a file to French Wikipedia, there is no easy way for me to find that today unless someone transwikis to Commons. Under my proposal, they could easily find the file as soon as it is uploaded through interwiki media search, and tick the subscription flag for their Wiki. My proposal does have some flaws, but so far no one has cited anything other than their own misunderstanding of what is actually proposed. Gigs (talk) 17:47, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Swimming pools in various countries[edit]

I'm trying to apply some order to categorization of swimming pools in all of the country categories. Swimming pools themselves are under the category of Category:Pools, Category:Swimming locations, Category:Architectural elements, Category:Baths, and Category:Sports venues which all but the last I agree upon. How can you say that a house swimming pool or even a hotel swimming pool is a "sports venue"? While checking out the categories under various countries, I've found the following Category:Entertainment venues in Germany, Category:Baths in Greece, Category:Structures in Hungary, Category:Tourism in Israel, Category:Recreation in Japan, Category:Buildings in Jersey, Category:Structures in Mexico, Category:Recreation in South Africa, Category:Architectural elements in Spain, Category:Sports venues in Switzerland, Category:Landscape architecture in Tunisia, Category:Swimming in the United States. There needs to be some order to the categories for each swimming pool by country. What do others think the categories for each country should be under Category:Swimming pools by country category? --Mjrmtg (talk) 17:04, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

All of the above seem to have some sense, but the whole is awfully incomplete. If you’re going to tackle "swimming pools" you need to create (and populate!) other concurrent meta tree structures, not only "swimming pools by country":
  • swimming pools by date
  • swimming pools by date of construction (these and the previous are two different things)
  • swimming pools by setting
  • swimming pools by attitude (incidental/background, or main subject of the photo, etc.)
  • swimming pools by size
  • swimming pools by depth
  • swimming pools by media (b/w photos, videos, etc)
  • swimming pools by usage (both generic usage and depicted usage; includes "former/derelict swimming pools", f.i.)
  • swimming pools by shape
  • swimming pools by color
  • swimming pools by type
etc. (with all their subcategories). All of these have "swimming pools" as their parent category and each have yet others. (Your disagreement about "Sports venues" as parent cat would be solved thusly: Create a new category "Sport swimming pools" and put it under both parent categories "Sports venues" and "swimming pools by usage".) It is great fun to do all this but only worthy if there’s really a lot of items to categorize. Or you can focus on "swimming pools by country" only, for now, and ignore the rest. -- Tuválkin ✉ 19:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Regarding "Sports venues" and "Swimming pools", I thought about "Collegiate swimming pools" but that narrows it to college or university types. What about "Competition swimming pools"?
I don't want to break out swimming pools by the categories you mentioned... yet. But was interested in the categories that other counties have tagged them as, which is way too many in variety. --Mjrmtg (talk) 21:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Category:Swimming is currently categorised within sports categories; I don't think it unreasonable to think it helpful for swimming pools to be cat:ted as sports venues. I may be mistaken but, like cycling, the inherent sportiness of the activity is subject to varying cultural perceptions - i.e. in some cultures swimming is regarded as sporty per se, whereas in others it is not regarded as sporty unless practised within a context of organised sport. Some countries may be big enough or wealthy enough to enable provision of sufficient swimming pools for such pools to be allocated for sporty and non-sporty purposes; but what about those countries, small or less wealthy or culturally less picky, where swimming pools that are not sports venues are improbable, if not inconceivable, by definition? How could one distinguish a "sport swimming pool" if swimming is, by cultural perception, sporty? Man vyi (talk) 22:48, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
You may find the work on en.wp with regard to the related taxonomy of infoboxes a helpful comparison. It seems logical to say that "sports" and "leisure" are not subsets of each other, similarly "baths" are not types of "swimming pools" and one can also find purpose built swimming pools with other facilities (such as exercise gyms). At the same time, one should note that images may appear in multiple branches of a complex hierarchy. To avoid pointless circular debate, I recommend a patient viewpoint, clear explanations at the top of the categories, with plenty of opportunity for others to comment on category talk pages. --Fæ (talk) 06:58, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Cat-a-lot[edit]

Hello, I have as gadget cat-a-lot, but this evening, the cat-a-lot button does not react any more. Is there a reason? --Havang(nl) (talk) 20:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Seems fine now. Ruslik (talk) 16:01, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

June 19[edit]

Adding .flac to allowed file types[edit]

Flac.png

Hi all.

We (We being various people working on TimedMediaHandler. The technical work was done by J Gerber), would like to start allowing flac uploads in its native container format. FLAC is a free lossless format for audio files, often used when people want to be sure they are getting the exact same sound. (Think of it like tiff format, but for audio instead of images). Currently commons allows uploads of flac encoded audio if it is using the ogg container format (See Commons:File_types#Ogg). This is basically the same thing, except the files have a different extension (.flac) and it is much more popular way to encode flac data then using Ogg-flac.

How this all would work would be just like what happens when you upload an ogg flac file currently (for example like: File:Muriel-Nguyen-Xuan-Brahms-rhapsody-opus79-1.flac.oga ). You can embed it in pages, and have the audio player thingy. It is transcoded to ogg vorbis for in-browser playing, and people can download the original version at the image description page if they so desire.

Anyways, does this all sound good to you guys. If anyone has any objections, please speak up. For the technically curious, the relavent gerrit commit is [11] Bawolff (talk) 19:40, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually I always like it when free formats are promoted. While I'd like the possibility to upload FLAC audio (BTW, what's the file size limit currently?) I don't really know how useful the feature will actually be however: The only real use case of FLAC I currently know is for music albums and I doubt there are many free albums that can be uploaded to commons. Any way, as long as it doesn't break anything this is great news! --Patrick87 (talk) 20:08, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
The file size limit is 100mb for normal uploads, 500mb if you're using the somewhat experimental chunked uploads. For files bigger than 500mb, its possible to ask someone to upload them (see Help:Server-side_upload). Personally I expect most audio uploads will continue to be ogg vorbis, but I think its good to have the option available to upload flac in cases where we have high quality audio source material available. Bawolff (talk) 20:19, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Bawolff -- If you're advocating for a file format, I really would not compare it to TIFF, because TIFF is a semi-incoherent mess (more a grab-bag of many different file formats, some quite obscure, rather than one single file format)... AnonMoos (talk) 21:08, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
True. The point I was trying to make is that both formats are applicable to archival material where you want lossless encoding. Bawolff (talk) 21:40, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
TIFF is quite similar to OGG; a container format that stores various types of data. If you can find a list of what all goes in an OGG, your Google-Foo is better then mine, but Wikipedia lists 13 codecs, and RFC 5334 lists 14, and if I counted right that's 21 between them, many of which are quite obscure.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg
Yes, for sure. The way you have to choose containers at the moment is confusing even for me. I make some short videos as well as short soundclips, and it seems illogical the way you have to match up the codec and a different container for it. We should just allow all free file types if that is possible. There is not much documentation about how to assemble them, but then, there is not much demand, but this is a good move in the right direction. Penyulap ☏ 21:29, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support Sounds good (no pun intended ;). Thanks Bawolff an the TMH team for following up on this. Jean-Fred (talk) 22:38, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump&oldid=98507900"